What is God?

[Danmark]

What is God?
Is God not beyond definition?
Why do we argue about the existence of that which is beyond definition?

[Danmark]

It is appreciable that the scientist don't have blind-faith in science, though I find that the eulogizers of science sometimes do have blind-faith in science.

Can you name these "eulogizers [sic] of science" you refer to and quote them showing they have "blind faith" in science?
In other words, can you support your claim? If not, you should withdraw it.

[paarsurrey1]

It is appreciable that the scientist don't have blind-faith in science, though I find that the eulogizers of science sometimes do have blind-faith in science.

Can you name these "eulogizers [sic] of science" you refer to and quote them showing they have "blind faith" in science?
In other words, can you support your claim? If not, you should withdraw it.

All those people who have not performed all the experiments of Sciences themselves yet they believe in Science doing things science does not claim to be concerned with. They believe in Science out of blind-faith. Right, please?
Regards

[Danmark]

It is appreciable that the scientist don't have blind-faith in science, though I find that the eulogizers of science sometimes do have blind-faith in science.

Can you name these "eulogizers [sic] of science" you refer to and quote them showing they have "blind faith" in science?
In other words, can you support your claim? If not, you should withdraw it.

All those people who have not performed all the experiments of Sciences themselves yet they believe in Science doing things science does not claim to be concerned with. They believe in Science out of blind-faith. Right, please?

Wrong. You're just making a claim without evidence. You're making an unfounded, blanket claim about all scientists, yet you have not named even one; not one quote from a single scientist that supports your claim about them. Scientists take the approach I outlined:
Scientists do not have 'faith' in the current findings of science. Just the opposite, scientists and those who value science simply accept the scientific method as the most reliable method (so far) for understanding the natural world; i.e., the world that is discoverable thru observation. The scientific method [SM]is the opposite of the faith you speak of. The SM is continually self correcting as it seeks to find errors in current conclusions and methodologies of science.

Since you have presented no support for your claim, you should withdraw it. That is what a scientist would do when the evidence does not support his hypothesis. Do you have anything besides a 'blind faith' to support your mere opinion?

[paarsurrey1]

It is appreciable that the scientist don't have blind-faith in science, though I find that the eulogizers of science sometimes do have blind-faith in science.

Can you name these "eulogizers [sic] of science" you refer to and quote them showing they have "blind faith" in science?
In other words, can you support your claim? If not, you should withdraw it.

All those people who have not performed all the experiments of Sciences themselves yet they believe in Science doing things science does not claim to be concerned with. They believe in Science out of blind-faith. Right, please?

Wrong. You're just making a claim without evidence. You're making an unfounded, blanket claim about all scientists, yet you have not named even one; not one quote from a single scientist that supports your claim about them. Scientists take the approach I outlined:
Scientists do not have 'faith' in the current findings of science. Just the opposite, scientists and those who value science simply accept the scientific method as the most reliable method (so far) for understanding the natural world; i.e., the world that is discoverable thru observation. The scientific method [SM]is the opposite of the faith you speak of. The SM is continually self correcting as it seeks to find errors in current conclusions and methodologies of science.

Since you have presented no support for your claim, you should withdraw it. That is what a scientist would do when the evidence does not support his hypothesis. Do you have anything besides a 'blind faith' to support your mere opinion?

Did I mention the scientists? My post was not about the scientists, please. Please read my post again.Right, please?
Regards

[dio9]

What is God?
Is God not beyond definition?
Why do we argue about the existence of that which is beyond definition?

according to the foundational church fathers of the 4th century God is omnipresent, (present in all things ) omniscient (present in every mind ) omnipotent (present in every will) This applies to people animals plants grains of sand atoms particles and wavelengths. in the very will of electrons to spin around protons. Of sparrows to mate with other sparrows, its all evidence of the presence of God.

[Danmark]

What is God?
Is God not beyond definition?
Why do we argue about the existence of that which is beyond definition?

according to the foundational church fathers of the 4th century God is omnipresent, (present in all things ) omniscient (present in every mind ) omnipotent (present in every will) This applies to people animals plants grains of sand atoms particles and wavelengths. in the very will of electrons to spin around protons. Of sparrows to mate with other sparrows, its all evidence of the presence of God.

This is merely an appeal to authority and repeating a claim. In addition to this definition being hopelessly contradictory and impossible, it isn't original

[Willum]

[Replying to post 82 by paarsurrey1]

All those people who have not performed all the experiments of Sciences themselves yet they believe in Science doing things science does not claim to be concerned with. They believe in Science out of blind-faith. Right, please?

Those believe in science, actually believe in logic and repeatable results, you turn on a light switch, and a light goes on, therefore Ohm's Laws and Joule's heating works.

You pray to God to move a mountain with faith and nothing happens...

Some get it, some don't.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 74 by Clownboat]

paarsurrey:

Whatever the scripture, be it a Hinduism or Buddhism or Zoroastrianism or Judaism or Christians, none is to be accepted in blind faith?

Clownboat

Faith is necessary in order to believe in false things. Why should we accept anything on faith?

Doesn't one has faith in Science, please?
If faith is essential to believe in Science, why it should be bad in Religion, please?
One shouldn't have blind-faith in science and or religion, please.
Regards

You can believe that faith is essential to believe in Science if you want, but please debate me and stop ignoring what I say. Notice that no where did I mention science. This diversion is not clever.

"Faith is necessary in order to believe in false things. Why should we accept anything on faith?"

Readers, let's see if he has the ability to answer this question. I predict he will dodge it and talk about something other than this question. Perhaps next he will dodge it by asking if I have faith that my wife loves me or if I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 75 by Clownboat]

how about holy? every person animal plant and mineral is holy.

Please offer us some evidence that you speak the truth.
This is a debate forum, not a forum for you to spout random feelings that you have as if you are of more importance than anyone else here.

If you can show that you speak the truth. I care greatly.
If you cannot, please stop wasting our time.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 86 by Danmark]

I present the evidence again and again but you do not accept it. This world is the evidence which reveals the presence of God.