|
twodot posted:I don't see how you can reasonably believe this without also possessing some sort of speculation of the meaning intended by "extra-dimensional". I've offered a speculation, but it was correctly pointed out my speculation didn't make any sense (which is in line with my belief that the words offered were word salad without a meaning). Absent even a single proposed non-idiot definition of "extra-dimensional" doesn't parsimony demand we treat the definition as not having meaning behind it? Nope parsimony doesn't demand that at all
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 06:13 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 15:12 |
|
How about the definition I suggested some posts ago. The collective consciousness of humanity. Would this qualify as God? Would this assumed consciousness be extra dimensional? Meaning only existing in space through us. Very much like your own consciousness which does not exist either. Would this be transcendental enough? And I referred to scripture for this definition. Not the common parlance that God (through language, culture and philosophy ) tells you is wrong. None here is arguing for the existence of a bearded dude on the dark side of the moon and a devil locked in battle with another dude with a goatee.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 11:34 |
|
Quift posted:How about the definition I suggested some posts ago. The collective consciousness of humanity. Would this qualify as God? No.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 12:11 |
|
twodot posted:I never said that, I specifically anticipated you going off the rails like this: So you haven't read any dictionary definition that fits, ergo ones don't exist, and you anecdotally didn't understand when a few other people used it, ergo they had no intended meaning when they used it. Two more arguments for ignorance. Well right now your argument has no good evidence behind it at all, so regardless of the validity of my position yours doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 13:40 |
|
The more important question is why you're trying to impress something, anything, into the role of 'God' at all. If it's some kind of transcendence you're after, you don't need any god for that, though of course you've got to be careful what you mean by that. That goes for basically all theological discussion, the psychology/psychoanalysis of it all is way more interesting then the quest for proof or disproof.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 14:03 |
|
if you really must worship a god, maybe choose one a little less bloodthirsty than ol' Yahweh, him that orderedDeuteronomy 20:10-18 posted:10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. try Dionysus on for size. his worship only occasionally involves blood sacrifice, and he will definitely not condemn you for getting drunk and high and loving. quite the contrary, in fact.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 14:15 |
|
Why do you believe in God?
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 16:23 |
|
Who What Now posted:So you haven't read any dictionary definition that fits, ergo ones don't exist, and you anecdotally didn't understand when a few other people used it, ergo they had no intended meaning when they used it. Two more arguments for ignorance. Well right now your argument has no good evidence behind it at all, so regardless of the validity of my position yours doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on. Quift posted:The collective consciousness of humanity. Would this qualify as God? Would this assumed consciousness be extra dimensional? Meaning only existing in space through us. Who What Now posted:so regardless of the validity of my position twodot fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Sep 3, 2015 |
# ? Sep 3, 2015 17:21 |
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Why do you believe in God? I don't. twodot posted:Were you honestly expecting to find evidence that a sentence is word salad? I'll go ahead and acknowledge that I don't actually have MRI scans of that poster's brain while they were making that post, so I can't directly prove anything about their state of mind. What I can do is read that sentence and think "Hmm, they're using a term I'm familiar with both in this context and its original context, science fiction novels, and this sentence doesn't make any sense". I can also see similar posts like: Just because you aren't capable of understanding doesn't make whatever it is you're ignorant of meaningless. Just because you don't agree with the usage doesn't make it meaningless either. You don't like the definition he gave, but he still have one regardless of your personal feelings about it. How is that so hard to understand?
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 17:42 |
|
Who What Now posted:Just because you aren't capable of understanding doesn't make whatever it is you're ignorant of meaningless. Just because you don't agree with the usage doesn't make it meaningless either. You don't like the definition he gave, but he still have one regardless of your personal feelings about it. How is that so hard to understand?
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 18:00 |
|
Edit: oops forgot to refresh.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 18:14 |
|
Well you see, God is a parsimonious tautology
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 18:56 |
|
vessbot posted:No. Why not?
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 20:30 |
|
Who What Now posted:I don't. Sorry, this argument is so confusing and worthless that I couldn't figure out which side you're arguing for. My bad.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 21:16 |
|
SedanChair posted:Three kids got carried away with a ghost story and everyone else followed suit. Next, I suppose you'll tell us there were no witches with black magic powers in Salem.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 21:25 |
|
Quift posted:Why not? Humanity doesn't have a collective consciousness.
|
# ? Sep 3, 2015 22:48 |
|
khorne is the one true god, worshipped by all forms of life and all civilizations throughout history deal with it
|
# ? Sep 4, 2015 00:06 |
|
Hello; hi.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2015 00:39 |
|
There will be no peace unless the question "What is before God?" can be answered.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2015 01:52 |
|
Quift posted:Why not? Because for the vast majority of believers over the vast majority of time, he is supposed to exist independently of the human mind. In your definition instead, he is a figment of it.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2015 01:58 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:Hello; hi. Folks, God is real. God just posted in the thread and greeted us. God is working through Arglebargle III.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2015 02:14 |
|
The point I was (unsuccessfully) trying to make is that these threads always go nowhere because the pro-God lot don't seem to be able to agree on what they're trying to defend. I was trying to say that - to everyone else - it's pretty clear what "God" means: it's this big magic bloke who is apparently omni-lots of stuff and doesn't like it when men hold hands. Of course arguments against said bloke don't also work against "the collective mind of humanity" or what have you, but they don't need to (and that idea is stupid for a number of other reasons). (I thought "extra-dimensional" was an easy way of saying "we're proposing he lives somewhere real, but perhaps not readily accessible to us; perhaps literally in a higher dimension or he's simulating us on a computer or something".)
|
# ? Sep 4, 2015 23:00 |
|
Dzhay posted:"or he's simulating us on a computer or something". It's this. God is the proto-goon, hopelessly addicted to SimUniverse.
|
# ? Sep 4, 2015 23:37 |
|
Oh look, you did mean something by that word, who would have loving thought?
|
# ? Sep 4, 2015 23:49 |
|
The Groper posted:It's this. God is the proto-goon, hopelessly addicted to SimUniverse. Also fond of extremely arbitrary rules-lawyering and irrational outbursts of violence.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 00:40 |
|
vessbot posted:Because for the vast majority of believers over the vast majority of time, he is supposed to exist independently of the human mind. In your definition instead, he is a figment of it. Well, a collective consciousness would exist within you as well as without you. Like how your consciousness exists between your neurons rather than within them. Dzhay posted:The point I was (unsuccessfully) trying to make is that these threads always go nowhere because the pro-God lot don't seem to be able to agree on what they're trying to defend. I was trying to say that - to everyone else - it's pretty clear what "God" means: it's this big magic bloke who is apparently omni-lots of stuff and doesn't like it when men hold hands. Of course arguments against said bloke don't also work against "the collective mind of humanity" or what have you, but they don't need to (and that idea is stupid for a number of other reasons). Why do you, who do not believe, get the privilege of defining God? That is an absurd straw man. I propose a definition that might not be existing, but at the very least it is credible. You must separate belief in the symbol (bloke in the sky), from the actual thing. And preferably reference scripture instead what you imagine the majority of the population think. Unless you can prove the thought systems of most of the worlds believers.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 09:56 |
|
Scripture is probably the least reliable indicator of what its professed adherents believe.quote:Not everyone in the neighborhood is enamored with the work of art, with Swannock saying, “Jesus is not a vagrant, Jesus is not a helpless person who needs our help. We need someone who is capable of meeting our needs, not someone who is also needy.” woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Sep 5, 2015 |
# ? Sep 5, 2015 11:06 |
|
Quift posted:Well, a collective consciousness would exist within you as well as without you. Like how your consciousness exists between your neurons rather than within them. Before we get to anything you said about my post, let's address this. What, precisely, the gently caress are you talking about here? In what sense is consciousness "between" neurones (or, indeed, localisable at all)? Quift posted:Why do you, who do not believe, get the privilege of defining God? That is an absurd straw man. I propose a definition that might not be existing, but at the very least it is credible. I was being rather condescending (I still am, this is the internet), but in general, people who claim belief in a god tend to say that it is a thing with a mind and opinions of its own, external to them, that can in some way intervene with the mundane world. Very often, they will claim that their god pre-dates humanity and perhaps created the universe. Details vary, but they usually attribute to this god some abilities that, say, the spare processor cycles of a bit under 10^10 humans (and far fewer than that at any significant distance into the past) could not account for. Of course, these people could be lying when they say they think this, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 11:12 |
|
A priest, a rabbbi, and an imam walk into a bar, furiously engaged in a discussion regarding the nature of the Judeo-Christian god. The debate was all over the place: were they Three-in-One? Were they boundlessly benevolent or conceited and wrothful? Did they briefly do a stint as a carpenter in ancient Palestine? As fingers were pointed and sides taken over each question and more, a man wearing a shirt with branding from a child's TV show and a fedora approached. He clears his throat, and a palpable still falls over the bar as the holy men quiet and turn to acknowledge this stranger. Beaming smugness and a steely certainty in his words, the goon proclaims "Actually, god is the collective unconciousness of mankind." After a pregnant pause, the rabbi is the first to snicker. Soon, he is joined by the chuckling of the priest. Finally, the imam breaks out into a deep, throaty laughter, and like a Louisianan levee, the establishment burst into jeers and laughter.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 11:58 |
|
Dzhay posted:Before we get to anything you said about my post, let's address this. What, precisely, the gently caress are you talking about here? In what sense is consciousness "between" neurones (or, indeed, localisable at all)? Well, consciousness isn't localisable at all. It is therefore clearly extra dimensional. Or do you argue that your own consciousness doesn't exist? This argument is to explain the concept of extra dimensional in an understandable way. You can refute this argument. But merely claiming it is irrelevant because it doesn't overlap with your previous notions of absurdity seems lazy. To adress your second point. This would be irrelevant to this discussion. I can argue only from my own understanding of the world. I can try to express it in terms that overlap with yours. But I cannot claim that my understanding exactly mirrors that of people I regard as stupid. (woman who doesn't understand Jesus above for instance). And I can definitely not claim to have more than theories with regards to the underlying belief systems of people who lived 2000 years ago. To claim that I not only understood this perfectly but also thought it naive and stupid, that would be arrogance of the highest order. Don't you agree? What I can try do to the best of my ability is build a belief system that is a synthesis of the faiths I have encountered. After all it stands to reason that all major religions have some basic insights in common. Humans tend to be rather alike after all. Maybe it's in our DNA? Hence a belief system that merges sociology, politics, philosophy, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and ancient norse myths. I can argue for my faith. And explain it logically. But this is in no way relevant for people with little faith, like teleevangelist idiots or wabbahists. But for instance sufi Islam folds neatly into my own faith, which has much of its foundation in gnostic thought. In short, my belief is that there are many ways to achieve knowledge and enlightenment. All paths are not equal but once arrived the path you have taken becomes meaningless, since you can see all paths from there. It is like going to geography class. You can get there by boat, fly or take the scenic route. But once there you learn geography. The bible is full of symbols like the geography class and boats. Idiots 1000 years later then try to locate an ancient classroom and think that God should look like a geography teacher. The discussion becomes more interesting if we decide that God probably doesn't look like a geography teacher at all. And my definition of God is as ancient as humanity, since it is the expression of humanity. Which is both within me and outside of me. Transcendental so to speak. God didn't create humanity as an act of will, nor did humanity create God. We are the ants in a hive. Is a single ant living alone really part of ant-dom? From here I can go through Catholic thought, Islam, sociology or Hinduism or Buddha, they are all just paths. Dao if you will. The global consciousness. God. Brahma. The balance. Of course something like that cannot be reduced to something tiny that cares about men holding hands. That would be ridiculous. Most people who believe are after all not extremists or fundamentalists. They are normal happy people who try to teach some basic decency. Mostly because so many of the churches are so full of poo poo. Hence all the agnostics who sort of believe in God but don't want to get within a mile of fundamentalism.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 12:47 |
|
You are awfully comfortable calling televangelists and Wahabbists "idiots." However, their worldviews are significantly more coherent than your own.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 15:59 |
|
Dzhay posted:I was being rather condescending (I still am, this is the internet), but in general, people who claim belief in a god tend to say that it is a thing with a mind and opinions of its own, external to them, that can in some way intervene with the mundane world. Very often, they will claim that their god pre-dates humanity and perhaps created the universe. Details vary, but they usually attribute to this god some abilities that, say, the spare processor cycles of a bit under 10^10 humans (and far fewer than that at any significant distance into the past) could not account for. The solution is not to center a debate about such a broad subject around hearsay and atomized individual beliefs, but instead around theology, i.e. study of religion based on an objective analysis of its most fundamental sources.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 16:08 |
|
Quift posted:Well, consciousness isn't localisable at all. It is therefore clearly extra dimensional. Or do you argue that your own consciousness doesn't exist? This argument is to explain the concept of extra dimensional in an understandable way. You can refute this argument. But merely claiming it is irrelevant because it doesn't overlap with your previous notions of absurdity seems lazy. Can I get your dealers contact info, I want to get whatever you were on to come up with this poo poo.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 16:18 |
|
Quift posted:We are the ants in a hive. Is a single ant living alone really part of ant-dom? You realise humans made the idea of 'ant-dom' up, right? We made the categories; they weren't made for us.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 16:39 |
|
poo poo I can't find my keys must be extra dimensional again
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 16:39 |
|
Who What Now posted:Can I get your dealers contact info, I want to get whatever you were on to come up with this poo poo. Haschich that I suspect was spiked with heroin. So I had to quit. But I would prefer it if you instead challenged the faults and inconsistencies. That would help me either refine or reject this system.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 17:38 |
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:You realise humans made the idea of 'ant-dom' up, right? We made the categories; they weren't made for us. What does God mean to you?
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 18:00 |
|
sugar free jazz posted:poo poo I can't find my keys must be extra dimensional again Have you looked where you left your consiousness? Extra dimensional is just a clumpsy way of expressing levels of abstractions. Some things exist only thanks to the existance of other things. Like forests for instance.What we call a forest is an ecological system that exists thanks to the existance of a number of concrete things. Like trees, beetles and birds. Together though they form a forest. The same is true for most biomes. So in a way biomes are extra dimensional. To not see this is literally to not see the forest for all the trees. The same way our collective self can exist thanks to the existance of our individual selves, which in turn can only exist thanks to the collection of neurons that carry our consiousness. The key to understanding systems is often left where you last used it. I would recommend the entrance of your domicile. Look for the key to understand the world in the hallway of your mind.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 18:28 |
|
Quift posted:Have you looked where you left your consiousness? Consciousness is not a thing, it's an action or process at best and something that doesn't actually exist at worst. Asking "where is consciousness?" makes no more sense than asking "where is running?". quote:Extra dimensional is just a clumpsy way of expressing levels of abstractions. Some things exist only thanks to the existance of other things. Like forests for instance.What we call a forest is an ecological system that exists thanks to the existance of a number of concrete things. Like trees, beetles and birds. Together though they form a forest. The same is true for most biomes. So in a way biomes are extra dimensional. To not see this is literally to not see the forest for all the trees. The same way our collective self can exist thanks to the existance of our individual selves, which in turn can only exist thanks to the collection of neurons that carry our consiousness. In a sense forests really don't exist. It is a label of convenience, nothing more. What you're doing is confusing the map for the place, saying that a label or a abstraction is the same as a physical thing, which is absurd. A street map of Chicago is not literally Chicago.
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 18:55 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 15:12 |
|
Who What Now posted:Consciousness is not a thing, it's an action or process at best and something that doesn't actually exist at worst. Asking "where is consciousness?" makes no more sense than asking "where is running?". Where is consciousness is an absurd question since it does not exist in the typical way we think of when we think of things existing. That does not mean it doesn't exist (we all seem to have one, and if we dont, were does the illusion of consciousness reside?). Rather we could claim that it exists extra dimensionally. This is not the term I would have chosen (prefering the term trancendental), but whatever. Let us define the concept anyway. Where does God reside is a question that sort of comes up so I better have an answer. Right? So forests are at the same time real, and not real. They are neither physically existing and very real at the same time. The relation between the trees and the forest is not the same thing as the relation between the city of chigaco and a map of all its street. It is more like the relationship between the houses of chigaco and the city. What I'm trying (badly) to explain here is that some things exist between other things. Forest is a relationship between the birds, beetles and trees within it. You could also call this relationship a process but I prefer to view it as a web of relationships, a system. This system in turn contain an almost infinite number of processes. Very much like the city of Chigaco. Hence, consciousness exists between neurons. And as a citizen of the city of chigago (hypothetically) you are part of the city. The city would go on without you but not without everybody. Because even if the buildings were left standing without the people there would be no relationship between them, and the city would die or rather transform into a biome. (Yes, cities are a form of biome. Smartass. Try to understand instead of nitpick).
|
# ? Sep 5, 2015 19:26 |