I called in the world's foremost expert on Frank Apisa...and he corroborated everything I said.

Everything I said was ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

What more do you want? — Frank Apisa

Awesome. And of course, only you know you!!!!

180 must be doing either a spin on that one, or he's drinking his frustrations away LOL

This is more fun than a barrel of monkeys!

Sorry, not following that one. — 3017amen

Sure...

In Christianity, it's Jesus. — 3017amen

Yes so god is only human.

It was recording in history that Jesus was both God and man. — 3017amen

People have mentioned jesus before in texts, yes.

Oh okay.

God is consciousness. — 3017amen

God is just a word for human consciousness got it.

Nice!!! See that was easy. Next question!

We seem to be in agreement on certain things.

1) Do you think you have an answer to the God question?
2) Do you think the God debate will ever deliver an answer?
3) If you answered no to both of these questions, are you still interested? — Hippyhead

I believe we both answer no to these questions.

But you seem fixated on on this space thing. Not sure how to help you here. Space is part of the universe - it is part of nature.

The way theists use the word, there is some aspect of God that is outside of nature. After all God created the natural world - so God could not have been a part of the natural world until it was created. God must have some supernatural (outside of nature) feature - otherwise God is just a natural phenomena that is hypothetically subject to scientific analysis.

Both agnostics & atheists appear to use some variation of this definition.

God is consciousness. — 3017amen

What is consciousness?

Great question. Let's see, it's a mottled color of truth. Does that metaphor speak to it?

Nice!!! See that was easy. Next question! — 3017amen

So you have been equivocating uselessly this whole time.

The people espousing the "the question is blah, blah, blah" (meaning without merit or unreasonable or any of the other crapola you people are selling) should be ashamed of yourselves.
— Frank Apisa

I'll continue to hold that position until YOU give a coherent definition of god to me. I can't discuss god simpliciter only what one thinks a god should be or defines it as. . . remember there are thousands or religions with varying perspectives on god that may not even overlap. Am I to. . . regardless of context be. . . agnostic to every god ever even though some definitely don't exist while others are defined as such that they do. — substantivalism

First give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition."

Really? I said Jesus was part God and man as recorded in history. What's wrong with that?

Great question. Let's see, it's a mottled color of truth. Does that metaphor speak to it? — 3017amen

Yes, so complete nonsense.

3017amen
2.2k
I called in the world's foremost expert on Frank Apisa...and he corroborated everything I said.

Everything I said was ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

What more do you want?
— Frank Apisa

Awesome. And of course, only you know you!!!!

180 must be doing either a spin on that one, or he's drinking his frustrations away LOL

This is more fun than a barrel of monkeys! — 3017amen

It is, indeed, Amen.

Few things I enjoy more than discussions with atheists...or atheists who describe themselves with some other word.

Are you saying then that your conscious existence is also nonsensical? I don't get it...

Really? I said Jesus was part God and man as recorded in history. What's wrong with that? — 3017amen

Jesus is human, god is human consciousness, so your saying a human existed that was conscious.

First give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition." — Frank Apisa

To define a word is to specify what in reality that word represents or the meaning attached to it.

Note a definition is either descriptive or prescriptive about the meaning of a word. There is a difference between what a word is meant to be as represented in a dictionary use wise versus how people use it which can be person specific.

To be coherent is to both be understandable to us but also not be inherently contradictory. A square circle is a popular example or a married bachelor which are contradictory. Also something like the "color of existence" which according to definitions of those terms doesn't really give a coherent understanding as the concept of existence doesn't give off radiation nor interacts with luminal radiation so it cannot be colored.

Few things I enjoy more than discussions with atheists...or atheists who describe themselves with some other word. — Frank Apisa

So you will assume I'm this (not an agnostic to a particular god concept or theistic to another) before you actively actually indulge in debate with me or others with a particular definition of god? Disingenuous on your part to do so. . . as well as not be able to read my posts so you keep creating false caricatures of them.

Are you saying then that your conscious existence is also nonsensical? I don't get it... — 3017amen

Again, another famous misconstrual of yours but you just gave a coherent definition of god, god=human consciousness, just that it's an equivocation of terms that doesn't really add much.

3017amen - I fixed it.

Jesus is human, god is human consciousness, so your saying a human existed that was conscious. — substantivalism

No not entirely. I'm saying God created consciousness through Jesus.

Are you saying then that your conscious existence is also nonsensical? I don't get it... — 3017amen
Again, another famous strawman of yours but you just gave a coherent definition of god, god=human consciousness, just that it's an equivocation of terms that doesn't really add much. — substantivalism

How is it straw man?

First give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition."
— Frank Apisa

To define a word is to specify what in reality that word represents or the meaning attached to it.

Note a definition is either descriptive or prescriptive about the meaning of a word. There is a difference between what a word is meant to be as represented in a dictionary use wise versus how people use it which can be person specific.

To be coherent is to both be understandable to us but also not be inherently contradictory. A square circle is a popular example or a married bachelor which are contradictory. Also something like the "color of existence" which according to definitions of those terms doesn't really give a coherent understanding as the concept of existence doesn't give off radiation nor interacts with luminal radiation so it cannot be colored. — substantivalism

Thanks for that.

Now, if it is not too much trouble, please give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition."

No not entirely. I'm saying God created consciousness through Jesus. — 3017amen

So god has the ability to create other conscious beings. . . I don't have that ability so that must be something unique to god. . . almost as if you need to note his properties or specifics.

How is it straw man? — 3017amen

More like a mis-construral of my position. How can anyone read my posts then ask AFTER you have given a coherent definition of god which I accepted to discuss with you and didn't say any definition of god isn't inherently incoherent, "why is my definition then incoherent to you?". Only that it's incoherent until you give a definition.

Thanks for that.

Now, if it is not too much trouble, please give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition." — Frank Apisa

Coherent - Logical and consistent.
Definition - The meaning/representation intended by a word in relation to other concepts/ontological entities. Also can be a prescription regarding what people think the word should be mean't to mean versus description based definitions which describe how people generally have used the word to mean.

You know what i'll ask you question then. So does it exist?

So god has the ability to create other conscious beings. . . I don't have that ability so that must be something unique to god. . . almost as if you need to note his properties or specifics. — substantivalism

Yes, through inductive reasoning that appears to be the case. Nonetheless, as Frank alluded to earlier ( with atheist 180), only you yourself know yourself, therefore, who knows the mind of God(?).

More like a mis-construral of my position. How can anyone read my posts then ask AFTER you have given a coherent definition of god which I accepted to discuss with you and didn't say any definition of god isn't inherently incoherent, "why is my definition then incoherent to you?". — substantivalism

Okay, but remember, you changed your position on that. It went from, any discussion about God is incoherent, to okay, let's talk about God. Just sayin.

substantivalism
99
Thanks for that.

Now, if it is not too much trouble, please give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition."
— Frank Apisa

Coherent - Logical and consistent.
Definition - The meaning/representation intended by a word in relation to other concepts/ontological entities. Also can be a prescription regarding what people think the word should be mean't to mean versus description based definitions which describe how people generally have used the word to mean.

You know what i'll ask you question then. So does it exist? — substantivalism

Does what exist?

A god?

Beats the hell out of me.

Yes, through inductive reasoning that appears to be the case. Nonetheless, as Frank alluded to earlier ( with atheist 180), only you yourself know yourself, therefore, who knows the mind of God(?). — 3017amen

You don't seem to know the mind of god because you don't give specifics beyond "it's conscious" but it can also create other conscious beings which I cannot and thusly I don't know if any conscious being could.

Okay, but remember, you changed your position on that. It went from, any discussion about God is incoherent, to okay, let's talk about God. Just sayin. — 3017amen

A discussion about "does ____ exist?" is incoherent and won't go anywhere nor could you take any position much regarding what is supposed to go in the blank but if you could define and specify what does go within the blanks (that is coherent) then we can begin analyzing it or taking bets. Where is your evidence post wise that I went from "god is forever under any discussion completely and utterly incoherent thusly not worthy of discussion" to "it's incoherent to talk about something existing and taking bets on it before understanding what it is as well as whether it even is coherent to discuss its existence". Remember, YOU have to go back into the previous posts with proper context and paste that part of a previous post that says this is what I held or what I defined ignosticism as.

Does what exist?

A god?

Beats the hell out of me. — Frank Apisa

There you go. A distinction between ignorance on the topic of god versus ignorance on the existence of said entity which to me are two different things thus the term i'm using. One is a meta-analysis the other merely a surface level analysis.

Does what exist?

A god?

Beats the hell out of me.
— Frank Apisa

There you go. A distinction between ignorance on the topic of god versus ignorance on the existence of said entity which to me are two different things thus the term i'm using. One is a meta-analysis the other merely a surface level analysis. — substantivalism

You asked "Does 'it' exist?"

I asked you what you meant by "it."

There was no predicate for the "it."

Still no answer.

I posited, "A god?"

And then said what I have said a dozen times already in this thread...I DO NOT KNOW.

Now you are serving up a word salad that has nothing to do with the question or my answer.

I'll give you this: All the words are English.

Not sure what your problem is...but if you ever get around to actually discussing the topic at hand, I'm sure we can have fun.

You don't seem to know the mind of god because you don't give specifics beyond "it's conscious" but it can also create other conscious beings which I cannot and thusly I don't know if any conscious being could. — substantivalism

No one knows you yourself better than you yourself, right? So, how could someone else know the mind of someone else? What's your point?

discussion about "does ____ exist?" is incoherent and won't go anywhere nor could you take any position much regarding what is supposed to go in the blank but if you could define and specify what does go within the blanks (that is coherent) then we can begin analyzing it or taking bets. Where is your evidence post wise that I went from "god is forever under any discussion completely and utterly incoherent thusly not worthy of discussion" to "it's incoherent to talk about something existing and taking bets on it before understanding what it is as well as whether it even is coherent to discuss its existence". Remember, YOU have to go back into the previous posts with proper context and paste that part of a previous post that says this is what I held or what I defined ignosticism as. — substantivalism

I can define God. God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

And I say 'that which' because I don't know if God has a gender or not. The history book known as the Christian Bible is metaphorical, among other things. Beyond this, if you care to, I would not take any exception to someone claiming God is a concept that presumably is super-natural and transcends logic. (Another reason I like the metaphor of : God is a mottled color of truth.)

...a bit more fodder for you to chew on if you will... .

You asked "Does 'it' exist?"

I asked you what you meant by "it."

There was no predicate for the "it."

Still no answer. — Frank Apisa

That is the point of that question its incoherent to ask without prior context or further if I even substituted a word that the word in question truly mean't anything to anyone or specified a particular entity to be ignorant towards.

And then said what I have said a dozen times already in this thread...I DO NOT KNOW. — Frank Apisa

Does skdfksj exist? You say "i don't know" here but that assumes it possesses a meaning to someone its just hidden behind the text. You are assuming there is meaning there to then attribute that word to something in the real world to then be ignorant about. When you say "I don't know" there is a difference between "I don't understand what is going on" and "the entity that is being stated here i'm personally unsure if it exists".

I can define God. God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

And I say 'that which' because I don't know if God has a gender or not. The history book known as the Christian Bible is metaphorical, among other things. Beyond this, if you care to, I would not take any exception to someone claiming God is a concept that presumably is super-natural and transcends logic.

...a bit more fodder for you to chew on if you will... . — 3017amen

Could you more specifically define god? What are the properties of it you claim it has? Can you support that said entity gave rise to Jesus?

Linguistically, it's a universal word for every single being/entity, even for computers.

Linguistically, it's a universal word for every single being/entity, even for computers. — Shawn

Hmmmmm

If you don't know it, then you cannot communicate about it? How 'bout that?

Computers are a different matter, and that's why we like them.

If you don't know it, then you cannot communicate about it? How 'bout that? — Shawn

Yeah

Could you more specifically define god? What are the properties of it you claim it has? — substantivalism

As I said, I can only infer that the concept of God, having created consciousness, must have super-natural and transcendent capabilities or properties. Kind of the same idea as Kant's transcendentalism. Or as an example, if you prefer the infamous judgement that humans make quite often: all events must have a cause... .

Think about why human's utter such things and how universally effective that notion of wonder is viz physical science.

Make sense?

substantivalism
103
You asked "Does 'it' exist?"

I asked you what you meant by "it."

There was no predicate for the "it."

Still no answer.
— Frank Apisa

That is the point of that question its incoherent to ask without prior context or further if I even substituted a word that the word in question truly mean't anything to anyone or specified a particular entity to be ignorant towards.

And then said what I have said a dozen times already in this thread...I DO NOT KNOW.
— Frank Apisa

Does skdfksj exist? You say "i don't know" here but that assumes it possesses a meaning to someone its just hidden behind the text. You are assuming there is meaning there to then attribute that word to something in the real world to then be ignorant about. When you say "I don't know" there is a difference between "I don't understand what is going on" and "the entity that is being stated here i'm personally unsure if it exists". — substantivalism

I have tried to figure out a way to say this nicely, but I really could not.

You are full of shit, Sub.

I've answered the question of what I mean by "god"...SEVERAL TIMES.

Let me give it one more shot...although I suspect you realize you are full of shit, and are merely yelling, "Look, a squirrel" as often and loudly as possible.

When I speak of a god, I mean, "An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider 'the Universe.'"

I can give you the longer version if you need it...but you shouldn't.

We both know what I mean when I say "a god"...and we both know what you mean when you say "define."

But you are lost here...and all you can do is spin the subject so that you do not have to acknowledge you have failed.

I truly am sorry about that. I wish things could be different. I'll continue to reply, hoping you finally develop what is needed to make the acknowledgment.