Re: The (g)od That Exists

[Edward the Theist]

I define god with a lower case (g) because the God with a capital G is the God in my mind, that which I call Father. My Father exists as a psychological construct, so there's no reason to argue the existence of that God, and what the Father is, in reality, is no concern to you, because everyone must have their own personal God--they can't have mine.

On the other hand, god, I will define for the sake of argument as follows:

A primordial conscious force. This force forms itself topologically into modalities of matter according to its necessary attributes. This force necessarily existed prior to the physical universe.

That's it. That's all I want to argue. I don't want to add anything to this god until its existence is proven or at least conceded to or accepted.

So, as atheists, do you believe this type of god might exist?

Let the games begin! :hissyfit:   :pop:   :hmm:    

[ColtWanger]

So, as atheists, do you believe this type of god might exist?

From the sticky:

What is an atheist?

An atheist is a person who does not believe in god or gods. Other than disbelief in god, atheists don’t necessarily share anything in common.

So, no.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... because everyone must have their own personal God ...

Not so.

On the other hand, god, I will define for the sake of argument as follows:

A primordial conscious force. This force forms itself topologically into modalities of matter according to its necessary attributes. This force necessarily existed prior to the physical universe.

That's it. That's all I want to argue. I don't want to add anything to this god until its existence is proven or at least conceded to or accepted.

You will have to carry this water yourself.  You claim it -- you must demonstrate it.  To ask for concession prior to presenting evidence?  That dog don't hunt.

"Modalities of matter"?  What the hell does that actually mean?  Likewise, "necessary attributes"?

By using the "necessary" and its subjunctive conjugate, you are trying to load the argument.

So, as atheists, do you believe this type of god might exist?

Not this atheist.  Like every other postulated god, it lacks evidence -- no fancy lingo or stuff, but hard and fast, show-me-the-money, atoms and molecules and energy-fields evidence.

Let the games begin! :hissyfit:   :pop:   :hmm:    

Game over.

[karadan]

No. I emphatically reject the notion of an all-encompassing super-sentient force which presides over humanity as though we are the only thing in this universe worth presiding over.

It is a silly, backward, outdated notion thought up by humans in an era where superstition was rampant and people believed wholesale, the notion that their lives were permanently under observation by magical beings in the sky.

Even if there is such a force (the possibility that aliens seeded earth eons ago is more plausible) then I fail to see why it would be so interested in humanity on such a peculiar scale (burning bushes, book of Job, etc). God would seem to have been playing with us the way a small child with a magnifying glass and an ant hill would, what with all the unnecessary death and destruction wrought upon humanity over the ages. Its vile contempt for anything good in this world is staggering, considering the sheer amount of people who continue to call it 'all loving'.

Nope. I'll side with reality every time when considering the big picture. Besides, to me, the universe is far more beautiful when defined by cause and effect without any sort of divine creator soiling the scene.

[SSY]

First, why don't you define what you mean a little more clearly?

In what sense do you use "modalities"? Are you sure topology is the correct word you want to use? Topology is concerned with a type of qualitative geometry, I can't see how it would apply to a god. Who's necessary attributes? The god's or the matter's? Your definition leaves this unclear. Necessary for what?

Second, provide some evidence, then we can actually begin a discussion. Asking a load of atheists whether they believe in a god is a little redundant.

[Edward the Theist]

So, no.

Translation: I'm an atheist and I won't believe no matter what. I won't define what I don't believe in. I won't try to modify a definition to what I believe in. I'm an atheist and I won't believe. Now, leave me alone, damnit!

[Edward the Theist]

"Modalities of matter"?  What the hell does that actually mean?  Likewise, "necessary attributes"?

Are you familiar with Spinoza and his concept of monism? He argued that God was monistic and that the universe was modalities of his attributes, an infinite amount of attributes expressed via an infinite amount of modalities.

Necessary attributes mean that (g)od has characteristics that are necessary to his nature or else he would be a contradiction, and those attributes are manifested as various modalities of matter, such as a quark perhaps or a graviton, or perhaps a Higgs boson.

[Edward the Theist]

No. I emphatically reject the notion of an all-encompassing super-sentient force which presides over humanity as though we are the only thing in this universe worth presiding over.

Well, that has nothing to do with this conversation.

It is a silly, backward, outdated notion thought up by humans in an era where superstition was rampant and people believed wholesale, the notion that their lives were permanently under observation by magical beings in the sky.

That's irrelevant to this discussion.

Even if there is such a force (the possibility that aliens seeded earth eons ago is more plausible) then I fail to see why it would be so interested in humanity on such a peculiar scale (burning bushes, book of Job, etc).

Excuse me, how does aliens seeding the planet have anything to do with the existence of God?

[Tank]

Edward

You're wasting your time here, but it's your time to waste and it is fun to watch. It's not that we won't listen to you, it's just that we've heard what you have had to say (with subtle variations) time and time again. Your feelings,experiences and wishes just don't 'cut the mustard' as evidence anymore. When humanity first faced the unknown and substituted 'God did it.' there were no reasonable explanations for why the world we live in is the way it is. However there are now and if you doubt that statement stop typing on your PC. Your PC is the result of the rigorous application of the scientific method exploited by clever engineers. 'God did it!' is no answer now we are getting to grips with what is really going on.  In addition your method of argument 'abused logic', as been pointed out by Thump, is bankrupt, it means nothing at all. It is an act of intellectual masturbation, you're enjoying it, we're enjoying watching it, but it is untimely worthless.

Your world view is your world view and you are entitled to it. The trouble is you are acting in a hypocritical manner. You would not accept the way you see the world as reasonable from any other person yet you expect us to accept it from you. Let me explain. A person comes to your door and tells you they have a fantastic deal on a 'car'. You don't know what a car is so the person explains and you can see the value of a car. You ask to see the car, the person explains that can't be done as you can't have the car until you die. So you ask for evidence of the car and are told that there is none, just that the person has 'experienced' the car in their dreams and that they were convinced it really, really existed!. hmmmmm. So you ask if there are any other people who have 'experienced' the 'car'. The person replies no, as he is the only person capable of seeing this particular car, which is the 'one true car', all other people who have experienced cars are misguided. Hmmmm. You'd tell this guy to bugger off, and having seen this display would tell all future car salesman to bugger off. You're sales pitch for your 'god' is exactly the same in structure as this fictitious car salesman's pitch for his 'car'. And that is why I dismiss your premiss of the existance of your personal 'god' as it has inherently no value, it has no more value than that of the fictitious car salesman's, which I contend you would also dismiss.

Chris

[SSY]

You still have not put forth an argument, or satisfactorily defined what your concept of god actually means.

Also, when ColtWanger concisely answered your question, and then you put words in his mouth  to patronise him, it does little to lend your position credibility.

[George]

So, as atheists, do you believe this type of god might exist?

Yes. Possibly, but almost certainly not. The same would go for any other 'god', even if it was given a description that didn't sound to me like gobbledygook!

[The Magic Pudding]

Translation: I'm an atheist and I won't believe no matter what. I won't define what I don't believe in. I won't try to modify a definition to what I believe in. I'm an atheist and I won't believe. Now, leave me alone, damnit!

It would take a long time to list the things I don't believe.
They haven't all been said as yet.
I don't accept my own dreams for fact, why would I accept someone else’s?

There is this thing where people want more than what is offered by the day to day.
Other people see the need and offer a solution.
I see this as the most ugly trade that has ever been.

You may see virtue in belief, I see weakness and surrender.

[karadan]

No. I emphatically reject the notion of an all-encompassing super-sentient force which presides over humanity as though we are the only thing in this universe worth presiding over.

Well, that has nothing to do with this conversation.

It is a silly, backward, outdated notion thought up by humans in an era where superstition was rampant and people believed wholesale, the notion that their lives were permanently under observation by magical beings in the sky.

That's irrelevant to this discussion.

Even if there is such a force (the possibility that aliens seeded earth eons ago is more plausible) then I fail to see why it would be so interested in humanity on such a peculiar scale (burning bushes, book of Job, etc).

Excuse me, how does aliens seeding the planet have anything to do with the existence of God?

You asked if we thought that kind of god existed, and i said no, albeit, a little sugar-coated (even if your definition was a little odd).

It is entirely relevant to the discussion. You are saying a god exists and i'm putting forth my reason why it doesn't.

I merely suggested the notion that aliens seeding earth is a more plausible concept than, as you put it, "a force necessarily existing prior to the physical universe."

[Sophus]

Edward,

Are you talking about Quantum Consciousness? That's the New Agers' myth.

[parrotpirate]

So, no.

Translation: I'm an atheist and I won't believe no matter what. I won't define what I don't believe in. I won't try to modify a definition to what I believe in. I'm an atheist and I won't believe. Now, leave me alone, damnit!

It's pretty hard to define something that can't be shown with actual evidence to exist in the first place. Several posters have already defined what they/we don't believe in. If there were any actual evidence, perhaps some of us would reconsider. As no actual evidence has ever been presented, we will continue to be unbelievers. This is starting to sound a bit trolliish to me.