Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[lewisnotmiller]

Im just the opposite.

There is no scientific evidence for any god at anytime anywhere. There is nothing to test for.

What evidence we do have is that all gods were created and defined by man, to meet his cultural needs, wants, and desires, and fears.

You're reading too much into what I said. I never claimed there was scientific evidence. Hence, for me, it's not compelling. But eyewitness testimony, no matter how unscientific, is evidence.

 

[outhouse]

You're reading too much into what I said. I never claimed there was scientific evidence. Hence, for me, it's not compelling. But eyewitness testimony, no matter how unscientific, is evidence.

It wasn't about what you said brother Lewis I was just adding the scientific part


It was a jumping off point for me to enter the debate

 

[outhouse]

Hmm. I do seem to recall that you were one of the folks here on RF that doesn't get mythology, no offense..

You would be in serious error.

I have a passion for the beauty of the mythology in the text as a tool of expressing moral lessons through theology.

One doesn't even have to be a theist to appreciate the lessons.

But that doesn't give any credibility to any deity.

I'm pretty damn sure we didn't make the sun.

Nor do I find any entity responsible.


Why cannot people not define nature.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was actually only referring tot he forum, I have not encountered anyone to declare themselves a gnostic deist. Gnostic theist sure but not gnostic deist.

Ahhh...my bad, I thought you meant in the universe. Don't remember anyone else making that claim here.

I also am unique. My mommy told me I was special (haha).

Hmmm...mine did the same. Do you suppose one of them is lying???

You have been listening to Matt Dillahunty to much I say.

Given that I don't know who he is, that's not the issue. Give me a sec while I google him...
Actually, I reckon I have seen him debate on YouTube at some point, but I wouldn't guarantee it. Looks familiar though. But no, if anything I'd blame RF for my slightly changing views.

I conclude that the definition of god is just over hyped and stretched beyond comprehensible knowledge.

Yeah. You have something there. It's almost at the point where commonly used terms are impossible to define. Makes it tricky to be an atheist...
*sighs*
I remember the good old days, when God meant an old dude with a white beard sitting on a cloud...

(errr..that was a joke, just for clarity)

I find that both monotheism and polytheistic animism or pantheism are justifiable. Since the demiurge concept only applies to pre-creation it could be said for a panendeists(making up words here) like myself that god is equal to the singularity of matter while polytheism can be justified do to the varying constructs formed by matter.

Doesn't that mean you have evidence of something greater than our understanding, rather than evidence of God? How am I supposed to be an atheist when you assign Godhood to matter?

Everything assigned to god whether it be beyond natural existence(such as emotions) all emanate from matter. Greeks say Zeus sends thunder, Apollo is of knowledge and Aphrodite of sex(which is boring).

Says you. I'll take Aphrodite, and you can have all the rest. Well, maybe I'll keep Dionysus as well...ahem...

Anything we conceive about god is materialistic in all regards even if it seems to go beyond. The conception of an afterlife is based upon our present natural life for example.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

I have come to the conclusion that god is essentially any concept one can think of in regards to the physical world or products of the physical worlds(our thoughts). So god is and is also not the physical world itself.

I get what you mean, I think, but don't find the definition useful. I'm too much of a literalist to assign the word 'God' to anything other than a sentient being(s) greater than humans, if not an actual anthropomorphic deity.

An Earthquake is an act of the demiurge along with anything that occurs in our universe. But we can assign gods to anything deemed as a subset of matter or energy such as a planet or stars.

Why, though? Why assign gods to anything?

Just like the Gnostics and their conclusion that the Demiurge is separate from god, I to say the same. Except I find polytheism more emotionally necessary than monotheism or else the universe is one cruel bipolar deity.

Yeah, well, my understanding of the demiurge is hazy at best. I thought some saw the demiurge as malevolent, and the true God (or Gods, I'm always confused) as uninterested or uninvolved in the material universe?
Meh...not my strongsuit in any sense. But I do understand your argument about the emotional dissonance of monotheism. How do you see a dualistic model (like Zoroastrianism or something)?

 

[Quintessence]

You would be in serious error.

I have a passion for the beauty of the mythology in the text as a tool of expressing moral lessons through theology.

One doesn't even have to be a theist to appreciate the lessons.

But that doesn't give any credibility to any deity.

If you're talking about "credibility" of deities, you're missing the ruddy point, sir. Go to an art gallery. What you're doing is similar to saying "I don't think that's a credible painting of the subject." Missing. The ruddy. Point. Entirely.

Nor do I find any entity responsible.

Not what I'm saying, and isn't what the mythos is saying either. I get that people in my culture typically have a really hard time thinking outside the box of classical monotheism, but try to understand that various sun gods in cultures across the world are mythopoetic renditions of the actual sun and not some "entity" responsible for the sun. The sun is the entity and the subject.

So again, unless humanity created the sun...

 

[outhouse]

Not what I'm saying, and isn't what the mythos is saying either. I get that people in my culture typically have a really hard time thinking outside the box of classical monotheism, ...

Brother, This thread is about the monotheistic god.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Ahhh...my bad, I thought you meant in the universe. Don't remember anyone else making that claim here.

Nor do I. Not many self professed Deists on this forum sadly

Hmmm...mine did the same. Do you suppose one of them is lying???

I don't think I like yo momma

Given that I don't know who he is, that's not the issue. Give me a sec while I google him...
Actually, I reckon I have seen him debate on YouTube at some point, but I wouldn't guarantee it. Looks familiar though. But no, if anything I'd blame RF for my slightly changing views.

He is sort of a famous character in the Atheist world, oddly enough I find him spiritually uplifting

Yeah. You have something there. It's almost at the point where commonly used terms are impossible to define. Makes it tricky to be an atheist...
*sighs*
I remember the good old days, when God meant an old dude with a white beard sitting on a cloud...

Hey, white beards went out of style so god upgraded

(errr..that was a joke, just for clarity)

NO IT WAS NOT!

Doesn't that mean you have evidence of something greater than our understanding, rather than evidence of God? How am I supposed to be an atheist when you assign Godhood to matter?

I wouldn't say I assign godhood to matter but more like all natural existence.

Also both god and the universe have the same attributes, both cannot be known fully

Says you. I'll take Aphrodite, and you can have all the rest. Well, maybe I'll keep Dionysus as well...ahem...

Wait, I gotta spank Aphrodite before you have her XD

This makes a lot of sense to me.

I get what you mean, I think, but don't find the definition useful. I'm too much of a literalist to assign the word 'God' to anything other than a sentient being(s) greater than humans, if not an actual anthropomorphic deity.

You must really look into Deism more. Also the very first definitions of god were animistic and materialistic in nature. Anthropomorphic deities are new actually.

Wathani Arabs for example first began using words to give shape to their gods then pillars or blocks. Later it was anthropomorphic idols then Muhammad reverted it back.

Why, though? Why assign gods to anything?

I am gonna be sort of a moron and just say this out of truth...........because it is cool

Also because it was done int he past and is worth replicating.

Yeah, well, my understanding of the demiurge is hazy at best. I thought some saw the demiurge as malevolent, and the true God (or Gods, I'm always confused) as uninterested or uninvolved in the material universe?

This only applies to Gnosticism and in Gnosticism the true god was very mch involved.

I am a Deist so there is no other true god but the demiurge and it is not a personal entity at all.

Meh...not my strongsuit in any sense. But I do understand your argument about the emotional dissonance of monotheism. How do you see a dualistic model (like Zoroastrianism or something)?

I am not remotely familiar with dualism