3RU7AL

to exist or to be is not a univocal term.

A thing can exist as something individual and by itself. Like you and me.

A thing can exist only as "in another" like the color blue.

A thing can exist as becoming into existence or going out of existence. We call this change

certain things can only exist in the mind, like numbers or negatives.

With this understanding of what it means to exist (an analogous term) and the understanding of cause and effect, I think Spinosa missed alot and was oversimplifying.

That division above btw comes from Aristotle initially but explained in detail by Thomas Aquinas. They call it the division of being.

OK! So quantum foam is the cause of its effects... what causes the quantum foam?

And does a sculpture of an elephant do things?

No. Spinosa is saying that all effects together equal the cause.

Ominipotent means he has ability to cause whatever is possible.

which of the five key terms do you believe is misrepresented ?

"Exist"

because it is not in the same way. I.E. what is said of my parts cannot be said of the whole.

I am saying He is sperate from it as its cause and the universe is the effect.

Then Spinosa had a mistunderstanding what they are saying

Yes. And being logical and following what I agreed to above I ask: "what caused the Big Bang?" Since you know, it happened. Here my reason takes over because we have no experiances of before the big bang.

Its cause? Must be whatever made it boom! Seems to me like God could make a big boom like that.

Furthermore, this God must be uncaused and infinite or we very quickly fall into blatant contradictions.

Ya also having the knowledge of knowing that he also doesn't want boys kissing boys. 

there was no stupid gender confusion

But you changed it at one point! Because it was obviously wrong:

(IFF) omniscient omnipotent creator = exist (THEN) everything that exists = a part of omniscient omnipotent creator

Which all you have done here then is to sy that "universe", "everything", "god" are all interchangable. Essentially all you have done is add another word arbitrarily to our vocabulary and confused what we mean by "god" and

Adding nothing to the conversation because all your saying is "the universe is the universe", "everything is everything", "god is god"

Which completely misses the point of the fundamental questions we ask about this topic in the first place, namly from where and why.

I see now why people called Spinosa an atheist. He did not believe in god, he believed in the universe! He just called it "god"

And if you adhere to this philosophy that makes you an atheist and not a deist. You believe in the universe. You just call it "god" and then say it answers those fundamental questions.

It would be as if I have an orange but I insist that it is a knife and it cuts.

This implies that what we say of the whole (which you said is god) we say of every part.

But that quickly falls apart into blatant contradictions: OOC is physical and non-physical, wet and non-wet, dry and non-dry, etc at the same time and in the same way!

I AM SAYING THAT A CHAIR IS NOT IDENTIFIED WITH ITS FUNCTION! I AM SAYING THEY ARE BOTH CHAIRS AND HAVE DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS!!! COME ON! HOW HARD IS THIS FOR YOU!

permits something to come from nothing, i.e. an effect with no cause...

You have stated OOC. Which means: "omniscient omnipotent creator" is identical with everything. I.E. the universe.

You have called it a "creator" which means you have implied it has caused itself.

A requisite modifier that modifies a THING and is meaningless without the THING. It does not modify its functionality.

If the kingdom in which you live made mandatory an act of worship to Nanofofho or whatever to preserve your life an atheist would do it but a theist wouldn't. 

It's annoying, and sad, and funny until I step back and look at it - even though I've seen it a thousand times. I've told you that I could educate you, and I have. I've told you you wouldn't accept it because you can't. If you accept it that means you accept everything you've been conditioned and conditioned yourself against. And I've told you none of it would matter.

that doesn't sound like a particularly useful delineation

perhaps it would be just as useful to replace the word "religion" with the word "anyone"

and perhaps it would be just as useful to replace the word "god" with the word "anything"

Everyone except dogs, newborns and elephants? You don't see atheism as a worldview? C'mon. 

Atheism does not make any positive claims by itself and does not deny the possibility of the existence of god or gods.

If thats the only response you have, I am afraid I am not interested.

If you dont invest, there is no any possibility you lose your money,

The safest possible play would be not investing at all,

I do not think I have seen someone contradict themselves so quickly.

Actually, I said it was the source of our movement. The thing by which we move.

Then what is the thing that gives our body life?

New buisnesses have over 60% failure rate and most dont last for over 5 years.

By the way, you still have not answered The contradiction I pointed out about the universe causing itself.

I am pointing to those things not physical to ask how they exist if we are only physically part of god.

So then we could not call a chair in a tiny model house a chair?

By definition you must have a thing before you have a thing doing something. 

In that sense everyone is religious and everyone has gods.

I didn't mean to imply that. Religion and gods are all around you, they have influenced every single aspect of your life. 

Why can't you just say true or false?

Avoiding risk in investments is about as bad as it can get for society, since new buisnesses are always a risk, and it would be nonsense to say that no one should start any new buisness but just join the big ones already existing. Competition in economy is important, and every buisness is risky, especially new ones. So its not possible to avoid all risk and still have economy.

That was the point I was making, but look at the defintion of religion I gave and the definition of god I've given in Post # 147 for example. Repeatedly throughout this thread. 

POST # 147

If I say God to you, do you think Allah or Jehovah? Sky magician or venerated? Old man with beard or phallic symbol? God or Goddess? Tammuz or Moses? Satan or Baal? God or Lord? Landlord or Godmother? Fairy or troll? 

So, a lord is someone with authority. Usually but not allways granted by another. A god is something or someone who in some way possesses a might that is greater than the one attributing it. A fertility god or goddess, for example, is entrusted with bringing about a bountiful crop and children. The god of luck delivers good or protects against bad luck. 

In Western society we are conditioned to believe God is the only god and that all other references are modeled after Him, which doesn't make a great deal of sense but like racism in cultures it is a very powerful - uh, whatsit? Uh . . . conditioning, I suppose. 

That's why I think it's so funny when atheists think God has no power over them. Look around you, your civilizations, laws etc. were modeled after them or some nonsensical variation of it anyway.  

Are student protests in USA, related to Palestine, going to have any effect?

Are student protests in USA, related to Palestine, going to have any effect?

If you're talking about Bible gods what are some of them? Moses, Satan, judges, Tammuz, Dagon, Molech, Baal, Ashtoreth, Jehovah, Jesus, Pharoah, sticks, stones, etc. 

If I say God to you, do you think Allah or Jehovah? Sky magician or venerated? Old man with beard or phallic symbol? God or Goddess? Tammuz or Moses? Satan or Baal? God or Lord? Landlord or Godmother? Fairy or troll? 

We were created in his image or likeness. Since we are physical and he is spiritual that obviously doesn't mean physical attributes. Since he (grammatical gender is masculine) created both man and woman in his image this means he possesses characteristics of both behavioral aspects. Male and female.  So,  Loving, wise, just, powerful, pure, happy, merciful.

a theistic god is a deity believed in by followers of a religion who is involved in the world and interacts with humans

Buddha said that there is no God and if there was he wouldn't be concerned with the world of men. Was Buddhism a religion? How would you define religion? A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance?

which flavor of biblical god hypothesis are you specifically talking about

How many are there? 

Everything I mentioned has already been done before, we just need to get back to the way it was.