US: Donald Trump launches 2024 comeback bid, makes his 'very big announcement'

[F1fan]

What is there to dispute, all that exists exists.

No, I was clear about this. Your confusion must be deliberate.

The dispute is your use of the word "god" as meaning the material universe. That is poor word choice, and at best bad faith on your part.

The ultimate reality is God, there is nothing existing that is not an integral of God.

OK, this is your claim, and this you have to describe and defend with credible evidence and a coherent explanation. At face value this is just word games. Why use religious words to describe something when science words are better?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, and I had to check my post again. Both of my uses of "Atheism" were with an upper case first letter. But the first time was a quotation of part of the post that I was responding to and I said that class does not exist and the other time it was the first word in a sentence. And when I used the word "atheists" that was lower case. Whew!

I always chuckle when I write 'Atheism doesn't require a capital A...' because of course all I'm saying is that it's not a proper noun. Depending on context, a capital A is completely correct.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The universe exists. The cosmos exists. But we do not have any evidence of anything beyond that. Diluting the definition of God to the point that it is a synonym for the Cosmos is self defeating since there is no reason to assume any intelligence or morality to the Cosmos.

Science can only detect 5%, the 95% remaining energy mass is beyond their understanding, so yes they are not in a position to know exactly in scientific understanding if the Cosmos is alive and conscious, or not. Atheists, theists, agnostics, etc., can all have a position on it. However speaking for myself, one can say without any doubt that the universe is alive and aware, and the way to this realization is there in potential for everyone, but it is up to the each individual as to what they will do with their life, so there is no proselytizing from me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science can only detect 5%, the 95% remaining energy mass is beyond their understanding, so yes they are not in a position to know exactly in scientific understanding if the Cosmos is alive and conscious, or not. Atheists, theists, agnostics, etc., can all have a position on it. However speaking for myself, one can say without any doubt that the universe is alive and aware, and the way to this realization is there in potential for everyone, but it is up to the each individual as to what they will do with their life, so there is no proselytizing from me.

So what? Now you are using an argument from ignorance. That does not help you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I was clear about this. Your confusion must be deliberate.

The dispute is your use of the word "god" as meaning the material universe. That is poor word choice, and at best bad faith on your part.


OK, this is your claim, and this you have to describe and defend with credible evidence and a coherent explanation. At face value this is just word games. Why use religious words to describe something when science words are better?

You don't read well or understand science, all that exists is not just the material universe, there is more than the 5% material part.

A man walks into a bar and it full of people of all nationalities, he shows them a glass of water and asks them what it is, everyone gave a different name for water, one, an Indonesian actually believed it was air.

Why are you so hung up on the name 'god', it is just a concept to represent whatever a person believes it to be, or not. I Suspect that the reason you do not like that the reality some call God is real, and you aren't aware of IT.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So what? Now you are using an argument from ignorance. That does not help you.

I do not argue, I just say what I say, and it just so happens that some people are triggered by certain concepts. Gooooooodddd...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not argue, I just say what I say, and it just so happens that some people are triggered by certain concepts. Gooooooodddd...

Please, you are arguing and only displaying that your beliefs are irrational.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please, you are arguing and only displaying that your beliefs are irrational.

Because you have not had the experience, in your mind such experience is not possible. It's like concerning some extraordinary event people may be talking about, I suppose if you haven't seen it on TV, it didn't happen.

 

[F1fan]

You don't read well or understand science, all that exists is not just the material universe, there is more than the 5% material part.

Let's defer to experts in science. None of our misleading quips.

A man walks into a bar and it full of people of all nationalities, he shows them a glass of water and asks them what it is, everyone gave a different name for water, one, an Indonesian actually believed it was air.

And if a German fellow calls it "Gott" then it is misleading snd inaccurate, just as your use of the word "god" to mean the universe. Wasser is the more accurate word.

Why are you so hung up on the name 'god', it is just a concept to represent whatever a person believes it to be, or not. I Suspect that the reason you do not like that the reality some call God is real, and you aren't aware of IT.

You call the universe "God", you got criticism for reasons stated. I notice you offer no defense.

And note that no gods are known to exist using the proper definitions of the word "god".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Let's defer to experts in science. None of our misleading quips.


And if a German fellow calls it "Gott" then it is misleading snd inaccurate, just as your use of the word "god" to mean the universe. Wasser is the more accurate word.


You call the universe "God", you got criticism for reasons stated. I notice you offer no defense.

And note that no gods are known to exist using the proper definitions of the word "god".

Good, you admit to misleading quips.

It is the reality represented by the name, not the name, either the name universe or the name God. Note that I am using concepts as I type this, but they have the purpose of explaining to you that reality is on the other side of the concepts.

Oh, so tell me, what is the reality represented by the name as you understand God to be?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because you have not had the experience, in your mind such experience is not possible. It's like concerning some extraordinary event people may be talking about, I suppose if you haven't seen it on TV, it didn't happen.

Except that your "experience" is far from unique and leads to contradicting beliefs from theists, yet they are all easily explainable without appealing to magic.

 

[F1fan]

Good, you admit to misleading quips.

Ah, using the Pee Wee Herman debate tactic of "I know you are but what am I?"

It is the reality represented by the name, not the name, either the name universe or the name God.

Just use the appropriate words.

Oh, so tell me, what is the reality represented by the name as you understand God to be?

God isn't a name.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Except that your "experience" is far from unique and leads to contradicting beliefs from theists, yet they are all easily explainable without appealing to magic.

But you have not experienced it, you are conceiving what you think it is. Good grief, how does one convey to you using concepts that concepts have nothing to do with reality except as ideas about reality?
It's the moon, not the finger! "Finger pointing at the moon' to show a person where to look!

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you have not experienced it, you are conceiving what you think it is. Good grief, how does one convey to you using concepts that concepts have nothing to do with reality except as ideas about reality?
It's the moon, not the finger!

If something does not exist it is unreasonable to expect others to experience it. You have not even properly tested your experience so you have no real knowledge whether it was real or not.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ah, using the Pee Wee Herman debate tactic of "I know you are but what am I?"


Just use the appropriate words.


God isn't a name.

What is it if not a name?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If something does not exist it is unreasonable to expect others to experience it. You have not even properly tested your experience so you have no real knowledge whether it was real or not.

You seem to be going around in circles. You are telling me without experiencing what I experienced, that until I have properly tested the experience that I experienced, I do not know whether the experience was a real experience or an experience that in fact was not an experience.

I think even an inexperienced person would know the difference between a real experience and not having an experience at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to be going around in circles. You are telling me without experiencing what I experienced, that until I have properly tested the experience that I experienced, I do not know whether the experience was a real experience or an experience that in fact was not an experience.

I think even an inexperienced person would know the difference between a real experience and not having an experience at all.

No, you gave us evidence for that conclusion. In fact you made it rather obvious. And no, people cannot tell the difference quite often between a false event and a real one. That you think that inexperienced person could tell just lets us know that you almost certainly did not have a real experience.

But one more time:

What makes you think that any experience that you had was reliable? Your claim, your burden of proof.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is fun isn't it, so this is how you get to have 61,804 -0s6

No, you gave us evidence for that conclusion. In fact you made it rather obvious. And no, people cannot tell the difference quite often between a false event and a real one. That you think that inexperienced person could tell just lets us know that you almost certainly did not have a real experience.

But one more time:

What makes you think that any experience that you had was reliable? Your claim, your burden of proof.

Because I am an experienced experiencer who has experienced experiences all through this life's experience. I know the difference between an experience and a non-experience.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hey this is fun, will I get to have the experience of having 61,805 posts to my credit any time soon?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is fun isn't it, so this is how you get to have 61,804 -0s6

Because I am an experienced experiencer who has experienced experiences all through this life's experience. I know the difference between an experience and a non-experience.

Sorry, but that is just the claim of everyone else that has experienced things that will contradict what you experienced. You are trying to lecture others on what is real. Atheists simply say "Not enough evidence has been given, I cannot rationally believe that". If you do not have a way to confirm your beliefs, and you have admitted this, then you should not be telling others what is real or not.

Please note, no one has told you that you did not see what you have claimed to see. It has only been pointed out that there are natural explanations and you do not appear to be able to tell natural from unnatural. Just saying "I would know it" indicates that you probably would not.