For athesist and agnostics: What would constitute proof of God? (exist, Christ)
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.
::Sigh:: this is what I am talking about. In the simplest terms . . . "Nature" IS the Supreme Being that rules over all creation . . . and it has ever been so.
Wow, you say so, so it must be so. I'm convinced. Oh wait...
::Sigh:: this is what I am talking about. In the simplest terms . . . "Nature" IS the Supreme Being that rules over all creation . . . and it has ever been so.
You are doing it again, making linguistic messes and claiming that it actually says something useful. We are using the word Nature to mean " all that is". If "Nature" is "the Supreme Being that rules over all creation", then we are clearly not talking about the same thing. You are implying something that exists outside of and independently of "all creation". We are using the word to mean "all that is" These things cannot be synonymous. In addition, where is the evidence that "Nature" is a being in any meaningful sense of the word? It is simply a label. Any sense of it a s a being, an entity appear to be pure antropomorphisim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Atheists prefer not to acknowledge its status and power relative to us and accept our ignorance of it as "It Just is." It is a personality preference only . . . because "We don't know" what it is. And if we are truthful . . . we have only scratched the surface of what it does and how. We have absolutely no idea about why. Atheists are good with that . . . and that is fine . . . but it in no way whatsoever justifies the "not one shred of evidence" nonsense. It is a preference based on our ignorance (phrased as "Gaps for God" by annoying atheists) . . . NOT a scientific conclusion. We each choose our own preferred explanations for the Gaps . . . and preferences are not scientific. What we DO know is sufficient for many of us to qualify as God. That atheists disagree does not in any way make their preference right . . . or more scientific.
If you would define what it means to be a god, then we could evaluate it. You have asked us atheists many times to do this perhaps you should do so as well. Without that definition, of course we can go nowhere. It is like trying discuss something with Humpty Dumpty where a word means "... just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
You are doing it again, making linguistic messes and claiming that it actually says something useful. We are using the word Nature to mean " all that is". If "Nature" is "the Supreme Being that rules over all creation", then we are clearly not talking about the same thing. You are implying something that exists outside of and independently of "all creation". We are using the word to mean "all that is" These things cannot be synonymous. In addition, where is the evidence that "Nature" is a being in any meaningful sense of the word? It is simply a label. Any sense of it a s a being, an entity appear to be pure antropomorphisim.
If you would define what it means to be a god, then we could evaluate it. You have asked us atheists many times to do this perhaps you should do so as well. Without that definition, of course we can go nowhere. It is like trying discuss something with Humpty Dumpty where a word means "... just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
-NoCapo
We DO KNOW that the mass/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" and "processes", 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 the KNOWN EXISTING mass/energy...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"...it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that that has happened, and is still happening.
It also doesn't matter if this mass/energy was never itself "sourced", has always existed, and was never itself created (or is a "multiverse")....it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that it 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 then deny the existence of God.
But then they turn around and acknowledge the existence of "Nature", "The Universe", "All there is", etc...that has just been shown to be God, by the known attributes that are, by definition, demonstrative of a God Entity.
No matter..."God" by any other name/title is still "God".
::Sigh:: this is what I am talking about. In the simplest terms . . . "Nature" IS the Supreme Being that rules over all creation . . . and it has ever been so. Atheists prefer not to acknowledge its status and power relative to us and accept our ignorance of it as "It Just is." It is a personality preference only . . . because "We don't know" what it is. And if we are truthful . . . we have only scratched the surface of what it does and how. We have absolutely no idea about why. Atheists are good with that . . . and that is fine . . . but it in no way whatsoever justifies the "not one shred of evidence" nonsense. It is a preference based on our ignorance (phrased as "Gaps for God" by annoying atheists) . . . NOT a scientific conclusion. We each choose our own preferred explanations for the Gaps . . . and preferences are not scientific. What we DO know is sufficient for many of us to qualify as God. That atheists disagree does not in any way make their preference right . . . or more scientific.
If Nature is God, then it certainly isn't a supreme being, considering the damaging affects we and other masses in the Universe have imposed on this "supreme being". If we don't know what it is, we certainly can't recognize any attributes of it, not knowing if its evil or "agape love" as you prefer to believe. Also, I don't know any atheists who provide an explanation for the gaps in science, though I'm sure the source of your meditation revelation, hallucinations, or visions has told you. Maybe you could provide these answers for us (mankind) so that no gaps will exist.
We DO KNOW that the mass/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" and "processes", that we do IN FACT know to exist...and also maintains and sustains that which has been created by it.
No, we don't know those things at all!
Mass/energy exists yes, but simply is, it does not appear to possess the kind of agency that you are implying with words like creates or controls. It is this word fudging that I am referring to. An electron was not created by energy, it is energy. Energy did not constrain the universe to certain laws, it is itself being constrained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
We also know that these are the attributes known to define a God.
Regardless of what ever anyone wants to call the KNOWN EXISTING mass/energy...it is, by its KNOWN ATTRIBUTES, definitively a God.
Only if your imputations were at all accurate, which they are not. Since the mass/energy extant in the universe did not create the universe and does not control it, it simply is the universe, then it by your own definitioncannot be God.
The definitions you and Mystic try to ease into imply a supernatural component, a will, an agency that is simply not in evidence. Remove that and you both are left with the idea that God is anything Big and Complicated, which I don't think is what either of you really mean.
You are doing it again, making linguistic messes and claiming that it actually says something useful. We are using the word Nature to mean " all that is". If "Nature" is "the Supreme Being that rules over all creation", then we are clearly not talking about the same thing.
Why NOT??? You and your cohort are the ones adding all sorts of things to the concept that have no basis in science . . . and then rejecting it. BUT I have simply defined it as the SAME as what you call "Nature" . . . you just reject my definition without anything more than antipathy for the God label. You despise that it then allows people to add BELIEFS about this God and you would be prevented from saying there is "not one shred of evidence" for God. You would be rightly limited to refuting ONLY the specific BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . and NOT God's existence.
Gldn elaborates the essentials for you in his post . . . but they have been elaborated numerous times by both of us. Your desire to keep making the absurd claim that "there is not one shred of evidence" is the reason you resist it so vigorously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
We DO KNOW that the mass/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" and "processes", 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 the KNOWN EXISTING mass/energy...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"...it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that that has happened, and is still happening.
It also doesn't matter if this mass/energy was never itself "sourced", has always existed, and was never itself created (or is a "multiverse")....it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that it 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 then deny the existence of God.
But then they turn around and acknowledge the existence of "Nature", "The Universe", "All there is", etc...that has just been shown to be God, by the known attributes that are, by definition, demonstrative of a God Entity.
No matter..."God" by any other name/title is still "God".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
If Nature is God, then it certainly isn't a supreme being, considering the damaging affects we and other masses in the Universe have imposed on this "supreme being".
Non-sequitur! You prefer not to consider it so, period. The minimum requirements for a Supreme Being relative to us is definitively met.
Quote:
If we don't know what it is, we certainly can't recognize any attributes of it, not knowing if its evil or "agape love" as you prefer to believe. Also, I don't know any atheists who provide an explanation for the gaps in science, though I'm sure the source of your meditation revelation, hallucinations, or visions has told you. Maybe you could provide these answers for us (mankind) so that no gaps will exist.
You can reject and deny ANY attributes you like . . . since those that are NOT established by science are only BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . NOT essential attributes to establish the mere existence of God. The scientifically established attributes are more than sufficient to corroborate the EXISTENCE of God. The attributes beyond those are and will remain in the BELIEFS ABOUT God category until verified by science (or for some of us by personal experience).
Mass/energy exists yes, but simply is, it does not appear to possess the kind of agency that you are implying with words like creates or controls. It is this word fudging that I am referring to. An electron was not created by energy, it is energy. Energy did not constrain the universe to certain laws, it is itself being constrained.
Only if your imputations were at all accurate, which they are not. Since the mass/energy extant in the universe did not create the universe and does not control it, it simply is the universe, then it by your own definitioncannot be God.
The definitions you and Mystic try to ease into imply a supernatural component, a will, an agency that is simply not in evidence. Remove that and you both are left with the idea that God is anything Big and Complicated, which I don't think is what either of you really mean.
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.
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"...to me.
Why NOT??? You and your cohort are the ones adding all sorts of things to the concept that have no basis in science . . . and then rejecting it. BUT I have simply defined it as the SAME as what you call "Nature" . . . you just reject my definition without anything more than antipathy for the God label. You despise that it then allows people to add BELIEFS about this God and you would be prevented from saying there is "not one shred of evidence" for God. You would be rightly limited to refuting ONLY the specific BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . and NOT God's existence.
Mystic, if "god" is strictly equivalent to "nature", then by that very definition it cannot be the source of "nature", it is "nature". If you define god as nature, it is dishonest to then try to add to the definition and assume that all previous conclusions apply. It is like saying 2+2=4, and after we can agree to that in principle, complain that we have no right to object if you redefine 2 as 3. We already agreed that 2+2 = 4, so you try to paint us as intransigent when we try to point out that we did not agree that 3+3 =4!
The argument that we can examine the existence of something with no definition or that the original evaluation is not altered by changing definitions is simply ridiculous! When you add a "belief about god" to the original definition, you have to start at the very beginning and examine the evidence for that new definition.
So if we say god == nature, then I can agree although I will point out that labeling it god adds nothing to the discussion, we could as easily label it satan, or bob. We have simply agreed that observable reality exists. I'm ok with that, but when you want to add things like create, source, will, mind, love and such you have to start at the beginning, because that isn't what we were discussing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Non-sequitur! You prefer not to consider it so, period. The minimum requirements for a Supreme Being relative to us is definitively met.
List the minimum requirements for a Supreme Being. No really, what are they? You asserted this, evidence it.
Because, the way I see it, "Being" implies at least some sort of rudimentary mind or will, which is not in evidence! We need to agree on what the minimum requirements for being a god are, before you can claim they have been met. Even if we can't agree on them, simply having you list the criteria you are using would be a start!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You can reject and deny ANY attributes you like . . . since those that are NOT established by science are only BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . NOT essential attributes to establish the mere existence of God. The scientifically established attributes are more than sufficient to corroborate the EXISTENCE of God. The attributes beyond those are and will remain in the BELIEFS ABOUT God category until verified by science (or for some of us by personal experience).
Existence, or more specifically a basic equivalence with reality itself, is a "BELIEF ABOUT God". You have given no reason other than your desire to dishonestly extend the definitions through implication and inference. The idea of what constitutes a god is belief, but it is vital to answer the question. You can't demonstrate the existence of god without defining "god".
I will grant you that you have a firm grasp of your Lewis Carroll!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Through the Looking Glass
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
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.
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"...to me.
I can buy the argument that the Universe is God, a strict pantheism, but logically you can't get there through the idea of agency, of creation, control, and responsibility. Like I pointed out, energy didn't create energy, nor did it create the laws it is governed by. That definition of a "god" is a really poor one to try to use for reality or the universe as "god", because the language used implies things far beyond what you are claiming. It implies an ontic seperation between the creator and the created, the controlled and the controller, which you appear to be explicitly disclaiming in the very next sentence. Not saying that you can't construct a good argument for the universe as god, but that isn't it...
Ultimately there is no conflict between metaphysical naturalism and a strict pantheism, it is when we try to imply agency, will, desire, and the like that it goes off the rails. My point to both you an Mystic is that if you define God in a metaphysically naturalistic pantheistic way, then we can agree on it, but to define it that way and then try to sneak in other attributes after the fact is more than a bit disingenuous.
As an agnostic, I asked myself that question this morning while I was out walking my dog, and I had to admit I was stumped. My first answer to myself was that I'd be convinced by a large-scale, old-fashioned, Biblical-style miracle: suspension of the law of gravity, the parting of the Red Sea, the raising of people who are dead beyond a doubt (i.e., beginning to decay), or an unequivocal message that everyone on the planet could hear in a language they could understand, and that they could later agree upon (at least as much as different human beings can agree on anything). But then I wondered, could we be sure that we weren't being fooled by some vastly technologically superior alien race that had decided to come to earth and was pretending to be God, for purposes unknown? As Arthur C. Clarke noted, any sufficiently advanced alien technology is indistinguishable from magic. I'd start asking lots of questions, such as, "Why have you been so ambiguous about your existence until now? And why have you appeared now? Why did you create a physical world, as opposed to creating souls and plunking us directly into the afterlife?" I suppose at some point it would either add up for me, or it wouldn't. If it did add up, I might consider the alien-hoax theory to be a remote possibliity, just as I now consider it to be a remote possibility that we're part of some Matrix-like virtual reality, or that there is an Abrahamic God.
How about others? What would convince you?
A gen-u-wine, unambiguous, fully examine-able no doubt about it supernatural event, even ONE, would certainly cause me to re-examine all of my conclusions. No such gen-u-wine, unambiguous, fully examine-able no doubt about it supernatural events are currently in evidence, however. Not even ONE.
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.
