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've already addressed this post but would like to offer another opinion here.
Please offer your definition of "god" or any definition you like.
My current definition of god is: an infinite force that makes and IS everything that exists so, yes, there is some sort of god based on my definition.
Such definitions of god are circular and meaningless. We have a perfectly serviceable label for "everything that exists" ... "existence" or "the universe". Unless you regard this as having some sort of agency then you are simply redefining god to fit other things.
The purpose of having a god is to worship it or to in some other way interact with it in a meaningful fashion. It is supposed to render your existence coherent, explicable, purposeful and usually, transcendent of the human condition in some way. I do not see how abstract, absent, or indifferent deities are different in practice from non-existent ones in that regard.
The only deities that have ever made even provisional sense to me are personal, interactive ones; even the often negatively interacting ones of the Abrahamic faiths with their proscriptions and threats at least reduce your daily existence to simplified black and white symbols.
Regardless of all that, whether you are talking about invisible personal interventionist gods as more commonly conceived throughout human history, or some distant deist-like "sortagod", they are all conveniently invisible and not amenable to direct observation, and so are not falsifiable nor amenable to falsifiable propositions. As such ... sure the remote possibility that one or more exist somewhere has to be admitted. But that does not mean there's any justification to afford belief to them either.
Meanwhile if we imagine what a universe devoid of gods would be like, lo and behold ... this one is what that would look like. And once you realize that apart from your own innate biases there's no reason to assign agency to abstractions like love or beauty, awe or fear ... things play out just as one would expect. Outcomes from prayer are indistinguishable from random happenstance, devout believers are no more or less morally virtuous or corrupt than anyone else overall, no one enjoys special favors, protection or insight, boons and banes don't at all require gods to explain them ... it is the very human free-for-all that you would expect in a godless universe.
So yes to the point of the OP, sure there's always a possibility for gods and leprechauns but so small as to be functionally the same as zero.
in order to accept or deny we would need a measurement.
we are part of a system that is probably life. The connections some people feel are real enough and we can make a measurements to see how true that claim is.
to the OP's point that there is no omni type god is true, but its also true that what they are calling god is at least this volume of space we live in. It would "feel" much bigger, so much so, to us it would be infinite. Emotions are a little trickier, but if a person is an emotional sort, they will experience an emotional response that matches their emotional brain state.
so yeah, other atheist accept the possibility of a global awareness, that we are in a living system, That maybe the universe is alive. In fact, a lot do.
theist should modify their god to match observations. The things i listed are misunderstood as a "omni god" that woke up and flew away.
Nope. I do not. But feel free to keep making up things about me that are false when you can not reply to the things I actually say and do.
lol, yeah. whatever.
make the measurement. everything you claim is hear say until we make a measurement. make sure you go look up what a measurement is. Then we can compare the validity of your, thus far, baseless stance.
Once that measurement is made, we can then move forward with how absurb your "lack of belief" is.
compare the the interactions of the bioshpere to
the interactions of things we call life.
the interactions of things we call non life.
the interactions of things we call and tweeners, like a virus.
Until we make a measurement you're just a bunch of hear say sack of "lack of belief". basically just like any other religion that does not use, or worse ignores, observations.
Still making things up. And remember a stance is not "baseless" just because you say it is. Lets see you establish it actually is. My entire stance is that there is no evidence at this time to think the explanation for our universe is an intentional and intelligent agent.
Still making things up. And remember a stance is not "baseless" just because you say it is. Lets see you establish it actually is. My entire stance is that there is no evidence at this time to think the explanation for our universe is an intentional and intelligent agent.
What is baseless about that? Do you even know?
lol,
did you make the measurement yet?
that one measurement, you are so afraid to make the compassion in public arent cha. Making that measurement, that single measurement, scares the no ba jesus out of you.
You think you stand with Galileo,
you stand with the church.
Still making things up. And remember a stance is not "baseless" just because you say it is. Lets see you establish it actually is. My entire stance is that there is no evidence at this time to think the explanation for our universe is an intentional and intelligent agent.
What is baseless about that? Do you even know?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
"You are making things up"....this is a Nozz recorded announcement!
You say that to EVERYONE you disagree with. What's up with that?
That, and, "They are putting words in your mouth"...along with the illogical declaration that they are "the least" at providing nothing to substantiate their claims.
Oh, and, that it is all "nonsense".
But, never stop!...it is one of my favorite things on this board.
ONLY by redacting and cherry-picking the known, expert definitions of "G-O-D" (while excising the ones that blow up your "lack belief based upon no evidence" position) do you attempt to hang on to your illogical "No God Exists" concept.
By what authority do you, et al, get to be the arbiters of how "G-O-D" is defined...when we have all the meanings that apply provided by experts?
By what authority do you, et al, get to be the arbiters of how "G-O-D" is defined...when we have all the meanings that apply provided by experts?
And how many experts, do you think, would define God (especially with a capital "G") in a way that differs substantially from the kind of God the vast majority of people think of when they hear that word?
And how many experts, do you think, would define God (especially with a capital "G") in a way that differs substantially from the kind of God the vast majority of people think of when they hear that word?
a vast majority of science people would lay out the data. Discuss that data in terms of how it interconnects to describe the events we see around us. They would never get to an omni dude. they certainly wouldn't lack belief in reasonable links between the data observed. they would come up with a unifying theory.
like your global awareness. If its true it would explain the misunderstanding of the "rational" theists. The fundy, they are just stupid and there is no need to address them or the milli-mentals.
Just to be clear, I don't see a global awareness, but it is a more valid claim then "lack belief" and "omni dude". It also offers people a valid alternative.
And how many experts, do you think, would define God (especially with a capital "G") in a way that differs substantially from the kind of God the vast majority of people think of when they hear that word?
All experts list relevant meanings for "G-O-D" that are other than Religious Deities or Mythical Gods.
Pantheism (GOD = ALL) has been around long time...it isn't some *new* concept.
Illogical Ad Populum appeals to what "the kind of God the vast majority of people think of when they hear that word", notwithstanding.
You are a very smart woman Shirina...you know trying to redact and cherry-pick the definitions of "G-O-D" (and excising those that contradict the Atheism Paradigm of "lack of belief in GODS based upon no evidence") does not logically cut it.
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.
