I have a very similar view. I can't get the Ah Ha of what I described and so I think I may not have understood my friend's position properly or no flash of understanding and realization happens for me in that way because some sort of shock to my thinking hasn't happened or for some other reason.
At any rate, let me ask you about chaos theory and causality. Would it be physics wise wrong to conclude that from the first instance of the universe, the first cause and effect, everything else that has happened sense is a foregone result? I think sometimes that the universe must manifest according to it's laws. I have heard that the universe might have come into being in a way say that life could never occur, if the laws were different, so why do we have the laws that we do? I think the question must be meaningless because the laws are as they are and there's no use wondering about them being different, but I want your scientific opinion, if one is possible here?
Did you recover his dead body?
I can understand that. But i wouldnt see THAT as the reason someone would become and athiest. I would think the rational logical parts of our brain would lead us to that. With those things just being a benefit
What body? Ohhhh see what i did their
I've been there, and I am not the only one.
Its sooooo MUCH easier to live your life exactly they way YOU want to when your preferred way is in conflict with your religious beliefs.
Yes, but the point is that you will change the definition as it suits you. That's intellectual dishonesty at its core.I recall you asking me for "MY" definition. Of course "my" definition is going to suit me.
What difference does that make? Do you know what the working biological definition of life is? You're invited to explain how your God allegedly fits that definition, or else your objection to my statement is disingenuous.Did you recover his dead body?
Yes, but the point is that you will change the definition as it suits you. That's intellectual dishonesty at its core.
What difference does that make? Do you know what the working biological definition of life is? You're invited to explain how your God allegedly fits that definition, or else your objection to my statement is disingenuous.
...
Imagine that a rock is floating past Pluto right now...but its too small for us to see using current scientific instruments. Staging debates and "arguments" for and against that possibility does NOTHING to change the objective reality that a rock either is or isn't floating past Pluto at this moment.
I see "debates" about God's existence in a very similar fashion. Good or bad arguments for or against the objective existence/non-existence of God does nothing to alter either reality -- logical/illogical arguments does nothing to change either fact.
No, you can prevent this by refraining from making asinine claims about life when you don't even know what it is.You can prevent this by giving me "the" definition of life.
No, I'm wondering why you make such ridiculous pronouncements about life when you admit you don't know what you're talking about.With no explicit definition, you're wondering why it will change?
I am honestly flabbergasted that you would pose this as a serious question. Perhaps it would be useful for you to actually find out what the working biological definition of life is, and then describe in what way your god satisfies the criteria of that definition.You said that my god is not alive because of the "working biological definition of life".
This means that you applied the biological definition of life to a non-biological being.
So how does the biological definition of life lead you to the conclusion that a non-biological being is "not alive"?
Does this rock speak to people? Has it performed miraculous feats in the distant past that could never be confirmed? Does it require people to act in certain ways and not to act in certain other ways? Will it reward or punish based upon those previously mentioned requirements? Regarding punishment, does it not only punish individuals but also threaten Collective punishment for wrongdoing committed by an individual in a City, Nation, or Planet? Does this rock compel its' followers to remove all who oppose it?
I never compared a rock in space to God him/itself.
Moot. Whether one believes or disbelieves in the Rock is of no consequence, but there is consequence with "God". That is why the "God" proposition is of importance and why Atheists exist and argue against it.
Your reply is "moot" as it was essentially a straw man. Another thing, I made no mention of consequences that come with God.
In fact, my entire analogy was to draw the clear distinction between logic and reality.
Try to pay attention, Sandorski. Even those who disagreed with the analogy readily grasped the point I was making.
A Strawman of what?
No, you can prevent this by refraining from making asinine claims about life when you don't even know what it is.
No, I'm wondering why you make such ridiculous pronouncements about life when you admit you don't know what you're talking about.
I am honestly flabbergasted that you would pose this as a serious question. Perhaps it would be useful for you to actually find out what the working biological definition of life is, and then describe in what way your god satisfies the criteria of that definition.
Seriously, this is like a new low even for you.
And that's a strawman, so fuck you.
Uhh...you misrepresented my analogy, and attacked it based on your own version of it.
Again, it was a simple one designed to show that arguing against God, even convincingly, doesn't actually prove anything. The opposite is also true.
I guess my question is: How does the biological definition of life bear on whether or not "my god" is alive?
It's the best working definition we have. If you cannot provide a more useful definition, then you are not justified in claiming that your god is alive. When you say that your god is alive, we can know that you are just making things up out of whole cloth. You're just bullshitting.
What if God is really alive, but doesn't fit the biological definition of life?
In fact, why would a non-biological being need to fit the biological definition? That's almost like saying silicon based life can't be alive because they don't fit the carbon based definition of life.