Ah. Well, it says “FIGHTING IGNORANCE SINCE 1973”.
But we should assume that someone else’s physics, biology, and chemistry is the same as our own. You are entitled to your own opinions; you are not entitled to your own facts.
Agreed. As they say in Robocop, I’ll buy that for a dollar.
Here is one thing that they do not have in common: one of them is not an abstraction. Life is a real, observable phenomenon that can be measured, studied and interrupted. Otherwise, you would have to say that heat, sound and waterfalls are abstract nouns when in fact those things are very real.
Look, Biffster. I challenge you in a specific way. If “God” and “Life” are the same to you, then pick just one of the words, doesn’t matter which one, and promise that for five full years you will never write, type, or say the other one. Just replace both with one or the other - no explaining or apologizing permitted. Deal?
This is not for just internet discussions, but your everyday life and all of your work.
So if you have an empty space that touches exactly three gods, does a new god appear? And if a god has less than two neighbor gods does it die of loneliness, or if more than three neighbor gods, of overcrowding?
I think you’ve misunderstood my purpose in starting this thread. I’m interested in discussion. I don’t believe issuing an ultimatum is in the spirit of having a discussion. No offense.
Life is still an abstract noun. You can measure signs of life, like breathing, pulse rate, synaptic response, but these are only circumstantial factors that point to the existence of life. Life itself is still pretty mysterious in and of itself. Life pretty much means not-dead.
Since the original discussion as you conceived it is not at all in the spirit of having a discussion*, I figured my idea would fit in just fine. And I think it’s perfectly productive for you to consider the possibility that the equivalence you’re proposing is incomplete or false.
- A discussion always includes an OP who’s perfectly willing to be proved wrong.
Alright. I’ve considered it and I don’t agree. Fair enough?
Re: discussion: again, it is not me you are “proving wrong,” but rather the conjecture of Neale Donald Walsch that I offered up as a basis for discussion. Your preoccupation with “proving” things one way or another is your thing, not mine. I’m fine with agreeing to disagree.
I think it’s disingenuous to demure from defending your position by throwing Walsch under the bus every time you are asked to give evidence in support of a conjecture you’ve (also) made, i.e. God=Life.
Only for people that feel that words are meaningless things that can be reframed by every individual to mean whatever they want them to mean if they don’t agree with what other people think it means. It can be defined by people who don’t blow off talking language.
Can you demonstrate how life is not an abstract noun?
How am I throwing Walsch under the bus? As I’ve stated many times, he’s where this idea came from for me. And I think it’s an idea worth discussing. I’m not sure why you’re so bothered by it.
Sure–I can point out that “abstract” means “existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.”
But you have probably redefined “abstract” to mean “a type of hat.”
Mongo just pawn in Game of God.
Time permitting, I’m annoyed by discussions of nonsense. It’s a personal choice, and place holder for a better hobby.
So take it one step further; life has no physical or concrete existence. We infer its existence by looking for signs of life, but life itself is a concept. So is death, for that matter.
And yet here you are, taking part in a discussion of nonsense. Either you’re not as annoyed as you claim to be, or this is not actually nonsense.
Here’s a challenge: find a picture of life. Should be easy, right? Just find a picture of something that’s alive. Ah yes, but that would be something that has the quality or characteristic of possessing life, not a picture of life itself. Why? Because life is an abstract noun. We talk about it as though we all understand its meaning implicitly, when in fact we are talking about something invisible. For me, so it is with God. I can’t see God directly, but I can feel the impact of His or Her or Its presence.
And now I wait for people to tell me why I’m out to lunch. Such fun for a Saturday morning.
So by your logic, “God” is “Life”, “God” is “Death”, and “Life” is “Death”? Congrats-using that same level of reasoning, because both cats and dogs are animals, cats are dogs. BTW, until Walsch pops in here to discuss his reasoning, you get to be his surrogate because you are presenting this idea to us.