Kenny wrote:Actually when I mentioned God while speaking to you, I was referring to your concept of God; the God of the bible.
Mallz wrote: Why would you do that? I wasn't asking for that.
It seems to make sense that if we are going to talk about God, we should at least talk about a God that at least one of us believe in. However, if you wish to talk about Allah, Odin, or some other God neither of us believes in, I’m open to that as well.
Kenny wrote:Don’t get me wrong; I do understand your position, as a Christian it makes perfect sense to see eternity and all that exists as evidence of God. But as an atheist..... well let me put it this way.
If I believed in Santa Clause, and I defined Santa as a man who makes toys in the North Pole for little kids, the very existence of toys would be evidence of Santa to me, but it would not be to you.
If you believe in God, and you defined God as someone eternal who created all that exist, the very existence of eternity and all that exist would be evidence of God to you, but it would not be for me.
Mallz wrote: You don't understand my position, nor even get a glimpse of my worldview.
Did I make a mistake by assuming you worship the God of the Bible?
Mallz wrote: You put it backwards, I follow the evidence which reveals God (I wasn't Christian first).
And how is that different than my assumption that you currently worship the God of the Bible?
Mallz wrote: Your analogy of Santa Clause shows further you don't understand.
My analogy of Santa Clause was not about you, it was about me. I was trying to get you to see things from my perspective.
Mallz wrote: Nor do I see God how you try and describe.
I didn’t describe God. I just referenced the God of the Bible. The Bible describes this God, not me.
Mallz wrote: I was trying to get you to stop conceptualizing God as 'the big guy in the sky,'
Whaassup with this “big guy in the sky” thing you keep bringing up? All I said was “the God of the Bible”, and you seem to presuppose I’m thinking of some big guy in the sky! Where are you getting this stuff???
Mallz wrote: so you actually could start to understand what I believe.
If you want me to understand what you believe, all you have to do is tell me what you believe, and we can go from there.
Mallz wrote: yet you resist and keep pulling form your preconceptions and fantasies and attribute that to what I believe.
And if that's all you needed to get evidence for belief of Santa, than I'd pity you. The fact you try to correlate that with God and my understanding of God continues to show you can't get beyond God being 'some dude in the sky', thinking that He's some being or the biggest one.
Whoa, whoa, slow-down pork chop! Perhaps you should go back and read what I actually wrote. All I did was make the assumption that because you claim to be Christian, that you worship the God described in the Bible, and you took that little bit of info and just ran with it! I never described the God of the bible, I never claimed he is some big guy in the sky, and I never presupposed the details of what you believe, it sounds like you're getting a little ahead of yourself here; slow down chief!
Mallz wrote: From my position, God could be the multiverse. You see the irony in that?
Umm….No I don’t.
Mallz wrote: As I said before, I care more about the reality of God than the identity of (yes after having the reality known, the identity follows as equally important). It's not that something eternal=YHWH. No, not at all. I care more about something from nothing vs something from something. Basics in life origins science. The something that everything comes from = God. Not, engery=eternal=God. Energy shows evidence of eternal something.
Okay; now that you’ve described what you care about, if you want to have a discussion about God, you need to describe the God you believe in; or as I mentioned before, if you wish to discuss a God neither of us believe in, I’m open to that as well.
Kenny wrote:So you believe in the physical energy detectable and studied by science known to convert to matter, then there is another type of energy undetectable or studied by science that is responsible for all that exists? If this is correct I must ask why label the one not studied by science “energy”? If it isn’t physical or studied by science, why give it the same name of something that is?
However if I have misunderstood you, please explain where I’ve gone wrong.
Mallz wrote: Where did you get the 'another type of energy undetectable..' from? There are many forms of energy... How can I explain further?
So do you believe God is non intelligent, studied, measured, and analyzed by science like energy is?