The Most “Post-Christian” Cities in America

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, maths exists only as concepts in brains, and in the modern sense of maths, only in educated brains. The mathematical objects such as the numbers have no real counterpart, have no objective existence, are not real, only conceptual. As I said, you can stare out the window all day and you may see two cars, two cops, two carbines, but you won't see an uninstantiated two anywhere.
Yes, the tokens of formal logic are also concepts with no real counterpart. They too have no objective existence, are not real, only conceptual.
If that's what you want to say, then you can of course say it. God will therefore be only conceptual, not real, not a being with objective existence.

On the contrary, in the very sentence where I asked you for a definition of a real god, I pointed out that to be real the god so defined would have to have objective existence. That's the definition I lack, the one I turn to you for, because I want to be able to tell whether any real person or thing or phenomenon is God, or a god, or not ─ whereas a purely conceptual god is anything the conceiver wants it to be from time to time, and that's not useful.
Yes, of course they exist, the same way Mickey Mouse or Harry Potter exists ─ as concepts. However, they lack objective existence, so they're not real, but purely conceptual.
The trouble with that definition is that the transcendent is not real either, doesn't have objective existence, is purely conceptual. Otherwise you could show it to me. In just this fashion an uninstantiated two is purely conceptual, otherwise you could show me that as well.
I hope I've made the difference between real and purely conceptual clear; if so, we should be there.
Then God has no objective existence, is purely conceptual, is not real, is imaginary ─ and being imaginary, potentially has as many definitions as imaginers.

Name something that objectively exists, so I can help you.

 

[blü 2]

Name something that objectively exists, so I can help you.

Things that have objective existence, that are real, that are in nature, that are in the realm of the physical sciences, that exist whether you're there to see or detect them or not.

I've already mentioned cows, cars, cops, carbines, chairs and so on. I could add, say, waves, atoms, air, light, all of which are part of nature.

But not things that are conceptual ─ abstractions, generalizations, human judgments, and so on. They exist, but they're not real because they don't have objective existence.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Things that have objective existence, that are real, that are in nature, that are in the realm of the physical sciences, that exist whether you're there to see or detect them or not.

I've already mentioned cows, cars, cops, carbines, chairs and so on. I could add, say, waves, atoms, air, light, all of which are part of nature.

But not things that are conceptual ─ abstractions, generalizations, human judgments, and so on. They exist, but they're not real because they don't have objective existence.

What does that mean, "in the realm of the physical sciences?" That would exclude dark matter, the Oort Cloud, and gravity, for the first three things I can think of that are conjectural (and for which we believe we have observed resultant phenomena, without physical proof).

 

[blü 2]

What does that mean, "in the realm of the physical sciences?" That would exclude dark matter, the Oort Cloud, and gravity, for the first three things I can think of that are conjectural (and for which we believe we have observed resultant phenomena, without physical proof).

On the contrary, it would include everything studied by any of the physical sciences that exists external to the self, anything in nature.

I think it's fair to say it's your turn to define a / the real God for me, such that I can determine whether any real candidate is God or not.

 

[BilliardsBall]

On the contrary, it would include everything studied by any of the physical sciences that exists external to the self, anything in nature.

I think it's fair to say it's your turn to define a / the real God for me, such that I can determine whether any real candidate is God or not.

What do you mean "external to the self"? What is a "self"? What is "external to the self mean"? I can experience real objects that are not inherent to my self?

 

[blü 2]

What do you mean "external to the self"? What is a "self"? What is "external to the self mean"? I can experience real objects that are not inherent to my self?

It means, having objective existence, being real, being in nature, being in the realm of the physical sciences, not being purely imaginary, not existing solely as a concept in a brain ─ all of which are synonyms.

So we're here:

If you can define God for me, real God, so that I (or anyone else) can tell whether any real being, thing or phenomenon with objective existence is God or not, just provide that definition so that it provides the information necessary and sufficient for the task.

If you can't, then please indicate that you can't in whichever of the following three ways you prefer:

(a) just say you can't, or

(b) reply to this post without providing that definition (eg by providing a definition that doesn't satisfy the question, asking further questions, objecting to these ways of indicating you can't answer the question, trailing red herrings, acting indignant and flouncing out, anything from the ol' Fundy Bluster Handbook, anything else you like), or

(c) refrain from replying at all for more than 72 hours.

Sorry it's come to this ─ I thought for a moment we were having a reasonable conversation ─ but your last two post have been blusters, so we may as well cut to the chase straight away.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You wrote re: God, the following:

"It means, having objective existence, being real, being in nature, being in the realm of the physical sciences, not being purely imaginary, not existing solely as a concept in a brain ─ all of which are synonyms."

Now the NT writers said things like, "In God we live and move and exist, and have our being." Since God is described as omnipresent in the totality of the known universe, your asking for a definition is like asking for a definition of reality, which you claim is external to yourself. That's fine, however, you are also like a fish who asks me to prove the sea exists or in your case, take it on faith that I'm a fish and there exists a sea I'm swimming inside.

If you can please demonstrate how reality is external to yourself, I will demonstrate how God lives in that reality. Or if you like, you can tell me know how gravity operates and what dark matter/dark energy is, so I don't have to go to my fallback position--"God is holding all things together at the elemental level", as the NT says. I think that sounds fair.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You wrote re: God, the following:

"It means, having objective existence, being real, being in nature, being in the realm of the physical sciences, not being purely imaginary, not existing solely as a concept in a brain ─ all of which are synonyms."

Now the NT writers said things like, "In God we live and move and exist, and have our being." Since God is described as omnipresent in the totality of the known universe, your asking for a definition is like asking for a definition of reality, which you claim is external to yourself. That's fine, however, you are also like a fish who asks me to prove the sea exists or in your case, take it on faith that I'm a fish and there exists a sea I'm swimming inside.

If you can please demonstrate how reality is external to yourself, I will demonstrate how God lives in that reality. Or if you like, you can tell me know how gravity operates and what dark matter/dark energy is, so I don't have to go to my fallback position--"God is holding all things together at the elemental level", as the NT says. I think that sounds fair.

How is that the fallback position? How did you demonstrate that?

 

[BilliardsBall]

How is that the fallback position? How did you demonstrate that?

The Bible says, "God is everywhere." In this vein, I see evidence of God constantly, in design, cosmology, in the Bible's clear prescience on universal entropy and on mind renewal, etc.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I can say, in spite of the lack of religion, living in #30 in the list is SO much better than living in Bible thumping Indiana. In the without, they didn't make life unnecessarily harder for those who don't fit in. Anymore, I don't think Bible thumping is thumping a pulpit, its thumping people who are different and who they don't like in the head.