Posted: Apr 14, 2012 5:36 pm
by Cito di Pense
Little Idiot wrote:
Not if god means the ultimate reality, and the source/creator of the cosmos, and sustain-er or of the cosmos, and the all powerful uber-individual, blah blah blah.


So, you just make up a definition adequate to guarantee that you'll have a definition to read? Well done, you.

You don't need to talk about 'ultimate reality', LI. You can just talk about 'reality'. Or maybe you could try using caps-lock. Oh. I know what it is. You need something to refer to the unknowable. Try using the word 'unknowable' to avoid obfuscation. Since it's unknowable, there's not much else to say about it, which makes a pretty empty wibble.

Source/creator of the cosmos? Haven't you ever seen responses to the creationist arguments which ask how something sophisticated enough to create the cosmos would itself be in need of a creator?

Sustainer of the cosmos? What makes you think it needs sustaining/sustenance? Think the cosmos might get hungry and need a teat to suck on?

And, for what do you need an 'all powerful ├╝ber-individual'? Because you deny or can't imagine or understand evolution from simple beginnings? Why do you need something complex at the origin of everything? To make room for wibble because doing anything with the existing complexity is just, what? Too much science??

:rofl: :clap: :dance: :rofl: :clap: :dance: :rofl: :clap: :dance: :rofl: :clap: :dance: :rofl: :clap: :dance: :rofl: :clap: :dance: