Again you are insulting your own intelligence.
Dictionaries provide a range of meanings to a word and some can related within a set and some can be totally contrasting and not related at all.
E.g. “Gay” which could mean
homosexuality or
being lively, joyful
Therefore for any meaning one has to choose those that are related my intended meaning.
Which two?
The highlighted ones in blue?
If so, not I did not leave them out in my earlier post, I did highlight them in bold.
As for the other meanings, they are not very relevant, e.g. 7 [umixed] and 9. But in this case, I can assign them to God in some ways without any contradiction.
Even if it is every one here [10+ or so posters] I am not bothered as long as my argument is rational and sound and has consensus [intersubjectively] within the greater philosophical community i.e. the giants and members of Western, Eastern, etc.
If Copernicus had succumbed to the ‘truths’ of the majority, we may still be believing the Sun physically revolves around the Earth.
And as I told you, everyone one of those defining clauses are meant to agree. They are not different uses for the same word, merely varied ways of explaining it. You attempt to leave out the two that clarify the issue because they prove you wrong.
A god that loves us and is really strong would be able to do a little materialization here and there, upgrade or heal a person, etc.
You don’t need to be all powerful to do that.
God and love are different things / paradigms.
I realize that, but:
Real things seem mostly provable. And if God is super real, he should be super provable, too.
I know miracles happen. But they aren’t exactly consistent or intelligible. A god that has limits, could do small miracles, while falling short to police the world and heal the sick. It’d be best if he prevented the creation of nuclear weapons, for example.
Indifferent means he doesn’t want worship or obedience, right?
no matter what we think or want, personally, im sure genetic modifications, and AI, will “play god”, while the gods of the masses, also allowed things like mass extinctions in earth’s history. People wont be protected, saved, etc. Why would god destroy or allow the destruction of the majority of all earth life’s species? If he or it made them in the first place. It is like a parent making a big family then gunning them all down one day.
This may not be worded perfectly, but, the message should be clear:
A good god creates a good world.
A bad god creates a world of death, suffering, and loss.
Note most of the points I made are supported by the giants of philosophy, i.e. Kant, Hume, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Russell, Buddhism [other Eastern Religions] and others. These great philosophers has a large share of consensus with many people.
Note there are many strong atheists who just don’t give a damn and reject God’s existence outright as a ridiculous claim. We share the same views but I justified my claim and leaving no doubts via reason with arguments [OP].
Nope this view belong to a minority of agnostics.
The majority of theists believed it is “proven” [from their own experiences and other theists] God is very real ‘empirically’ to the extent God will listens and answers their prayers, and most of all will assure them of salvation with eternal life in a real heaven [up there, some with virgins].
In term as a human being ‘you’ have a 1/7+ billionth share of the World which you have contributed in co-creating the World-as-it-is with other living things and things.
From day one of breathing, eating, farting and shitting, you have been a contributor to reality-as-it-is. With your next breath you have created a new reality-as-it-is from reality-as-it-was [one second ago].
The above is one clue why you as a human being cannot be totally independent of the reality which you are part and parcel and has co-created.
I was referring to a consensus in the “greater philosophical community” which has a higher standard of proof than the “man in the street”. I doubt that most people know what proof is.
Misleading and rhetorical again.
Where did I say “I OWN the world”.
I stated above;
“you have a 1/7+ billionth share of the World which you have contributed in co-creating the World-as-it-is with other living things and things.”
I did not mean ‘share’ as in the share-market, where I can trade my ‘shares.’
In the above I meant co-share as a contributor and participator with 7+ billion humans.