Darth Dane

Well, according to the bible, we are in God's Image. So by analogy, yeah God has a beating heart. A thinking brain, and an absolute conciousness to boot.




DD - Love Spliff

thomaq

you are absolutely right, if, you presuppose physicalism.

Infidelettante

Rocks are too alive. Some of the atoms in you were once in rocks. How do you think animals and plants come to be if not by the organization of living matter?

JT

For the first one who posts a bad sex joke.

NonHomogenized

A liquid containing ethanol, esp. one which is consumed by humans

Magus55

Wrong, by in God's image it means the ability to reason, choose between right and wrong, love, laugh, etc.

Magus55

Since when is matter living? Carbon atoms are not living... never have been, never were .

Infidelettante

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JTVrocher
Rocks are too alive. Some of the atoms in you were once in rocks. How do you think animals and plants come to be if not by the organization of living matter?

JT

For the first one who posts a bad sex joke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: Magus
Since forever or the last fourteen billion years or so at the very least. You've got a God you can't prove exists, why can't I have a living universe? Call it Strong Pantheism.

In any event you missed the important part. What we think of as living is organization. The universe organizes itself into living things. When they become disorganized we see it as death. How is it that you live, being made of non-living atoms. What changes a collection of non-living material into you? The answer is so very simple. The universe lives.

JT

LKS_Blade

You claim that without physical evidence something canot exist... but where is proof that your theory is true? How can you prove that if something exists it MUST interact physically with the universe? Since we are not able to percieve beyond physical reality we are unable to prove OR disprove the existance of anything beyond this reality because there is no percievable proof.

However, a lack of supporting proof does not disprove a theory. A theory is only capable of being disproved by providing proof that it is wrong.

I am not saying that a god exists or that there is no god, just that we have no absolute scientific method to prove or disprove his/her/its existance. It is a matter of faith, not science, to deal with that which it not percievable.

Wyz_sub10

I can think of a few fundamentalists that would disagree with this interpretation, although I think it's a fair one.

But I think the logic behind this is flawed. God, according to the J/C definition, has no need for reason - reasoning does not apply to god, therefore we cannot follow in this mold.

God can laugh? Does that mean god can cry? If so, god is imperfect. I would also guess that some might construe crying as weakness or being susceptible to "evil".

Choosing between right and wrong is also irrelevant to god, if it is he that defines right and wrong (as you have stated yourself) in the first place.

Autonemesis

It's the definition of "exist." We have to assign meaning to words in order to communicate. That's the meaning assigned to this word. Get with the program.