Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no idea what "considering reality worth considering" means, so I can't really answer your question.
You must not be familiar with the panentheist God . . . perhaps you missed all my posts and discourse with atheists about the euphemism of Nature instead of God.
You must not be familiar with the panentheist God . . . perhaps you missed all my posts and discourse with atheists about the euphemism of Nature instead of God.
Yes, I did miss it. I am only familiar with panentheism as a general concept -- i.e. that reality is a portion of a greater God (rather than God and reality are the same thing, or, alternatively, God and reality are separate things). But I am entirely unfamiliar with any jargon that might accompany a believer in this modality.
You must not be familiar with the panentheist God . . . perhaps you missed all my posts and discourse with atheists about the euphemism of Nature instead of God.
It is the other way around - you are the one taking things we already have words for and calling those things "god". Like the universe and everything. You simply call them "god" then start acting like this god is conscious and human consciousness survives death and joins this god - where it is morally judged.
And yet you have no problem considering reality worth considering and calling it Nature . . . despite the fact we haven't the vaguest idea what it is or why it is . . . and that is likely to remain unknowable. Why the double standard?
Mystic, I thought that you had finally accepted the atheist rationale on this. Don't disappoint by pulling the same old stuff out because you think you have a new poster who is as yet unfamiliar with you.
We know you believe in God and we understand why. I thought you understood the logical reasons why we don't.
There is no valid reason to label 'nature' or 'reality' "God" since we know enough about the mechanism to give the material/physical the default -position. Calling that reality "God" because it produced everything is just a rhetorical trick (equivocation) to get the 'God' label accepted as a thin end of a theistic wedge. And trying to discredit materialistic naturalism on the basis of what is unknown is as bad an argument as a Creationist pretending that there is no evidence for evolution just because we can't prove how life started.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-10-2014 at 04:31 AM..
Mystic, I thought that you had finally accepted the atheist rationale on this. Don't disappoint by pulling the same old stuff out because you think you have a new poster who is as yet unfamiliar with you.
We know you believe in God and we understand why. I thought you understood the logical reasons why we don't.
There is no valid reason to label 'nature' or 'reality' "God" since we know enough about the mechanism to give the material/physical the default -position. Calling that reality "God" because it produced everything is just a rhetorical trick (equivocation) to get the 'God' label accepted as a thin end of a theistic wedge. And trying to discredit materialistic naturalism on the basis of what is unknown is as bad an argument as a Creationist pretending that there is no evidence for evolution just because we can't prove how life started.
As the newbie for Mystic -- I really was hoping to become his chew toy for at least a little while but I guess that's a block he already has gone around perhaps once too often with the current posters here?
But upon reading your comment Arq -- i.e. "material/physical" as the default position? really? -- I now get the sense that it would have been a rather boring and derivative conversation. Anyone who starts from a presupposition that allows them to somehow deny reality itself are tedious. I suppose I should know better given the way Mystic typically uses language -- to obscure meaning rather than communicate better. People like that often are even more incoherent than the average theist. Are my suspicions warranted?
You must not be familiar with the panentheist God . . . perhaps you missed all my posts and discourse with atheists about the euphemism of Nature instead of God.
Except that an atheist would probably not capitalize the word "nature" and can't by definition believe in or name anything a god. Once you make the leap of calling something a "god", you're by definition a theist of one sort or the other.
Also, I just read the definition of the panentheistic god, and it seems that god transcends nature and the universe, unlike the pantheistic god, which does not. While an atheist might believe nature and the material is all that exists (I'm in that camp), we certainly would not consider nature a god <(lacks much needed definition).
Last edited by NOTaTHEIST; 03-10-2014 at 03:08 PM..
Mystic, I thought that you had finally accepted the atheist rationale on this. Don't disappoint by pulling the same old stuff out because you think you have a new poster who is as yet unfamiliar with you.
I am just trying to get him/her to the same point you said you were, Arq. It is clear that there is no acceptance of the a priori nature of BOTH positions. THAT is what is unacceptable. BOTH views about a generic God are reasonable and rational given the state of knowledge. It is the absurd and irrational religious BELIEFS ABOUT God that present questionable positions amenable to refutation.
Quote:
We know you believe in God and we understand why. I thought you understood the logical reasons why we don't.
I do. I thought you understood the logical reasons why I do. Both positions are a priori preferences about the inscrutable.
Quote:
There is no valid reason to label 'nature' or 'reality' "God" since we know enough about the mechanism to give the material/physical the default -position. Calling that reality "God" because it produced everything is just a rhetorical trick (equivocation) to get the 'God' label accepted as a thin end of a theistic wedge. And trying to discredit materialistic naturalism on the basis of what is unknown is as bad an argument as a Creationist pretending that there is no evidence for evolution just because we can't prove how life started.
NO it isn't, Arq. You do not LIKE it and call it God of the gaps . . . but the gaps are still there. There is NO scientific basis for rejecting or accepting EITHER position, Arq. I accept that you have logical and rational reasons for your PREFERENCE. I thought you understood that I do as well.
Why atheists can be confident that God doesn't exist...
I'd assume we're talking about the Judeo Christian god here, as is generally what the capitalized version of the word refers too. I would say that I'm very confident that this particular god almost certainly does not exist. Arq laid out some very realistic probabilities in his first post in the thread.
I would amend this to read more clearly; Why atheism/disbelief is warranted in the case of the Judeo Christian god.
I'd assume we're talking about the Judeo Christian god here, as is generally what the capitalized version of the word refers too. I would say that I'm very confident that this particular god almost certainly does not exist. Arq laid out some very realistic probabilities in his first post in the thread.
I would amend this to read more clearly; Why atheism/disbelief is warranted in the case of the Judeo Christian god.
My assertion about theism being incoherent, is definitely qualified by claims of gods that are considered unknowable/uncomprehendable/outside space and time/etc. as the Judeo-Christian god is often described, but I wouldn't necessarily limit my claim to just that crowd. I believe there are plenty of non-Christian examples of people claiming to know a god that is unknowable too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but I guess that's a block he already has gone around perhaps once too often with the current posters here? 
