The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,167
Cheers, Billy, you're onto it!
That, plus I will go through Piggy's "proof" piece by piece.
Cheers, Billy, you're onto it!
That, plus I will go through Piggy's "proof" piece by piece.
I dont think piggy has a valid argument. There have been predictions about who or what is outside of the physical universe, but there must be some sort of space because what are we expanding into?
Which proves that there is a place which is undefined and not observable beyond the universe in which we are currently expanding into. That raises the possibility of "something can exist beyond the universe" because it has a place to exist in, outside of spacetime. I for one, am skeptical to the idea that an omnipotent being can not exist in any dimension or realm he so chooses, this "outside" area would seem like a perfect domain.
Another thing that piggy can not debunk, the initial state of the universe. We know it to be a singularity, but how do you explain a singularity that has existed forever until the big bang? Obviously you will always get the same question, "who created that singularity"? And the reason you will get that is because of science itself, and the laws of thermodynamics. If the law states that matter can not be produced nor destroyed, well what the hell created the singularity? It is your own belief in thermodynamics that stops you from debunking god as a creator type being.
Ofcourse everyone likes to tell you, "well who created god then?" and I believe this to be a horrible question. Because on the one hand your trying to say that thermodynamics makes an exception for the big bang theory, yet it does not make an exception for the God theory? This is unfair....and also, If god is omnipotent, he wouldnt need a creator now would he? He would be like the singularity that created thousands of singularitys that created thousands of big bangs that created thousands of universes. So if you really want to debunk god, you have to think of god as more of a singularity than anything else, because if you dont....you will go in circles with questions that can not be answered by the laws of science. If God=singularity.....then god can exist within the definition of science. If you ignore the bible ofcourse, which most should.
So in conclusion, if a singularity can exist infinitly before the big bang.....then god can exist infinitly. And vice versa..... if something can not exist infinitly, then god can not exist infinitly. Find an answer to those questions, and I will concede to Piggy.
Which proves that there is a place which is undefined and not observable beyond the universe in which we are currently expanding into. That raises the possibility of "something can exist beyond the universe" because it has a place to exist in, outside of spacetime. I for one, am skeptical to the idea that an omnipotent being can not exist in any dimension or realm he so chooses, this "outside" area would seem like a perfect domain.
Another thing that piggy can not debunk, the initial state of the universe. We know it to be a singularity, but how do you explain a singularity that has existed forever until the big bang? Obviously you will always get the same question, "who created that singularity"? And the reason you will get that is because of science itself, and the laws of thermodynamics. If the law states that matter can not be produced nor destroyed, well what the hell created the singularity? It is your own belief in thermodynamics that stops you from debunking god as a creator type being.
Ofcourse everyone likes to tell you, "well who created god then?" and I believe this to be a horrible question. Because on the one hand your trying to say that thermodynamics makes an exception for the big bang theory, yet it does not make an exception for the God theory? This is unfair....and also, If god is omnipotent, he wouldnt need a creator now would he? He would be like the singularity that created thousands of singularitys that created thousands of big bangs that created thousands of universes. So if you really want to debunk god, you have to think of god as more of a singularity than anything else, because if you dont....you will go in circles with questions that can not be answered by the laws of science. If God=singularity.....then god can exist within the definition of science. If you ignore the bible ofcourse, which most should.
So in conclusion, if a singularity can exist infinitly before the big bang.....then god can exist infinitly. And vice versa..... if something can not exist infinitly, then god can not exist infinitly. Find an answer to those questions, and I will concede to Piggy.
Last edited:
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
The proof hasn't been offered, because so far no one has coughed up a valid claim. But we can get to that, if you like, even if no valid claim is presented.
But no, Billy is not "onto it" -- if the claim itself can be shown to be nonsensical, then no proof-positive is necessary to debunk it. It may be shown to be false by virtue of being nonsensical.
For example, the claim that "green is taller than yesterday" does not need proof positive against it. We only need to demonstrate that the statement makes no sense.
My objection to your post was that it seemed to be based on the assumption that, in order to debunk the "God is real" claim, we somehow need to positively disprove every outrageous and unfounded religious claim ever made. We don't.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,167
The trouble we run into is trying to define god. God by definition is beyond human comprehension this does not mean that god does not exist, but rather we are unable understand what god truly is. Science which is built off of human comprehension which can never prove nor disprove god, the belief in god is a matter of faith. I ask you is science and human comprehension so encompassing that we can define everything about the universe. Are we so all knowing now that we know everything. It is our understanding that is limited, I prefer to think of the universe as a place of wonder and discovery that our science no matter how advanced will ever truly completely define. Faith and religion will always have a place in human society, just as scientific understanding will always be limited.
That is an extremely good post.
I want to go deeper into the place of religion at a later stage.
Sling, you're sufferring from a touch of fundie fever - but don't take that the wrong way, what I mean is that you've clearly been hurt by religious zealots masquerading as god's messengers rather than hurt by religion itself. There are frauds in all forms of life and I strongly suspect that had you grown up in a different place, your experience could well be entirely different.
I'm not detracting from the harm people have done to you, but you can't write off all religion on the basis of a few nutters, just as religion can't write off all atheists because I'm an arsehole.
Bloody good question!
Given that we don't yet even understand the entire nature or size of the universe, or what time really means, I think we'd be just a little presumptuous to assume nothing is outside of time and space.
Tell me; do you give any credence to parallel universes? To me, they seem less likely than god. What about our universe? It isn't, so I'm assured, infinite. If it isn't infinite, then there's definitely and "outside" of it. That "outside" may in fact be non-existent, but again, how much would you bet that you have any idea what is outside of our universe?
Mate. Disappointing.
Virgin birth is now 100% possible. 200 years ago, that would have been complete fantasy - not to mention blasphemy. It was unknown because it was outside of our understanding. Just because other mythologies are rife with virgin births doesn't negate Mary's one. Smart christians even explain this as those stories being precursors or pregenitors of Jesus.
That is pure assertion - level of proof: 0%. Swiping it away as undeserving of argument looks more like sour grapes than proof.
Again, this is pure assertion and dismissal without argument.
Where's the "proof"?
I'd be the first to tell people that the ressurrection is fantasy and the scripture on the subject totally unconvincing and contradictory, but the above isn't within the same ball-park as any kind of proof.
Post-mortem stories of Jesus' appearance are even harder to get rid of, because they are quite convincingly-written tales from multiple witnesses. From Saulus on the Damascus Road to the fishermen and Mary Magdalene - there are several accounts. I doubt they arose spontaneously, so you would need to show some kind of deliberate conspiracy to get around this little stumbling block.
If it's clever enough to create the universe, I'd expect a little thing like altering physics to be easy-peasy. Anyway, do we know all of the laws of physics yet? Are we sure that we might not be able to circumvent some in the future? Does physics remain in the same state at supra-light-speed.
Given that you're failing miserably on the few simple bits I've given you, I don't like your chances once you have a definition.
No, but the illusion of god is particularly difficult to get rid of - we've been trying for over a thousand years and the little bugger just won't go away. When Sylvia Browne has 2 or 3 billion disciples, we'll have to take her a bit more seriously as well.
You argue as though you're arguing against single cases, yet there have been literally millions of visions of Jesus and Mary. Mass-delusion we both scream. Doesn't make either side truthful, does it?
Again, that's just silly stuff. Every time we make a new discovery we change our perception of what is really going on.
Not too many years ago, supra-sound-speed violated known facts. Didn't stop the Concorde. (fire did)
Lots of evidence is offered - just that not a lot of it is very reliable.
Really? Why do we have this site then? Why does JREF bother? All paranormalia and religion is fantasy. Let's all just retire and have a nice cup of tea for a job well done - we're happy that it's all rubbish, leave it be.
Again, I agree with in every respect, but it isn't even a close relative of proof - it's assertion, plain and simple.
In all of that, you've proven nothing - as I suggested eariler on, a christian well-versed in Catholic doctrine would drive a bulldozer through your case.
I get this bizarre sense of reverse deja vu, here. On this forum, I'm arguing against a PhD who thinks he can disprove god with a series of assertions while I'm arguing against a PhD at the Ship who thinks he can prove god using remarkably similar assertions - in his case he's relying on the ridiculous puddle of puke which makes up Tommy Aquinas' summae theologica. Since Tommy's premise starts with, "you must accept divine truth to understand god" I'll at least give you that your case to date is better than his, but both are doing no more than repeating assertions.
D-
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
What can exist infinitely?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Oh dear ...
Space itself is expanding. Not into anything, it just gets bigger all the time.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,167
Given your awful attempt to explain away the few tidbits I've given, I don't fancy your chances against a Rowan Williams.
Now you're being deliberately disingenuous - nobody is making those claims. What god is may be hard to define, but what he does isn't so hard and I've scored you D- on your answers so far.
I haven't suggested any such thing, nor would I as the actual evidence for god - taking into account, as it must, all eyewitness and personal anecdotal evidence - amounts to millions and millions of pieces of information. It is without question all complete crap, but none of it can be disproved. Anyway, I'm not asking for that, I'm asking yet again, for you to provide "proof" of my statements above.
You can't.
Feel free to keep trying though, but I have to admit to being a little disappointed that you're scoring the same as the christian Dr at the moment. (he wasn't all that thrilled with the D- either!)
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
Concedo.
I read the thread about Quakers and my first thought was "if I had known that religion could be like that, I'd probably still be religious."
That doesn't mean I'd be right, though.
I still prefer science over religion. Religion is for the "feel good" part of me. Science, reason, logic, those are for the "make sense" part of me. I would prefer to make sense than to feel good, and in fact, when I make sense, I can have both.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Debating god with Rowan is like kick-boxing with a Mist Monster.
I would so love to see Rowan Williams and Karen Armstrong at a dinner-parties, preferably one of mine. If there's ever any prospect of it I'll give you a call; the same to you, Piggy, of course. Significant others, bottle, yadda-yadda.
We have a definition of "god" : any one of a wide variety of supernatural beings dreamt up by human imaginations, usually posited to have some human characteristics. Had none ever been thought up, the word wouldn't exist. And that's all Philosophers (with whom, sadly, you seem to have aligned yourself in this matter) have to play with, a word, but it's enough for them. Philosophers can expand vapid concepts; not into anything, they just get bigger all the time. To expand in reality they'd have to have a presence in the first place - which they don't.
Some people have a problem with inductive proofs, but I don't. There's not one god yet proposed that can't be easily dismissed by reference to the societal circumstances in which it was imagined. Were you to now conjure up a new god, as an exercise, you'd readily admit it was imaginary. Were somebody to propose one, in earnest, it would still derive from their imagination. Aka "inspiration" and/or "revelation".
The Philosopher's position is, essentially, that the set of non-definable entities is not necessarily empty, and so there might be a god in there that gives a new meaning to the word. They have to justify their existence somehow, I suppose, and at least this sort of thing makes them look busy.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I'm with you entirely. I get satisfaction from understanding the real world around me. Science doesn't just reveal wonders way beyond our practical experience but it helps me understand what kind of monkey I am, and why. Religion just reveals details of the kind of monkey we all are. It tells us nothing directly, but its manifestations reveal something of how our monkey-minds work.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
The Atheist, let's step back for a moment and take a look at what has happened in this recent exchange here.
First, we need to keep in mind that the question at hand is whether the claim "God is real" or "God exists" must be accepted by reasonable people as possibly true.
Your position is that this claim cannot be firmly denied, that we are obliged to concede that it may be true.
My position -- and I will post a full description later tonight, since it's obvious that no reasonable defense of the "God is real" claim is forthcoming from the theist camp, and therefore I must procede anyway -- is that the claim cannot be true (i.e., meaningful and accurate) because, depending on how the terms are defined, it will always end up being either empty, nonsensical, contrary to fact, redundant with material explanations (i.e., not God), or mere Humpty Dumptyism.
For some reason, in defense of your position, you tossed out a handful of subclaims which were themselves meaningless, contrary to fact, or without evidentiary value (our modern notions regarding "virgin birth" are irrelevant, btw, because they do not in any way involve God). It is telling that this sort of stuff is all that can be served up.
You then appealed to the cookie jar by claiming that in order to disprove God we would need to positively disprove any and every wild, unsupported, or contrary-to-fact religious claim anyone could dream up. Yet no reasonable person would make such an obviously ridiculous statement regarding other sorts of claims. No reasonable person would argue, for example, that ancient scripture, ecstatic visions, and that sort of thing were admissable evidence for claims which contradict the known laws of chemistry.
In short, the points you cite are without any value to support the argument that we are somehow obliged to accept that the claim "God is real" might be true.
Stay tuned. An overview of the full argument against God will be posted soon.
But I must add that it is also very telling that the theist camp requires their detractors to explain why "God is real" must be nonsense, while they themselves are unable to effectively define their terms or provide one shred of valid evidence for their own position.
First, we need to keep in mind that the question at hand is whether the claim "God is real" or "God exists" must be accepted by reasonable people as possibly true.
Your position is that this claim cannot be firmly denied, that we are obliged to concede that it may be true.
My position -- and I will post a full description later tonight, since it's obvious that no reasonable defense of the "God is real" claim is forthcoming from the theist camp, and therefore I must procede anyway -- is that the claim cannot be true (i.e., meaningful and accurate) because, depending on how the terms are defined, it will always end up being either empty, nonsensical, contrary to fact, redundant with material explanations (i.e., not God), or mere Humpty Dumptyism.
For some reason, in defense of your position, you tossed out a handful of subclaims which were themselves meaningless, contrary to fact, or without evidentiary value (our modern notions regarding "virgin birth" are irrelevant, btw, because they do not in any way involve God). It is telling that this sort of stuff is all that can be served up.
You then appealed to the cookie jar by claiming that in order to disprove God we would need to positively disprove any and every wild, unsupported, or contrary-to-fact religious claim anyone could dream up. Yet no reasonable person would make such an obviously ridiculous statement regarding other sorts of claims. No reasonable person would argue, for example, that ancient scripture, ecstatic visions, and that sort of thing were admissable evidence for claims which contradict the known laws of chemistry.
In short, the points you cite are without any value to support the argument that we are somehow obliged to accept that the claim "God is real" might be true.
Stay tuned. An overview of the full argument against God will be posted soon.
But I must add that it is also very telling that the theist camp requires their detractors to explain why "God is real" must be nonsense, while they themselves are unable to effectively define their terms or provide one shred of valid evidence for their own position.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
I'm being completely serious, and yes, people are indeed making claims every bit as nonsensical as "green is taller than yesterday".
When it is claimed that God may exist outside our universe, and yet the term "God" is left undefined, the claim is utter nonsense -- it has no meaning at all. We are left to ask, as I did, "What may exist outside our universe?"
When it is claimed that "God is real", but conditions are imposed which make "real" indistinguishable from "not real", the claim is utter nonsense -- it has no more meaning than "green is taller than yesterday".
We saw some of this before on this thread, including references to "what [God] does", as you say. For instance, when it was noted that the Deists saw God as a "first cause", it may seem at first glance that perhaps something meaningful was being said. However, this is not the case.
This statement could mean one of 2 things: (1) We know what God is, and the Deistic view is that this God was the "first cause" of the universe; (2) The definition of God is "whatever is eventually determined to be the first cause of the universe".
Since no definition of God accompanied the statement, (1) is not true.
Since the only progress currently being made in exploring the very early universe does not involve God at all, (2) is merely a Humpty Dumpty definition of God, and is therefore not valid, either.
Now, you may criticize me for making mere rhetorical arguments. However, when the claim "God is real" is utterly unsupported by valid evidence, and is merely propped up by rhetoric, it is absurd to demand that the counter-arguments should somehow engage substantive support for the claim which has never been presented. In fact, all one can do -- and all one needs to do -- is to demonstrate that the claim itself is invalid.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Sorry to disappoint, but it's almost 9:30 and I just completed another obligation that came up, so after a day of writing I'm ready to hit the hay.
Just wanted to let anyone know who might be checking in that I haven't simply blown it off, and I'll make the post tomorrow evening instead.
Anyone who followed the "Proof of strong atheism" thread alreayd knows the gist of the argument I'm going to make, but hopefully I'll be able to condense it into a single post of reasonable length, and then we'll see if it holds up.
G'night.
Just wanted to let anyone know who might be checking in that I haven't simply blown it off, and I'll make the post tomorrow evening instead.
Anyone who followed the "Proof of strong atheism" thread alreayd knows the gist of the argument I'm going to make, but hopefully I'll be able to condense it into a single post of reasonable length, and then we'll see if it holds up.
G'night.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,167
Done. I'll break out the good stuff. Gin for Rowan, no doubt.
Well, I clearly buy that, but I still can't prove it in any way at all. Rational thought and reason have led both of us to that position, but how is our opinion worth more than Rowan's?
Dear god, and you felt insulted when I called you Taffy?
"Aligned with philosophers"? Swords at dwan, I tell you!
Please, I'm the bloke who wrote the essay entitled, Philosophy, the Art of Bull####! As the saying goes, even a stopped watch is right twice a day. (Ok, mine's digital, but even philosophers are right once or twice in their lives.)
Well, you should know that I'm 100% with you on inductive proof, I've been pooping all over the clown in the other thread for his facile position, but I don't even accept that we can inductively prove the fantastic nature of god as yet. Piggy's had one crack and it was appalling. Your above asserts that societal circumstances imagined the gods and you're almost certainly right, but unless you can show that no other outcome is possible for the premise, then you haven't proven anything.
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Preaching to the converted here. The best decription I'd seen for some time came out the other day when a bloke passed the comment, "...since Plato vomited The Republic...", which I found utterly hilarious, but also quite right.
I'm not basing the god equation on any philosophical position. Say reports of UFOs started coming in and it turned out that a billion people had claimed to see the same shape, position and type of UFO. I doubt you'd start believing it was an extra-terrestrial spaceship even then, but neither would you be writing off with mere assertion.
Unfortunately, the chance to debunk god through pointing out that the philosophy which allows it is a bucket of crap, are long since over.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,167
Glad you've seen fit to post this first, because some things definitely need clearing up:
I do not suggest that the possibility of god must be accepted by anyone. I am The frigging Atheist, mate! I am saying that you cannot disprove god. I am a hardline atheist who has even gone as far as labelling myself as an "Extreme Atheist" to rid myself of any hint of pandering to religion.
Mea, culpa, I hate appeals to authority, but when I can call upon Einstein, Russell and Dawkins, I think I'm in pretty good company. What's to prove or disprove? Sure, there might be 1 googol : 1 chance that a god exists, or that something we don't understand is responsible for this universe, but I don't class that as "being open" to god. I class it as simple honesty - I'm certain, with every fibre of my being, that Sylvia Browne's a fake and the the christian god is a bad joke, but I would still have my eyes open wide enough to tell if that googol to one shot ever came off.
Be fair, mate! It's not exactly a christian board and since joining in at this juncture has the double whammy of being against you and with me, I doubt any would be prepared to have a crack!
Look forward to it. You realise, of course, if you're good enough, I'm going to plagiarise the hell out of it and claim it as my own!!!
No, and that's unfair - I'm no theologian. On the other hand, they are central tenets of christianity and must be considered as part of the "proof" of god, just as the structure and history of the RCC must be. *Sigh* ... and Orthodox (depending upon whose reading) churches.
Given the time frame between when they allegedly happened and 2007, it's pretty difficult to explain them away. Assertion won't wash.
Nope, that's not what I said - or meant, anyway. When the FSM has a 2000-year history of people paying homage to it and has 2,000,000,000 adherents, we'll worry about debunking it.
Precisely. Yet millions of reasonable people make these claims about god/s.
You'll have to help me out here, I don't know of any laws of chemistry which were broken in scripture...
No. What they are is an effort to show that it is possible to have a scenario where magic really works and that it actually happened a couple of thousand years back. Look at it from this point of view - von Daniken tried to do the same thing with UFOs, but he failed miserably. His doctrine wasn't strong enough to withstand challenge. Christianity has withstood those challenges for a thousand years and still forms the majority philisophical position on earth.
The idea of disproving god is a lovely, pie-in-the-sky thing like a genuine lie-detector. I think we're a very long way from being able to do so, if we ever can, but more importantly, I'm not 100% sure that we actually should.
I don't think that's a valid approach, either. Whatever one christian tells you about god, the next one will modify anyway. You can't get a definition of god, which is why you must be able to show that gods not only exist, but also could not possibly exist. The one with which we mostly concern ourselves is apparently quite a mysterious type.
The task is large, Grasshopper. To win, you must defeat the invisible entity known as YHWH. He is all-powerful and vengeful and moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform...
Good. It's a new debunk God thread in progress. One of these is never enough.
Piggy. a favor please. Recently I met another one of those opportunistic Theists who claim Einstein as one of theirs. It's said that he said that he believed in "Spinoza's God." Now from what I remember from Western Thought classes back in the day, Spinoza wasn't exactly promoting the personal, creator, Judeo-Christian God, and even got thrown out of the synagogue for theological heresy. But he did have a version of Divinity that Einstein, at least in part, could buy. Could you please include a debunk of the Spinozan type god as well, and throw in other non-theistic versions where the Divine isn't an entity but some kind of cosmic principle?
I usually tell Christians who try to use a philosophical Divine of the above sort, that that kind of coin doesn't buy them the Judeo-Christian God.
Also, What do I tell these people who play the "Divine is beyond our comprehension" card? I know it's doesn't prove anything, and I answer that it doesn't, but I'm still in the hubris bucket if I say anything more.
Let's leave no stone upended, no 1000 kegged divinity hidden from the bug spray!
Piggy. a favor please. Recently I met another one of those opportunistic Theists who claim Einstein as one of theirs. It's said that he said that he believed in "Spinoza's God." Now from what I remember from Western Thought classes back in the day, Spinoza wasn't exactly promoting the personal, creator, Judeo-Christian God, and even got thrown out of the synagogue for theological heresy. But he did have a version of Divinity that Einstein, at least in part, could buy. Could you please include a debunk of the Spinozan type god as well, and throw in other non-theistic versions where the Divine isn't an entity but some kind of cosmic principle?
I usually tell Christians who try to use a philosophical Divine of the above sort, that that kind of coin doesn't buy them the Judeo-Christian God.
Also, What do I tell these people who play the "Divine is beyond our comprehension" card? I know it's doesn't prove anything, and I answer that it doesn't, but I'm still in the hubris bucket if I say anything more.
Let's leave no stone upended, no 1000 kegged divinity hidden from the bug spray!
tsg
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
- Messages
- 6,771
I'm going to jump in here for a minute because I think this is a fundamental difference in what you both are arguing.
You are asking Piggy to disprove the claim "there could be a god" while he is arguing the ability to disprove "there is a god". It could be possible for god to exist and nevertheless still be false.
There must be some definition of god in order for either statement to be a claim at all. Without a saying what god is, there is, literally, no meaning to the statement or in the claim that it can't be disproven. Imagine that Piggy is entirely unfamiliar with the concept of god and has never even heard the word before. What is it that is being claimed is even possible to exist?
You are asking Piggy to disprove the claim "there could be a god" while he is arguing the ability to disprove "there is a god". It could be possible for god to exist and nevertheless still be false.
There must be some definition of god in order for either statement to be a claim at all. Without a saying what god is, there is, literally, no meaning to the statement or in the claim that it can't be disproven. Imagine that Piggy is entirely unfamiliar with the concept of god and has never even heard the word before. What is it that is being claimed is even possible to exist?
Last edited:
tsg
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
- Messages
- 6,771
In the absence of any definition, I am going to offer one that I will defend to the best of my ability. In the interest of fairness I will disclose that I don't believe any of it. And anyone who wants to cry "strawman" should suggest their own definition and be prepared to defend it.
The basis of my definition is Dawkins' personal, supernatural deity from The God Delusion because I consider it to be the bare minimum of what it could be and still qualify as god. I base that on one simple thing: the answer to the question "does god exist?" has to matter. If there is no benefit to knowing the answer then there is no Great Debate. If there is no difference in our behavior, if it doesn't increase our understanding of the universe, if nothing would be different whether the answer is "yes" or "no", then there is no point in asking the question because the answer is "who cares?" Since the people who do claim god exists seem to think it matters a great deal then it must to qualify as god.
So here is god:
God is an intelligent being that is responsible for consciously and deliberately creating the universe and everything in it. He is not bound by its rules. He is interested in its progress and interferes when he deems it necessary. He rewards those who are worthy and punishes those who are not. I will make no claims of his intentions: he could be anything from a loving, caring god genuinely interested in our well-being or a sadistic child with a magnifying glass and we are his ant farm.
Have at it.
The basis of my definition is Dawkins' personal, supernatural deity from The God Delusion because I consider it to be the bare minimum of what it could be and still qualify as god. I base that on one simple thing: the answer to the question "does god exist?" has to matter. If there is no benefit to knowing the answer then there is no Great Debate. If there is no difference in our behavior, if it doesn't increase our understanding of the universe, if nothing would be different whether the answer is "yes" or "no", then there is no point in asking the question because the answer is "who cares?" Since the people who do claim god exists seem to think it matters a great deal then it must to qualify as god.
So here is god:
God is an intelligent being that is responsible for consciously and deliberately creating the universe and everything in it. He is not bound by its rules. He is interested in its progress and interferes when he deems it necessary. He rewards those who are worthy and punishes those who are not. I will make no claims of his intentions: he could be anything from a loving, caring god genuinely interested in our well-being or a sadistic child with a magnifying glass and we are his ant farm.
Have at it.
Last edited:
Wrong, spacetime is expanding. Getting bigger, but how could it get bigger if there is nothing to expand into? Obviously our answer is nothingness, but that was my point......how do you define something as nothingness, just because it is impossible to observe or know for sure?
You are trying to force the fact that space IS everything, which is wrong.....to us it is 4 dimensions, but beyond that.....you dont know what is beyond the universe...outside the walls so to speak. (Please dont quote that as literall) Your logic of, "nothing is outside of the universe because the universe is everything" is not accepted as the best theory, to be more clear you should have said nothingness is beyond the universe, in which I will debate that with my own predictions but neither of us will be right.
And yes it is expanding, maybe "into" is not the best way to describe it because it is not converting anything, that we know of....but the fact is....its expanding.....and whatever is outside of it, must be getting slightly smaller. That is where my theory of god lies.
Last edited:
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,167
I think that's exactly what has to be done, without possibly checking god out with the Pope first. Whose definition of god shall we use?
Jesus, you know what christians are like - they shift goalposts faster than a team of machinery contractors. No sooner would he disprove one christian's version of god than another would pop up with a different flavoured one.
I think the task's impossible and completely pointless.
When people are stupid enough to buy into creationism, they aren't interested in proof of any kind. We're back to that stinking summae theologica again - god can only be proven satisfactorily if you start at "God exists..." Proof is irrelevant; the war against religion - if there is one - is going to be fought at the philosophical level. Why do humans need a cuddly-blanket? Those are the questions we need to answer, not whether we can disprove a mythical being. Isn't that the entire attraction of mythical beings? You can make up your own rules for them and how they behave, what they look like and what their powers are.
To disprove "god", we must disprove all gods.
He probably wouldn't be claiming to be able to disprove it if that were the case.
God has lots of attributes, but no definition.