What is civilization? The 7-level civ

Falls down like any other hypothesis, if it relies upon a Magic Man.

I have elsewhere in this Forum declared God is not a magician, so that position is entirely yours, and welcome to it.

I clearly stated Magic Man and not Magician...So magician is entirely your misinterpretation.

And I have clearly expounded my thoughts on creation, existence and GOD principle many times in this and previous Forums.

So Faux, just in the interests of clarity, explain what you mean by "just as God anciently passed it to us".

The two terms, magic man and magician, according to the OED, can be synonymous. Just so you know.

"...just as God anciently passed it to us" means what it says. God has abilities which he periodically [anciently, now, and into the future], progressively, passes on to His children, us, which are more intricate and capable abilities, tomorrow more than today, and today more than yesterday, to perform actions which follow natural law, and we discover that "natural law" encompasses many tasks that we only progressively understand are virtually endless in what constitutes "nature."

Civilization doesnt exist. Just a bunch of entities eating each other. there will truly never be peace. Even in peace, people find ways to harm each other. You dont have friends. Only people who tolerate you until conditions change.

You dont have friends

I haven't lost friends. You may have just lost one. It is my perspective that rules in my court, as it is for all of us individually, yes?

I haven't lost friends

If conditions changed, you would.

But what is God?

That will require explanation. I determine who my friends are, accepting that their agreement is also necessary, but no third party does or can.

Who, not what. God is a human creature. He may not be Homo sapiens, but that distinction is hardly unique. But "what" implies an inanimate object, and that does not describe either man nor God.

Well that's as clear as mud Faux.

Though as as far as we are able to know, intelligent primates are a unique species, that evolved out of an apocalyptic extinction event that occurred 66 million years ago....Otherwise GOD could have been an intelligent reptilian in the minds of intellectual Lizards.

But of course, "what" could easily imply a non-humanoid or non-reptilian or non-vegetable universal super-principle...Material existence and evolution for example...It's only really thinking man that requires a thinking mangod to run the show...Well, not all of us.

But what is God?

1} God as human fantasy, to sooth the soul/biologic

2} God as the eternally existent, finite occupied space Universe @ --naught is created nor destroyed, only transformed--- ergo, the most magical of all is finite Universe as the only existent, perpetual motion machine.

......< macro-micro-infinite space.....@....macro-micro infinite space >........

Well that's as clear as mud Faux.

It's called English grammar. If it must start there, I refuse. I expect a certain level of education to be bought to the table. Like the difference in pronouns of living and non-living things; who's and what's.

Within the context of the discussion:

"Who" would question the existence or previous existence of either a living or previously living human entity.

"What" would question an implied but unknown cause.

So Faux say's God, and I ask what is God...A pretty straightforward question.

"Who" / "What"

Within the grammatical context of the discussion, and by your own words, which discuss the syntax of "who" and "what," you're violating your own context to assume God is a "what" because you consider Him an unknown. You're wrong. Fix that [and I have told you how to fix it], we'll discuss further.

It was a philosophical discussion instigated by your good self, and not an English lesson.

And "what is god" is nonetheless a pertinent question...Especially in a philosophical context.

Despite what you might think or say god is only ever a brain construct, and is not necessarily always thought of as humanlike.

So let's just say that you had never heard of the concept of yoga and were asked if you enjoyed yoga...Would you ask who is yoga.

Nonetheless from your insistence on "who" I'm guessing that your internal construct resembles a male human.

let's just say that you had never heard of the concept of yoga...

No, "let's" not say, because I know what yoga is, and particularly that its is not a "who" but definitely a "what." It is not the name of a person who developed the technique of specific bodily movements, being a word originating in the Indian holy writ, the Rig Vega; a word meaning "to yoke" as in two or more cattle, or "to unite." That is, a spiritually driven routine to unite physical body and etherial spirit, the complete human soul of two parts.

And the majority of people who believe in a god characterize that god in at least partially human form, even though some cultures united that being in the form of both human and animal creatures. About 72% of humanity believes God is of anthropomorphic nature, therefore definitively a "who," and add to the percentage those who believe God is a combined form of human and animal.

That's the Hindu's then.

And what about a philosophical discussion between a theist and an atheist based upon the concept of creation and existence and an indefinite cause.

Notwithstanding that a human animal hybrid in the first instance is more likely to enquired of as what rather than who. Of course we can give it a human name.

So I created some yoghurt and call it Dave...And Faux enquires, who is Dave...Though if Faux was enquiring about Dave's composition, he would perhaps ask what is Dave.

The first error is to try to fit in my head to assume my thoughts. Nope. Not even his holiness, A.I., can do that. No, any being that exhibits anthropomorphic characteristics is going to be a who, never a what. That's my view. Sorry to not go along with yours, but I'm willing to accept you want a what as a supreme being.

Well, you just assumed that I wanted a what as a supreme being, when in fact I do not want any such thing.

What I would really like to know is the cause or reason for creation and existence...And neither you nor I actually know...In fact no one actually knows the answer.

As I see it, a supreme being is an option, but an illogical option and certainly a somewhat more illogical option than either a spontaneous emergence of matter or infinitely existent matter.

As it is, all options begin at 1, and 0 is seemingly impossible.

Anyway, within this context "what" is the appropriate question...Because if one asks who is the cause, one immediately applies an erroneous precept.

Well, just reading your last post, you claim

In fact no one actually knows the answer.

and then claim:

if one asks who is the cause, one immediately applies an erroneous precept.

IF, "in fact" one asks "who" of "what," and according to you "no one knows," how, then, do you know anything is erroneous?

It's much easier to first assume a truth, and then go prove it to yourself, by the means I have suggested; "emperical" means, as it happens, but extended beyond just the five acknowledged human senses. Have you not seen or read the evidence of people missing one of those five developing enhanced remaining senses? So, even with just the five, ode can learn to use them to an enhanced degree, let alone e learning others the animals have by their nature, and we can learn them, too. So, I add faith as one of those learnable added senses, and you think I'm the one who is touched in the head?

You are touched in the head by faith.