GENIUS FORUMS

Matt Gregory wrote:Well, anyone who wants to put a limit on God. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. They typically conceive God to be a finite thing.

So to you god MUST BE INFINITE. I think many theists would agree with you on that. It's a little to neat and clean to say those three "put a limit on god". Maybe you DO believe in god. Maybe you're a real little boy ALREADY Pinocchio! Oh pinnochio! Oh Pinocchio! The Quest is over! Praise Jesus! You've got not strings to hold you down!

mil: That's funny. But my point remains valid. Atheist go around feeling "right" when their position is no more rational than a theists. You get the point.

Matt: Yeah, I have nothing and you have something, therefore you're the one stuck with the burden of proof. A position consisting of nothing cannot be overturned.

This is philosophy, not the legal system. If somebody wanted to sue the Christian God, you'd have a case - but philosophy deals with absolutes.

Matt: But my position only exists as a response to your assertion that God exists. If you were to stop asserting that, I wouldn't need my position anymore. It's not something I would have to think about, that's why I'm saying it consists of nothing.

"Your position" means the position you hold. Here, it looks like you are trying to create an opposite force to push mil to your way of thinking. That's physics, not philosophy.

Matt: I never said God was disproven, I'm saying it's unproven and not worth thinking about.

That looks like a true position.

Matt: For me to call something "God" it would have to be infinite, and if God is separate from something that He created, that automatically creates a boundary somewhere where God ends and that thing begins, which would limit God thereby making Him finite.

That also looks like a true position, and it does not conflict with your position regarding the Christian God.

Millipodium, just because someone does not see God the same way as you do does not make him agnostic or an atheist.

Gregory, aren't you an atheist? By all means, I don't want to categorize anyone. It's just atheist and agnostic have different meanings.

Some questions just never go away, they keep coming back again and again, no matter how many times you answer it. Kind of like, "What's for lunch?"

Whether there is or is not a god is a philosophical question. How about we have that discussion over on the "Does God Exist?" thread over on the Genius board, where it belongs?

DHodges wrote:Some questions just never go away, they keep coming back again and again, no matter how many times you answer it. Kind of like, "What's for lunch?"

Whether there is or is not a god is a philosophical question. How about we have that discussion over on the "Does God Exist?" thread over on the Genius board, where it belongs?

Keep your suggestions to yourself, otay, buttwheat?

millipodium wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:Well, anyone who wants to put a limit on God. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. They typically conceive God to be a finite thing.

So to you god MUST BE INFINITE. I think many theists would agree with you on that.

They just verbally agree with the use of the word "infinite". Hardly anyone is rational enough to understand its implications.

Matt Gregory wrote:

millipodium wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:Well, anyone who wants to put a limit on God. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. They typically conceive God to be a finite thing.

So to you god MUST BE INFINITE. I think many theists would agree with you on that.

They just verbally agree with the use of the word "infinite". Hardly anyone is rational enough to understand its implications.

Ok, Comic Book Store Guy.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Matt: Yeah, I have nothing and you have something, therefore you're the one stuck with the burden of proof. A position consisting of nothing cannot be overturned.

Elizabeth: This is philosophy, not the legal system. If somebody wanted to sue the Christian God, you'd have a case - but philosophy deals with absolutes.

It doesn't get any more absolute than holding no position whatsoever.

Matt: But my position only exists as a response to your assertion that God exists. If you were to stop asserting that, I wouldn't need my position anymore. It's not something I would have to think about, that's why I'm saying it consists of nothing.

Elizabeth: "Your position" means the position you hold. Here, it looks like you are trying to create an opposite force to push mil to your way of thinking. That's physics, not philosophy.

Philosophy is the result of specific conditions. If there were no ignorance in the world, philosophy wouldn't be necessary.

Matt: For me to call something "God" it would have to be infinite, and if God is separate from something that He created, that automatically creates a boundary somewhere where God ends and that thing begins, which would limit God thereby making Him finite.

Elizabeth: That also looks like a true position, and it does not conflict with your position regarding the Christian God.

Millipodium, just because someone does not see God the same way as you do does not make him agnostic or an atheist.

Millipodium: Gregory, aren't you an atheist? By all means, I don't want to categorize anyone. It's just atheist and agnostic have different meanings.

In regards to a god that is finite and therefore can be detected in some way with the senses and is physical, I am agnostic. We can never prove that such a thing doesn't exist.

But looking at it as a question of defining the word "God" makes the whole physical god question moot because I don't agree that anything finite is worthy of the word "God", which in my mind is something that is supposed to be ultimate.

So, I'm atheistic in that sense, but I don't call myself an "atheist" because atheists tend to think of science as the ultimate, which I don't agree with for the same reasons I don't agree with the Christians about their god. Science is finite and therefore can never lead to the ultimate. Only the individual can do that with his own thinking by abandoning all false positions and letting the light of Truth shine through.

Matt Gregory wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Matt: Yeah, I have nothing and you have something, therefore you're the one stuck with the burden of proof. A position consisting of nothing cannot be overturned.

Elizabeth: This is philosophy, not the legal system. If somebody wanted to sue the Christian God, you'd have a case - but philosophy deals with absolutes.

It doesn't get any more absolute than holding no position whatsoever.

Matt: But my position only exists as a response to your assertion that God exists. If you were to stop asserting that, I wouldn't need my position anymore. It's not something I would have to think about, that's why I'm saying it consists of nothing.

Elizabeth: "Your position" means the position you hold. Here, it looks like you are trying to create an opposite force to push mil to your way of thinking. That's physics, not philosophy.

Philosophy is the result of specific conditions. If there were no ignorance in the world, philosophy wouldn't be necessary.

Matt: For me to call something "God" it would have to be infinite, and if God is separate from something that He created, that automatically creates a boundary somewhere where God ends and that thing begins, which would limit God thereby making Him finite.

Elizabeth: That also looks like a true position, and it does not conflict with your position regarding the Christian God.

Millipodium, just because someone does not see God the same way as you do does not make him agnostic or an atheist.

Millipodium: Gregory, aren't you an atheist? By all means, I don't want to categorize anyone. It's just atheist and agnostic have different meanings.

In regards to a god that is finite and therefore can be detected in some way with the senses and is physical, I am agnostic. We can never prove that such a thing doesn't exist.

But looking at it as a question of defining the word "God" makes the whole physical god question moot because I don't agree that anything finite is worthy of the word "God", which in my mind is something that is supposed to be ultimate.

So, I'm atheistic in that sense, but I don't call myself an "atheist" because atheists tend to think of science as the ultimate, which I don't agree with for the same reasons I don't agree with the Christians about their god. Science is finite and therefore can never lead to the ultimate. Only the individual can do that with his own thinking by abandoning all false positions and letting the light of Truth shine through.

So you 're a "finite god atheist". Interesting boutique category. seems a bit impromptu if you don't my saying so. I still think your assertion that that jews christians and muslims believe in a finite god is simplistic and merely a convenience designation to assist you in the current intellectual corner you've painted yourself into.

Milli,

Please desist in posting pictures in threads. From the board conduct intro thread:

Genius Forum is intended as a text oriented format so we ask that images not be inserted into posts. If you want to express an idea visually please provide a link to that image that members can follow if they so choose. The ignoring of this request will result in the deletion of offending posts or threads.

Thanks.

millipodium wrote:I still think your assertion that that jews christians and muslims believe in a finite god is simplistic and merely a convenience designation to assist you in the current intellectual corner you've painted yourself into.

No, it's them who paint God into a corner. They want God to be love and not hate, or good and not evil, or they want God to love them, or have children or whatever. Attributes only a finite being could possibly possess. They want to create a god to justify their egos rather than destroy their egos to know the real God.

millipodium wrote:Keep your suggestions to yourself, otay, buttwheat?

Is that all you got?

millipodium wrote: Ok, Comic Book Store Guy.

Yup, that's all he's got.

Millipodium,

MG: They just verbally agree with the use of the word "infinite". Hardly anyone is rational enough to understand its implications.

Milli: Ok, Comic Book Store Guy.

What I mean is that they take "infinite" to mean "whatever I want God to be at the moment", but what it means is "without limits".

Matt Gregory wrote:Millipodium,

MG: They just verbally agree with the use of the word "infinite". Hardly anyone is rational enough to understand its implications.

Milli: Ok, Comic Book Store Guy.

What I mean is that they take "infinite" to mean "whatever I want God to be at the moment", but what it means is "without limits".

Ok. If you say so. If you must make that assertion to falsely differentiate their concept of god from your concept of god so you can call yourself an atheist. Do you see how silly you are?

Believing in an infinite god is not atheism.

An "infinite god" is a contradiction in terms.

millipodium wrote:Believing in an infinite god is not atheism.

Yes - if you call the Totality god, that is pantheism, not atheism.

Matt Gregory wrote:An "infinite god" is a contradiction in terms.

That depends on how you define "God." "Infinite God" could also be a redundancy.

Matt Gregory wrote:An "infinite god" is a contradiction in terms.

No it's not.

Matt: No, it's them who paint God into a corner. They want God to be love and not hate, or good and not evil, or they want God to love them, or have children or whatever. Attributes only a finite being could possibly possess. They want to create a god to justify their egos rather than destroy their egos to know the real God.

Yes, that sounds about right.

Matt: An "infinite god" is a contradiction in terms.

Is a contradiction of terms 'only' when you define God as some agency of intelligence?

Or are you saying that the totality is not infinite, but rather 'bordered' in some way?

To say: 'God is infinite' sounds correct to me.

However, two people can make the same assertion, yet be at odds with each other.

One fellow believes that the infinite God is intelligent, and is responsible for meaningful synchronicities, fate, etc.

While the other chap believes that the infinite God is just a blind agglomeration of laws, an agglomeration devoid of intelligence other than the intelligence of evolved life.

This God can be understood by acknowledgeing its laws, and the religious life involves realizing God(everything) to be ones identity.

Matt. So you're saying you just believe in a god that is "more real" than the god of the three main religions. That's not atheism either.

And you're also lame because you're using an oversimplified and idiosyncratic characterization of the abrahamic god, one which shifts throughout the conversation so you can keep redefining "them" vs "you", and thus maintain your effete specialness.

millipodium wrote:And you're also lame because you're using an oversimplified and idiosyncratic characterization of the abrahamic god, one which shifts throughout the conversation so you can keep redefining "them" vs "you", and thus maintain your effete specialness.

Do you have a fixed definition of the god you believe in?

DHodges wrote:

millipodium wrote:And you're also lame because you're using an oversimplified and idiosyncratic characterization of the abrahamic god, one which shifts throughout the conversation so you can keep redefining "them" vs "you", and thus maintain your effete specialness.

Do you have a fixed definition of the god you believe in?

Let me just lazer beam you right out of the gate. Is infinity unfixed?

millipodium wrote: Is infinity unfixed?

I don't know what that means.

You accuse Matt of shifting his definition of god. Do you have a definition? One that doesn't change, that you are willing to stick with?

DHodges wrote:

millipodium wrote: Is infinity unfixed?

I don't know what that means.

You accuse Matt of shifting his definition of god. Do you have a definition? One that doesn't change, that you are willing to stick with?

But is matt an atheist? And if so, why does he have a definition of god?