Re: The (g)od That Exists

[Martin TK]

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!

This is absolutely NOT correct.  You are applying your thinking/logic/ideals to what you believe an atheist would say.  I would never say I wouldn't believe no matter what, I am perfectly content to worship god, when he presents himself to me in a way that is forthright and begins to treat mankind in an open and fair way.  IF he is omnipotent and omniscient then his behavior is not worth my worship, yet.  I am perfectly happy to modify my definition of anything, when the evidence supports the change.  I'm an atheist and I won't be forced to believe in something that I do not believe in, without evidences to back up the claims made by theists.  I don't want to be left alone at all, I want to continue to have friends, both atheist and theist, I just don't want to be guilted or hounded into something that I can not support.  That's it.

[Martin TK]

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.

I agree, but sometimes I like a good troll, it helps us to sort of stretch our atheist legs, if you will.  I was recently banned from CARM for NOT agreeing with an idiot on there about his definition of god, then I was attacked because I actually hold a PhD, I was challenged and called just about every name in the book.  The reason I bring that up is that sometimes I like the challenge - like to be reminded by some why they hold the beliefs that they do, and then I really get a kick out of their "attacks" to discredit those who do not hold those same views.

[Godlessons]

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.

So you're arguing for pantheism now?

In my never to be humble opinion, that is no god at all.  It's just BS to support saying that a god exists without actually having to show that it is separate from the universe.  In my opinion, if you're talking about the universe, use the word 'universe'.  'God' is a word that is best left to people that believe in magic.

The universe is not intelligent, it just does what it does.  I know that's a tautology, but there is no demonstrable intelligence behind it, and that's what I'm getting at.  I highly object to calling it a god.

[KebertX]

I appreciate the bit about God only existing in your mind. Now spread the word to all the people who keep telling me I need to go to church so their God will pop out of their heads and start caring for me!

I will say that this god might exist, because it does not present any inherent paradoxes with it's nature. That being said, who cares about this god? It didn't do anything, your basically describing nothing. It's a loaded way to describe some sort of thinking Higgs Boson.

I don't care about that god. It's boring. Where's all the pillars of fire? Where is the elephant head? Where's the flying Fish-Hawk?!? Get one of those gods, then maybe it's worth a discussion. This god is just nothingness. It can't be seen, smelled, felt or measured in any way, so why should I give a shit about it?

[pinkocommie]

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! :shake:

[Davin]

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!

I can define everything I believe, it's impossible to define everything I don't believe.

I only believe in something that has sufficient reasonable evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny, therefore; everything I believe can be defined.

Now is there some kind of slim possibility that the, uselessly vague "god" you proposed here, exists? Sure, however I don't believe it does.

A problem I see with this reasoning is that you asked if atheists think it's possible that the vacuous god might exist, then you got an answer of "no", to which you responded with criticizing the person's beliefs. So I have a question: why did you ask if there was a possibility of something existing then leap right into beliefs? It seems to me that accepting the possibility that something might have a small chance of existing is about 14.5 billion light years from believing that it does exist.

I'll try this in a different way just to be clear: What I'm trying to say is that even if I accept that there is a chance that something that you propose might exist, you still have a very long journey/adventure ahead of you, filled with exciting fact gathering, dangerously defining what it is, heart pounding hypothesis testing and thrilling battles against the mighty peer review process before I can rationally accept it as true.

[Sophus]

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.

Edward, this reminds me of Victor Stenger's article titled Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence (a good read for my fellow heathens as well). Stenger points out:

The key question is whether evidence should exist but does not. Elephants have never been seen roaming Yellowstone National Park. If they were, they would not have escaped notice. No matter how secretive, the presence of such huge animals would have been marked by ample physical signs -- droppings, crushed vegetation, bones of dead elephants. So we can safely conclude from the absence of evidence that elephants are absent from the park...
This absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It refutes the common assertion that science has nothing to say about God. In fact, science can say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that God â€" the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God â€" does not exist.

[Edward the Theist]

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.

Okay, I'm going to break this down for you. I know that sounds condescending, but I don't mean it to be; I'm breaking it down kind of for the first time for me to.

Modalities: This refers to the idea of a monistic universe and (g)od. That is, that there is no other substance than (g)od. The only thing that exists that is fundamentally real is (g)od. But this (g)od shapes itself into what we see around us, and thus what we have in the physical world is "modalities" of this monistic (g)od.

Understand, I'm not trying to prove this is true, not in this reply to you anyway. I'm merely trying to define at this point. Because if we don't come to a definition we can agree upon, then there is no way to move to the proof stage. You don't have to believe what I am saying in this definition; I don't necessarily believe it, either. But you have to come to a point where you say, "Okay, I understand your definition. I don't believe it, but I understand what you mean and we can go forward from there." That's all I'm trying to get at.

Topology: I believe this is the word I want to use, because I mean it in the way that mathematically topology is often graphically demonstrated. The classic graphic is a coffee cup turning into a doughnut shape and back again, which you can find little videos on YouTube under "coffee cup and topology." if you wanted to.

Necessary: I use this term in the philosophical sense in that to be otherwise would imply an impossiblity or a contradiction. In other words, the attributes of (g)od are such that they cannot be any other way or the idea of (g)od would be a contradiction.

[Edward the Theist]

Edward

You're wasting your time here, but it's your time to waste and it is fun to watch.

I'm not trying to convert you. I'm trying to vet  my ideas in a forum of people who don't agree with them. But if I can entertain the masses as well...then I'm happy. :eek:

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.

I was once called a "spiritual pornographer" by a Christian in a Christian group. I rather liked it. As for the scientific method, that is what I'm applying here. But all science starts with a hypothesis and a philosophy about that hypothesis. I'm not saying "no" to science. I'm saying scientific inquiry into cosmology can only go so far without taking the idea of consciousness into account. And if anything is unscientific, it's the atheists who simply accept the singularity as eternally existing until it banged into a universe. You all might as well be worshiping phallic heads on Easter Island.

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

If that's what you think I'm doing, I suggest you stay tuned. Because I would say you have it the wrong way around. I would say that in the end I will show you the "car" but you will refuse to step out and look at it--because you will know that once you have, you will never be able to justify not buying it.

But I suppose we'll see.

[Edward the Theist]

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! :eek2:

[Edward the Theist]

Edward,

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

I have no idea what Quantum Consciousness is. I have heard the term, but I have never looked into it. I couldn't define it if I tried. I have started with my own observations detailed in this paper: http://www.veridican.com/paper1.pdf

From there, I have made certain assumptions based on my past education and even my past discussions with atheists over the last decade and a half that have honed what I believe.

That is how I intend to go forward: in a simple "if that, then this" kind of fashion. Should my theories support new agers, ufologists, Christians, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, great. But I am an independent agent. As my blog (http://greaterthangods.blogspot.com/) shows, the shoulders of the giants I am standing on are basically, Descartes, Spinoza, and Berkeley.

[Edward the Theist]

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.

Oh here we go. As soon as you get scared you start screaming "TROLL!" Why don't you just gather some friends, some pitchforks and torches and march towards the castle.

[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! :verysad: It does provoke a certain 14th century Christian spirit within me and I find myself looking for a stake, some lamp oil and a hay cart.

As for where you were banned from, join the club. I can't get in a Christian forum. I get banned immediately, and I'm their only freakin hope (How's that for arrogance! )

[Edward the Theist]

So you're arguing for pantheism now?

Technically, no. Though I do admit there may only be a hair's difference. In my understanding, pantheism says God is the Universe. In my definition, (g)od existed before the universe and created the universe. The physical universe thus becomes an unconscious modality of his attributes. In fact, I can model that process mathematically. It doesn't prove anything, but it at least shows the dynamic.

'God' is a word that is best left to people that believe in magic.

The universe is not intelligent, it just does what it does.

Sometimes with atheists, the best thing to do is show their statements right next to each other.  :hail:

[i_am_i]

What's with the "(g)od" thing?