The 'nature god' of atheists (Revelation, service, choice, society)

[Sid235]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

Using "God" synonymously with "God consciousness" means he is defining "God" as "God consciousness" in that post. If his definitions were consistent, then when he says "evidence of God" he would mean "evidence of God consciousness". The fact that he denies that that's what he means, shows the exploitation of the ambiguity he's been creating in order to create sophistry instead of rational arguments.

Defining "God" as "God consciousness" is a circular-logic: believe God exists -> prove God -> believe God exists.

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Where the hell did this troglodyte come from? I never believed in God (even as a child) until I was almost 30 years old and encountered God in deep meditation. Go back and play with the kiddies where your arguments have some traction.

You see yourself as the master of put downs, problem is you're in the bottom of the hole, reaching up to do so.

But that must have been one hell of an LSD trip, as your gibberish rants here indicate you're still trippin'.

[Ourself]

::Sigh:: So according to you . . . the "tracks, sh_t and DNA" does not establish the EXISTENCE of a Deer . . . that is only a belief? We have to see the Deer to prove it? Are you really saying that?

I said the unknown. To believe in deers is not akin to believing in a deity.

What I see is you trying to get even with Atheists who have disrupted your threads and possibly your personal life by forcing them into your shoes. Sorry if I'm wrong but that is how it appears to me.

I just happen to be someone who does see the Universe as God and am just trying to point out that I'm not really Atheist.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Ourself

I said the unknown. To believe in deers is not akin to believing in a deity.

This discussion is not about beliefs. This is an analogy of the method of using partial evidence to establish the EXISTENCE of something (whatever it is) without knowing everything about it. It is not comparing deer to God. We NEVER use any literal comparisons in an ANALOGY.

What I see is you trying to get even with Atheists who have disrupted your threads and possibly your personal life by forcing them into your shoes. Sorry if I'm wrong but that is how it appears to me.

The ubiquitous arrogance and unjustified ridicule and abuse the atheists heap upon believers in God is unconscionable. There is no scientific basis for their assertions about the EXISTENCE of God. The BELIEFS ABOUT God (so many of which are absurd) have to take their chances. But the EXISTENCE issue does NOT. That does play a part in establishing the approach I take to these discussions.

I just happen to be someone who does see the Universe as God and am just trying to point out that I'm not really Atheist.

If I was too caustic or callous toward you . . . my apologies . . . it is never wise to try to stop a dogfight.

[Ourself]

Aw, nevermind, lol... It wasn't about hurt feelings, it was about definitions.

Well, no wait a second here, lol. You said you found God later in life so when you didn't believe, did you think of nature as your God? How would you have felt if somebody suggested it you back then?

I'm sorry, and I do understand. I go at it with Atheists and Relgious people alike. I also stick up for both. However many will turn their noses up at anyone who doesn't perceive the world and/or God the same as they do. But that's impossible. Nobody will see the world/God the exact same way.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Ourself

Aw, nevermind, lol... It wasn't about hurt feelings, it was about definitions.

Well, no wait a second here, lol. You said you found God later in life so when you didn't believe, did you think of nature as your God? How would you have felt if somebody suggested it you back then?

I would have rejected it . . . but it would have been a knee jerk rejection . . . not a fully thought out one. None of the religious nonsense was acceptable. The atheist Buddhist conception of Nirvana was tolerable.

I'm sorry, and I do understand. I go at it with Atheists and Relgious people alike. I also stick up for both. However many will turn their noses up at anyone who doesn't perceive the world and/or God the same as they do. But that's impossible. Nobody will see the world/God the exact same way.

My goal has nothing to do with the beliefs or ways people perceive God. It is to disabuse those who reject the EXISTENCE of God. We are free to believe what we wish ABOUT God . . . but not deny the existence.

[sanspeur]

We are not free to deny the existence of god? Well that's news to me...Who are you to make such a declaration?

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

You have educated me to the Atheist mindset...and increased my understanding. For that I thank you...I always appreciate the opportunity to learn.

I am now hip to WHY you feel so passionate. And obviously it is true that some of you do... as demonstrated by the dedication and commitment that it takes to motivate some of you to devote the thousands of hours to put up thousands of posts debating a few strangers on some internet forum. But if I could ask you to educate me further...Where do you figure that's gonna get ya in your "quest" to debunk the "god-delusion"? It seems (well, not just "seems"...it IS) an incredibly inefficient/ineffective method of achieving your "goal".

P.S. Please don't stop...it provides me with great amusement. Sort of like watching a kitten chase it's tail.

Then we are both winning as it's great amusement for both of us like the fellow watching a kitten chase its tail (it's dogs do that actually) unaware that he's the one wasting his time.

Fact is, it isn't a waste of time. Fact is that doubts about religion are on the rise. Fact is that we need more tail -chasing, not less. Fact is that the more we can educate people about atheists and what they think and why, the less that 'atheism' is going to be seen as a dirty word.

[TRANSPONDER]

[quote=MysticPhD;14724278]Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Mystic wrote above "The scope of the power is itself sufficient to qualify as God.
This is another argument but no better. In fact worse since it is nothing more that a rhetorical trick. It is pasting the 'god' label onto nature.

Mystic responded

The rhetorical trick was pasting the "Nature" label onto God to avoid religious persecution.

Your evidence for that claim? I deny that 'nature' was pasted onto god to 'avoid religious persecution'. Nature was 'pasted onto the god - belief because science showed that it was nature, not god. Your claim seems back to front anyway. To avoid religious persecution surely one would paste the 'god' label onto discoveries about nature, which is rather what we found in 15th century Italy, 18th century Britain and 20th century America. Please give a historical example to substantiate your apparently illogical and historically incorrect claim.

Arq

Why call it nature rather than 'God' or even 'god'? Because, as said above the 'god' idea carries the assumption that there is a planning mind and this is not yet supported other than with 'it's right in front of you'.

Mystic

Wrong. Those assumptions are BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . and have NOTHING to do with empirical evidence for God's EXISTENCE . . . which is incontrovertible. Our God/Creator has supplied us with abilities to learn as much as we can and explain HOW Creation works . . . but none of that can remotely be used to deny God's EXISTENCE . . . which relies on God's controls, processes, direction and intelligibility to achieve.

All supposition and Beliefs, mate. I do controvert this supposed empirical evidence for your god's existence. I say it is no more than a belief. I say that the evidence is that things work as they do because .. essentially.. atoms stick together and anyone who knows a bit of science can follow the increasing complexity on from there. Where is the 'incontrovertible evidence' for this 'god'? Give some of it? It should be easy for you.

Arq

"The burden is yours to assign it elsewhere."
This is also a logical fallacy. Assuming what is to be proved. It is not new. Take 'god' as a given and demand that it be disproved. Doesn't work that way. YOU first need to give any good reason why we should first postulate a god.

Mystic

There is no need to postulate anything. That a God/Creator is responsible for existence is indisputable in the face of the existence of Creation.

Ah. The First cause argument. This is a logical fallacy, namely argument from ignorance. 'Because we don't know very much about how the universe got started God mustha dunnit'. False assumption:

(1) This universe is quite likely only one of a lot of others. The Big bang (or whatever happened) may be just one of similar events in a wider cosmos where such things are going on all the time.
(2) nothing may very well come from nothing.
(3) A universe coalescing out of a lot of unformed matter is easier to believe that a complex planning invisible mind that nobody created.

The 'god' idea is illogical and First cause - though one of the better arguments - does not stand up under scrutiny. It is certainly not incontravertible.

Arq

I can see where you are coming from Mystic. You look at the complexity and the way things work and simply cannot accept that nothing comes from nothing. You cannot entertain the idea that anything that survives survives because it works together in a way that works. If it doesn't it falls apart or becomes extinct. It is a logical fallacy (Occam's razor) to invent a planning mind to account for it when we don't really need to.

Mystic

Again with the BELIEFS ABOUT crap and a non-fallacy fallacy. The Friar's "principle" is neither a fallacy nor science and has repeatedly been found to be false. Convince me with your philosophical erudition that what you suggest is remotely reasonable. I am fascinated at the ease with which some people seem to gravitate toward this "No Source" view.

Kindly explain for the readers why what I said was crap and a non - fallacy fallacy. You are only proving us all right when we say all you ever do is say 'it's obvious' and just dismiss without argument and pretend that you've proved something.

I begin to think that you just dismiss everything as 'belief..crap' because you don't have any better argument. Please now make a coherent argument as to why my sayiing that argument from ignorance is a fallacy is itself a fallacy. Set out how the 'Friar's' principle (William of Occam's) fits into your argument(1)

Arq

:
Your insistence that evidence of a mind is evident in nature itself is just the watchmaker repacked. It is Creationism indeed, whether you like it or not.
The arguments for this mind are not complelling and come down to no more than belief, whether you like it or not - unless you can support that belief by some good scientific evidence FOR a 'god'. Not just picking holes in naturist theory or appealing to gaps for god, but some evidence FOR.

Mystic

Your attempts to tar my views with the frauds associated with the Creationist and Discovery Institute ID movements will fail. We are not dealing with anything but science and reality here . . . no BELIEFS ABOUT allowed, period! I submit everything we know is proof for God/Creator and how Creation works. On WHAT scientific basis do you deny this? (This will require a fairly rigorous philosophical rationale . . . NOT your mindless parroting of your already unsubstantiated opinions).

The Creationists deal with science and reality too, as you well know, but they do it rather badly because they want to twist science and reality to suit their preconceived beliefs in 'god'. You do Exactly the same. Though it a different 'god' evidently.

I maintain that your arguments are the same as theists and often the same as creationists. It is not smearing you with creationism but pointing out that your arguments are not new or unusual. And I say that logically the burden of proof of this 'god' in on you. If you can't show it, there is no logical reason to believe in it. The universe works without a controlling mind. That's what science tells us. Tell us why we should give any credit to this god of yours..and, please, no more irrelevant 'Belief-crap' rhetorical red -herrings.

Arq

:And sticking the God - label onto what we have without first giving some good reason why we should do so is just a rhetorical trick.

Sticking the "Nature" label onto what we have without first giving a good reason why we should do so is just a rhetorical trick.

Reasons why we should do so (without a better alternative theory) were given above. You have still not given a better alternative. All you have adduced so far is 'First cause'. That has been shown a fallacy and the arguments against it were given. Now let's see your arguments FOR it.

Arq

Look. The burden of proof really is on you. We are not supposing that we can convince you. We are waiting to see what you have to convince us.

It is you who claims no God/Creator in the face of the enormity of Creation. The empirical burden is yours . . . NO BELIEFS ALLOWED.

Nope. I am claiming nothing. I am saying that logically, what we see is what we have without suposing some great controlling invisible entity. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your god claim. I am making no claim, not even a nature claim. Nature is merely what we have left if no god is demonstrated. A universe without 'god'. I don't have to prove the universe; you have to prove 'god'. The claim is yours and the burden of proof is yours.

So far our suspicions that all you had were beliefs, avoidance of questions, shifitng the burden of proof and a lot of gratuitous sneering were spot on. Show us ,that you have something better.

(1) Occam's rasor is not a scientific principle nor a natural law. It is not even a logical tool. I explain it more as a mental safety barrier agains the misuse of logical tools so as to cause intellectual injury. Your asserting that it is often found 'false' is frankly dishonest, in the context of this argument.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Well that is the way it is . . . there are parts of my own behavior that I'm not that fond of too. Why should it be any different for our God?

Since your god evidently exists only in your own head, no difference at all.