What do you believe and why?

So I looked up that definition in Miriam Webster you keep going on about.

It specifically includes infinite mind.

So until it is demonstrated to me that reality has a mind and that anything can be infinite I reject the definition, not as a measure of popular usage, but as an accurate description of reality.

From the dictionaty instructions....

It is part of the definition. You claim to accept the definition to such a degree that you feel it qualifies as proof in and of itself of the existence of what you refer to as God. Now you are telling me that part of the definition does not count? In that case with would any part of the definition necessarily count for more?

How do you make that distinction? Like what is an example of a contingent and an incontinent thing?

The instructions on how to use the dictionary are what say this, not me.

You are wrong.

God means The Supreme or Ultimate Reality.

Could you say that God is "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe"? Certainly, you could, many do understand God in this way and worship God as such.

Could you say that God is "the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternalSpirit : infinite Mind"? This is certainly what the church that was formed from the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy teaches.

You don't have to agree with any of these examples to believe God, indeed there are millions of people who don't. The essential definition is "the supreme or ultimate reality".

And I would say, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, for they really are one and the same.

The only example of that which is not contingent is God. Everything else is contingent on God, and something else.

There is no hot without cold. Their is no big without small. There is no motion without time. Something is not visible unless it can be seen. It is not food unless it can be eaten. You were born to be alive. Knowledge must have a knower. A being must have existence.

Then we are back to the tautology? 

How have you determined that this is the case? Indeed if reality is unknowable how can you make statements about what it is or is not contingent on? More to the point how have you determined that everything else is contingent?

It is simply a matter of accepting what The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is.

Ok what is It? I only ask because I can say of a duck or a rock or a tomato "it is what it is" and while not technically untrue it does not actually impart any information about the what is being discussed.

You couldn't tell me what is ultimately real, who could?

You are demanding a grand unified theorem, and I would tell you that even a grand unified theorem wouldn't even really be it.

Whatever The Ultimate Reality Is, that is what it is. Nobody can tell you what it is.

Yet, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God.

If this is true then how are you making this statement?

I know I know that is your word for reality but if no one can say what it is then really you aren't saying anything now are You? You could just say regular old reality and avoid all this. Also if you are talking about the same reality I am what is all your talk about the bible? The bible does not appear to have anything do with testable observable reality and anything beyond the testable and observable (which itself does not justify complete certainty) is impossible to know. Clearly in that case the bible is a book of conjecture not am authority on reality, unless of course you can somehow demonstrate otherwise.

We are just going in circles. You keep asking me the same questions over and over again. This is a waste of time.

I get it. You are in an epistemological black hole. I am not capable of helping you out of it.

What more can I say? I think you are playing stupid, and I am bored. If you are going to embrace solipsism, why bother talking to people? Go lock yourself in a closet and talk to yourself or something. You'll likely get more out of doing that than talking to me or anyone else.

I embrace the fact that we do not know. I accept that if I am a solipsistic awareness alone in an imaginary world of my own imagination I will never know it and equally that if there any god(s) exist unobserved and unknowable then I will never know. In both cases I see no reason to believe nor to behave as if one believes in either proposition unless it can be demonstrated. You claim not to believe in any god(s) either but instead only in reality which you choose to refer to as God. That's okay but it doesn't change the nature of reality which gives every indication of being unthinking and uncaring. If on the other hand you mean something other than apparent observed reality then you are engaged in conjecture. You would appear to be both engaged in conjecture and insisting on a definition which is tautalogically true so as to confuse the fact that it is conjecture. I could of course be wrong and I am trying to ascertain whether or not I am in fact.

You say that reality doesn't give any indication of thinking. How are you any different? You are a product of physics right? Who is to say that your thoughts aren't simply determined by causality? How is your assessment of what constitutes thinking any more a than a pretention of your own exceptionalism?

You keep saying tautology, tautology, but I don't think you parroting that word is an argument. In fact, I woukd say that you repeating that argument is in itself a tautology or "needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word"

See, your repitition actually is a tautology. I don't believe my argument is a tautology.

I am not arguing that we have freewill or that our thoughts are either under our control. I am arguing that some things are what is generally referred to as alive and some things are not and living things interact with their environment which even if it is a form of reaction is discernablevfrom simple physical reaction that inanimate objects display. Reality at large, though it appears to contain life does not observably display the ability to interact only to react. Whether or not it can only react to itself is immaterial.

Who is to say that you don't simply react to everything? Maybe you aren't any different than these things you see as simply reacting. How can you say reality doesn't think? Maybe you can't see how it thinks. 

Maybe but not observably so. Unless you can demonstrate that is the case somehow. Otherwise that is just conjecture and I have no particular reason to accept yours over anyone else's.

Also you are again speculating about the attributes possessed by reality (i.e. thinking) and when I point this out I expect you to retreat to your tautology rather than say conclusively that you do or do not believe that reality thinks or even simpler say that you do not know and no one can.

Of course If we cannot know we are left only with what is observable, which does not seem to demonstrate a thinking reality, and conjecture which might be coincidentally in line with reality but which we cannot confirm or deny is in line with reality. 

Just so we are clear beliefs are not a choice and I am unable to believe conjecture though I am perfectly able and willing to consider it.

In short in the absence of sufficient observable evidence I am unable to believe that reality thinks in the way that you or I do or indeed does anything that qualifies as thinking.

I'm not saying reality thinks or not. I am saying that it is entirely reasonable based on observation to say that any thinking you or anyone else does is in fact a product of physics.

So if this is the case, I could just as easily claim that I don't observe anything that resembles thinking in humanity. 

If that's the case then thinking and thought are nonsense words. Do those words mean anything?

So if thinking is meaningless, is it important to ask if God thinks?

I don't think the term think is meaningless do you? The way I react to my environment is observably different than the way an inanimate object does. One of the differences is that I do something we refer to as thinking and reality at large does not appear to have the capacity for this process. It would seem that I can do something that what you refer to as God cannot.

If that constitutes omnipotence then I find omnipotence underwhelming. 

Omnipotence means "all influence/force/power"

So what that means is that God literally does everything, even the things you haughtily attribute to yourself.

Because as I said, there is an entire universe of physics weighing down to make you do what you do.

Things happen within reality reality does not appear to do things. It just exists passively. Unless of course you can demonstrate otherwise.

I suppose that depends on how you define the word dictate. We have had enough trouble with definitions that I feel we should make sure before I agree or disagree. I will say that however you define dictate the universe does not appear to display agency and so I have no reason to believe that it does.

You say the universe doesn't appear to display agency, but I say it is just as reasonable to believe that it does. I think it qould make more sense for you to say that you don't know if it has agency or not than to affirm a belief either. way. After all, two people looking at the same evidence can come to different conclusions about this.

I have never made this an issue, it seems important to you.

I don't know. I don't know a lot of things. You don't know either. We don't know if reality possesses agency and until it is demonstrated I see no reason to believe that it does and when I say reality doesn't appear to do things that is exactly what I mean.

When you say it is more reasonable to believe that something has agency which has not observably displayed agency that is an argument from ignorance.

I am not making a claim either way. You are just as guilty of making an argument from ignorance if you say that reality doesn't have agency if you don't observe anything that resembles that.

But you say you have no reason to believe. So who is trying to convince you of this? 

You are the one who is arguing superstitions with me. All I have told you is that God means The Ultimate Reality, and my religion is to abide in The Truth. This is certainly a good thing.

You have a problem accepting what I believe, and you are trying to get me to go along with your superstitions so you can justify to yourself a lack of belief in God. 

I know it must be mind boggling, but I don't believe God is a bearded dude in the clouds. You are peatering me with your baggage even though all your relevent questions would be answered simply by accepting that The Ultimate Reality is my God. Indeed, this is your God too, whether or not you believe or acknowledge.