davros4269

I just read your definition of God - what evidence have you? I don't accept your innate-sense-of-god, because it conflicts with my innate-sense-of-red-dragon, which shares some, but not all, of your definitions of god. If you don't believe me, try to disprove my dragon god.

What else do we know of that is both sentient and omnipresent, for example? I take it that "living" doesn't mean the biological definition of "alive", correct? meaning, God doesn't evolve, reproduce, take material in and excrete some back out, right?

We know of nothing that fits these properties - give me another example of something supernatural?

If you try convince me that a certain species of bird, like a black swan exists, I may buy that. It's plausible. God, by most definitions, isn't even plausible.

The real question, is it not, is why would someone _want_ to believe this?

Davros

SecularFuture

Mnkbdky
So your god is not supernatural?

davros4269

It makes sense to me...

Point 5 touches on the _problems_ with theistic thought. I do very much consider it a hindrance; this one reason why I debate.

SecularFuture

Would I be wasting my time if I tried to continue the debate with Mnkbdky? You can see our discussion from a kind of birds eye perspective. Is it going anywhere?

mnkbdky

If you mean by supernatural, of or relating to existence outside the natural world, which I take to mean immaterial, then, yes, God is supernatural.

If you mean by supernatural, attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces, no God is not supernatural. How could God even be this. Only actions or events can be attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural force.

If you mean by supernatural, of or relating to a deity, then yes God is supernatural. In fact deity comes from the Latin deus meaning God.

If you mean by supernatural, of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; the miraculous, then, no God is not supernatural. God's being is not related to the immediate exercise of divine power; the miraculous. Again only events or action can be related to the immediate exercise of divine power. The miraculous is something a God does, not something a God is. God's being is not the result of God's action to bring himself into being.

God is a personal immaterial being.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

mnkbdky

I think I already have. Something that is immaterial cannot have color. Therefore, you immaterial dragon cannot be red.

Perhaps you just have an immaterial dragon, though. However, Dragons have shape and extension. Immaterial objects do not have shape or extension.

Therefore, since then dragon have shape and extension and immaterial things do not, it is impossible that your dragon be immaterial.

Now perhaps you just mean your dragon is invisible. Then I cannot disprove that your invisible dragon exists. However, if you experience it, and what you are experiencing is actually coming from an actual invisible dragon, then you are rational for believing it regardless if you can prove it to anyone or not.

Just as a rape victim is able to believe they were raped even if they cannot prove it to anyone else.

The whole argument is to say that public evidence is no criteria for rationality.

For now let's skip the sentient part. However, we are are of the existence of many immaterial things, such as the laws of logic, math, etc.

As for immaterial sentient beings I would say we are aware of ourselves. The person who is a dualist believes that they have a soul. The soul is an immaterial sentient thing. There are also angles both good and bad--these are normally refered to as demons or devils.

It is my opinion that those who do not believe in the soul have a hard time expaining personal identity through time. The soul, an immaterial substance that does not change in any of its essential properties through time, is the only way for me to continue to exist through time. However, that is a different topic. But you asked what other sentient immaterial beings we are aware of. I answer every human being.

So the real question is not if immaterial beings can be detected the real question is why would you want to believe in immaterial beings.

Fine. Don't believe. I do not care. But do not say it is impossible to detect immaterial beings, if they exist. That is false.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
How can an immaterial being have thought?

And so are thoughts. So, in other words, "God" is a personal thought? This is what I've been saying all along.

Can you turn this opinion based statement into a factual or theoretical statement?

mnkbdky

[quote]originally posted by mnkbdky
"God is a personal immaterial being."[/quote

Let's put your argument into a syllogism,

God is a personal immaterial being

Thoughts are immaterial

Therefore, God is thought

Now here is some seriously messed up logic. Your argument is similar to,

A tree is made of wood.

A desk is made of wood.

Therefore, a tree is a desk.

Maybe you can correct this.

Secondly, thoughts are not personal. Only persons are personal. BTW, persons is not the same as humans.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
Or you could say “a desk is a tree”. This is kind of true, considering that the desk is made up of a tree / the desk was once a tree / etc.

Yes they are. Who else hears them?



Questions you conveniently skipped

---- How can an immaterial being have thought?

---- Can you turn this opinion based statement into a factual or theoretical statement?

mnkbdky

A desk is not a tree. If I have to explain then . . .

Goodness gracious

You are the king of equivocation. Thoughts are personal in the sense that they belong to a person, as in personal belongings.

Thoughts are not personal in the sense that thoughts do not have relationships with other people.

Again if I have to explain this then . . .

Let me first ask you a question, How is it that matter or material things have thoughts? I am not asking for the process of thought, I am asking how is it even possible that material have thoughts. Can one make a tree think? Can one make metal think? What is it about the material of the brain that allow it to have thought?

If you can answer that, then, I will attempt an answer to how it is possible that immaterial things can have thought.

I am not sure what you mean here. Could you expand.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky