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.
Well there is the disconnect right there. I am trying to understand what you are trying to say by referencing a nonDeity God! Per your preferred "expert definer", a deity is a god or goddess. I fail to see one can have a non-deity god, because as I pointed out, if deity = god (which it does per Mirriam Webster) then you are trying to fuss that other people don't recognize non-god gods. What does that even mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You referred to a Being. As is typical of Religious Deities. That is why I capitalized the "D" in nonDeity...to refer to the "Being" qualifier you put forth as your exclusive, blinkerd, and close-minded definition that you won't see outside of.
There are deities that could be perceived as God that do, in fact, exist in reality. OTOH...no Deity that is a Being noted in Religions has ever been empirically proven.
Now we are getting somewhere! When referring to a literal god, generally some sort of "person" or at least conscious or sentient force or energy is what is being referenced. This goes to the heart of what I am asking you to define. What does it mean for something to be a literal god? I have given you some definitions that I feel are fairly good, although probably not entirely complete, as "god" is a difficult and fuzzy concept. You feel like this is a limited, blinkered concept, so I am asking you to provide some alternate conception and a justification for it.
If "god" is a label what does that label imply? What bar must be reached before something can be considered a literal god?
There are other uses of the word god. There can be the idea or concept of a god, even if an actual literal one does not exist. A god can exist as a character or a literary device. The label of god can even be applied in a metaphoric sense, that is applied to something that is not a literal god in order to emphasize some quality or attribute. But, and this is key, none of this has anything to do with atheism. As an atheist, I am absolutely convinced that all these things do exist. There is no conflict with this and the idea of atheism.
What I am discussing is an actual, literal god. If you are not discussing the same thing then you should make that clear, and we can cut this discussion short. If we are not discussing the same thing then this entire argument is merely a miscommunication, and thus meaningless...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You try to claim I define God as I do simply to force God into existence disingenuously.
The Real Deal: You are "projecting"...You restrict the definition of God so it is necessarily limited to entities you know don't exist. So you can disingenuously force your "No God" view.
Not so! I had a specific definition of God long before I disbelieved. If anything I have vastly expanded my concept of what a god might be over the years, and still find no reason to believe that such a thing exists. But I do see a very important distinction between a literal, extant god and the idea of a god. It is not only possible, it is undeniable that the idea of a god exists. In fact countless ideas of gods exist, but that does not imply that an actual god exists.
Now you do have a point that if one defines god is such a way that it is identically equal to something that we know exists, then that definition of god does exist. My contention, however, is that a definition of god that adds nothing, that contains no additional information, no implications above some other word for the same object is simply a trivial redefinition and as such has no bearing on contemplating the existence of a god in a meaningful sense. It is not so much a proof of god as an exercise in relabeling, and as such has nothing substantive to add to the discussion.
Where I have a real issue is when people, and you are not the only one, attempt to use this trivial relabeling to then try to insert other concepts which are not in evidence as inherent in the definition, and thus already agreed upon. This is clearly a dishonest technique to try to smuggle assertions under the radar. As an example, arguing that we can trivially relabel all energy and matter as god in no way implies agency, will, consciousness, creative potential, or roles like "source", "sustainer", or "creator". A God defined this way of necessity is identically equal to our observable reality and these things are not in evidence.
If I thought you'd actually read it, I'd post it. But instead I'll direct you to the search function. Do a search for "cosmological argument". I'm sure you can find several posts I've made over the last couple years about it. But again....that's just a proof...it does nothing to persuade if your mind isn't open to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I haven't suggested that it does prove the God of the Bible. It proves that there is a God. It's more than adequate to prove that. If you're mind is open to reading it. I haven't seen that you are, though.
Vizio,
The cosmological argument isn't the slam dunk you think it is. One flaw is that we don't know that there cannot be spontaneous generation of matter. Various hypothetical scenarios abound, with matter and anti-matter universes being created in a cosmic hiccup. It also appears that matter can spring into existence on a subatomic level. If this is the case, why not on a cosmic level?
Add to that the problem of what caused god? The cosmological argument claims that the universe needs a cause, but god doesn't. That is inconsistent.
I am not saying that I know how the universe came into existence, I am saying that the cosmological argument is flawed and doesn't really answer anything.
lmao, so many words of nothing in a vain attempt to "trivialize something" so that "nothing" is more valid because it has no meaning to a personal need, or in this case, an emotional need to be nothing. too funny. When the simple fact that "something" is more valid than "nothing". but we needs lots of words to get around such a simple truth because it is so simple to all but the broken brained or stupid that we burry it in a pile of nonsense.
Well there is the disconnect right there. I am trying to understand what you are trying to say by referencing a nonDeity God! Per your preferred "expert definer", a deity is a god or goddess. I fail to see one can have a non-deity god, because as I pointed out, if deity = god (which it does per Mirriam Webster) then you are trying to fuss that other people don't recognize non-god gods. What does that even mean?
Now we are getting somewhere! When referring to a literal god, generally some sort of "person" or at least conscious or sentient force or energy is what is being referenced. This goes to the heart of what I am asking you to define. What does it mean for something to be a literal god? I have given you some definitions that I feel are fairly good, although probably not entirely complete, as "god" is a difficult and fuzzy concept. You feel like this is a limited, blinkered concept, so I am asking you to provide some alternate conception and a justification for it.
If "god" is a label what does that label imply? What bar must be reached before something can be considered a literal god?
There are other uses of the word god. There can be the idea or concept of a god, even if an actual literal one does not exist. A god can exist as a character or a literary device. The label of god can even be applied in a metaphoric sense, that is applied to something that is not a literal god in order to emphasize some quality or attribute. But, and this is key, none of this has anything to do with atheism. As an atheist, I am absolutely convinced that all these things do exist. There is no conflict with this and the idea of atheism.
What I am discussing is an actual, literal god. If you are not discussing the same thing then you should make that clear, and we can cut this discussion short. If we are not discussing the same thing then this entire argument is merely a miscommunication, and thus meaningless...
Not so! I had a specific definition of God long before I disbelieved. If anything I have vastly expanded my concept of what a god might be over the years, and still find no reason to believe that such a thing exists. But I do see a very important distinction between a literal, extant god and the idea of a god. It is not only possible, it is undeniable that the idea of a god exists. In fact countless ideas of gods exist, but that does not imply that an actual god exists.
Now you do have a point that if one defines god is such a way that it is identically equal to something that we know exists, then that definition of god does exist. My contention, however, is that a definition of god that adds nothing, that contains no additional information, no implications above some other word for the same object is simply a trivial redefinition and as such has no bearing on contemplating the existence of a god in a meaningful sense. It is not so much a proof of god as an exercise in relabeling, and as such has nothing substantive to add to the discussion.
Where I have a real issue is when people, and you are not the only one, attempt to use this trivial relabeling to then try to insert other concepts which are not in evidence as inherent in the definition, and thus already agreed upon. This is clearly a dishonest technique to try to smuggle assertions under the radar. As an example, arguing that we can trivially relabel all energy and matter as god in no way implies agency, will, consciousness, creative potential, or roles like "source", "sustainer", or "creator". A God defined this way of necessity is identically equal to our observable reality and these things are not in evidence.
-NoCapo
I can see that you simply don't understand.
I used an example in a post to Shirina: My "friend" may not be your "friend"...but that doesn't mean they can't be defined as a friend to me or anyone else.
There are many differing views people hold on what is required of someone to qualify as a friend, some even feel that "friends" don't exist. But even if one considers someone a friend that another views as not meeting their requirement to be a friend, or that "friend" is a misnomer ....that wouldn't mean the person was not a friend to the one that considers them such, or that there really is no such thing as a friend.
You don't get to define things for everyone else. That is why I refer to the experts. You say you don't like the experts. Too bad...take it up with them...or figure out how to get yourself to be considered a more accurate source from which to obtain the meaning of words.
Even when you use the experts...you can't figure it out. Like the way you are unable to grasp that just because A Deity is a God....a God is not necessarily a Deity.
Once you open your mind to the concept of God as more than just "Beings"...you might be able to "get it". Though I hold little hope in that.
The cosmological argument isn't the slam dunk you think it is. One flaw is that we don't know that there cannot be spontaneous generation of matter. Various hypothetical scenarios abound, with matter and anti-matter universes being created in a cosmic hiccup. It also appears that matter can spring into existence on a subatomic level. If this is the case, why not on a cosmic level?
Add to that the problem of what caused god? The cosmological argument claims that the universe needs a cause, but god doesn't. That is inconsistent.
I am not saying that I know how the universe came into existence, I am saying that the cosmological argument is flawed and doesn't really answer anything.
Right, it answers one question while immediately creating a new one. It's the old "the world rests on the back of a giant turtle" revisited.
I used an example in a post to Shirina: My "friend" may not be your "friend"...but that doesn't mean they can't be defined as a friend to me or anyone else.
There are many differing views people hold on what is required of someone to qualify as a friend, some even feel that "friends" don't exist. But even if one considers someone a friend that another views as not meeting their requirement to be a friend, or that "friend" is a misnomer ....that wouldn't mean the person was not a friend to the one that considers them such, or that there really is no such thing as a friend.
You don't get to define things for everyone else. That is why I refer to the experts. You say you don't like the experts. Too bad...take it up with them...or figure out how to get yourself to be considered a more accurate source from which to obtain the meaning of words.
Even when you use the experts...you can't figure it out. Like the way you are unable to grasp that just because A Deity is a God....a God is not necessarily a Deity.
Once you open your mind to the concept of God as more than just "Beings"...you might be able to "get it". Though I hold little hope in that.
So you're saying I can choose a non-deity for my God? Like money, fame, etc.?
The cosmological argument isn't the slam dunk you think it is. One flaw is that we don't know that there cannot be spontaneous generation of matter. Various hypothetical scenarios abound, with matter and anti-matter universes being created in a cosmic hiccup. It also appears that matter can spring into existence on a subatomic level. If this is the case, why not on a cosmic level?
Add to that the problem of what caused god? The cosmological argument claims that the universe needs a cause, but god doesn't. That is inconsistent.
I am not saying that I know how the universe came into existence, I am saying that the cosmological argument is flawed and doesn't really answer anything.
Mulling...it's the weekend....
Maybe God doesn't pre-date the BB. Maybe God is the sum total of the consciousness which has evolved since the BB...a cosmic mind-sponge.
I know that probably isn't a particularly novel thought. But what if God doesn't know that's what s/he/it is? What if "God" is just an ever-burgeoning, ever blossoming, ever expanding sensingof everything?
Is that what you mean by "non-deity God"? Whatever the individual has chosen in the place of "God"?
I'm just trying to wrap my head around what you are saying.
Nothing is "chosen in place of" God. "God" is not necessarily a specific entity or Being...it can be...but doesn't have to be.
"God" is a title...like "hero" or "friend"...that can be assigned to anything one may perceive as such.
Definitively, "God" is not limited to just Religious Deities. Though it seems some are so mentally entrenched in that idea, they can't conceive bestowing the title "God" to anything but.
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.
