Your best argument that G-d does not exist

[leibowde84]

I did? Im getting mixed up. I know by default that you can lack belief in God by not knowing He exists.

To those who have heard of God and say they are an athiest, I have the impression of a soft athiest who at one time believed God exist and now he doesnt believe He does.

I also see that if you are aware of God, there has to be some type of concept to base your conclusion on. "I believe that fire burns me" how would " I " believe this or not if I havent heard or seen fire. I cant make the statement without some familary with the concept itself.

Somewhat like my ESL class. They cant speak about conplex subjects until they have mastered the English vocabulary and grammatical conversations to do so. They believe these skills exist, and they lack the knowledge to conversate in english. (How can you say you lack knowedge in a language you have not heard about) So their familarity of the English language existing has to be present for them to say they have no knowledge in it.

Thats different than saying

There is no such thing as the English language (if there was no such thing but the general public act as if there is)


The last part. I said if one "states" they lack belief in God they need an concept of God to base that conclusion on.

If they do not believe God exist. God does not need to exist for them to make that statement. It would sound weird if we havnt heard the wlrd God before. Say "Giegon does not exist" that would be a useless comment. Since a lot of people have Some concept of God, its not totally off. Just only useful in conversations.

Again, you are erroneously assuming that "lack" is being used in a derogatory way ... As in having insufficient belief, but it simply means to be without. The students you mentioned "lack the required knowledge to discuss complex issues in english." You could also say that their knowledge is lacking too, and it wouldn't necessarily be derogatory.

 

[leibowde84]

Which God, though? If you mean an external God, I guess I get your point. To me, that is as if a thiest says "A ginopin exist. We know by faith." and instead of the athiest saying "no, it does not" he says "we cant proove a ginopi exists or not its to vague" leaving room for something to possibly exist because of the claim it does.

Athiesm should be (if im incorrect) the statement that God does Not exist regardless of how the thiest states that He does exist, by faith, literal, symbolic or otherwise.

Athiest statement there is no God is not a belief. Thiests, most i speak with, say there Is a God. Their faith is building a relationship that they Know God exists. Faith doesnt determine the existence of God just their relationship with a God they already Know exist.

Meanwhile, the athiest lacks belief in God which could mean to him that he exists "or" not. Its based on lack of belief not fact as the thiest claims their beliefs are based on.

I find that a common trait in athiests but not all, of course, shares that view athiesm is based on lack of belief rather than point blank, "it doesnt exist."

This is my entire point. Atheism is not limited in the way you claim. According to its definition you do not need an active belief that God does not exist, but merely a lack of belief that God exists. Maybe is still OK to be accurately classified as an atheist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Exactly. Word play. So because there are so many different symbols or words for what people are calling god, and those symbols and words are dependent on many different variables, we need to define what we are talking about so that we can debate it.

Wait. The question was "argument for God not existing", and then question "which God", I give answer to which God I was thinking of, and that's word play, and we can't discuss it until I give an answer to which God. Did I get that right?

No, listen. I need to know which type of deity so I can have a reference point. While the conscious, sentient, involved, anthropomorphous deity is usually what people refer to or cling to, I know there are several different iterations. Until I know what you consider to be "god-like" about the sum of all of the parts of the universe, there's nothing to argue against. Until there is a definition, it is just wordplay.

The question wasn't "which deity", so I'm not sure why that popped up there.

What do I consider God? The universe, all that exists, reality, nature, life, mind, the actors, action, and acted upon at once. Eternal, infinite, all energy, all possible knowledge contained. What else? These are some of the properties of the pantheistic God.

We are certainly products of the Universe and the natural order. And that in and of itself is quite miraculous. But which definition of god are you using when you expand on that naturalism and refer to it as god?

The pantheistic one. Like Spinoza, Einstein, Carl Sagan, and more saw the universe and God.

God | Definition of god by Merriam-Webster

Pantheism | Definition of pantheism by Merriam-Webster
"a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe" (A definition of God in pantheism by Merriam-Webster)

If it's simply a symbol used for your veneration of nature, that's one thing. But if you attribute something else to it, then that's another. And the latter requires definition.

Uh? The definition is that they're the same. It's not a difference in essence, but in attitude.

If it's understood as functioning within the observable universe, then it's natural. If something exists, I think it must be "natural" by that definition, which I realize can cause a conundrum. But if we don't adhere to some form of boundary, then all cockamamie claims will be taken at face value and simply accepted as legitimate.

You're calling it cockamaime? Uh. Well, that's your prerogative. Still doesn't disprove it.

We agree on the fact that everything is one thing and the whole natural thing exists.... But why call it god?

Because it changes your perspective. It doesn't change what it is, but it changes what you think about it.

So let's imagine that there is no historical bias towards an anthropomorphic god and that the pantheistic god reigns supreme. I still have to ask you why you attribute deity to the natural order. If you don't like the word deity because of it's anthropomorphic implications, then choose whichever word you like. In fairness though, you choose to call the Universe god, so you're invoking the idea of deity to begin with.

We could talk a lot about the reasons, but what would my subjective and very personal reasons to feel to do think this way have anything to do with the truth value of the claim?

I may have just made that up. It would be the amorphous concept of god or deity within a thing.
As with polytheists, they can say that there is a sky god, or a god of the sky, or that the sky is god. Those are 3 different things that need definition before they can be addressed.
The sky exists, admittedly. What property of the sky are you calling god? Why are you calling it god? What does god mean to you?

Veneration, perspective, object and subject for meditation joined to one, and so on. How personal do you want me to get to convince you that this is my view?

No. It just needs definition.

"Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god."
Is one, but not great. It's kind'a close but it's on a very summary level.

You can read about pantheism and the different views of God within it on Wiki: Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember, there are different views even within pantheism, and I'm not sure they're all there either. I'm more of a naturalistic pantheist, if that helps.

Again, no. You just need to explain why you're calling it god and which definition of god you are using.

Why is answered with: because I do. Because life, existence, and experience are important to me.
Which God is answered with: look up pantheism.

There are thousands of people on this forum, covering probably hundreds of different religions. Within each of those religions are various subsets, each with their own concept of god and deity. If we don't ask for clarification, there will never be any meaningful conversation.

Ok. I see.

I'm to a large degree a Naturalistic Pantheist. The truth is that I have some more thoughts and views on the world than perhaps the average naturalistic pantheist does, so I'm perhaps 95% NP, and then 5% a mix of other things, but we can start with NP.

Here's a link to Wiki to read more about NP: Naturalistic pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For example, I'm fairly certain that the OP was referring to arguments against the Abrahamic god because he's Muslim, as far as I can tell. But only addressing arguments against the Abrahamic God does a great disservice to the depth of religious belief, doesn't it?

Oh, I'm sure, but I didn't respond to this thread until the question was asked "which God", which is an open ended question for any person to bring in their view of their God, and hopefully do so without being accused of novel word play when it's neither. Then perhaps the question should've been, "which God, but only abrahamic external sentient being Gods that I can disprove, so which one of those?"

[quote[
There's not limit. Just define what god is to you and we can progress.
[/quote]
Everything. God is everything, and everything is God.

Exactly! It's not an argument against it but a request for definition of it. I need to know why you're calling it god before I can argue against it. If it's just because you venerate this existence, then we have a lot in common but I don't call my understand of existence god.

The reason I call it God is because I realized that the Universe and everything that exists essentially fulfills most of the attributes of what we think is a God, except for personal, external, miracle working, yada yada.

"The Universe is the Flying Spaghetti Monster"
Unless I define what the FSM is, or means, and how it encompasses the Universe, then it's a moot claim that I've made that the Universe if the FSM.

It would be your personal view and I wouldn't argue why you defined FSM, God, or Universe that way. A person's personal view of what God is, is personal to that person. Not personal to someone else's opinion of what that person is supposed to view God. Religion has been great at shoving down a standardized God concept that everyone has to accept. I don't think the baton was handed over to atheism to now do the shoving. The concept of God is personal. That's the nature of that word. We can argue the concepts, but you can't really argue someone taste for chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream.

It certainly should be. This isn't a closed debate devoid of regular conversation. I'd like to know what the difference is, at least as you see it. If nothing else educate me or someone else.

Well, the problem is that if we go too far in other discussions, we're derailing it too much. I've had the discussion before about my views, and have them in other threads, but it gets so clogged up when it's everywhere.

 

[Blastcat]

But multiverses, M theory, any other atheist creation myth gets a waiver on this?

Nobody in his or her right mind is making the claim that those hypotheses are true. And they are certainly NOT atheist creation myths.. They are scientifically deduced hypotheses. They have nothing at all to do with any God hypothesis one way or the other. God is a total irrelevancy to these thought experiments.

for a natural, unintelligent creation mechanism to likewise achieve all this accidentally, would have to be chalked up to yet one more bizarre fluke.

Some people have trouble with bizarre flukes happening. Things happen. Some of them appear very bizarre to us.

Why didn't God just create left and leave out right to avoid confusion? Similarly Good and evil are literally defined by each other, destroy one and you destroy the other.

Yes, why not?...And? We can speculate any number of things. That doesn't mean they are all true.

 

[leibowde84]

Wait. The question was "argument for God not existing", and then question "which God", I give answer to which God I was thinking of, and that's word play, and we can't discuss it until I give an answer to which God. Did I get that right?


The question wasn't "which deity", so I'm not sure why that popped up there.

What do I consider God? The universe, all that exists, reality, nature, life, mind, the actors, action, and acted upon at once. Eternal, infinite, all energy, all possible knowledge contained. What else? These are some of the properties of the pantheistic God.


The pantheistic one. Like Spinoza, Einstein, Carl Sagan, and more saw the universe and God.


Pantheism | Definition of pantheism by Merriam-Webster
"a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe" (A definition of God in pantheism by Merriam-Webster)


Uh? The definition is that they're the same. It's not a difference in essence, but in attitude.


You're calling it cockamaime? Uh. Well, that's your prerogative. Still doesn't disprove it.


Because it changes your perspective. It doesn't change what it is, but it changes what you think about it.


We could talk a lot about the reasons, but what would my subjective and very personal reasons to feel to do think this way have anything to do with the truth value of the claim?


Veneration, perspective, object and subject for meditation joined to one, and so on. How personal do you want me to get to convince you that this is my view?


"Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god."
Is one, but not great. It's kind'a close but it's on a very summary level.

You can read about pantheism and the different views of God within it on Wiki: Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remember, there are different views even within pantheism, and I'm not sure they're all there either. I'm more of a naturalistic pantheist, if that helps.


Why is answered with: because I do.
Which God is answered with: look up pantheism.


Ok. I see.

I'm to a large degree a Naturalistic Pantheist. The truth is that I have some more thoughts and views on the world than perhaps the average naturalistic pantheist does, so I'm perhaps 95% NP, and then 5% a mix of other things, but we can start with NP.

Here's a link to Wiki to read more about NP: Naturalistic pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Oh, I'm sure, but I didn't respond to this thread until the question was asked "which God", which is an open ended question for any person to bring in their view of their God, and hopefully do so without being accused of novel word play when it's neither. Then perhaps the question should've been, "which God, but only abrahamic external sentient being Gods that I can disprove, so which one of those?"

[quote[
There's not limit. Just define what god is to you and we can progress.

Everything. God is everything, and everything is God.


The reason I call it God is because I realized that the Universe and everything that exists essentially fulfills most of the attributes of what we think is a God, except for personal, external, miracle working, yada yada.


It would be your personal view and I wouldn't argue why you defined FSM, God, or Universe that way. A person's personal view of what God is, is personal to that person. Not personal to someone else's opinion of what that person is supposed to view God. Religion has been great at shoving down a standardized God concept that everyone has to accept. I don't think the baton was handed over to atheism to now do the shoving. The concept of God is personal. That's the nature of that word. We can argue the concepts, but you can't really argue someone taste for chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream.


Well, the problem is that if we go too far in other discussions, we're derailing it too much. I've had the discussion before about my views, and have them in other threads, but it gets so clogged up when it's everywhere.[/QUOTE]
You cannot expect anyone to disprove any concept or entity without sufficiently defining it. the explanation you gave for God is ridiculously vague. It is literally a bunch of generalities and encompasses everything in reality. If it is not possible to define God, or any entity/concept for that matter, it is unreasonable to ask anyone to disprove God's existence. This is why I would say it is obvious that the one making the positive claim that something not sufficiently definable exists bears the responsibility to provide evidence for that claim.

 

[Blastcat]

Which God? I believe God exists but the God I am thinking of may be completely different than the one you are. I have what they call a pantheistic view of God. Everything is God; we are a part of "Him" and He is a part of us. It's a fancy language for describing natural life on earth and the process of it by using cause (example the creation of) and effect (the creation itself). The sun gives us heat and life; she is God. The moon orients us so we wont float away,she is God. They exist because you can see them even if the moon is on the other side of the earth, we know it exists because of the rotation of the earth and so forth.

If god is EVERYTHING, as you say.. then god is just another word for everything. God, used this way, to me, is only a word. We could make up another word, and that would have the same effect. I think what you are describing is a bit of a metaphor. And I think its a very confusing one, since the term "God" is so tightly packed with all manner of meanings. What .. 8 billion personal meanings?

I like the word "everything", when actually describing everything. Seems to be WAY less loaded.. and actually, more precise.

Why waste time using a word that .. NEEDS so much explanation, when your concept already has a perfectly fine word?
I don't get it.

To prove an external God does not exist, someone would have to show me how what they believe is a fact. It should exist independent of their subjective experiences. As long as it is a belief based on personal experiences that half the world cannot prove that that experience can be experienced by All, God still remains a psychological concept--and, to me, it's hard to prove a hallucination just the results of it good or bad.

But some people don't HAVE a replacement thingy for the concept of God.. how can I prove.. this nothing, this non-belief to you?
Isn't it enough to say that I simply don't buy the arguments FOR any gods?

I'm not saying my god is better than your god.. I'm agreeing with those who ask.. WHAT GOD?...

 

[Blastcat]

I think I agree if I understand you, an atheist first has a specific defined concept of God, right or wrong, to then be skeptical of - so this God too exists conceptually.

Right.. god is a concept. That doesn't at all mean the concept is real or true. OR proved in any way.. OR that it has any evidence that it exists in any way.

Just because we have a concept does NOT entail that it is true. Some concepts are false.

 

[Blastcat]

Atheists and theists are all out to lunch. There's not the first spec of non-hearsay evidence either way. And you can quote me.

Before I quote you all over the internet and my latest best seller on the subject, I'd like to have you explain what hear-say evidence I must be using to say that I don't have any evidence for any god, and that therefore, i don't believe in any?

What hear-say evidence am I using here?

 

[leibowde84]

The point is not whether they will or not. Of course,not make sense. The point is IF they did, they would have to have a concept of God if they say they are praying to him.



Its not too much the same. If someone has not heard of God, that does not mean theybdont believe He exist...if they have a revelation, and found He does, then they wont lack belief.

On the other hand, an athiest will say, God does not exist. Whether he lacks bief or not doesnt negate God does not exist.

I think I understand what youre saying. Im saying one is an open ended statement. The other closed.

I am saying that, if a so called atheist is praying to God with the belief that God exists and can hear them, that person is not an atheist but is in reality a theist.

 

[leibowde84]

Right.. god is a concept. That doesn't at all mean the concept is real or true. OR proved in any way.. OR that it has any evidence that it exists in any way.

Just because we have a concept does NOT entail that it is true. Some concepts are false.

Right, but we are talking about belief in the existence of God, not belief in the concept of God. I don't think anyone would claim that the concept of God does not exist.

 

[Ouroboros]

You cannot expect anyone to disprove any concept or entity without sufficiently defining it.

I am defining it, but I'm getting the question back to why I personally make that definition. "Why I do it" is not the same as "What is it". Why I like chocolate ice cream doesn't affect what chocolate ice cream consist of.

the explanation you gave for God is ridiculously vague.

Everything that exists is God. That's vague? Ok. Well, let's make it more detailed then:

God is: 22 sixtillion stars in a 13.6 billion light year wide universe with 100 billion galaxies, where there's one galaxy that's locally called the Milky Way, wherein there's a small yellow star with a blue planet that goes around it with lifeforms on there who call themselves humans. They have reached the ability to have cognitive thoughts and can admire, inspect, learn, anything they want about this world they live in, and can show respect and awe for it. This place, these people (and probably other life forms in the universe), and the actions done, all of it, is God, the experience of existence.

Is that more detailed? I could perhaps write a 600 page book and name everything I can think of that belongs to God, which is everything.

Here's a link to Wikipedia's article on Naturalistic Pantheism: Naturalistic pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you're interested reading other people's description of what it is and how they view God and nature.

It is literally a bunch of generalities and encompasses everything in reality.

Sure. It simplifies things.

If it is not possible to define God, or any entity/concept for that matter, it is unreasonable to ask anyone to disprove God's existence.

No, it's unreasonable to open the discussion to allow any definition of God to be allowed into it. "Which God" is an open ended question. It wasn't asked "Which God, but only the God that I approve and that I'm used to thinking of."

This is why I would say it is obvious that the one making the positive claim that something not sufficiently definable exists bears the responsibility to provide evidence for that claim.

Here's the problem. It was an open thread. The question was asked "which God." And there wasn't any requirement, definitions given yet, or restrictions on what kind of Gods, religions, views, beliefs, or ice cream flavors that were allowed. I responded with my personal (and yes, very subjective) view and wanted to see the response. And it's clear to me that no one can argue that my God doesn't exist. The only arguments proposed are based on that I'm not allowed to have that view at all. It's my personal and subjective view of things, therefore it's wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

I am defining it, but I'm getting the question back to why I personally make that definition. "Why I do it" is not the same as "What is it". Why I like chocolate ice cream doesn't affect what chocolate ice cream consist of.


Everything that exists is God. That's vague? Ok. Well, let's make it more detailed then:

God is: 22 sixtillion stars in a 13.6 billion light year wide universe with 100 billion galaxies, where there's one galaxy that's locally called the Milky Way, wherein there's a small yellow star with a blue planet that goes around it with lifeforms on there who call themselves humans. They have reached the ability to have cognitive thoughts and can admire, inspect, learn, anything they want about this world they live in, and can show respect and awe for it. This place, these people (and probably other life forms in the universe), and the actions done, all of it, is God, the experience of existence.

Is that more detailed? I could perhaps write a 600 page book and name everything I can think of that belongs to God, which is everything.

Here's a link to Wikipedia's article on Naturalistic Pantheism: Naturalistic pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you're interested reading other people's description of what it is and how they view God and nature.


Sure. It simplifies things.


No, it's unreasonable to open the discussion to allow any definition of God to be allowed into it. "Which God" is an open ended question. It wasn't asked "Which God, but only the God that I approve and that I'm used to thinking of."


Here's the problem. It was an open thread. The question was asked "which God." And there wasn't any requirement, definitions given yet, or restrictions on what kind of Gods, religions, views, beliefs, or ice cream flavors that were allowed. I responded with my personal (and yes, very subjective) view and wanted to see the response. And it's clear to me that no one can argue that my God doesn't exist. The only arguments proposed are based on that I'm not allowed to have that view at all. It's my personal and subjective view of things, therefore it's wrong.

Can you do me a solid and copy and paste your definition. I'm having a hard time finding it. Thanks.

 

[Ouroboros]

Can you do me a solid and copy and paste your definition. I'm having a hard time finding it. Thanks.

God is everything that exist. Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ... should I go on?

It's the word that stands for the totality of our reality.

And, of course, you'll ask why I call it God. Again, by doing it, it changes my personal view on Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ...

And how does it change my personal view? My personal view changes to have greater respect and understanding of Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ...

But since Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ... takes a long time to write each time, and I do think it's easier to have a word that sums it up, instead of writing Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ... I call it God instead.

But if you want to call Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ... Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ... That's up to you.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You're calling it cockamaime? Uh. Well, that's your prerogative. Still doesn't disprove it.

No. What I wrote, in context, was making the point that if we don't define some boundary line for what we call when we make arguments against god, then anything and everything can be crammed into the word and there would be no way to argue for or against it. It wasn't directed at Pantheism solitarily.

What do I consider God? The universe, all that exists, reality, nature, life, mind, the actors, action, and acted upon at once. Eternal, infinite, all energy, all possible knowledge contained. What else? These are some of the properties of the pantheistic God.

I think we're just talking into hallways where the other person isn't...

I agree that the Universe exists. If you say that the Universe is God, then by your definition of god then I'm admitting that god as you've defined it, exists, since your definition of god means everything.
I'm not insulting you by calling it word play. The only way that this conversation plays out, however, under these definitions, is by admitting semantically that your god exists because your god is the whole of the natural world.

Because it changes your perspective. It doesn't change what it is, but it changes what you think about it.

I don't really think that's true. I have a deep admiration for this existence, and profound personal feelings towards it. But I don't call it god. This is why, I think, Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up atheism".

We could talk a lot about the reasons, but what would my subjective and very personal reasons to feel to do think this way have anything to do with the truth value of the claim?

Nothing. I'm just asking so I know where you're coming from. It's not about a truth claim. It's about understand personal perspectives.

Veneration, perspective, object and subject for meditation joined to one, and so on. How personal do you want me to get to convince you that this is my view?

As personal as you want to get.

Everything. God is everything, and everything is God.

Yes. Everything certainly exists. If you call everything god, then "god" exists.

It would be your personal view and I wouldn't argue why you defined FSM, God, or Universe that way. A person's personal view of what God is, is personal to that person. Not personal to someone else's opinion of what that person is supposed to view God.

Exactly! Each and every theist to ever live has a personal, subjective, concept of god which they deify and praise or worship or whatever... The only way to properly answer the question in the OP is to address each of those concepts of deity.

Well, the problem is that if we go too far in other discussions, we're derailing it too much. I've had the discussion before about my views, and have them in other threads, but it gets so clogged up when it's everywhere.

That's fair. I just look at these forums and threads and lots and lots of streaming mini-conversations within the pantheon of topics. For our virtual personas, this forum is god (See what I did there?)

 

[leibowde84]

God is everything that exist. Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ... should I go on?

It's the word that stands for the totality of our reality.

And, of course, you'll ask why I call it God. Again, by doing it, it changes my personal view on Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ...

And how does it change my personal view? My personal view changes to have greater respect and understanding of Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ...

But since Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ... takes a long time to write each time, and I do think it's easier to have a word that sums it up, instead of writing Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ... I call it God instead.

But if you want to call Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ... Reality, nature, existence, consciousness, mind, life, energy, matter, forces, quarks, Higgs field, thoughts, feelings, music, ice cream, bananas, art, TV shows, radio player, radio waves, radio shows, radio actors, radio hosts, radio scripts, radio buttons, footballs, humans, animals, breath, taste, humor, text, words, information, interaction, sleep, awareness, death, birth, ... That's up to you.

How could anything be more vague than "God is everything"?! If that is the most specific definition it is unreasonable for anyone to even attempt to disprove it. It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It just means that it is not falsifiable ... rather convenient.

 

[Blastcat]

Right, but we are talking about belief in the existence of God, not belief in the concept of God. I don't think anyone would claim that the concept of God does not exist.

But we have ONLY the evidence that the concept of god exists. What has to be demonstrated is that this concept has some truth to it.. or some reality attached to it. Some concepts don't.

So, lots and lots of evidence for the concept existing.. TONS..

None for the thing the concept is supposed to point to. .. Or did I miss that part?

 

[leibowde84]

But we have ONLY the evidence that the concept of god exists. What has to be demonstrated is that this concept has some truth to it.. or some reality attached to it. Some concepts don't.

So, lots and lots of evidence for the concept existing.. TONS..

None for the thing the concept is supposed to point to. .. Or did I miss that part?

I agree. But, again, we are discussing belief in the entity God, not the concept.

 

[Ouroboros]

No. What I wrote, in context, was making the point that if we don't define some boundary line for what we call when we make arguments against god, then anything and everything can be crammed into the word and there would be no way to argue for or against it. It wasn't directed at Pantheism.

Sure. But it was an open ended thread, without any clear directions. And I wanted to see what people think about the pantheistic God, and I'm surprised the negativity and animosity against it.

I think we're just talking into hallways where the other person isn't...

I agree that the Universe exists. If you say that the Universe is God, then by your definition of god then I'm admitting that god as you've defined it, exists, since your definition of god means everything.
I'm not insulting you by calling it word play. The only way that this conversation plays out, however, under these definitions, is by admitting semantically that your god exists because your god is the whole of the natural world.

Of course you insulted me when you called it "just word play." Don't think for a minute that it doesn't sting to have your views reduced to "but that's just word play" argument.

It's not just a word play simply because I didn't even come up with the idea of that "word play" to being with! Bruno (famous historical astronomer), Spinoza, Einstein, and more did the same thing. I'm not the first. I'm not the last. And I'm not alone doing this "word play."

I don't really think that's true. I have a deep admiration for this existence, and profound personal feelings towards it. But I don't call it god. This is why, I think, Dawkins calls Pantheism "sexed up atheism".

Sure. But there is a difference in attitude to call your home home instead of "house I'm staying at." By changing words, you change perspective.

Nothing. I'm just asking so I know where you're coming from. It's not about a truth claim. It's about understand personal perspectives.

That's not how it sounded earlier.

As personal as you want to get.

As far as I've gone, is as far as I go.

Yes. Everything certainly exists. If you call everything god, then "god" exists.

Thank you. Exactly.

That's why it's impossible to make arguments to prove that God (of any kind) doesn't exist. It's like proving that gnomes (general term) don't exist, and when someone mentions garden gnomes, they're told that it's just a word game.

Exactly! Each and every theist to ever live has a personal, subjective, concept of god which they deify and praise or worship or whatever... The only way to properly answer the question in the OP is to address each of those concepts of deity.

And I presented mine. And I tried to explain the definition. But I'm told that my definition is wrong because it's a personal view, word game, I came up with it on my own, it's not traditional, it can't be disproved, and other arguments. None of them disprove anything.

That's fair. I just look at these forums and threads and lots and lots of streaming mini-conversations within the pantheon of topics. For our virtual personas, this forum is god (See what I did there?)

Google is God too, btw. It's everywhere in the world and it's all knowing.

Well, one day, we might have a deeper conversation to "why". But it's not time yet. I can feel it's too much animosity still. Even on a religious forum...

 

[Ouroboros]

How could anything be more vague than "God is everything"?! If that is the most specific definition it is unreasonable for anyone to even attempt to disprove it. It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It just means that it is not falsifiable ... rather convenient.

Uh. No, what's convenient is to say that "no, you're not allowed to define God in a personal way, or in a way that we can't disprove."

The issue here is actually that there are many, many different views of what God is. But unfortunately, we are steeped and shaped to only think of the monotheistic external abrahamic sentient being God that neither atheists nor pantheists believe in. So when the question comes up, and it's open ended, then it's fair game.

I've learned a very good lesson from this thread, I'm not going to bring up pantheism again or pantheistic God concepts, since this forum is supposed to only be about Abrahamic monotheistic external anthropomorphic God, not other kinds, especially not pantheistic.

 

[viole]

The Atheists to give their proofs and evidences to convince the Theists

Regards

Basically the same evidence you have that Jesus and Zeus are not God.

Ciao

- viole