| Page 3 of 3 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24645
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24645
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
 Posted: Fri, 14th May 2010 13:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Frant .. point is its not atheistic to prefer theist use of the word God. Having no point of view of your own on God is no excuse for supporting theist points of view on God.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24645
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deelix
PDIP Member
Posts: 32062
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th May 2010 13:57 Post subject: |
|
|
lol, everyone knows god exists... my mom told me so too!
 Spoiler: | |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th May 2010 14:15 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | Lutzifer wrote: | you re accusing me of mumbojumbo???  |
You applied "divine existence" which is church mumbojumbo about God is it not ? |
NO! YOU are proclaiming that something more than the provable and demonstrable is existing (i.e. god is god; god is within everything)! I MERELY rephrased your idiotic assertion that "there must be more to this" than what we can already describe! YOU assume that there is god in everything, which is defining a divine entity within everything, no matter how much you DISLIKE how people describe such claims. Just because you fail at words, does not mean everybody else has to
| ChinUp wrote: | | Lutzifer wrote: | | first off, the univers does not play a melody. That is already highly conceptual and reductionist when looking at the states, dynamics and properties of "stuff" that makes up our universe. |
Name something that doesn't make a sound. |
First of: WHY? YOU claim that the universe plays a universal melody. It is your claim, so YOU have to substantiate it! HAVENT YOU PAYED ATTENTION TO ANYTHING I SAID BEFORE?
Second: nearly everything DOES NOT make a sound. Because sound needs a medium and needs a listening organ. You can convert alot of what matter does into perceivable sound-waves but that is tampering with the states already. As i said, it is your argument, you have to substantiate it, because i have yet to see a universal theory of sound to describe the properties of our universe.
| ChinUp wrote: | | Lutzifer wrote: | You claimed that god in your opinion is in everything. And therefore it is based on something real.
So if i say that invisible alien beings command every living thing, is that also real, because it is based on something real?
NO it certainly is not. |
How is invisible aliens comparable to the grain of wood ? Again your applying the unreal to discredit. Try using sense rather than nonsense next time. So far you are the one who has been dealing in fantasy on the topic of God. How ironic that the one who is supposed to be the proponent of sanity & reason is the one dealing in fantasy & deception to preserve their belief that all belief in God is based on fantasy. |
invisible aliens is the concept of scientology and also very similar to the soul idea of christianity, which both are bogus beliefs of things that are not demonstrably true. As is your assertion that god is within everything. Where is your god particle, where is the force or energie or sound or whatever you proclaim there is? Because there must be something more, otherwise you wouldnt have rejected pantheism so strongly earlier in the thread. YOU are applying the unreal. I do not discredit, i merely object to your bogus claims being real. But i object strongly.
| ChinUp wrote: | | Lutzifer wrote: | | And since you cannot get your head around the burden of proof thing, i ll do it a last time: |
I gave you an example that can be proven to be real, the universal melody. To call it God all you have to do is want to. Do you need me to prove that people can call what they want God ? |
It can be proven? So why havent you? You have so far brought NO evidence-based arguments to the table. And no, just saying that the universe has a universal melody does not make it true. It is new age mumbojumbo, since you re so fond of the word
google "proof for universal melody" => No results found for "proof for universal melody".
google "evidence for universal melody" => No results found for "evidence for universal melody".
google "theory of universal melody" => No results found for "theory of universal melody".
google "the universal melody of the universe". => No results found for "the universal melody of the universe".
wikipedia "universal melody" => only result that has universal melody is without citation and is in the context of children => universal taunting melody
Exchange universal melody with terms like termodynamics, evolution, cognition, theory of mind and similar and contrast it to your proclamation that it can be proven.
If it is so universal and so easily proven, why do i not find a shred of evidence for it in more than ten searches in different search engines?
exactly, BECAUSE YOU CARRY THE BURDEN OF PROOF and have so far FAILED at substantiating your claims.
| ChinUp wrote: | | Lutzifer wrote: | | i m not here to discredit or disproof anything. It is your responsibility to back up the shit you re claiming. I m merely pointing out exactly that. |
You deny applying unreal mumbojumbo to my universal melody example ? |
[/quote]
YES, i do not apply ANYTHING. I only reject your CLAIMS as UNFOUNDED, because you constantly FAIL at giving us anything BUT your own mumbojumbo.
Also, for future reference: unreal mumbojumbo IS NOT AN ARGUMENT EITHER! You can argue against my arguments with counter-arguments but not by obfuscating or discrediting them without argument (i.e. calling an argument unreal mumbojumbo, when you specifically CLAIMED that YOUR GOD (who apperantly is God) is WITHIN EVERYTHING, making an unreal mumbojumbo argument yourself). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th May 2010 14:37 Post subject: |
|
|
Lutzifer .. you need me to prove things make sounds ? Prove all these sounds together make a collective sound ? Where is the unrealness here ? The only unrealness is coming from you, your application of supernatural notions about God. I offer an example of using the word God in reference to something tangible & real, your response is that its wrong because God has to be something fictional.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th May 2010 15:10 Post subject: |
|
|
Ontopic:
1st: No, i do not need you to prove that things make sound. BUT you need to prove that EVERYTHING makes sound!
Because a thing ONLY DOES make a sound when an approriate medium is there AND when somebody / somthing is there to listen, otherwise there either is no sound or it is not perceived as such. Not all wavelike movements can be heard by human ears.
Also, when saying that EVERYTHING makes sounds you disregard the nature of sound in that it needs a medium for it to travel. That brings us to the philosophical issue of what sound and what everything should be. Because either you have things that do make sounds and things that carry those sounds (then not everything makes sounds, because alot of it is the medium) or you disclaim that the medium is making sound itself (which makes your theory of sound COMPLETELY USELESS because it has not descriptive power anymore about sound propagation / dispersion, because everything is the origin of sound). In both situations your idea / argument is fallacious.
And as i have also said more than once: you equate something real (sound) with something you assert to be there (god). Since you argued that you are not a pantheist and have also clarified that it is more than just the thing itself, this is not just renaming one thing for another. So, you make an assertion about the existence of something more. That has to be proven. You cannot equate something you make up (your god concept) with something real and then say both are real. I could also just as easy say - as many new ago mumbojumboists do - that god is the vibration of all things. It is the same idiocy, because as long as that god has more attributes than the individual things (all vibrations or all sounds individually) you create an extra entity with attributes that has to be proven. IF you only equate it and have no extra assertions about the nature of god apart from it being all vibrations / all sounds THEN you are a pantheist (which is maybe the least moronic belief, but still something occam's razor should cut off).
also, where is the beauty and reverence in god = noise ?
edit:
| ChinUp wrote: | | I offer an example of using the word God in reference to something tangible & real, your response is that its wrong because God has to be something fictional. |
what is the nature of that reference? WHY do you need to call it God? What does your god concept entail that is not already described by the thing you reference it to? Why do you need to call something something else, when one name should be sufficient, if it does not explain more? Why do you feel the need to tell everybody about your god definition (or how false theirs is)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24645
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TSR69
Banned
Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24645
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th May 2010 19:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Lutzifer Can you truly not tell the difference between the collective sound made by all sounds & everything making a sound ? Again you confuse the wood with the grain within the wood. Why not call this collective sound God, is there some rule you champion that says only fantasies can be called God ?
Frant .. do you find it awkward that the only point of view about God that you can grasp is the one offered up by the monotheist church ?
Lutzifer: i have warned you about the baseless accusations before and you have called frant already a vatican fool (insult / flame) and again accuse him of shit you can not substantiate. If you proceed with that shit you ll be banned for trolling
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
Last edited by ChinUp on Fri, 14th May 2010 19:42; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th May 2010 19:38 Post subject: |
|
|
I do not call ANYTHING GOD, how many times do i have to tell you? YOU ARE CALLING THINGS GOD!
And AGAIN you have not answered any of the questions. Back full circle...
And why would i make a difference between all sounds sounding in unison and the individual sounds??? WHY? There is not an ear big enough to hear them? There is no need for me to create grandeur out of simplicity just so i can confabulate something bigger in it LIKE your fictional god.
Answer the questions!
| Lutzifer wrote: |
what is the nature of that reference? WHY do you need to call it God? What does your god concept entail that is not already described by the thing you reference it to? Why do you need to call something something else, when one name should be sufficient, if it does not explain more? Why do you feel the need to tell everybody about your god definition (or how false theirs is)? |
edit: i see you edited your post...
2nd edit:
| ChinUp wrote: | | Lutzifer Can you truly not tell the difference between the collective sound made by all sounds & everything making a sound ? Again you confuse the wood with the grain within the wood. Why not call this collective sound God, is there some rule you champion that says only fantasies can be called God ? |
i confuse nothing. I asked you WHY you make the distinction and you have not answered yet No, there is no rule saying that you cannot call anything god. Go ahead do it, call your dick god. But you re not just calling something something else, you are claiming something into existence and have pestered us with your ridiculous posts for about a year now how we all get the concept of god wrong and that you have the reasonable answers. Yet you havent. You only claim to have and have failed time and time again to bring proof to the table that God (who is God; who is also the sum of all sounds) does exist in the way you describe him.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th May 2010 19:49 Post subject: |
|
|
Lutzifer .. On what basis do you call a God made up of all sounds fictional ? What is it you think a God has to be to believe a God has to be fictional ? How is a collective sound made by all sounds fictional ?
You seem awfully superstitious about calling things God, as if calling something God makes it a fiction or something.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lutzifer
Modzilla
Posts: 12740
Location: ____________________ **** vegan zombie **** GRRAAIIINNSS _______
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th May 2010 19:56 Post subject: |
|
|
You did not answer any questions i posed for the second time, so i guess you have nothing left in your god arsenal and i m closing this thread.
Have fun listening to the sounds of the universe...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 3 of 3 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
now it's all clear 
