:
: I never offerred to submit such a probe myself. I was hoping that the religion/god debators on this forum would be smart enough to : 1) recognize the need for such a probe without prompting and
: 2) be able to conduct one without hand holding
Piper: Daddio, in yor second post on this topic you said:
"But how can you say you believe or disbelieve in something when you can't even define what that something is? How can you prove or disprove an assertion about an undefined object? I'm saying we require precise dimensions, but I don't even see a general construct for what we mean by "god" being put forth here before a debate ensues."
From this passage i (reasonably) inferred that you wished to attempt to develop a definition of god so that we could talk more meaningfully about the existence of such an entity. As such i consider it only fair to ask you to provide a possbile definition (as you considered my definition too vague). Requesting you to provide such a definition is not 'hand holding'.
: If I'm wrong......well then I guess meaningful religeous discussion is just pointless in this room if no one else feels obliged to define what they mean by "god" before launching into what ought to be the most profound discussion any group of human beings can possibly have.
: Alas, all we seem to have here are brainwashed Christian fanatics and disgruntled atheist sufferring from a Christian hangover and mistaking their discomfort for "scientific reasoning" - so much so that I can't tell which of the two camps is the least rational anymore.
Piper: I think the scientists are confused, the christians persecuted, the animal rights activists overbearing, the homophobic a worry, and those who oppose McD's just pretty damn justified
(BTW are you suggesting that i am a "disgruntled atheist sufferring from a Christian hangover and mistaking [my] discomfort for "scientific reasoning"?)
: The atheists, no matter how long they pontificate over this matter, inevitably seem to be pasionately arguing about the existence of "Jehova" - not "God". Jehova, at best, was a pesky alien being from one of millions of technologically advanced races that came here for gold and animal blood and, at least, is a completely ficticious character from the folklore of one religious denomination in one part of one planet in one microscopic point in time. When are we going to discuss REAL religion and leave this rediculous fairy tale behind (or turn it over to the archeologists to learn more about alien races)?
Piper: The christians *could* be right about 'Jehovah'. It is a possibility (even if it is irrational). However most evidence points to that not being so.
: I submit "I am" to illustrate my point. Some of the older, more evolved cultures on this planet are rooted in the understanding that everything in the universe (matter, thoughts, emotions, events) are nothing more than reflections of our own consciousness. If this is true then the ultimate eternal reality is that YOU are the ultimate eternal reality i.e. God, and hence proof of God would require no more than the experience of your own awareness or.....I Am. Are you.
Piper: 'i am god'. Hmmmm, has a nice ring to it.
I accept that may well be correct daddio, you are taking a certain cultures belief and using it to define god. that is perfectly valid as far as i can see.
However i think the predominant conceptionn of god is in the judaeo/christian/islam tradition (at least in these rooms).
'God' may well have many different formulations but in arguing about his/her/its existence i think we infer what type of entity it is from the knowledge we have about a persons beliefs (if we don't have that knowledge then we need to ask for it in order to participate in a reasoned debate). If such inferences are incorrect they will probably come out in the course of prolonged debate.
