matthew wrote:
Your definitions of God which other people use do not correspond to my argument about the nature of God and I have argued that God is TO BE.

could you elaborate, or give me links to your post if you already did that, on how god is "to be"? cause i smell good ol' ontological argument here.

emmanuelle cunt wrote:

matthew wrote:
Your definitions of God which other people use do not correspond to my argument about the nature of God and I have argued that God is TO BE.

could you elaborate, or give me links to your post if you already did that, on how god is "to be"? cause i smell good ol' ontological argument here.

"To Be" is not a thing in the sense that we can form a concept of it because it is at once the most immediate and most universal reality and is not out of necessity a part of any-thing. One might object and then say that because I have established that since "To Be" is not a thing in the sense which are immediate, it thus IS-NOT strictly in the sense of that quality which is most universal of all actually existent things. In plainer language, this is to state the proposition "'To Be' IS NOT". But this proposition is self-evidentially absurd. Having said this "God" is only "thing" by linguistic equivocation.

matthew wrote:If you haven't read my recent remarks about ID, you'll find that we agree about the whole "God as Designer" aspect of ID.

No, we don't, because I do not endorse either the existence or absence of God, so I cannot endorse God's appearance in a sentence that names him as the Designer. If you want to see my arguments with Gramsci as support for your position, I can't stop you, but I wish you would answer these questions I asked earlier:

Here:

matthew wrote:

You, like LVP and Captain_Kirk, are also utilizing the conventionality of language in an an attempt to obscure the reality of actually existing things.

and I wrote:

Show me the reality of God.
Show me the actuality of God.
Show me the existence of God.
Show me that God is a thing.

And who is trying to obscure the truth here??

Get back to answering the question: if the concept of God begins and ends in the human mind, how can you place God into our physical world?

And here:

You have not shown God, so you are not permitted to show what God equates to. Every reality I have ever known can be proved to exist, and God cannot be. Again, I ask you: what drives your compulsion to make God be both an object of faith and a subject of science?

clocker bob wrote:No, we don't, because I do not endorse either the existence or absence of God

If we, as I have been doing, establish that God can only be actual existence itself because

1) A concept is existentially neutral

2) A thing is different from its existence because the mind can form concepts of a thing (and remember a thing is different from a concept. Go back to my excerpt from Gilson to see why.) which may or may not exist.

then it only follows that God exists.

Show me the reality of God.
Show me the actuality of God.
Show me the existence of God.
Show me that God is a thing.

God=REALITY AS REALITY
God=ACTUALITY AS ACTUALITY
God=EXISTENCE AS EXISTENCE
God=THE ONLY THING WHICH IS EXISTENCE-thus not a "thing" in the common/immediate sense but only through equivocation, but nonetheless existent and necessarily so.

Get back to answering the question: if the concept of God begins and ends in the human mind, how can you place God into our physical world?

There is no "concept" of God except by equivocation because I have established that God is that one actuality which is inconceivable: Existence as Existence.

I suppose I might as well add my peace to this monstrosity. I like much. I remain skeptical about everything. The more I learn, the more I am nudged in a direction that focuses my thoughts on things purely logical, the more questions float to the surface. This, my friends, is the way of the world. Science and the unknown have clashed for as long as members of our species haven't needed to spend every waking moment scrounging for food or fending off hazards, and they will continue to do so until we exhaust our time. Of course I would like to believe in God as an entity OR an idea. This place, this life... it's pretty special, and some divine recognition of that fact would be really nice. Unfortunately, God as an ultimate (existing or not) is as impossible as any ultimate, as proved by Godel in his incompleteness theorem. It's the same with everything. Any extreme is relatively unstable, and in the majority of snapshots, gray rules the universe. If you're looking for God, look into questions of chance, of space/time, and mathematics. You'd be surprised how confusing the world can become. As for myself, I'm not a set-it-and-forget-it kind of guy. I'll be waiting.

How any of this could lead someone to conclude that ID should be taught in science class beside evolution is beyond me.

What amuses me is this: Matthew is arguing for a concept of God (the essence of existence that permeates all things, not unlike The Force) that i can totally get behind as someone who believes in God but considers organized religion to be complete bupkis. How this eventually will lead anyone to conclude that ID, as a product of philosophy or theology, should be taught in a science classroom on an equal par with evolution, though...

matthew wrote:I have established that God is that one actuality which is inconceivable.

That is impossible. You have invested your faith in an actuality that has been conceived, both by you and by millions before you. When it is proved to you that you can't support your conception of God using any established evidence, you then declare that God is inconceivable??

DrAwkward wrote:arguing for a concept of God

You are still missing the point. I have said that God= ACTUAL EXISTENCE ITSELF and thus inconceivable:

Thus we come to The Choice:

EXISTENCE AS EXISTENCE=IS-NOT

EXISTENCE AS EXISTENCE=IS

clocker bob wrote:

matthew wrote:I have established that God is that one actuality which is inconceivable.

That is impossible. You have invested your faith in an actuality that has been conceived, both by you and by millions before you. When it is proved to you that you can't support your conception of God using any established evidence, you then declare that God is inconceivable??

Once again, you are implicitly reducing God to a concept and contradicting yourself. Concepts are existentially neutral as I established, but ACTUAL EXISTENCE AS EXISTENCE can only BE, otherwise EXISTENCE AS ANYTHING ELSE THAN EXISTENCE would only be a pure concept, and a pure concept is an absurdity because it takes an actually existing mind to form a concept.

matthew wrote:inconceivable:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

In all seriousness, i don't care about your philosophical circle-jerk. It's all well and good, and hey, sometimes i'm in the mood to debate the nature of existence too. None of it should take the place of science and evolution, though.

I just read half of Scott Adams' God's Debris at my girl's house, and am gonna finish it shortly. It's a fun little philisophical dialogue about the possibility that the Big Bang was God blowing itself apart to see what would happen, and that we're all little pieces of an evolving and reassembling God. It's cute, and i kinda like that idea. I feel like a hippie for saying that, though.