QUOTE (pnelson419+May 17 2009, 05:52 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
By now I believe it's more likely than not that gods do exist. Whether or not any of them have anything to do with this planet I feel less certain of.
Looks to me like you have your doubts.
I'm a weak agnostic meaning I consider the possibility that God does exist, and also the possibility he does not. I also do something that no one else appears to be doing, which is trying to think about it realistically.
I'm a weak agnostic meaning I consider the possibility that God does exist, and also the possibility he does not. I also do something that no one else appears to be doing, which is trying to think about it realistically.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 17 2009, 07:18 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
By now I believe it's more likely than not that gods Aliens do exist. Whether or not any of them have anything to do with this planet I feel less certain of.
You're welcome.
You haven't done anything but be dishonest about what I'm pointing out. No one would thank you for a lowlife thing like that. However here's a challenge for you that I might thank you for if you're able to attempt to meet it, which of course I seriously doubt you can but here's the challenge for you none the less: Try to explain how you think--if you do at all--God could possibly be anything other than a technologically advanced alien:
I'm a weak agnostic meaning I consider the possibility that God does exist, and also the possibility he does not. I also do something that no one else appears to be doing, which is trying to think about it realistically.
Maybe that is part of the problem.
You want others to believe in aliens but you have no reason to believe in them yourself. Your lack of conviction does not encourage others to your cause.
You're welcome.
You haven't done anything but be dishonest about what I'm pointing out. No one would thank you for a lowlife thing like that. However here's a challenge for you that I might thank you for if you're able to attempt to meet it, which of course I seriously doubt you can but here's the challenge for you none the less: Try to explain how you think--if you do at all--God could possibly be anything other than a technologically advanced alien:
QUOTE (nopEda+May 17 2009, 05:39 PM)
QUOTE
Looks to me like you have your doubts.
I'm a weak agnostic meaning I consider the possibility that God does exist, and also the possibility he does not. I also do something that no one else appears to be doing, which is trying to think about it realistically.
Maybe that is part of the problem.
You want others to believe in aliens but you have no reason to believe in them yourself. Your lack of conviction does not encourage others to your cause.
nopEda,
I think what you need to do is give evidence to support your claim that aliens exist then give others the chance to dispute it.
But you admit yourself you have no reason to believe aliens exist.
I think you have a dilemma.
I think what you need to do is give evidence to support your claim that aliens exist then give others the chance to dispute it.
But you admit yourself you have no reason to believe aliens exist.
I think you have a dilemma.
QUOTE (dimWit+May 17 2009, 10:34 PM)
...rubbish...
*wipes away tears of laughter*
I must sincerely admit, nutBox, that with each new post you make I become increasingly convinced that you are a windup merchant.
I realize this forum has a high concentration of idiots but the staggering arrogance and downright hilarity of your posts is just too perfect.
*wipes away tears of laughter*
I must sincerely admit, nutBox, that with each new post you make I become increasingly convinced that you are a windup merchant.
I realize this forum has a high concentration of idiots but the staggering arrogance and downright hilarity of your posts is just too perfect.
QUOTE (bloCkhead+)
ALL evidence says that I'm correct. Also, you are completely incapable of even attempting to present evidence that I'm wrong. Again I challenge you to try and again you are going to fail, but this time at least TRYYYY!!!:
Now listen carefully, because this is important.
Until you can show us some of this magical 'evidence' you have that a deity is actually an advanced alien (and can be ONLY that!), we - myself, AlexG, vkamath, basically anyone with a brain - will continue to accept the simplest and largely justified explanation: that you are an utter simpleton and that you cannot justify your ramblings without tripping over the same fallacy over and over again.
P.S. If you find this counter-challenge too hard, just give me a shout and admit it. You might be able to escape from this trainwreck with some dignity.
Now listen carefully, because this is important.Until you can show us some of this magical 'evidence' you have that a deity is actually an advanced alien (and can be ONLY that!), we - myself, AlexG, vkamath, basically anyone with a brain - will continue to accept the simplest and largely justified explanation: that you are an utter simpleton and that you cannot justify your ramblings without tripping over the same fallacy over and over again.
P.S. If you find this counter-challenge too hard, just give me a shout and admit it. You might be able to escape from this trainwreck with some dignity.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 17 2009, 04:36 PM)
Yes! 
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
Do you think God is subject to evolution?
Or are you saying that advanced species created planet earth? If God is God how can it be alien? It can't be alien to something it has created.
God, or at least the type beings he is a member of, may have originated through an evolutionary process or may have been developed by something else. There's nothing to even base a guess on, other than to conclude that at some point life must have developed from lifelessness somewhere along the way. If God created the universe or even just this planet, he would have to be an alien to us.
Ok, there are two thoughts at present I would share on this.
One is that I could only ever believe in a kind of God that is going to bring justice to the suppressed/oppressed. As history shows, there have been countless misjustices, people wrongfully burnt at stakes, accused through jealousy and misunderstanding, murdered by cruel regimes etc etc. If a God exists that will rectify and balance these unjust acts, somehow, then I could understand a God like that. If that God is holding back for a reason, and that reason is for us to evolve to the point of bringing justice to this world ourselves, then fair enough. I can even live with the thought of no such thing as an actual God, as long as mankind evolves to the point of some form of real justice for all beings, and all that would imply.
The second point is, if your are suggesting that aliens arrived here and set up life on this planet, alla Sitchin and many myths that have been recorded throughout history, I have one question. Why do we not find, when archeologists do their digging, remnants of these alien beings? If they visited here then one would think we'd find some of their weapons, for example. We find plenty of fossils, but we don't seem to find any evidence of alien visitations. We only find these beings in mythology where there were "gods" that shot their thunderous bolts through the skies in their flying machines, for example. Weird.
What I'm saying is that a Creator and a God only makes sense if it exists as a manifestation of mind, and higher levels of awareness inbuilt into mind, where mankind is destined to evolve towards. In that respect there is no alien about it.
Actually there's a third point. Why would you come to a physics forum to discuss this? Especially one where there obviously isn't any people willing to discuss it with any degree of open mindedness with you? There's plenty of places to get a good discussion going on these kind of thoughts. Go find them, and get inspired elsewhere.
Here you have obvious doubters of this "thing" called God , but at the same time they have firm images in their mind as to what God must be. That is even more weird.
I imagine there are a number of beings we could consider to be Gods, even though I feel there's one that's significantly associated with this planet because that seems to be what the majority of canonical texts tell us.
and
Or are you saying that advanced species created planet earth? If God is God how can it be alien? It can't be alien to something it has created.
God, or at least the type beings he is a member of, may have originated through an evolutionary process or may have been developed by something else. There's nothing to even base a guess on, other than to conclude that at some point life must have developed from lifelessness somewhere along the way. If God created the universe or even just this planet, he would have to be an alien to us.
Ok, there are two thoughts at present I would share on this.
One is that I could only ever believe in a kind of God that is going to bring justice to the suppressed/oppressed. As history shows, there have been countless misjustices, people wrongfully burnt at stakes, accused through jealousy and misunderstanding, murdered by cruel regimes etc etc. If a God exists that will rectify and balance these unjust acts, somehow, then I could understand a God like that. If that God is holding back for a reason, and that reason is for us to evolve to the point of bringing justice to this world ourselves, then fair enough. I can even live with the thought of no such thing as an actual God, as long as mankind evolves to the point of some form of real justice for all beings, and all that would imply.
The second point is, if your are suggesting that aliens arrived here and set up life on this planet, alla Sitchin and many myths that have been recorded throughout history, I have one question. Why do we not find, when archeologists do their digging, remnants of these alien beings? If they visited here then one would think we'd find some of their weapons, for example. We find plenty of fossils, but we don't seem to find any evidence of alien visitations. We only find these beings in mythology where there were "gods" that shot their thunderous bolts through the skies in their flying machines, for example. Weird.
What I'm saying is that a Creator and a God only makes sense if it exists as a manifestation of mind, and higher levels of awareness inbuilt into mind, where mankind is destined to evolve towards. In that respect there is no alien about it.
Actually there's a third point. Why would you come to a physics forum to discuss this? Especially one where there obviously isn't any people willing to discuss it with any degree of open mindedness with you? There's plenty of places to get a good discussion going on these kind of thoughts. Go find them, and get inspired elsewhere.
Here you have obvious doubters of this "thing" called God , but at the same time they have firm images in their mind as to what God must be. That is even more weird.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 17 2009, 11:26 AM)
I imagine there are a number of beings we could consider to be Gods, even though I feel there's one that's significantly associated with this planet because that seems to be what the majority of canonical texts tell us.
and
QUOTE (nopEda+May 17 2009, 11:40 AM)
By now I believe it's more likely than not that gods do exist. Whether or not any of them have anything to do with this planet I feel less certain of.
So, there is one that is significantly associated with this planet because the bible tells you so?
OR maybe not....
So, there is one that is significantly associated with this planet because the bible tells you so?
OR maybe not....
Anybody, please supply what you think is evidence that backs up your position in life, and makes you what you think you are.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 17 2009, 07:58 PM)
Anybody, please supply what you think is evidence that backs up your position in life, and makes you what you think you are.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 17 2009, 07:58 PM)
Anybody, please supply what you think is evidence that backs up your position in life, and makes you what you think you are.
Our personal experiences make us what we think we are.
Any position we take in life needs to be backed up by evidence only if we are trying to convince others.
Our personal experiences make us what we think we are.
Any position we take in life needs to be backed up by evidence only if we are trying to convince others.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 18 2009, 03:10 AM)
Our personal experiences make us what we think we are.
Any position we take in life needs to be backed up by evidence only if we are trying to convince others.
I'm not convinced by that, and I'll require some evidence in that case.
I've yet to be in a conversation with anyone in life where it doesn't boil down to either side trying to convince each other of something. In this particular conversation nopEda is trying to convince us of his views, theDoc wishes to convince others that nopEda is a nutbox etc etc. If we examine the situation there is a lack of evidence all round so far, and any point of an actual discussion has already been lost.
I hear more and more how people take their position in life based on some objective rationale. I've yet to hear what would equate to a coherent explanation as to why I should be convinced that is a position that doesn't require some kind of objective evidence.
Any position we take in life needs to be backed up by evidence only if we are trying to convince others.
I'm not convinced by that, and I'll require some evidence in that case.
I've yet to be in a conversation with anyone in life where it doesn't boil down to either side trying to convince each other of something. In this particular conversation nopEda is trying to convince us of his views, theDoc wishes to convince others that nopEda is a nutbox etc etc. If we examine the situation there is a lack of evidence all round so far, and any point of an actual discussion has already been lost.
I hear more and more how people take their position in life based on some objective rationale. I've yet to hear what would equate to a coherent explanation as to why I should be convinced that is a position that doesn't require some kind of objective evidence.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
You haven't done anything but be dishonest about what I'm pointing out. No one would thank you for a lowlife thing like that.
You are the one being dishonest by interchangeably using the words God and Alien. I just corrected it. I will continue to do the same until you use the words correctly.
You are the one being dishonest by interchangeably using the words God and Alien. I just corrected it. I will continue to do the same until you use the words correctly.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
However here's a challenge for you that I might thank you for if you're able to attempt to meet it, which of course I seriously doubt you can..
Pleease....How do you expect a lowlife like me to match your stupendous intellect?
In this particular conversation nopEda is trying to convince us of his views, theDoc wishes to convince others that nopEda is a nutbox etc etc. If we examine the situation there is a lack of evidence all round so far, and any point of an actual discussion has already been lost.
There is plenty of evidence that nopEda is using a non-standard definition.
His posts show that he starts with "God exists" then proceeds to redefine "God" into something that he considers possible.
NopEda refuses to discuss God but complains that others will not discuss the possibility of God's existence.
I can go through and link his posts as evidence. Can you link any where he has discussed the common definition of God rather than the one he made to fit his beliefs?
Pleease....How do you expect a lowlife like me to match your stupendous intellect?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Try to explain how you think--if you do at all--God could possibly be anything other than a technologically advanced alien:
I just did. In the other thread I gave a scenario of people from the future. You simply rejected it saying time travel is IMPOSSIBLE. I did post links which show time travel is theoretically possible. You ignored it.
I just did. In the other thread I gave a scenario of people from the future. You simply rejected it saying time travel is IMPOSSIBLE. I did post links which show time travel is theoretically possible. You ignored it.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 18 2009, 04:28 AM)
I'm not convinced by that, and I'll require some evidence in that case.
I've yet to be in a conversation with anyone in life where it doesn't boil down to either side trying to convince each other of something. In this particular conversation nopEda is trying to convince us of his views, theDoc wishes to convince others that nopEda is a nutbox etc etc. If we examine the situation there is a lack of evidence all round so far, and any point of an actual discussion has already been lost.
I hear more and more how people take their position in life based on some objective rationale. I've yet to hear what would equate to a coherent explanation as to why I should be convinced that is a position that doesn't require some kind of objective evidence.
You have never heard of eye witness accounts where the only evidence is a person's word? That person may be absolutely convinced of their position yet would not be able to provide the evidence to convince others.
You would have to believe them or not based on how credible you consider their statement and that person.
I've yet to be in a conversation with anyone in life where it doesn't boil down to either side trying to convince each other of something. In this particular conversation nopEda is trying to convince us of his views, theDoc wishes to convince others that nopEda is a nutbox etc etc. If we examine the situation there is a lack of evidence all round so far, and any point of an actual discussion has already been lost.
I hear more and more how people take their position in life based on some objective rationale. I've yet to hear what would equate to a coherent explanation as to why I should be convinced that is a position that doesn't require some kind of objective evidence.
You have never heard of eye witness accounts where the only evidence is a person's word? That person may be absolutely convinced of their position yet would not be able to provide the evidence to convince others.
You would have to believe them or not based on how credible you consider their statement and that person.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 18 2009, 04:28 AM)
in this particular conversation nopEda is trying to convince us of his views, theDoc wishes to convince others that nopEda is a nutbox etc etc. If we examine the situation there is a lack of evidence all round so far, and any point of an actual discussion has already been lost.
These are just their opinions.
As far as I know we all have one.
These are just their opinions.
As far as I know we all have one.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 17 2009, 10:39 PM)
Looks to me like you have your doubts.[/QUOTE]
I'm a weak agnostic meaning I consider the possibility that God does exist, and also the possibility he does not. I also do something that no one else appears to be doing, which is trying to think about it realistically.
No you don't.
You change the definition to match what if realistic.
You have not once shown any evidence on this board that you believe in God.
Not a single post.
You believe you can change the definition to something you do believe in though.
And if you can't accept that sometimes what follows "if" is not true then you are not thinking realistically.
think realistically about this.
If wishes were horses beggars could ride.
I'm a weak agnostic meaning I consider the possibility that God does exist, and also the possibility he does not. I also do something that no one else appears to be doing, which is trying to think about it realistically.
No you don't.
You change the definition to match what if realistic.
You have not once shown any evidence on this board that you believe in God.
Not a single post.
You believe you can change the definition to something you do believe in though.
And if you can't accept that sometimes what follows "if" is not true then you are not thinking realistically.
think realistically about this.
If wishes were horses beggars could ride.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 18 2009, 09:28 AM)
In this particular conversation nopEda is trying to convince us of his views, theDoc wishes to convince others that nopEda is a nutbox etc etc. If we examine the situation there is a lack of evidence all round so far, and any point of an actual discussion has already been lost.
There is plenty of evidence that nopEda is using a non-standard definition.
His posts show that he starts with "God exists" then proceeds to redefine "God" into something that he considers possible.
NopEda refuses to discuss God but complains that others will not discuss the possibility of God's existence.
I can go through and link his posts as evidence. Can you link any where he has discussed the common definition of God rather than the one he made to fit his beliefs?
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 18 2009, 11:30 AM)
You have never heard of eye witness accounts where the only evidence is a person's word? That person may be absolutely convinced of their position yet would not be able to provide the evidence to convince others.
You would have to believe them or not based on how credible you consider their statement and that person.
Ok, so we live in a highly, and possibly conclusively subjective reality. And, as far as who we are and think we are is concerned, there is not a lot of objective evidence we can really submit, that would pass the scientific test. It provides a somewhat level playing field. And in the every day business of thinking and attempting discussions I personally dig nopEda's efforts, compared to theDoc, for example. theDoc seems to be going out to simply scoff and scorn, which is what led me to asking the question regarding any kind of evidence in the first place, that perhaps theDoc thinks justifies his position.
On a scientific footing, nopEda has no argument. What he is asking doesn't come under its banner. All this talk of evidence one way or the other is pointless. Either discuss it openly or ignore him, in my opinion. Just try not to resort to personal humiliation.
Buttershug - Do you only accept the "common" definition of God? Do you have no capacity for an uncommon non-standard approach? That would be the key to generating any worthwhile conversation with nopEda, in my opinion.
Unless God is an objective reality, all opinions on it are subjective, and I fail to see why only the common definitions would qualify here.
You would have to believe them or not based on how credible you consider their statement and that person.
Ok, so we live in a highly, and possibly conclusively subjective reality. And, as far as who we are and think we are is concerned, there is not a lot of objective evidence we can really submit, that would pass the scientific test. It provides a somewhat level playing field. And in the every day business of thinking and attempting discussions I personally dig nopEda's efforts, compared to theDoc, for example. theDoc seems to be going out to simply scoff and scorn, which is what led me to asking the question regarding any kind of evidence in the first place, that perhaps theDoc thinks justifies his position.
On a scientific footing, nopEda has no argument. What he is asking doesn't come under its banner. All this talk of evidence one way or the other is pointless. Either discuss it openly or ignore him, in my opinion. Just try not to resort to personal humiliation.
Buttershug - Do you only accept the "common" definition of God? Do you have no capacity for an uncommon non-standard approach? That would be the key to generating any worthwhile conversation with nopEda, in my opinion.
Unless God is an objective reality, all opinions on it are subjective, and I fail to see why only the common definitions would qualify here.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
I fail to see why only the common definitions would qualify here.
If God is redefined as Dog, we reach the incorrect conclusion that it exists and uses the fire hydrant. Do you see?
If God is redefined as Dog, we reach the incorrect conclusion that it exists and uses the fire hydrant. Do you see?
QUOTE (vkamath+May 18 2009, 01:56 PM)
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
I fail to see why only the common definitions would qualify here.
If God is redefined as Dog, we reach the incorrect conclusion that it exists and uses the fire hydrant. Do you see?
No, I fail to see that. I'm not supporting a re-arrangement of the word. The concept of God is a different matter, and again I fail to see why one should be subject to any past perceptions or definitions. Which definition of God do you support then?
I seem to recall that there are plenty of people who view God as an alien. Google it.
I typed in God+alien into google. Here's the very first link I found:
Was God an Alien?
In World War 2 an American fighter pilot crash-landed in the Brazilian rainforest where he was discovered by an isolated tribe of natives. Impressed by his technical gadgetry and his descent from the sky, these primitive people elevated him to the status of a god and created a religion around him.
http ://crash. ihug.co.nz /~marshall/aliengod.htm
If God is redefined as Dog, we reach the incorrect conclusion that it exists and uses the fire hydrant. Do you see?
No, I fail to see that. I'm not supporting a re-arrangement of the word. The concept of God is a different matter, and again I fail to see why one should be subject to any past perceptions or definitions. Which definition of God do you support then?
I seem to recall that there are plenty of people who view God as an alien. Google it.
I typed in God+alien into google. Here's the very first link I found:
Was God an Alien?
In World War 2 an American fighter pilot crash-landed in the Brazilian rainforest where he was discovered by an isolated tribe of natives. Impressed by his technical gadgetry and his descent from the sky, these primitive people elevated him to the status of a god and created a religion around him.
http ://crash. ihug.co.nz /~marshall/aliengod.htm
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 18 2009, 07:38 PM)
No, I fail to see that. I'm not supporting a re-arrangement of the word. The concept of God is a different matter, and again I fail to see why one should be subject to any past perceptions or definitions. Which definition of God do you support then?
I seem to recall that there are plenty of people who view God as an alien. Google it.
The dictionary definition. Show me ANY online dictionary which defines God as an advanced alien.
When you use definitions interchangeably in a debate, you reach the wrong conclusions. When nopEda says "Gods may exist", he actually means "Advanced Aliens may exist". Not the same thing. Why can't he simply use the word Alien? Why the misdirection?
I seem to recall that there are plenty of people who view God as an alien. Google it.
The dictionary definition. Show me ANY online dictionary which defines God as an advanced alien.
When you use definitions interchangeably in a debate, you reach the wrong conclusions. When nopEda says "Gods may exist", he actually means "Advanced Aliens may exist". Not the same thing. Why can't he simply use the word Alien? Why the misdirection?
QUOTE (vkamath+May 18 2009, 02:17 PM)
The dictionary definition. Show me ANY online dictionary which defines God as an advanced alien.
When you use definitions interchangeably in a debate, you reach the wrong conclusions. When nopEda says "Gods may exist", he actually means "Advanced Aliens may exist". Not the same thing. Why can't he simply use the word Alien? Why the misdirection?
Well if you are going to insist on a dictionary definition, then there really isn't any discussion about to ensue, because of the nature of nopEda's question. So I think he'd be better off getting his inquisitive mind fed elsewhere.
When you use definitions interchangeably in a debate, you reach the wrong conclusions. When nopEda says "Gods may exist", he actually means "Advanced Aliens may exist". Not the same thing. Why can't he simply use the word Alien? Why the misdirection?
Well if you are going to insist on a dictionary definition, then there really isn't any discussion about to ensue, because of the nature of nopEda's question. So I think he'd be better off getting his inquisitive mind fed elsewhere.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 18 2009, 08:37 AM)
Unless God is an objective reality, all opinions on it are subjective, and I fail to see why only the common definitions would qualify here.
If "god" is an objective reality is kind of hard to determine if you can't agree on what the word god means. This is why people typically default to an agreed upon definition...
When nopeda says "god", he's talking about what everyone else calls "aliens".. see the confusion?
If "god" is an objective reality is kind of hard to determine if you can't agree on what the word god means. This is why people typically default to an agreed upon definition...
When nopeda says "god", he's talking about what everyone else calls "aliens".. see the confusion?
QUOTE (gmilam+May 18 2009, 02:29 PM)
If "god" is an objective reality is kind of hard to determine if you can't agree on what the word god means. This is why people typically default to an agreed upon definition...
When nopeda says "god", he's talking about what everyone else calls "aliens".. see the confusion?
Well yes, everyone else here perhaps. Not all groups of people agree on common definitions. Depending who you talk to, there is different tolerances.
I personally do not think God is an alien. I do, however, remain open to any alien involvement that may have been deemed "godlike" by primitive races.
God, to me, can only come from the inside out. That's about as unalien as it can get.
When nopeda says "god", he's talking about what everyone else calls "aliens".. see the confusion?
Well yes, everyone else here perhaps. Not all groups of people agree on common definitions. Depending who you talk to, there is different tolerances.
I personally do not think God is an alien. I do, however, remain open to any alien involvement that may have been deemed "godlike" by primitive races.
God, to me, can only come from the inside out. That's about as unalien as it can get.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 18 2009, 07:58 PM)
Well if you are going to insist on a dictionary definition, then there really isn't any discussion about to ensue, because of the nature of nopEda's question. So I think he'd be better off getting his inquisitive mind fed elsewhere.
When the correct definition is placed into nopEda's posts, his argument simply falls apart as it is based solely on misdirection.
If he wants an actual discussion he should name his thread "Could aliens be mistaken for god?" instead of naming it "trying to think realistically about God's existence" and then write about Aliens.
When the correct definition is placed into nopEda's posts, his argument simply falls apart as it is based solely on misdirection.
If he wants an actual discussion he should name his thread "Could aliens be mistaken for god?" instead of naming it "trying to think realistically about God's existence" and then write about Aliens.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 18 2009, 09:35 AM)
Well yes, everyone else here perhaps. Not all groups of people agree on common definitions. Depending who you talk to, there is different tolerances.
I personally do not think God is an alien. I do, however, remain open to any alien involvement that may have been deemed "godlike" by primitive races.
God, to me, can only come from the inside out. That's about as unalien as it can get.
I also have an unorthodox concept of "god" which is why I like to understand someone else's definition so that I know what we are talking about.
It's also why I try not to use the word "god" when I am talking about something the average person has another word for. It's just common courtesy.
I personally do not think God is an alien. I do, however, remain open to any alien involvement that may have been deemed "godlike" by primitive races.
God, to me, can only come from the inside out. That's about as unalien as it can get.
I also have an unorthodox concept of "god" which is why I like to understand someone else's definition so that I know what we are talking about.
It's also why I try not to use the word "god" when I am talking about something the average person has another word for. It's just common courtesy.
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 17 2009, 11:39 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda challenged all...all failed+)
ALL evidence says that I'm correct. Also, you are completely incapable of even attempting to present evidence that I'm wrong. Again I challenge you to try and again you are going to fail, but this time at least TRYYYY!!!:
Until you can show us some of this magical 'evidence' you have that a deity is actually an advanced alien (and can be ONLY that!), we - myself, AlexG, vkamath, basically anyone with a brain - will continue to accept the simplest and largely justified explanation: that you are an utter simpleton and that you cannot justify your ramblings without tripping over the same fallacy over and over again.
P.S. If you find this counter-challenge too hard, just give me a shout and admit it. You might be able to escape from this trainwreck with some dignity.
Your supposed counter challenge is easy to meet, so it's not really a challenge for me. Since nothing that evolved on this planet is capable of influencing the development of life the way God is said to have done it, then if God exists he almost certainly can not be a native of this planet. Since we have no reason to believe any beings could have influence on the development of life on any planet(s) they are not native too unless they are technologically advanced far beyond what humans are, we are left with no alternative but that if God exists he must necessarily be a technologically advanced alien. That much is obvious. You people try to suggest a mysterious other possibility of some sort 
but you can't even begin to try explaining how you think he could be anything other than what I've been pointing out he must be. How could anyone even try to consider whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about, when you can't make any attempt at all to try explaining what you think it is?
Again I challenge you to try to present evidence that I'm wrong, ie that you could somehow be right.
TRYYYYY!!!!!:
Until you can show us some of this magical 'evidence' you have that a deity is actually an advanced alien (and can be ONLY that!), we - myself, AlexG, vkamath, basically anyone with a brain - will continue to accept the simplest and largely justified explanation: that you are an utter simpleton and that you cannot justify your ramblings without tripping over the same fallacy over and over again.
P.S. If you find this counter-challenge too hard, just give me a shout and admit it. You might be able to escape from this trainwreck with some dignity.
Your supposed counter challenge is easy to meet, so it's not really a challenge for me. Since nothing that evolved on this planet is capable of influencing the development of life the way God is said to have done it, then if God exists he almost certainly can not be a native of this planet. Since we have no reason to believe any beings could have influence on the development of life on any planet(s) they are not native too unless they are technologically advanced far beyond what humans are, we are left with no alternative but that if God exists he must necessarily be a technologically advanced alien. That much is obvious.
You people try to suggest a mysterious other possibility of some sort but you can't even begin to try explaining how you think he could be anything other than what I've been pointing out he must be. How could anyone even try to consider whatever it is you think you're trying to talk about, when you can't make any attempt at all to try explaining what you think it is? Again I challenge you to try to present evidence that I'm wrong, ie that you could somehow be right.
TRYYYYY!!!!!:
QUOTE (nopEda+)
we are left with no alternative but that if God exists he must necessarily be a technologically advanced alien.
A human/machine from the future could be mistaken for god. That would make them a native of Earth.
Time travel is not theoretically impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#T...past_in_physics
A human/machine from the future could be mistaken for god. That would make them a native of Earth.
Time travel is not theoretically impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#T...past_in_physics
QUOTE (nopEda+May 18 2009, 10:10 AM)
Since nothing that evolved on this planet is capable of influencing the development of life the way God is said to have done it, then if God exists he almost certainly can not be a native of this planet.
There is the chance that the stories that are describing "god"s influence are based on aliens visiting the earth.
Vkamath has come up with another possible option.
Another option (and to me, the most probable) is that the stories that describe god's influence are made up fairy tales.
There is the chance that the stories that are describing "god"s influence are based on aliens visiting the earth.
Vkamath has come up with another possible option.
Another option (and to me, the most probable) is that the stories that describe god's influence are made up fairy tales.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 18 2009, 10:44 AM)
Another option (and to me, the most probable) is that the stories that describe god's influence are made up fairy tales.
There is also the possibility (however unlikely) that there is some supernatural entity which inspired these stories. There is also a more naturalistic view of the same possibility: That the universe itself is an intelligent being capable of influencing events which occur within itself.
TheDoc nailed it on the head when he posted the link to the wiki article on a False Dilemma. nopEda is a run-of-the-mill idiot with a less-well-known idea.
There is also the possibility (however unlikely) that there is some supernatural entity which inspired these stories. There is also a more naturalistic view of the same possibility: That the universe itself is an intelligent being capable of influencing events which occur within itself.
TheDoc nailed it on the head when he posted the link to the wiki article on a False Dilemma. nopEda is a run-of-the-mill idiot with a less-well-known idea.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 18 2009, 12:29 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
God, or at least the type beings he is a member of, may have originated through an evolutionary process or may have been developed by something else. There's nothing to even base a guess on, other than to conclude that at some point life must have developed from lifelessness somewhere along the way. If God created the universe or even just this planet, he would have to be an alien to us.
Ok, there are two thoughts at present I would share on this.
One is that I could only ever believe in a kind of God that is going to bring justice to the suppressed/oppressed. As history shows, there have been countless misjustices, people wrongfully burnt at stakes, accused through jealousy and misunderstanding, murdered by cruel regimes etc etc. If a God exists that will rectify and balance these unjust acts, somehow, then I could understand a God like that. If that God is holding back for a reason, and that reason is for us to evolve to the point of bringing justice to this world ourselves, then fair enough. I can even live with the thought of no such thing as an actual God, as long as mankind evolves to the point of some form of real justice for all beings, and all that would imply.
The second point is, if your are suggesting that aliens arrived here and set up life on this planet, alla Sitchin and many myths that have been recorded throughout history, I have one question. Why do we not find, when archeologists do their digging, remnants of these alien beings? If they visited here then one would think we'd find some of their weapons, for example. We find plenty of fossils, but we don't seem to find any evidence of alien visitations. We only find these beings in mythology where there were "gods" that shot their thunderous bolts through the skies in their flying machines, for example. Weird.
What should seem most likely to people in this day and age is that if these beings want things to be as they are, with humans to have as much freedom to consider things as we do have, then they can't be leaving around proof like that. If they are God, then the same holds true: They/He can't give proof us his existence if he wants things to be as they are.
Ok, there are two thoughts at present I would share on this.
One is that I could only ever believe in a kind of God that is going to bring justice to the suppressed/oppressed. As history shows, there have been countless misjustices, people wrongfully burnt at stakes, accused through jealousy and misunderstanding, murdered by cruel regimes etc etc. If a God exists that will rectify and balance these unjust acts, somehow, then I could understand a God like that. If that God is holding back for a reason, and that reason is for us to evolve to the point of bringing justice to this world ourselves, then fair enough. I can even live with the thought of no such thing as an actual God, as long as mankind evolves to the point of some form of real justice for all beings, and all that would imply.
The second point is, if your are suggesting that aliens arrived here and set up life on this planet, alla Sitchin and many myths that have been recorded throughout history, I have one question. Why do we not find, when archeologists do their digging, remnants of these alien beings? If they visited here then one would think we'd find some of their weapons, for example. We find plenty of fossils, but we don't seem to find any evidence of alien visitations. We only find these beings in mythology where there were "gods" that shot their thunderous bolts through the skies in their flying machines, for example. Weird.
What should seem most likely to people in this day and age is that if these beings want things to be as they are, with humans to have as much freedom to consider things as we do have, then they can't be leaving around proof like that. If they are God, then the same holds true: They/He can't give proof us his existence if he wants things to be as they are.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
What I'm saying is that a Creator and a God only makes sense if it exists as a manifestation of mind, and higher levels of awareness inbuilt into mind, where mankind is destined to evolve towards. In that respect there is no alien about it.
Actually there's a third point. Why would you come to a physics forum to discuss this?
It may not seem it since you're familiar with the particular group of people in this forum, but without knowing what the majority are like in advance it seems like a physics forum should be a GOOD place to find people who would try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence, not a bad one. It seems like it should be about as good a place as you could find in fact. It's not my fault they can't handle it. In fact I believe some of them possibly could too, but are afraid to try for whatever reasons. That's up to them though...my thing is just to point out the weirdnesses and dishonesties etc, and it's up to each other person whether they ever learn to appreciate what I'm pointing out.
Actually there's a third point. Why would you come to a physics forum to discuss this?
It may not seem it since you're familiar with the particular group of people in this forum, but without knowing what the majority are like in advance it seems like a physics forum should be a GOOD place to find people who would try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence, not a bad one. It seems like it should be about as good a place as you could find in fact. It's not my fault they can't handle it. In fact I believe some of them possibly could too, but are afraid to try for whatever reasons. That's up to them though...my thing is just to point out the weirdnesses and dishonesties etc, and it's up to each other person whether they ever learn to appreciate what I'm pointing out.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
Especially one where there obviously isn't any people willing to discuss it with any degree of open mindedness with you?
There is no reason to think that no people in a physics forum would be able to try thinking about the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
There is no reason to think that no people in a physics forum would be able to try thinking about the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
YOU refuse to.
Thinking in a realistic way involves not changing the definition.
Thinking in a realistic way includes accepting negative results if that is what the evidence says.
Please let us know when you wish to talk realistically.
There is no reason to think that no people in a physics forum would be able to try thinking about the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
There's plenty of places to get a good discussion going on these kind of thoughts. Go find them, and get inspired elsewhere.
Here you have obvious doubters of this "thing" called God , but at the same time they have firm images in their mind as to what God must be. That is even more weird.
Yes, it's very weird
and also unrealistic. It's the kind of thing that I oppose!, so it turned out that this is a good place to do it even if few or none ever learn to appreciate how screwed up it is in various ways...
Here you have obvious doubters of this "thing" called God , but at the same time they have firm images in their mind as to what God must be. That is even more weird.
Yes, it's very weird
and also unrealistic. It's the kind of thing that I oppose!, so it turned out that this is a good place to do it even if few or none ever learn to appreciate how screwed up it is in various ways...
QUOTE (nopEda+May 18 2009, 03:51 PM)
There is no reason to think that no people in a physics forum would be able to try thinking about the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way.
YOU refuse to.
Thinking in a realistic way involves not changing the definition.
Thinking in a realistic way includes accepting negative results if that is what the evidence says.
Please let us know when you wish to talk realistically.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 18 2009, 12:35 AM)
So, there is one that is significantly associated with this planet because the bible tells you so?
OR maybe not....
That's a good one to add to the basics list :
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
OR maybe not....
That's a good one to add to the basics list
:15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 18 2009, 04:02 PM)
That's a good one to add to the basics list :
15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
Stop with all the "ifs", untill you can use them properly.
:15. If God exists it seems most likely that he has as much influence
over the content of canonical texts as he wants to have.
Stop with all the "ifs", untill you can use them properly.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 18 2009, 10:50 AM)
There is also the possibility (however unlikely) that there is some supernatural entity which inspired these stories. There is also a more naturalistic view of the same possibility: That the universe itself is an intelligent being capable of influencing events which occur within itself.
TheDoc nailed it on the head when he posted the link to the wiki article on a False Dilemma. nopEda is a run-of-the-mill idiot with a less-well-known idea.
True, there are a few more options.
In fact, my personal concept of "god" more closely resembles your naturalistic view. God is the universe, we are part of god and god is in each and every one of us. (I am he, as you are he, as you are me, and we are all together. Goo goo ga joob. Thou art "god". Grok on.)
But this (in my opinion) realistic view of god does not even come close to resembling what noedpa is talking about.
TheDoc nailed it on the head when he posted the link to the wiki article on a False Dilemma. nopEda is a run-of-the-mill idiot with a less-well-known idea.
True, there are a few more options.
In fact, my personal concept of "god" more closely resembles your naturalistic view. God is the universe, we are part of god and god is in each and every one of us. (I am he, as you are he, as you are me, and we are all together. Goo goo ga joob. Thou art "god". Grok on.)
But this (in my opinion) realistic view of god does not even come close to resembling what noedpa is talking about.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 18 2009, 10:19 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Try to explain how you think--if you do at all--God could possibly be anything other than a technologically advanced alien:
I just did. In the other thread I gave a scenario of people from the future. You simply rejected it saying time travel is IMPOSSIBLE.
It doesn't seem like it from your position of course, but that really is an excellent reason for rejecting the suggestion.
It doesn't seem like it from your position of course, but that really is an excellent reason for rejecting the suggestion.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
I did post links which show time travel is theoretically possible. You ignored it.
Of course, since it would be a waste of my time. However, if you think there's something out there that supports your suggestion that it's possible to travel back in time, then you should share whatever you think it is. If you can't find anything that really does so, or that you have enough confidence in to share, then you should consider the possibility that it's really not possible and try to move on from there IF! you're ever going to try to think realistically about this stuff...if you are going to then all you're doing now is wasting time.
Of course, since it would be a waste of my time. However, if you think there's something out there that supports your suggestion that it's possible to travel back in time, then you should share whatever you think it is. If you can't find anything that really does so, or that you have enough confidence in to share, then you should consider the possibility that it's really not possible and try to move on from there IF! you're ever going to try to think realistically about this stuff...if you are going to then all you're doing now is wasting time.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 18 2009, 09:28 AM)
I'm not convinced by that, and I'll require some evidence in that case.
I've yet to be in a conversation with anyone in life where it doesn't boil down to either side trying to convince each other of something. In this particular conversation nopEda is trying to convince us of his views, theDoc wishes to convince others that nopEda is a nutbox etc etc.
Who isn't?
I've yet to be in a conversation with anyone in life where it doesn't boil down to either side trying to convince each other of something. In this particular conversation nopEda is trying to convince us of his views, theDoc wishes to convince others that nopEda is a nutbox etc etc.
Who isn't?
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
If we examine the situation there is a lack of evidence all round so far,
No, all evidence suggests that God would have to be a technonlogically advanced alien since it seems to be impossible that he could be a technologically inferior native of a planet that he created. What's now most in question is why so many people are desperate to cling to the idea that somehow he could be, even though none of them can even begin to try explaining how it could possibly be the case.
No, all evidence suggests that God would have to be a technonlogically advanced alien since it seems to be impossible that he could be a technologically inferior native of a planet that he created. What's now most in question is why so many people are desperate to cling to the idea that somehow he could be, even though none of them can even begin to try explaining how it could possibly be the case.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
and any point of an actual discussion has already been lost.
People don't even want to consider the possibility of what I've been pointing out for their own strange reasons, so they want to deny the truth of it as opposed to considering it realistically in any detail.
People don't even want to consider the possibility of what I've been pointing out for their own strange reasons, so they want to deny the truth of it as opposed to considering it realistically in any detail.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Of course, since it would be a waste of my time.
No...its a waste of MY time arguing with an idiot like you. I think I'll just neg you instead.
No...its a waste of MY time arguing with an idiot like you. I think I'll just neg you instead.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 18 2009, 11:57 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I'm a weak agnostic meaning I consider the possibility that God does exist, and also the possibility he does not. I also do something that no one else appears to be doing, which is trying to think about it realistically.
No you don't.
You change the definition to match what if realistic.
LOL!!! You're trying to force me to cling to an unrealistic definition, most likely just so you can say it's unrealistic 
No you don't.
You change the definition to match what if realistic.
LOL!!! You're trying to force me to cling to an unrealistic definition, most likely just so you can say it's unrealistic
QUOTE (buttershug+May 18 2009, 12:08 PM)
There is plenty of evidence that nopEda is using a non-standard definition.
His posts show that he starts with "God exists" then proceeds to redefine "God" into something that he considers possible.
That's a necessary part of trying to think about it REALISTICALLY!
nutBox, nutBox, nutBox. When will you ever learn?
His posts show that he starts with "God exists" then proceeds to redefine "God" into something that he considers possible.
That's a necessary part of trying to think about it REALISTICALLY!
QUOTE (buttershug+)
NopEda refuses to discuss God but complains that others will not discuss the possibility of God's existence.
I can go through and link his posts as evidence. Can you link any where he has discussed the common definition of God rather than the one he made to fit his beliefs?
I haven't seen you or anyone else try to think about it realistically though I have challenged several people to make an attempt, and all of them have failed to even try.
I can go through and link his posts as evidence. Can you link any where he has discussed the common definition of God rather than the one he made to fit his beliefs?
I haven't seen you or anyone else try to think about it realistically though I have challenged several people to make an attempt, and all of them have failed to even try.
nutBox, nutBox, nutBox. When will you ever learn? QUOTE (looNy+)
Since nothing that evolved on this planet is capable of influencing the development of life the way God is said to have done it, then if God exists he almost certainly can not be a native of this planet.
Then, my dear idiot, you are simply replacing the label "supreme being" with "alien", and you're only using the loosest sense of the later.
Then, my dear idiot, you are simply replacing the label "supreme being" with "alien", and you're only using the loosest sense of the later.
QUOTE (troLl+)
Since we have no reason to believe any beings could have influence on the development of life on any planet(s) they are not native too unless they are technologically advanced far beyond what humans are, we are left with no alternative but that if God exists he must necessarily be a technologically advanced alien. That much is obvious.
Yes, the alarmingly high dumbness-per-square-pixel ratio of your posts is quite obvious.
For your ramblings to be correct, or at the very least plausible, it would necessitate your quasi-gods to be so ridiculously advanced that they would have to be around for a very long time without suffering some sort of cataclysm as of result of their technological advancements - a scenario that is nearly unavoidable in the long run that is needed for your aliens to become so advanced in the first place. Curious.
By the way, you have reached the "10 Pages of Drivel" mark for the first time. Party time!
User posted image: User posted image
Yes, the alarmingly high dumbness-per-square-pixel ratio of your posts is quite obvious.
For your ramblings to be correct, or at the very least plausible, it would necessitate your quasi-gods to be so ridiculously advanced that they would have to be around for a very long time without suffering some sort of cataclysm as of result of their technological advancements - a scenario that is nearly unavoidable in the long run that is needed for your aliens to become so advanced in the first place. Curious.
By the way, you have reached the "10 Pages of Drivel" mark for the first time. Party time!
User posted image: User posted image
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 18 2009, 01:37 PM)
Ok, so we live in a highly, and possibly conclusively subjective reality. And, as far as who we are and think we are is concerned, there is not a lot of objective evidence we can really submit, that would pass the scientific test. It provides a somewhat level playing field. And in the every day business of thinking and attempting discussions I personally dig nopEda's efforts, compared to theDoc, for example. theDoc seems to be going out to simply scoff and scorn,
That's because he apparently very badly wishes he could suggest some alternative to what I'm pointing out God would have to be--as a number of other people apparently wish they could as well--but when people can't suggest an alternative to something they apparently dislike for whatever reason(s) they sometimes do what they consider to be the next best thing, which is to attack the messenger
It's nasty and abusive toward me of course, but it's part of the job and really I knew about the possibility of that in advance.
That's because he apparently very badly wishes he could suggest some alternative to what I'm pointing out God would have to be--as a number of other people apparently wish they could as well--but when people can't suggest an alternative to something they apparently dislike for whatever reason(s) they sometimes do what they consider to be the next best thing, which is to attack the messenger
It's nasty and abusive toward me of course, but it's part of the job and really I knew about the possibility of that in advance. QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
which is what led me to asking the question regarding any kind of evidence in the first place, that perhaps theDoc thinks justifies his position.
I've tried to get some people to suggest how God could be anything other than what I've been pointing out too, but so far no one has been able to make an attempt.
I've tried to get some people to suggest how God could be anything other than what I've been pointing out too, but so far no one has been able to make an attempt.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
On a scientific footing, nopEda has no argument. What he is asking doesn't come under its banner. All this talk of evidence one way or the other is pointless.
We humans are all the evidence we have, and all evidence associated with us suggests that God would have to be technologically advanced FAAAAAR!!! beyond what humans are now and quite possibly ever will be, and also an alien.
We humans are all the evidence we have, and all evidence associated with us suggests that God would have to be technologically advanced FAAAAAR!!! beyond what humans are now and quite possibly ever will be, and also an alien.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
Either discuss it openly or ignore him, in my opinion. Just try not to resort to personal humiliation.
Buttershug - Do you only accept the "common" definition of God? Do you have no capacity for an uncommon non-standard approach? That would be the key to generating any worthwhile conversation with nopEda, in my opinion.
Unless God is an objective reality, all opinions on it are subjective, and I fail to see why only the common definitions would qualify here.
I had to change my thinking to more than what I've always been taught in order to trying thinking about it realistically, so if other people would have to do it too it's not a big surprise. If they can't do it...then...oh well...
Buttershug - Do you only accept the "common" definition of God? Do you have no capacity for an uncommon non-standard approach? That would be the key to generating any worthwhile conversation with nopEda, in my opinion.
Unless God is an objective reality, all opinions on it are subjective, and I fail to see why only the common definitions would qualify here.
I had to change my thinking to more than what I've always been taught in order to trying thinking about it realistically, so if other people would have to do it too it's not a big surprise. If they can't do it...then...oh well...
QUOTE (nopEda+May 18 2009, 04:24 PM)
No, all evidence suggests that God would have to be a technonlogically advanced alien since it seems to be impossible that he could be a technologically inferior native of a planet that he created. What's now most in question is why so many people are desperate to cling to the idea that somehow he could be, even though none of them can even begin to try explaining how it could possibly be the case.
All the evidence? He?
I support your right to an opinion without suffering ridicule, especially on subjective matters. But I don't share your particular belief here. In fact MjolnirPants came up with the closest thing I'd also be willing to believe, the naturalistic view. In that respect I AM the Walrus.
It's true that perhaps some God has created a universe in a test tube in some other dimension, and therefore is an alien to the universe it has created. But even there, it seems to come with a direct link for many, internally, non-alien.
You are obviously talking about THE God. which is why I can't see a "realistic" reason
why it should be an alien, let alone a He. How did he become it and then do it without a She part?
All the evidence? He?
I support your right to an opinion without suffering ridicule, especially on subjective matters. But I don't share your particular belief here. In fact MjolnirPants came up with the closest thing I'd also be willing to believe, the naturalistic view. In that respect I AM the Walrus.
It's true that perhaps some God has created a universe in a test tube in some other dimension, and therefore is an alien to the universe it has created. But even there, it seems to come with a direct link for many, internally, non-alien.
You are obviously talking about THE God. which is why I can't see a "realistic" reason
why it should be an alien, let alone a He. How did he become it and then do it without a She part?
QUOTE (vkamath+May 18 2009, 02:17 PM)
The dictionary definition. Show me ANY online dictionary which defines God as an advanced alien.
When you use definitions interchangeably in a debate, you reach the wrong conclusions. When nopEda says "Gods may exist", he actually means "Advanced Aliens may exist". Not the same thing. Why can't he simply use the word Alien? Why the misdirection?
I changed it to number one since you poor folks can't get anywhere at all with this
When you use definitions interchangeably in a debate, you reach the wrong conclusions. When nopEda says "Gods may exist", he actually means "Advanced Aliens may exist". Not the same thing. Why can't he simply use the word Alien? Why the misdirection?
I changed it to number one
since you poor folks can't get anywhere at all with this QUOTE ( Realistic Thinking Basics List+)
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
There are by now 15 basic ideas on the list, and none of you can even get as far as number 1.
There are by now 15 basic ideas on the list, and none of you can even get as far as number 1.
nopEda's initial premise is that he is correct in his definition of God, and he will not entertain the possibility that there is any other definition of God.
If you do not accept his definition, you are, according to his premise, not being realistic. So realism consists of accepting what nopEda says.
If you do not accept his definition, you are, according to his premise, not being realistic. So realism consists of accepting what nopEda says.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 18 2009, 02:37 PM)
When the correct definition is placed into nopEda's posts, his argument simply falls apart as it is based solely on misdirection.
If he wants an actual discussion he should name his thread "Could aliens be mistaken for god?"
That would be a different idea entirely, though probably one you would be more comfortable trying to think about I suppose.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
If you don't accept this initial premise, you are not being 'realistic'.
There's no communication on this thread, just nopEda repeating the same thing over and over as though it were a given.
If he wants an actual discussion he should name his thread "Could aliens be mistaken for god?"
That would be a different idea entirely, though probably one you would be more comfortable trying to think about I suppose.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
instead of naming it "trying to think realistically about God's existence" and then write about Aliens.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 18 2009, 05:00 PM)
We humans are all the evidence we have, and all evidence associated with us suggests that God would have to be technologically advanced FAAAAAR!!! beyond what humans are now and quite possibly ever will be, and also an alien.
Ok I'm all ears. It isn't science, as you know. But why not provide a detailed paper where you expand on your bullet points?
What do you mean by "all the evidence associated with us"? God may not need technology. Ever considered the idea that technology is the failing of man's inability to be as God? We need technology, God needs a perfectly powerful mind to matter desire.
What do you think of that "Let there Be" remark made in the bible? Was it an order to the elements to collect themselves up and manifest the will of that which had authority over it.
Ok I'm all ears. It isn't science, as you know. But why not provide a detailed paper where you expand on your bullet points?
What do you mean by "all the evidence associated with us"? God may not need technology. Ever considered the idea that technology is the failing of man's inability to be as God? We need technology, God needs a perfectly powerful mind to matter desire.
What do you think of that "Let there Be" remark made in the bible? Was it an order to the elements to collect themselves up and manifest the will of that which had authority over it.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 18 2009, 12:18 PM)
1. If God exists he almost certainly would have to be an alien.
If you don't accept this initial premise, you are not being 'realistic'.
There's no communication on this thread, just nopEda repeating the same thing over and over as though it were a given.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 18 2009, 03:07 PM)
I also have an unorthodox concept of "god" which is why I like to understand someone else's definition so that I know what we are talking about.
It's also why I try not to use the word "god" when I am talking about something the average person has another word for. It's just common courtesy.
To me beings who have deliberate influence on the development of life on planets they are not native to can be considered gods. Anything beyond that--like having influence on galaxies, or the universe or whateve, could also of course.
It's also why I try not to use the word "god" when I am talking about something the average person has another word for. It's just common courtesy.
To me beings who have deliberate influence on the development of life on planets they are not native to can be considered gods. Anything beyond that--like having influence on galaxies, or the universe or whateve, could also of course.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 18 2009, 11:14 AM)
True, there are a few more options.
In fact, my personal concept of "god" more closely resembles your naturalistic view. God is the universe, we are part of god and god is in each and every one of us. (I am he, as you are he, as you are me, and we are all together. Goo goo ga joob. Thou art "god". Grok on.)
I presented it because I hold it myself. I'm a pantheist with religious naturalist tendencies. It's good to see I'm not alone sometimes.
But this (in my opinion) realistic view of god does not even come close to resembling what noedpa is talking about.
It's the only possible naturalistic explanation which would agree with the spirit of monotheistic religious texts. Therefore, it's one which nopEda discounts out of hand.
His version of thinking "realistically" about god precludes any realistic views of god which don't involve changing the definition to include a false god.
He's thinking 'realistically' about the goa'uld from Stargate, not about any actual god.
It's the only possible naturalistic explanation which would agree with the spirit of monotheistic religious texts. Therefore, it's one which nopEda discounts out of hand.
His version of thinking "realistically" about god precludes any realistic views of god which don't involve changing the definition to include a false god.
He's thinking 'realistically' about the goa'uld from Stargate, not about any actual god.
If you don't accept this initial premise, you are not being 'realistic'.
There's no communication on this thread, just nopEda repeating the same thing over and over as though it were a given.
Of in other words, instead of being realistic, he expects us to take his word on it. Methodological naturalist is synonymous with realistic thought, while faith is synonymous with taking someone's word for something. The two are mutually exclusive.
As I've said before, he's just a regular idiot with an irregular idea.
noEda, in order to think realistically about anything, you must be willing to accept that your own thoughts may be biased and false. It also entails using definitions of terms which are accepted by more than just yourself. You are doing neither, so you are not thinking realistically about god, but simply making yourself look like an idiot.
On the bright side, you're rather good at it. Perhaps you should seek a career in slapstick comedy.
So if NASA launches a Mars lander filled with anerobic bacteria, we would be the Gods of Mars.
As others have pointed out, this is the 'Stargate' definition of gods.
In fact, my personal concept of "god" more closely resembles your naturalistic view. God is the universe, we are part of god and god is in each and every one of us. (I am he, as you are he, as you are me, and we are all together. Goo goo ga joob. Thou art "god". Grok on.)
I presented it because I hold it myself. I'm a pantheist with religious naturalist tendencies. It's good to see I'm not alone sometimes.
QUOTE
But this (in my opinion) realistic view of god does not even come close to resembling what noedpa is talking about.
It's the only possible naturalistic explanation which would agree with the spirit of monotheistic religious texts. Therefore, it's one which nopEda discounts out of hand.
His version of thinking "realistically" about god precludes any realistic views of god which don't involve changing the definition to include a false god.
He's thinking 'realistically' about the goa'uld from Stargate, not about any actual god.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
But this (in my opinion) realistic view of god does not even come close to resembling what noedpa is talking about. |
It's the only possible naturalistic explanation which would agree with the spirit of monotheistic religious texts. Therefore, it's one which nopEda discounts out of hand.
His version of thinking "realistically" about god precludes any realistic views of god which don't involve changing the definition to include a false god.
He's thinking 'realistically' about the goa'uld from Stargate, not about any actual god.
If you don't accept this initial premise, you are not being 'realistic'.
There's no communication on this thread, just nopEda repeating the same thing over and over as though it were a given.
Of in other words, instead of being realistic, he expects us to take his word on it. Methodological naturalist is synonymous with realistic thought, while faith is synonymous with taking someone's word for something. The two are mutually exclusive.
As I've said before, he's just a regular idiot with an irregular idea.
noEda, in order to think realistically about anything, you must be willing to accept that your own thoughts may be biased and false. It also entails using definitions of terms which are accepted by more than just yourself. You are doing neither, so you are not thinking realistically about god, but simply making yourself look like an idiot.
On the bright side, you're rather good at it. Perhaps you should seek a career in slapstick comedy.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 18 2009, 10:41 PM)
I changed it to number one since you poor folks can't get anywhere at all with this
Its only realistic when you are the idiot.
since you poor folks can't get anywhere at all with this Its only realistic when you are the idiot.
QUOTE
To me beings who have deliberate influence on the development of life on planets they are not native to can be considered gods
So if NASA launches a Mars lander filled with anerobic bacteria, we would be the Gods of Mars.
As others have pointed out, this is the 'Stargate' definition of gods.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 18 2009, 05:38 PM)
To me beings who have deliberate influence on the development of life on planets they are not native to can be considered gods. Anything beyond that--like having influence on galaxies, or the universe or whateve, could also of course.
Do you put money in the middle when you play Monopoly?
and collect it when you land in jail or some other house rules?
Then wonder why the game goes on forever?
Do you put money in the middle when you play Monopoly?
and collect it when you land in jail or some other house rules?
Then wonder why the game goes on forever?
QUOTE (buttershug+May 18 2009, 04:03 PM)
Stop with all the "ifs", untill you can use them properly.
I do.
I do.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 18 2009, 04:24 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Of course, since it would be a waste of my time.
No...its a waste of MY time arguing with an idiot like you. I think I'll just neg you instead.
!!!
nutBox, nutBox, nutBox. When will you ever learn?
Try teaching me now. Since you think God could somehow be an inferior native of this planet, try explaining how you think he managed to create a planet that you think he could be a native of. TRY IT YOU LAME FOOL!!!
No...its a waste of MY time arguing with an idiot like you. I think I'll just neg you instead.
!!!
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 18 2009, 04:43 PM)
nutBox, nutBox, nutBox. When will you ever learn? Try teaching me now. Since you think God could somehow be an inferior native of this planet, try explaining how you think he managed to create a planet that you think he could be a native of. TRY IT YOU LAME FOOL!!!
QUOTE (TheDoc+)
Yes, the alarmingly high dumbness-per-square-pixel ratio of your posts is quite obvious.
For your ramblings to be correct, or at the very least plausible, it would necessitate your quasi-gods to be so ridiculously advanced that they would have to be around for a very long time without suffering some sort of cataclysm as of result of their technological advancements -
To that I'm afraid the most appropriate reply is: Duh.
For your ramblings to be correct, or at the very least plausible, it would necessitate your quasi-gods to be so ridiculously advanced that they would have to be around for a very long time without suffering some sort of cataclysm as of result of their technological advancements -
To that I'm afraid the most appropriate reply is: Duh.
QUOTE (TheDoc+)
a scenario that is nearly unavoidable in the long run that is needed for your aliens to become so advanced in the first place.
I know that you have no clue whether it is or not, and if you happen to be right you also have no clue whether any of them have managed to do it. You also don't have any idea whether or not humans will do it, btw.
I know that you have no clue whether it is or not, and if you happen to be right you also have no clue whether any of them have managed to do it. You also don't have any idea whether or not humans will do it, btw.
QUOTE (TheDoc+)
By the way, you have reached the "10 Pages of Drivel" mark for the first time.
I point out what God would almost certainly have to be, and we have lots of replys by people saying he would be something else, but being unable to give a realistic suggestion as to what else he could possibly be. If you think you think I'm an idiot, just think how idiotic people like that must and DO appear to me!
I point out what God would almost certainly have to be, and we have lots of replys by people saying he would be something else, but being unable to give a realistic suggestion as to what else he could possibly be.
If you think you think I'm an idiot, just think how idiotic people like that must and DO appear to me!
QUOTE (AlexG+May 18 2009, 05:14 PM)
nopEda's initial premise is that he is correct in his definition of God, and he will not entertain the possibility that there is any other definition of God.
If you do not accept his definition, you are, according to his premise, not being realistic. So realism consists of accepting what nopEda says.
In cotrast to that: I have ASKED!!! people to explain how they think he could be anything other than an advanced alien, and NO ONE has been able to suggest a single realistic alternative to what I point out.
If you do not accept his definition, you are, according to his premise, not being realistic. So realism consists of accepting what nopEda says.
In cotrast to that: I have ASKED!!! people to explain how they think he could be anything other than an advanced alien, and NO ONE has been able to suggest a single realistic alternative to what I point out.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 18 2009, 05:38 PM)
noEda, in order to think realistically about anything, you must be willing to accept that your own thoughts may be biased and false.
I do. A clue to that is the fact that I've both asked and challenged people MANY TIMES to try presenting a realistic alternative to what I point out God would almost certainly have to be, but no one has been able to provide a single realistic alternative. NOT ONE! No one has provided a single alternative even worth taking into consideration!!! But I have a great idea: Why don't YOU try to be the first, and try doing it NOW!!!
I do. A clue to that is the fact that I've both asked and challenged people MANY TIMES to try presenting a realistic alternative to what I point out God would almost certainly have to be, but no one has been able to provide a single realistic alternative. NOT ONE! No one has provided a single alternative even worth taking into consideration!!! But I have a great idea: Why don't YOU try to be the first, and try doing it NOW!!!
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
It also entails using definitions of terms which are accepted by more than just yourself. You are doing neither, so you are not thinking realistically about god, but simply making yourself look like an idiot.
On the bright side, you're rather good at it. Perhaps you should seek a career in slapstick comedy.
I do sometimes manage to find amusement in the idiocies and failures of other people even when they outnumber me.
On the bright side, you're rather good at it. Perhaps you should seek a career in slapstick comedy.
I do sometimes manage to find amusement in the idiocies and failures of other people
even when they outnumber me.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 18 2009, 05:14 PM)
nopEda's initial premise is that he is correct in his definition of God, and he will not entertain the possibility that there is any other definition of God.
If you do not accept his definition, you are, according to his premise, not being realistic. So realism consists of accepting what nopEda says.
Theoretically it could involve suggesting a realstic alternative, but we can clearly see that no one has been able to do that yet. Here's an idea though: Why don't YOU try doing it NOW!!!!
If you do not accept his definition, you are, according to his premise, not being realistic. So realism consists of accepting what nopEda says.
Theoretically it could involve suggesting a realstic alternative, but we can clearly see that no one has been able to do that yet. Here's an idea though: Why don't YOU try doing it NOW!!!!
QUOTE (gmilam+May 18 2009, 04:14 PM)
True, there are a few more options.
In fact, my personal concept of "god" more closely resembles your naturalistic view. God is the universe,
By saying God is everything you reduce God to nothing.
In fact, my personal concept of "god" more closely resembles your naturalistic view. God is the universe,
By saying God is everything you reduce God to nothing.
QUOTE (gmilam+)
we are part of god and god is in each and every one of us. (I am he, as you are he, as you are me, and we are all together. Goo goo ga joob. Thou art "god". Grok on.)
But this (in my opinion) realistic view of god does not even come close to resembling what noedpa is talking about.
No, it sure doesn't. I'm talking about a being who has intelligence, is capable of deliberate acts, is technologically advanced far beyond that of humans, and is not a native of a planet he is supposed to have created.
But this (in my opinion) realistic view of god does not even come close to resembling what noedpa is talking about.
No, it sure doesn't. I'm talking about a being who has intelligence, is capable of deliberate acts, is technologically advanced far beyond that of humans, and is not a native of a planet he is supposed to have created.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 18 2009, 05:04 PM)
You are obviously talking about THE God. which is why I can't see a "realistic" reason why it should be an alien,
It would be even more fun if you could try to explain how you think God could be a native of a planet he is supposed to have created so please share the fun and try to explain how you think he could be. Try doing it NOW!!!
It would be even more fun if you could try to explain how you think God could be a native of a planet he is supposed to have created
so please share the fun and try to explain how you think he could be. Try doing it NOW!!! QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
let alone a He.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
14. If God exists he almost certainly would not be restricted to any
particular body, form, or gender.
nopEda
You can't think about God at all. The very idea of God is more than you'll ever be able to comprehend much less appreciate...at least it certainly appears that way. If you ever do learn, somehow, some day, I don't expect to see it happen.
You can't think about God at all. The very idea of God is more than you'll ever be able to comprehend much less appreciate...at least it certainly appears that way. If you ever do learn, somehow, some day, I don't expect to see it happen.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 18 2009, 05:18 PM)
What do you mean by "all the evidence associated with us"?
Every bit of it that's associated with humans.
Every bit of it that's associated with humans.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
God may not need technology. Ever considered the idea that technology is the failing of man's inability to be as God?
Let's do it now If that were true then monkeys would be more Godlike than humans are, the ticks on the monkeys would be more Godlike than the monkeys are, the mites on the ticks would be more Godlike than the ticks are, and the bacteria on the mites would be even more Godlike than the mites are. Okay I thought it through and it seems even more unlikely than it did before thinking it through, but at least it got that "possibility" out of the way...I hope
Let's do it now
If that were true then monkeys would be more Godlike than humans are, the ticks on the monkeys would be more Godlike than the monkeys are, the mites on the ticks would be more Godlike than the ticks are, and the bacteria on the mites would be even more Godlike than the mites are. Okay I thought it through and it seems even more unlikely than it did before thinking it through, but at least it got that "possibility" out of the way...I hope QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
We need technology, God needs a perfectly powerful mind to matter desire.
What do you think of that "Let there Be" remark made in the bible? Was it an order to the elements to collect themselves up and manifest the will of that which had authority over it.
It means to me that God would be in the position that he doesn't need to type in commands, and maybe doesn't even need to speak them but just said that because it's something humans could relate to better back in those dark days of ignorance...unlike (?) more learned people of today who should be able to if not figure it out for themselves at least be able to relate to it when someone else explains it to them?
What do you think of that "Let there Be" remark made in the bible? Was it an order to the elements to collect themselves up and manifest the will of that which had authority over it.
It means to me that God would be in the position that he doesn't need to type in commands, and maybe doesn't even need to speak them but just said that because it's something humans could relate to better back in those dark days of ignorance...unlike (?) more learned people of today who should be able to if not figure it out for themselves at least be able to relate to it when someone else explains it to them?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 18 2009, 07:05 PM)
Theoretically it could involve suggesting a realstic alternative, but we can clearly see that no one has been able to do that yet. Here's an idea though: Why don't YOU try doing it NOW!!!!
Since your use of the word 'realistic' means 'agreeing with me about Aliens', discussion with you on this subject is the equivalent of being on a rhetorical merry-go-round.
Please state why a supernatural, omnipotent being is not a realistic alternative.
Since your use of the word 'realistic' means 'agreeing with me about Aliens', discussion with you on this subject is the equivalent of being on a rhetorical merry-go-round.
Please state why a supernatural, omnipotent being is not a realistic alternative.
QUOTE (vomIt+May 18 2009, 11:39 PM)
Since you think God could somehow be an inferior native of this planet, try explaining how you think he managed to create a planet that you think he could be a native of. TRY IT YOU LAME FOOL!!!
Er??...Where did I say that, dimwit? Whoops - looks like I didn't.
If you're going to troll, please look a little smarter when doing so.
Er??...Where did I say that, dimwit? Whoops - looks like I didn't.If you're going to troll, please look a little smarter when doing so.
QUOTE (driBble+)
I know that you have no clue whether it is or not, and if you happen to be right you also have no clue whether any of them have managed to do it. You also don't have any idea whether or not humans will do it, btw.
Your arrogance really is appalling, yet funny at the same time. And all the more so because you're so oblivious to it.
Yeah, dumbo, as a matter of fact I do have a clue whether it is or not. The more advanced technology gets, the harder it will be to contain or use properly - there are marked antecedents of this from the Cold War. And when that simple fact is couple with technology so advanced that it reaches god-like level (note the use of "god-like" instead of "god" - start catching on, please), that situation becomes even more likely to spin out of control.
Again, please be more attentive. I know it's hard for an intellect such as yours, but please at least try.
Let's do it now smile.gif If that were true then monkeys would be more Godlike than humans are, the ticks on the monkeys would be more Godlike than the monkeys are, the mites on the ticks would be more Godlike than the ticks are, and the bacteria on the mites would be even more Godlike than the mites are. Okay I thought it through and it seems even more unlikely than it did before thinking it through, but at least it got that "possibility" out of the way...I hope mellow.gif
I don't think you dealt with the possibility there at all. Your analogy doesn't take into account this same evolution that you have also mentioned, where we humans could reach somewhere near this supposed alien God's potential. To backtrack down the evolutionary chain, mentioning nits and fleas, and use that to deal with the possibility of my suggesting that God may not need technology at all, is a little bemusing.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier, but actually you're a little arrogant.
Or maybe you've played too many alien computer games in life.
Your arrogance really is appalling, yet funny at the same time. And all the more so because you're so oblivious to it.
Yeah, dumbo, as a matter of fact I do have a clue whether it is or not. The more advanced technology gets, the harder it will be to contain or use properly - there are marked antecedents of this from the Cold War. And when that simple fact is couple with technology so advanced that it reaches god-like level (note the use of "god-like" instead of "god" - start catching on, please), that situation becomes even more likely to spin out of control.
Again, please be more attentive. I know it's hard for an intellect such as yours, but please at least try.
QUOTE (bloCkhead+)
I point out what God would almost certainly have to be, and we have lots of replys by people saying he would be something else, but being unable to give a realistic suggestion as to what else he could possibly be.
Please show us how your "Aliens-who-have-been-around-for-aaaaaaaaages-without-blowing-themselves-up" scenario is any less speculative than that of a standard, omnipotent being.
I am 100% confident you cannot.
I am 100% confident you cannot.
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 18 2009, 08:31 PM)
Please show us how your "Aliens-who-have-been-around-for-aaaaaaaaages-without-blowing-themselves-up" scenario is any less speculative than that of a standard, omnipotent being.
That's it! They blew themselves up! I've been trying to figure out why they quit coming around...
Hey! I bet I know what the Star of Bethlehem was!
That's it! They blew themselves up! I've been trying to figure out why they quit coming around...
Hey! I bet I know what the Star of Bethlehem was!
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2009, 12:37 AM)
Let's do it now smile.gif If that were true then monkeys would be more Godlike than humans are, the ticks on the monkeys would be more Godlike than the monkeys are, the mites on the ticks would be more Godlike than the ticks are, and the bacteria on the mites would be even more Godlike than the mites are. Okay I thought it through and it seems even more unlikely than it did before thinking it through, but at least it got that "possibility" out of the way...I hope mellow.gif
I don't think you dealt with the possibility there at all. Your analogy doesn't take into account this same evolution that you have also mentioned, where we humans could reach somewhere near this supposed alien God's potential. To backtrack down the evolutionary chain, mentioning nits and fleas, and use that to deal with the possibility of my suggesting that God may not need technology at all, is a little bemusing.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier, but actually you're a little arrogant.
Or maybe you've played too many alien computer games in life.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 18 2009, 06:59 PM)
I do. A clue to that is the fact that I've both asked and challenged people MANY TIMES to try presenting a realistic alternative to what I point out God would almost certainly have to be, but no one has been able to provide a single realistic alternative. NOT ONE! No one has provided a single alternative even worth taking into consideration!!! But I have a great idea: Why don't YOU try to be the first, and try doing it NOW!!!
Bullsh*t.
I am a 2 ton dragon who spits phosphorous-fueled flames, flies like a hummingbird and has a johnson the size of two stacked beer kegs.
Now prove me wrong. What else could I possibly be? Saying I'm a human sitting in front of a computer just isn't realistic.
By using the very same 'logic' you're trying to use in your response to me, I've just proven that I am, in fact, that above-described creature.
Do you understand how incredibly stupid this is? And this is the same logic you're relying on. You think that telling people to prove you wrong and then refusing to listen to anything they say makes you right? You're quickly racking up a nomination for entrance into the "dumbest posters in general" club, and I'm willing to bet you'll take over as president before too long...
I don't doubt it. Being too stupid to recognize your own stupidity must be nice.
Bullsh*t.
I am a 2 ton dragon who spits phosphorous-fueled flames, flies like a hummingbird and has a johnson the size of two stacked beer kegs.
Now prove me wrong. What else could I possibly be? Saying I'm a human sitting in front of a computer just isn't realistic.
By using the very same 'logic' you're trying to use in your response to me, I've just proven that I am, in fact, that above-described creature.
Do you understand how incredibly stupid this is? And this is the same logic you're relying on. You think that telling people to prove you wrong and then refusing to listen to anything they say makes you right?
You're quickly racking up a nomination for entrance into the "dumbest posters in general" club, and I'm willing to bet you'll take over as president before too long...QUOTE
I do sometimes manage to find amusement in the idiocies and failures of other people even when they outnumber me.
even when they outnumber me. I don't doubt it. Being too stupid to recognize your own stupidity must be nice.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
In cotrast to that: I have ASKED!!! people to explain how they think he could be anything other than an advanced alien, and NO ONE has been able to suggest a single realistic alternative to what I point out.
We suggested not one, but several alternatives. Its not our fault that you are too stupid to comprehend any of them.
We suggested not one, but several alternatives. Its not our fault that you are too stupid to comprehend any of them.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 18 2009, 11:46 PM)
In cotrast to that: I have ASKED!!! people to explain how they think he could be anything other than an advanced alien, and NO ONE has been able to suggest a single realistic alternative to what I point out.
God can not be anything other than an advanced alien.
God also can not be an advanced alien.
Therefore God can not be.
To use if properly sometimes you have to accpect that the part after the if is not true.
If wishes were horses beggers could ride.
Do you understant that wishes are not horses?
God can not be anything other than an advanced alien.
God also can not be an advanced alien.
Therefore God can not be.
To use if properly sometimes you have to accpect that the part after the if is not true.
If wishes were horses beggers could ride.
Do you understant that wishes are not horses?
QUOTE (AlexG+May 19 2009, 12:59 AM)
Since your use of the word 'realistic' means 'agreeing with me about Aliens', discussion with you on this subject is the equivalent of being on a rhetorical merry-go-round.
That's not my fault. It seems obvious God would have to be a technologically advanced alien, but other people want to deny that. The merry-go-round factor is created by the fact that those who want to suggest God could be something else, can't give any realistic alternative as to what else he could possibly be. They are the ones preventing things from moving on by denying the aspect I point out, while at the same time being unable to suggest anything else we could realistically consider.
(natives of Earth traveling back in time to create the planet of their own origin does NOT! qualify as a realistic suggestion to consider)
That's not my fault. It seems obvious God would have to be a technologically advanced alien, but other people want to deny that. The merry-go-round factor is created by the fact that those who want to suggest God could be something else, can't give any realistic alternative as to what else he could possibly be. They are the ones preventing things from moving on by denying the aspect I point out, while at the same time being unable to suggest anything else we could realistically consider.
(natives of Earth traveling back in time to create the planet of their own origin does NOT! qualify as a realistic suggestion to consider)
QUOTE (AlexG+)
Please state why a supernatural, omnipotent being is not a realistic alternative.
Both of those were on the list to begin with:
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do
would be natural for them.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
Both of those were on the list to begin with:
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, and anything gods do
would be natural for them.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2009, 02:10 PM)
That's not my fault. It seems obvious God would have to be a technologically advanced alien, but other people want to deny that.
It's also not your fault that Theists believe in an Omnipotent Being.
And that anyone who believes that there can't be an Omnipotent Being is a strong Atheist.
It's also not your fault that Theists believe in an Omnipotent Being.
And that anyone who believes that there can't be an Omnipotent Being is a strong Atheist.
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 19 2009, 01:31 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda again put forth a challenge that no one has yet been able to meet+)
Since you think God could somehow be an inferior native of this planet, try explaining how you think he managed to create a planet that you think he could be a native of. TRY IT YOU LAME FOOL!!! Er??...Where did I say that, dimwit? Whoops - looks like I didn't.
If God exists and you think he is neither technologically advanced nor technologically inferior, and neither an alien nor a native of this planet, then wt F??? do you think you're trying to say he would be, do you have any clue at all what you're trying to suggest???
Er??...Where did I say that, dimwit? Whoops - looks like I didn't.If God exists and you think he is neither technologically advanced nor technologically inferior, and neither an alien nor a native of this planet, then wt F??? do you think you're trying to say he would be, do you have any clue at all what you're trying to suggest???
QUOTE (TheDoc+)
If you're going to troll, please look a little smarter when doing so.
Please show us how your "Aliens-who-have-been-around-for-aaaaaaaaages-without-blowing-themselves-up" scenario is any less speculative than that of a standard, omnipotent being.
I am 100% confident you cannot.
Since you fail totally and completely to even attempt to meet the challenges I put forth to you to try to back up your own absurd seeming complaint and the suggested alternative it's your responsibility to try to explain, I shouldn't answer your challenge that doesn't have anything to do with me. But! I will this time, and will say that it's more likely that such beings could still continue to exist even if a very high percentage of them have blown themselves up, than it is that beings exist who have impossible attributes.
Please show us how your "Aliens-who-have-been-around-for-aaaaaaaaages-without-blowing-themselves-up" scenario is any less speculative than that of a standard, omnipotent being.
I am 100% confident you cannot.
Since you fail totally and completely to even attempt to meet the challenges I put forth to you to try to back up your own absurd seeming complaint and the suggested alternative it's your responsibility to try to explain, I shouldn't answer your challenge that doesn't have anything to do with me. But! I will this time, and will say that it's more likely that such beings could still continue to exist even if a very high percentage of them have blown themselves up, than it is that beings exist who have impossible attributes.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
natives of Earth traveling back in time to create the planet of their own origin does NOT! qualify as a realistic suggestion to consider.
1) That is a strawman. I never mentioned anything about time travellers creating the planet of their origin. I said time travellers could be mistaken for gods due to them being more advanced than us.
2) Your option of aliens creating the universe is as unrealistic if not more unrealistic than time travellers creating the planet of their origin.
1) That is a strawman. I never mentioned anything about time travellers creating the planet of their origin. I said time travellers could be mistaken for gods due to them being more advanced than us.
2) Your option of aliens creating the universe is as unrealistic if not more unrealistic than time travellers creating the planet of their origin.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 19 2009, 02:19 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
That's not my fault. It seems obvious God would have to be a technologically advanced alien, but other people want to deny that.
It's also not your fault that Theists believe in an Omnipotent Being.
Wow!!! you're correct about something again. This is weird
Wow!!!
you're correct about something again. This is weird QUOTE (buttershug+)
And that anyone who believes that there can't be an Omnipotent Being is a strong Atheist.
You're wrong. So the question becomes: Are you really clueless enough to believe that, or are you being deliberately dishonest about it?
You're wrong. So the question becomes: Are you really clueless enough to believe that, or are you being deliberately dishonest about it?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2009, 02:40 PM)
It's also not your fault that Theists believe in an Omnipotent Being.[/QUOTE]
Wow!!! you're correct about something again. This is weird
Wow!!!
you're correct about something again. This is weird QUOTE (buttershug+)
And that anyone who believes that there can't be an Omnipotent Being is a strong Atheist.
You're wrong. So the question becomes: Are you really clueless enough to believe that, or are you being deliberately dishonest about it?
How is it possible that Theists believe in an Omnipotent Being, and you say that they are wrong but you are not a Strong Atheist?
Especially since Strong Theists are merely people who say Theists are wrong as you have done.
You're wrong. So the question becomes: Are you really clueless enough to believe that, or are you being deliberately dishonest about it?
How is it possible that Theists believe in an Omnipotent Being, and you say that they are wrong but you are not a Strong Atheist?
Especially since Strong Theists are merely people who say Theists are wrong as you have done.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 19 2009, 02:37 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
natives of Earth traveling back in time to create the planet of their own origin does NOT! qualify as a realistic suggestion to consider.
1) That is a strawman. I never mentioned anything about time travellers creating the planet of their origin. I said time travellers could be mistaken for gods
Then all you did was changed the subject and you didn't attempt to meet my challenge at all, as you dishonestly tried to pretend that you did. Why did you try to pretend you tried to meet it?
1) That is a strawman. I never mentioned anything about time travellers creating the planet of their origin. I said time travellers could be mistaken for gods[/QUOTE]
Then all you did was changed the subject and you didn't attempt to meet my challenge at all, as you dishonestly tried to pretend that you did. Why did you try to pretend you tried to meet it?
1) That is a strawman. I never mentioned anything about time travellers creating the planet of their origin. I said time travellers could be mistaken for gods
Then all you did was changed the subject and you didn't attempt to meet my challenge at all, as you dishonestly tried to pretend that you did. Why did you try to pretend you tried to meet it?
QUOTE (vkamath+)
due to them being more advanced than us.
2) Your option of aliens creating the universe is as unrealistic if not more unrealistic than time travellers creating the planet of their origin.
So far everyone has still failed completely to even attempt to meet the challenge. Try being the first, since you pretended that you already did try: Try to explain how you think if God exists he could be anything other than a technologically advanced alien, so we can see what it is you think you're trying to talk about. Just DO IT!!!
2) Your option of aliens creating the universe is as unrealistic if not more unrealistic than time travellers creating the planet of their origin.
So far everyone has still failed completely to even attempt to meet the challenge. Try being the first, since you pretended that you already did try: Try to explain how you think if God exists he could be anything other than a technologically advanced alien, so we can see what it is you think you're trying to talk about. Just DO IT!!!
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2009, 02:50 PM)
1) That is a strawman. I never mentioned anything about time travellers creating the planet of their origin. I said time travellers could be mistaken for gods[/QUOTE]
Then all you did was changed the subject and you didn't attempt to meet my challenge at all, as you dishonestly tried to pretend that you did. Why did you try to pretend you tried to meet it?
QUOTE (vkamath+)
due to them being more advanced than us.
2) Your option of aliens creating the universe is as unrealistic if not more unrealistic than time travellers creating the planet of their origin.
So far everyone has still failed completely to even attempt to meet the challenge. Try being the first, since you pretended that you already did try: Try to explain how you think if God exists he could be anything other than a technologically advanced alien, so we can see what it is you think you're trying to talk about. Just DO IT!!!
If we do it, then we become Strong Atheists because what defines a Strong Atheist is that they believe there is no Omnipotent Being.
If it worked the way you try to make it work there would be no Strong Atheists because all they would have to do it call the Universe, God.
2) Your option of aliens creating the universe is as unrealistic if not more unrealistic than time travellers creating the planet of their origin.
So far everyone has still failed completely to even attempt to meet the challenge. Try being the first, since you pretended that you already did try: Try to explain how you think if God exists he could be anything other than a technologically advanced alien, so we can see what it is you think you're trying to talk about. Just DO IT!!!
If we do it, then we become Strong Atheists because what defines a Strong Atheist is that they believe there is no Omnipotent Being.
If it worked the way you try to make it work there would be no Strong Atheists because all they would have to do it call the Universe, God.
nopEda,
How is your option of Aliens creating the Universe more realistic than time travel?
How is your option of Aliens creating the Universe more realistic than time travel?
QUOTE (buttershug+May 19 2009, 09:58 AM)
If it worked the way you try to make it work there would be no Strong Atheists because all they would have to do it call the Universe, God.
And the universe obviously exists.
And the universe obviously exists.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 19 2009, 02:42 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Wow!!! you're correct about something again. This is weird
you're correct about something again. This is weird QUOTE (buttershug+)
And that anyone who believes that there can't be an Omnipotent Being is a strong Atheist.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
You're wrong. So the question becomes: Are you really clueless enough to believe that, or are you being deliberately dishonest about it?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
How is it possible that Theists believe in an Omnipotent Being, and you say that they are wrong but you are not a Strong Atheist?
Because even though I believe some things other people believe about God must be incorrect, I still consider the possiblity that he could exist regardless of how wrong some beliefs about him happen to be. That has been on the basics list the whole time, btw:
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
Because even though I believe some things other people believe about God must be incorrect, I still consider the possiblity that he could exist regardless of how wrong some beliefs about him happen to be. That has been on the basics list the whole time, btw:
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Especially since Strong Theists are merely people who say Theists are wrong as you have done.