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.
An atheist may agree that a sensation of a higher power exists. Transcendence is a perfectly understandable feeling.
However, the more we understand science, the more we realize that this sensation is ultimately an illusion created by the complex interactions of naturalistic forces.
The sensation does not prove that a higher power actually exists.
An atheist may agree that a sensation of a higher power exists. Transcendence is a perfectly understandable feeling.
However, the more we understand science, the more we realize that this sensation is ultimately an illusion created by the complex interactions of naturalistic forces.
The sensation does not prove that a higher power actually exists.
There exists that which has created all there is...established the entirety of reality...controls said creation with "laws" (gravity, thermodynamics, etc)...and maintains and sustains said creation.
This has been in recent times referred to as "Nature" or "The Universe"...I call it "God", as it has all the attributes (creation, control & sustenance of the entirety of all there is) that one could ever demand of an entity, even with the most strict of standards, to define it as "God".
And it certainly is a "Higher Power" than just the humans that contemplate said force.
So, yes...a "Higher Power" does, in fact, exist...and we do more than just contemplate it...we directly observe and experience it.
There exists that which has created all there is...established the entirety of reality...controls said creation with "laws" (gravity, thermodynamics, etc)...and maintains and sustains said creation.
This has been in recent times referred to as "Nature" or "The Universe"...I call it "God", as it has all the attributes (creation, control & sustenance of the entirety of all there is) that one could ever demand of an entity, even with the most strict of standards, to define it as "God".
And it certainly is a "Higher Power" than just the humans that contemplate said force.
So, yes...a "Higher Power" does, in fact, exist...and we do more than just contemplate it...we directly observe and experience it.
I think you are missing a piece here that you imply through your choice of word, but won't state directly.
Create, maintain, sustain, and control, all imply agency, a forward thinking (planning) mind that makes choices. That is precisely what we don't have evidence for. You are trying to conflate the Kalaam argument and the existence of physical constants and physics itself with a forward planning entity.
In addition, you have fallen prey to the special pleading inherent in the goddunnit reasoning. What is responsible for creating, controlling, sustaining, and maintaining "god"? If it doesn't require these things, it just is, then why can not "all that is" do the same? In fact you are already implicitly arguing that god is not only a forward planning mind, but that it is separate or beyond "all that is".
This is why we make the point about theists "sneaking" different god definitions in once they establish a beach head. The dishonesty is present even within your argument where you try to argue that god doesn't mean a personal, decision making entity that is separate from nature, and then you proceed to assume those very things within your argument!
I have no problem with god as a myth or fictional character in stories we tell to explain things about our own experience. I also believe that Harry Potter exists, as a fictional character and as a concept both in the mind of J.K. Rowling and in the minds of the readers. I believe that an actual, non-fictional god exists as much as I believe that an actual nonfictional wizard named Harry Potter exists. Trying to conflate the meanings of words to get a concession and then reverting to the original definition and accusing the other of dishonesty is mindbogglingly brazen.
I have no problem with god as a myth or fictional character in stories we tell to explain things about our own experience. I also believe that Harry Potter exists, as a fictional character and as a concept both in the mind of J.K. Rowling and in the minds of the readers. I believe that an actual, non-fictional god exists as much as I believe that an actual nonfictional wizard named Harry Potter exists. Trying to conflate the meanings of words to get a concession and then reverting to the original definition and accusing the other of dishonesty is mindbogglingly brazen.
This goes back to OP's argument: that all human conceptions about God are only fictional metaphors for the real thing.
This "real thing" exists factually but it can never been explained or understood in human language. It can only be experienced... So, the OP believes in the mystical reality of God. At least, this is what I'm getting from the last 18 pages of discussion.
This goes back to OP's argument: that all human conceptions about God are only metaphors for the real thing.
This real thing exists factually but it can never been explained or understood in human language. It can only be experienced... So, the OP believes in the mystical reality of God. At least, this is what I'm getting from the last 18 pages of discussion.
And my point is that there is no reason to assume the "the real thing" even exists. A metaphor is simply a way to connect two ideas on a specific point of comparison. There is no requirement that anything more than ideas are involved. We already have a fair amount of empirical evidence that subjective experience is not always mappable to objective reality, so we are really back to believe it or don't. The problem with this threadis that is uses sematic games to try to paint anyone who believes that a word or idea can exist (as a word or idea) without the being "instantiated" in a non conceptual way as dishonest and intellectually bankrupt.
I think you are missing a piece here that you imply through your choice of word, but won't state directly.
Create, maintain, sustain, and control, all imply agency, a forward thinking (planning) mind that makes choices. That is precisely what we don't have evidence for. You are trying to conflate the Kalaam argument and the existence of physical constants and physics itself with a forward planning entity.
Nope...I "imply" nothing of the sort. YOU say I imply it...but I don't.
We DO KNOW that the matter/energy, THAT DOES IN FACT EXIST...creates through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force...."controls" that which is created through "laws", that we do IN FACT know to exist...and also maintains and sustains that which has been created by it.
We also know that these are the attributes known to define a God.
Regardless of what ever anyone wants to call what I am referring to...it is, by its KNOWN ATTRIBUTES, definitively a God.
It doesn't matter whether this creation, control, and maintaining/sustaining happened out of what some believe to be "chaos"...and organized itself by "random chance", with no "agency" or "forward planning"...it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that that has happened, and is still happening.
It also doesn't matter if this matter/energy has always existed and was never itself created (or is a "multiverse")....it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that is does exist.
And, by it's KNOWN ATTRIBUTES (as opposed to "assigned attributes")...is definitively a God...without it existing in any other state than just the way it is, and has been known to be.
THIS is the evidence that "God Exists" that everyone asks for...but by labeling that which we know to exist (and has the attributes that we know to define a God) something other than the "God" that it is by definition...they deny the existence of God.
But then, some turn around and acknowledge the existence of "Nature", "The Universe", etc...that has just been shown to be God, by the known attributes that are, by definition, demonstrative of a God Entity.
Quote:
In addition, you have fallen prey to the special pleading inherent in the goddunnit reasoning. What is responsible for creating, controlling, sustaining, and maintaining "god"? If it doesn't require these things, it just is, then why can not "all that is" do the same? In fact you are already implicitly arguing that god is not only a forward planning mind, but that it is separate or beyond "all that is".
AGAIN: That is YOUR implication...not mine.
I am stating that what exists in nothing other than the state it is in, and has been...is definitively "God".
Quote:
This is why we make the point about theists "sneaking" different god definitions in once they establish a beach head. The dishonesty is present even within your argument where you try to argue that god doesn't mean a personal, decision making entity that is separate from nature, and then you proceed to assume those very things within your argument!
I "sneak" nothing. The definition given by the independent, expert definer is what it is.
The "No God Exists Crew" looks to "sneak" part of the definition out...the Theists add nothing to the definition.
Quote:
I have no problem with god as a myth or fictional character in stories we tell to explain things about our own experience. I also believe that Harry Potter exists, as a fictional character and as a concept both in the mind of J.K. Rowling and in the minds of the readers. I believe that an actual, non-fictional god exists as much as I believe that an actual nonfictional wizard named Harry Potter exists. Trying to conflate the meanings of words to get a concession and then reverting to the original definition and accusing the other of dishonesty is mindbogglingly brazen.
Sorry that you don't like that the existing definition of "God" objectively concludes that "God Exists".
But I submit: It is YOU that is "mindbogglingly brazen" to think you can define a word better than Merriam-Webster can.
I suggest you take that matter up with them.
Nope...I "imply" nothing of the sort. YOU say I imply it...but I don't.
We DO KNOW that the matter/energy, THAT DOES IN FACT EXIST...creates through indigenous power without assistance or accomplice from any other force...."controls" that which is created through "laws", that we do IN FACT know to exist...and also maintains and sustains that which has been created by it.
We also know that these are the attributes known to define a God.
But matter/energy does not "create" the universe, it is the universe. It does not control the universe, it is the universe! My point was your use of the words create, control, sustain, and maintain imply a separateness from that which is created, controlled, sustained, and maintained. If that isn't what you mean, use different words instead of using the Humpty Dumpty argument.
Lets start from what we know. What exists, exists. I am good so far, but this implies nothing about creating, sustaining or the like. So far all that exists has one defining characteristic, it exists. The rest of it does not follow from this. This is the step you are glossing over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Sorry that you don't like that the existing definition of "God" objectively concludes that "God Exists".
But I submit: It is YOU that is "mindbogglingly brazen" to think you can define a word better than Merriam-Webster can.
I suggest you take that matter up with them.
Well this one is another where you go wrong. This is clearly the use of "God" as metaphor. (You know , the original topic?) We have a definition of transcendent divine beings in definitions one and two, a physical representation of definitions 1 and 2 in definitions 3, and metaphoric application of definitions 1 and 2 in definition 4.
Just in case you have trouble with the concept of metaphor, let me define that for you:
1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly: figurative language — compare simile
2 : an object, activity, or idea treated as a metaphor :symbol 2
So clearly the metaphoric meaning of the word "god" is not the same as definitions 1 and 2. It is, instead a form of comparison between the subject (Clapton, for example) and the idea embodied in one of the other definitions of the word "god". It does not equate one to the other, it is not declaring Clapton to be a god as defined in 1 or 2, it is a comparison of one thing to another, generally in a limited context. Saying that Tommy was a pinball wizard no more qualifies him to be in Hogwarts, than Clapton is god qualifies him for divinity.
I have never argued that the word "god" does not and should not exist in human language, or that concepts 1 and 2 have no business existing in human language or ideas. It is a strawman to argue that comparing a superlative human to the concept of a divine being as a metaphor is the same as believing that definitions 1 or 2 exist in any non-conceptual way.
You are, in short, arguing that it is dishonest to say that Harry Potter does not exist, because he exists as a character in a novel, therefore clearly there is a real person with a magic wand battling Voldemort with magical powers. Good luck with that.
And my point is that there is no reason to assume the "the real thing" even exists. A metaphor is simply a way to connect two ideas on a specific point of comparison. There is no requirement that anything more than ideas are involved. We already have a fair amount of empirical evidence that subjective experience is not always mappable to objective reality, so we are really back to believe it or don't. The problem with this threadis that is uses sematic games to try to paint anyone who believes that a word or idea can exist (as a word or idea) without the being "instantiated" in a non conceptual way as dishonest and intellectually bankrupt.
Of course, I agree with your arguments. There was a lot of excess verbiage in OP's posts which made it hard for me to understand what the actual point was.
But matter/energy does not "create" the universe, it is the universe. It does not control the universe, it is the universe! My point was your use of the words create, control, sustain, and maintain imply a separateness from that which is created, controlled, sustained, and maintained. If that isn't what you mean, use different words instead of using the Humpty Dumpty argument.
Lets start from what we know. What exists, exists. I am good so far, but this implies nothing about creating, sustaining or the like. So far all that exists has one defining characteristic, it exists. The rest of it does not follow from this. This is the step you are glossing over.
The UNEQUIVOCAL FACT is that the matter/energy that exists and has existed...is responsible for, all the creation that has occurred and the establishment of our reality, all the "laws" that exist that controls what has been created, and provides all that maintains and sustains it.
And I say, that would definitively make that matter/energy as "God" as "God" can get.
YOU switch it up and say "God" IS the Universe. But you have it backwards.
That matter/energy is definitively "God"...by its known attributes of creation, control, and sustenance/maintenance, that are demonstrative of a God entity.
"God" is not separate from the Universe...what you call the Universe IS "God".
The mistake I see here by you and others...is to which way the "relabeling" has occurred.
Quote:
Well this one is another where you go wrong. This is clearly the use of "God" as metaphor. (You know , the original topic?) We have a definition of transcendent divine beings in definitions one and two, a physical representation of definitions 1 and 2 in definitions 3, and metaphoric application of definitions 1 and 2 in definition 4.
Just in case you have trouble with the concept of metaphor, let me define that for you:
So clearly the metaphoric meaning of the word "god" is not the same as definitions 1 and 2. It is, instead a form of comparison between the subject (Clapton, for example) and the idea embodied in one of the other definitions of the word "god". It does not equate one to the other, it is not declaring Clapton to be a god as defined in 1 or 2, it is a comparison of one thing to another, generally in a limited context. Saying that Tommy was a pinball wizard no more qualifies him to be in Hogwarts, than Clapton is god qualifies him for divinity.
I have never argued that the word "god" does not and should not exist in human language, or that concepts 1 and 2 have no business existing in human language or ideas. It is a strawman to argue that comparing a superlative human to the concept of a divine being as a metaphor is the same as believing that definitions 1 or 2 exist in any non-conceptual way.
I wasn't using "God" as a metaphor for the Universe. If anything "Universe" is a metaphor for "God".
As per the definition of "God":
god noun \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
Definition of GOD
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler
Examples of GOD
Does she believe in God?
I pray to God that no one was seriously injured in the accident.
the gods and goddesses of ancient Egypt
a myth about the god of war
an offering for the gods
a professor who was regarded as a kind of god
a guitar god like Jimi Hendrix
Note the portions highlighted in green.
All you need to do is consider the full definition of "God".
Quit the cherry-picking, and stop redacting the portions that show that "God" is defined in a much broader context...and thus, most certainly exists.
Quote:
You are, in short, arguing that it is dishonest to say that Harry Potter does not exist, because he exists as a character in a novel, therefore clearly there is a real person with a magic wand battling Voldemort with magical powers. Good luck with that.
Why do you continue to bring up Harry Potter?
I'm talking about REALITY...not characters people write in fiction novels.
Stay on what is real.
The universe is not god and as a matter of fact the concept of god is nothing but an invention of men, so call it whatever you like...It makes no difference, as it is still fiction.
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.
