I will be sure to do my research on that.
I do, how’d you know? Are you a psychic? Did the toilet god tickle you like every priest at a catholic curch? Give you a gift?
I usually refrain from this sort of thing but you came to this debate with rudeness and a claim of literally meeting “god” I accept my humble defeat on my claims as I wasn’t prepared and just wanted to hear from like minded people and those people delivered really well. Pro debaters for sure.
Well, yes. But it wasn’t that. I’m just good at reading people.
That’s kind of out of line. I joke that you might have trust issues, and you come back joking about molestation? Funny! Ha! I was molested! Isn’t that just hilarious? You’ve got some mother issues too, I can see. Momma didn’t give you much milk as a suckling, did she?
You said you had some kind of theory which, if not disproven, would “blow away” theists … so … where is it? I haven’t seen a crumble of anything, apart from you anthropomorphizing sky scrapers …
Is this “foreplay”? What’s going on …? let’s get to the meat … ehh? Let’s tango … let’s get spicy … where’s the beef? Out with it, suckling. Momma’s teets are getting sore waiting for you to get to the point. Ha!
You claimed to have “met god” like he’s the homie and then when asked for evidence you attacked me. Instantly getting defensive to my question of curiosity proves that you’re not interested in proper debate. My retort was making a comparison between your claim of being fiddled by “toilet god” to how the catholic church has the worlds biggest sex scandel. Ps you know who doesn’t? Satan! Just kidding it was a joke not a dick don’t take it so hard. 
The quote function appears on your phone as well, when you highlight text.
Your clam here:
…is unfalsifiable.
Well the claim seemed very specific, are you now recanting the claim you can “prove that no deity of any kind exists”?
Well, let me ask you … under what conditions do you imagine a person might meet God? I ask because I don’t entirely think you realize that “‘meeting God” will be hard to support with “rock hard” dick … erm … sorry … evidence. I meant “evidence”. Like, if you are expecting video evidence, it just doesn’t work that way … so … yeah … how do you imagine people “meet God”?
No. I’m interested. However, you’re the person claiming to have the “black box” that reveals the truth about theism being falsifiable, not me. I’m more interested in hearing that theory than explaining my experiences with the divine.
No. Satan is a butt fucker. Tried and true. I’ll have to disagree with you there.
Ahh. Insult to injury. The best form of revenge. Tushy, good sir. Tushy.
Ah yes I apologize I am attending this debate while also doing manual labor at my job. To understand that claim I was underlining that if the existence of the god I am claiming might be real can be disproven then all gods from any faith can. But I’m also arguing strongly for the case of it’s existence. I will be unable to provide evidence until I run tests. This hypothesis is in its infancy and needs to be polished. I’m also trying do distance myself from pantheism even though this would be a template fir that “god”
And why doesn’t it work that way? Can you enlighten me on how it works because every other case its within a persons head while they have a Schizophrenic Discourse with themselves thinking its god. I’ve had an experience that was quite visual and philosophical but I don’t base my world view off of it because I need to challenge my sences. They lie to us all the time an example of that is I have cronic dpdr disorder. The way I experience the world when it happens is something I can’t even verbalize it is so unsettling when you feel unreal. But i also understand what it is and don’t assume any beliefs off of it.
I haven’t really asked you what faith are you a part of? You seem comfortable enough to bully and be rude so I’m assuming it can’t be Christianity because you would forgive me and uphold the standard by which your god demands. But you also address Satan as though its real and even insult “him”. Why? What is your angle?
I just don’t think God is interested in revealing Himself unless absolutely necessary. And, as that seems to be the case, when he in fact does reveal himself it isn’t in a way that anyone else would notice besides the person revealed to. Hence schizophrenics are so often labeled as insane because no one is willing to lend them credence when they announce that they’ve been acquainted with a higher being.
Uhh. Well. Satanic, Christ Consciousness, Evil Clowns, big fan of the Buddha, and partial to Ha Thada. Also a devotee of Shiva the Creator, Shiva the Destroyer, and Shiva the Dancer.
Name a Buddhist attainment and I’ve experienced it.
I don’t follow any faith. I cultivate five spiritual faculties: kindness; compassion; grace; sympathetic joy; and equanimity
I practice the four jhanas (you can look that term up for your self).
I cultivate the escape from suffering know as the “deathless” in Buddhism. It’s an inclination of the mind made possible by meditative absorption.
More of a Christian than most. Between you and me, all of this banter is just shits and giggles. I’m a human. I like to take the piss out. See? We’re actually being civil now. Even after the rough housing. That’s generally how it works on the playground.
Satan is extremely real to me. I have a very long and extended relationship with him. He holds me to an extremely high standard of ethics, which I strive to reach and uphold daily. I’m basically running under his “programme” - a very strict and unforgiving “sink or swim” clinic in the spiritual. Recall that Satan was regarded highly in the Old Testament. All of this new age bullshit about Satan being the source of all evil is a crock of shit. He is very misunderstood and those who fail to give him his due respect are bound for a big suprise when it comes time to pay him his due.
No angle whatsoever. Just waiting for the bomb to drop. Living it one day at a time. Shooting the shit with atheists under the guise of a madman who used to be one. What’s yours?
You have also now accepted the claim that “not deity of any kind exists” is unfalsifiable, so as I asked several times, how do you plan to falsify an unfalsifiable claim exactly?
This makes less and less sense, you’re arguing that a specific type of deify exists, while simultaneously claiming that you can prove that no deity of any kind exists. Those claims are mutually exclusive?
What kind of test can falsify an unfalsifiable claim? No offence, but this is sounding like a windup.
I have seen no hypothesis, just sweeping bare claims, at least one of which you have accepted is unfalsifiable, so no testing of its veracity would be possible, by definition.
I have no idea what relevance it has, when you already claimed you can “prove that no deity of any kind exists”.
Atheist too, but I’ve toyed with “god” as maybe a cosmic force, not a sky daddy. What’s your physical, non-intelligent “god” look like? Gimme the minimum to call it “god,” and I’ll swing at it
Unless the term “god” is different. The process or source of the creation of existence, whatever it may be cannot be defined as a “god” in the traditional sense. Because “gods” in all myths and religions have some sort of intent and willingness to directly do something to reality that would align with whatever agency they have. An intelligence, a will.
A non-intelligent physical “god??” which basically serves as the process, substance, or source of creation can’t be traditionally called a god. That’s like saying the Big Bang is God or a god unless you want to pray to the Big Bang or any other natural equivalent that created reality as we know it.
Personally I have never seen the point of non-interventionist gods or gods that are less than all-powerful. In fact their definition is incoherent to me. As you’ve said elsewhere, we already have words like “universe” and “reality” so why do we need to suddenly start calling things like that “god”, particularly when for most people god (capital G or otherwise) is freighted with all sorts of preconceptions and assumptions. It’s just not helpful. And most people seem to be interested in gods that they can influence to make their lives better, to tip the scales on their behalf or protect them from randomness. Most god concepts propose to make life more comprehensible and predictable. They all fail at it, but some sort of vague thing like “the Divine” or the absent / indifferent God of deism really is just an attempt to salvage a god concept when the more personal / interventionist Gods clearly aren’t cutting it.
A ‘physical’ god, Natasha?
By that do you mean a god who, being physical, is therefore bound by the physical laws of nature we see operating in the universe? If so, then there’s going to be trouble.
A physical god bound by the laws of nature cannot be omniscient.
The knowledge of what is happening in another galaxy would be limited by the speed of light. So, if this god were here in the Milky Way it would take him 2.537 million years to receive news of evil doing in M31, the Andromeda galaxy. Then, even if he reacted immediately and set off from here to purify that galaxy of evil, it would take him another 2.537 million years to get there.
They would the arrive over 5 million years AFTER evil started manifesting itself in M31.
Not very omniscient. Nor omnipotent. Nor omnipresent. Not omni-anything, really.
There are other ways that a physical god wouldn’t be very god-like, but I won’t go into those now.
Thank you,
Walter.
I think Natasha was talking about this:
In other words not a local despotic character, but some vague reference to “the Divine” or the universe itself being God. This is a gambit that some non-fundamentalists and non-Christians use to leverage the sense of awe and wonder at incredibly old and/or vast things like the cosmos or just nature in general to suggest that it is at least a small-g god. Or … consciousness is all-pervasive and universal and that is god.
In this way usually if god is some vague principle or Force or just the natural world, that is everywhere at once and in a sense omnipresent.
Usually such people don’t seem to limit consciousness to physical laws, giving it a sort of magical quality. You’re right of course that since no data travels faster than the speed of light, any sensing and responding to non-local things would be incredibly lugubrious, to the point that it would have zero utility. And it certainly wouldn’t be a distributed Mind that is everywhere at once. It wouldn’t work at all.
Oh… I see.
(shrugs)
But, what’s the point of being in awe of such a ‘thing’? If it’s devoid of intelligence then it is in no way interested in us. Quite frankly, I can’t see much of a difference between a cold and indifferent universe that isn’t a god and a cold and indifferent universe that is.
Unless I’m missing something here?
Nor do I. I think that some people see a Universal Consciousness that is all-pervading and possibly even benevolent but rather than the Abrahamic God it is more like the Force in Star Wars – some vague potential to be tapped into or channeled for personal benefit or some sort of oceanic Awareness or love or something of that nature that one can immerse themselves in via meditation or whatever.
This appeals more to a certain kind of personality. I have a friend who is very empathic. A mutual friend of ours died a few days ago and he has wept for hours about it. I have been sad and felt the loss but nothing like that. And sure enough, he’s revealed that in his youth he was a Reiki Master and used that discipline to help people through trauma and fatal illnesses and the like. I’d be unsurprised to learn he believes in some sort of universal force of love and light, it would fit his personality.
I already pointed that out. Matthew, the Original Poster, wants to put up a hypothesis of some kind of “observable physical god” of sorts that isn’t intelligent but might “exist”.
Source:
Intelligent no but possibly physical and observable? Definitely not intelligent but might exist.
I pointed out that such a thing cannot be defined as a god. Calling such phenomena “god” would be misleading, because it wouldn’t match the conventional understanding of what “god” means in religious contexts.
The process, source, or substance of creation, like the Big Bang and other natural phenomena, cannot be a god. You can pray to them if you want, so they become your personal god, but still not a god in how every religion and mythology defines them.
The closest thing we have to some kind of observable physical god is a human person asserting themselves as a god and people worshiping them in return. Fortunately, I haven’t seen such a living person in my life because I deliberately limit my exposure to politics whenever I can.
Or omnipotent, if it’s bound by anything.