Reply With Quote
Ok, define god. Not the word "god"
the actual ...thing.
Right. You can't. No one on the planet can - not accurately anyway.
Taking us right back to what I stated.
Undefinable.
Lol. That's not how it works.
Ok, define god. Not the word "god"
the actual ...thing.
Right. You can't. No one on the planet can - not accurately anyway.
Taking us right back to what I stated.
Undefinable.
Wow, so I must apologize. I actually thought you were trying to set up a completely different argument based on saying SR was a hypocrite for assigning attributes to something he doesn't believe in. My mistake.
Your actually argument is much worse.
Since when is the idea of god undefinable? More importantly, why the does that matter to discussion? There are a few extensions (assumed characteristics) that people attribute to god. Those are things people are arguing over. It doesn't matter that know one can tell you what god looks like or sounds like. It's still perfectly acceptable to debate over whether or not people's ideas about god are consistent or whether it makes sense to believe in god's existence.
And you can't get away with assigning no extensions to god. Otherwise, there is no idea of god at all.
For example, I defined god as simply the prime mover. So my arguments about the existence of god were based on defending the need for a PM. Some will argue that god created man in his image, had a son sent to save us all, raped his sister by pretending to be a bird, had curly hair etc. And those who make those extensions have to defend them.
Atheists merely have to dislodge those extensions to win the god debate. They don't have to provide proof that god does not exist.
Seems like the only argument is the one between you and you.
I only gave you truth.
It cannot be changed.
No one can define "god" accurately.
No one on the planet.
What's left to argue about?
Exactly.
You don't get what I am saying. No one debates god's actual existence, since no one knows. What people are arguing about is what people attribute to god (their definitions, to use your terminology).
You have an idea of what you think god is, and that's what people are attacking. You can't retreat from that idea and claim god to be undefinable, because then you don't even have any concept of what god is. You may as well believe in ganciadfa, because that's what a word without extensions is -- just gibberish.
Pretty much what I have been trying to help you see - and it is right there in your own words.
No one even has a concept of what it is - and when they do -
have a concept - that is -
it is nothing near what they hope it will be and always - always inaccurate.
So, yes -
you CAN say that "god" is undefinable because it is.
Pretty much happens that the highest form of knowledge that humans have about "it" is that we don't know.
The most honest also.
It's funny, have you ever seen the "derivation" of Schrödinger's equation? Physics is just littered with morally unsatisfying models. I guess the difference between M-Theory and quantum mechanics is that in quantum there are actually experiments that tell you QM is a great model that makes outstanding predictions, as loony as it is. Not sure how to test strings and M-theory though, as you would need preposterously strong radiation to be able localize something that small.
Last edited by baseline bum; 09-27-2014 at 09:15 PM.
No. Just no. Do you believe in god? If so, what are you thinking about when you say that? If not, what are you thinking about when you say that? It doesn't matter.
Words are only tags for bundles of extensions. 'God' is a tag in your head for a bundle of ideas, as it is for everyone, theist or atheist. The word god means something to you, and that meaning is not undefinable.
He's just upset that he has a permanent crook in his neck. I'd be mad at god too if I was him.
Absolutely incorrect.
Words are things invented by humans to describe reality.
Except that words can only point to, allude to, stab at something that corresponds to reality but words are not reality.
Words cut up reality. Different cultures even cut up reality differently.
You can choke on the word "god" if you want to. You can even conjure up some "idea" in your head about what "god" is and even worse -
you can then argue with other people that have conjured up something entirely different from your fabrication -
You can do that 24/7 if you want to.
I choose not to because I sense that I would be as far removed from what "god" might be - so as to make me look pretty ridiculous.
Leading an aware person into realizing that this is an undefinable mystery.
Others can take stabs at defining it - I refuse.
The stupidest thing that this very smart guy has ever said - I guess I can give him a pass because he has been a pretty heavy cat throughout his life - despite his physical disadvantages.
No, they're not. Words are used to code ideas. Those ideas are used to try to convey meaning, some of which is supposed to represent reality.
You only sense that because you have some idea of what god is. You're just trying to pretend that you don't. If you consider god undefinable, you don't consider him unapproachable. It wouldn't make sense to do so.I choose not to because I sense that I would be as far removed from what "god" might be - so as to make me look pretty ridiculous.
How is god a mystery in your world? You don't even know what god isn't. It's like saying that 'txtdyeiondifa' is a mystery.Leading an aware person into realizing that this is an undefinable mystery.
Of course you have. You've asserted god's existence, so you have indeed begun to define him.Others can take stabs at defining it - I refuse.
Indeed. Those are just theories that those people tell themselves so that they can die with a clear conscience. M-theory is no different than any other religion.
How the do you even test string theory and M-theory? You build a completely indestructible detector, fly it to Betelgeuse, wait 200 million years for it to Type 2 supernova, and then call it back home to see if it found a string?
Crazy. That's why people should separate physicists from quantum physicists and theorist. Just because those guys can explain a lot of things with math doesn't mean that they have any idea about metaphysical matters.
String theory is a lot of math. Quantum physics on the other hand is fact every bit as much as F=ma.
sbm... you aren't even making a point and it feels like you are deliberately dumbing down your argument to make a point.
do you believe in god? we all know you do.
so if you yourself are claiming that god is not definable, then how the do you know you believe in it? how can you believe in something that you don't even know is? it makes no sense.
if you have a belief in god, then you must have some definition of it. please enlighten us as to your definition/understanding of the god you believe in. you've quoted the bible to me a few times so i'm assuming you believe in the judeo-christian god, which FYI is pretty clearly defined
It's like saying that you believe that lemons are controlling the government, but at the same time stressing that "lemons" can mean anything. It's like, what the are you even saying at that point?
I agree that quantum physics are a fundamental basis of our knowledge pool. I guess I was looking for another word, something that ties in all the string, brane and M theories. I forget what that's called.
the theory of everything?
Not a term for the theory, but for the branch of physics that deals with those things. I guess just theoretical physics?
. Apparently you can't delete posts in the Club.
ah, i see what you're going for, but theoretical physics is too broad a term. einstein for instance was a theoretical physicist. can't really think of a word. maybe something like physical theorist? i dno if thats actually a thing
a unified field theory
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
