No physicist knows where thermodynamics comes from, and they will never know it. They know it but only in a small limited circle. Beyond this micro circle they know nothing.
Example: A bird is in a prepared cage. It doesn't know, this cage is prepared cause it was born into this cage. Everytime this bird touches a button than food falls into the cage. Now he thinks it is the button which causes the food falling into the cage, more than this the bird will never know. The bird will still be very proud of himslef having discovered this dynamic, but unless the one who did prepare this cage reveals himself to our bird, our bird has no chance to know more.

I SEE SOSO
I SOB I SIGH I BEG
BIBLE OBLIGES
GOSH

Fwiw, you could say the exact same thing about God. He can never know if his 'God-ness' was set up by the real, true, God, unless the one who prepared his 'God-ness' reveals himself.

For those who believe they are a Heavenly Bird, Bible invites.
Bible invites them to sit at the same table with other Heavenly Birds.

You might be right or you might not, I might be right or I might not. I only think or believe there is nothing more beautiful than letting the seed of love growing.
As said in the story of Maria, I don't know if God exists or not or if the God which exists is merciful or not. Shout! I don't even know what love is. I only don't know better or don't understand more than what I did explain.

What is revealing about wanting to be called satanic bird? Other valid options are "King Devil Bee" and "Science Revealer". I just like the sounds of these, they don't reveal anything.

oh come on, everyone knows all atheists are closet satanists

It's a joke, based on the nature of your question. I rewrote the poem based on the language you stereotype me with.

One thing is asking a challenging dichothomy based on a choice of evils ("press button and kill one or don't press button and fail to save 2"). Your OP however is not a challenging dichothomy. You ask people which name they prefer, but you're not even comparing two names. Instead you compare "two words you like" to "arbitrarily chosen string of numbers and letters designed to seem industrial".

It's the same venue as cheap politicial rhetoric; "Are you a gun-toting idiot or a responsible democrat?"

are you saying we're not supposed to prefer the spaceship designator?

Is that what it is? I thought it was a New Zealand flight no. with some Xs thrown in for good measure.

this is an interesting thread

The choice between the string and Heavenly Bird is a clear dichotomy. It implies chosing between everything is death or everything is alive. If everything is death than we are at best not more than a mathematical equation. But this is not possible, why? Me and you are alive. This means when using logic : God exists. With logic, there is no way around this.

I dont see the logic in your post
Can you lay it out a bit clearer?

Its seems like you are saying

Me and you are alive ,therefore, god exists.

Which doesnt seem very logical to me

Sure:
If something is alive. Everything must be alive. Death cannot exist.
How can live come to existent from something that doesn't contain live? How can consciousness come from something that doesn't contain consciousness? This means that singularity did already contain consciousness and live.
But now how can we logically explain that something contains consciousness and live and is at the same time death? I guess this is logically not possible.

I know this still doesn't explain the existence of God. But...
if everything is alive and has consciousness, than it cannot follow two different 'wills'. Two different wills would mean confrontation and one would stop existing. One 'will' is what we call 'God'.
Or with other words: 'God' is the name of 'OneWill'.

Ultimately this is the point of most religions especially the point of Christianity and Islam.
They say God is one will, his will is love. If you don't learn to love, you will stop existing. Cause two will cannot exist.

This is just an assertion. Are you saying that a rock is alive? What do you mean by "alive" anyway?



What do you mean by "something that doesnt contain life"? Life isnt a characteristic or inherent quality of something. Its just a label we use. I agree that the universe had to have the possibility of life emerging, in order for life to emerge



This doesnt make sense. Death isnt a thing.

If you agree that the universe had to have the possibiltiy of life emerging, in order for life to emerg, this doesn't mean anything else but 'life was an inherent quality of the universe'.

possibly. Depends what you mean by inherent.
Even if I agree with you, so what? It doesnt get you to "god exists"

inherent definition: The definition of inherent is an essential quality that is part of a person or thing.
inherent (synonyms): innate, inborn, inbred, indigenous to, intrinsic, internal, original, native, deep-rooted, built-in, latent, implicit, ingrained, immanent, congenital, connate, fixed, indwelling, inseparable,..

So if life, how you said (better that I did it), is an inherent quality of they universe, so it is with counsciousness.
If consciousness is an inherent quality of the universe. Consciousness produces will, two will cannot exist (as explained before). OneWill is what we did label as God.
One Will, One Consciousness, One God.
No trinity, they are all the same: Love

How so? Rocks are an inherent quality of the universe ( according to you), where does that get you?

You have to show that consciousness produces will, otherwise this is just an assertion


This is also just an assertion. You did not show that two wills cannot exist.

That's an awful lot of interpretation for what you claimed was a simple question. This comes of more and more as you constructing a question with the intent to cram people into very simple predetermined categories. Questions like these are far better when asked openly, and when they are also challenging to yourself. This is obviously not such a case.

...

Do you think there could exist a scenario where you could prefer a name that has no religious connotation (let's specify in regards to your beliefs to make it even trickier) over one that has?

Ok neel, you are right. I was wrong.
Good night!

We said, consciousness is an inherent part of the universe, rocks are a part of the universe, so consciousness is also an inherent part of the rocks.
As consiousness is either producing will, or consiousness is nothing other than will, the rock is also following will.
To your second point: Where you find consiousness you find will, where you find will, you will find consciousness. If you find those independtly than my claim was wrong.
I did show that two wills cannot exist. I did say they lead to confrontation. They will fight each other till one stops existing, otherwise me and you wouldn't die. We follow another will and we cannot do anything about it. If we cannot do anything about it than this means: our will doesn't really exist. It is pure illusion.

In the same manner that "metal is an inherent part of my car, plastic is an inherent part of my car, so metal is also an inherent part of plastic"?

Feel free to elaborate more than "Yes" or "No" and assume I'm asking you to explain - not claim.

"LBV 1806-20" is a star right? Is the first character string a star too? I dunno, anyway - in this case, I'll go with the nonse string of characters, rather than sewer rat.

Now your turn


Would you rather be called 'Jesus' or 'Captain Penis Face' ?

Your example is as ususal not a proper example. Regarding your example metal is in this case a completly different part than plastic.
A more proper example would be:
If we would liquify your car and with its liquid we would build a statue of you, than every part of your statue would contain an inherent part of your car.