Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Originally Posted By: Warren
...So instead of trying to prove "God" we can simply define "God" or Being as the beingness that we associate with existence itself.

I see.. God only exists in the world you evidence and as you define God. Anything above and beyond what you believe and evidence is supernatural and something you do not believe in? Do you think you might evidence God as an experience and do you think your experience could change or do you think you have GOD neatly boxed up in a definition based on your individuality that is what you call being?
What is being? Is it your being, my being, his being? Or is being synonymous with God and not individuality and the subsequent boxes created thru individual belief and opinion. Would your being be synonymous with the being of a lemming?
Originally Posted By: Warren

That way deity doesn't have to be proved. The way I look at it, it never successfully has or can be.
That would lead to the idea that it cannot be experienced and as such never justified as anything other than a fantasy or a delusion...

Yes I could certainly evidence divine nature as experience, some experience more than others but all more or less. That's what I would call being and do mean everyone's being, not just mine. Anything above and beyond what I or we experience as sentient beings (above the level of lemmings) could be anything, but am just saying that since naturalism should be sufficient to explain it there would be (by the law of parsimony) no need to believe in supernaturalism except perhaps as a term for naturalism that is not yet understood, which some have called cryptonaturalism.