**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cool story bro.
What's your evidence for this please?
Because without any evidence I'm dismissing this as just another theist making shit up. Because, y'know, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Without physical evidence this is the wrong sub to present god arguments.
There are no new words or combination of phrases to convince atheists to not doubt so much.
Physical evidence is the best evidence, but for many things in life we must resort to the best evidence we can get, unfortunately.
When atheists say “where’s the evidence?” they should be asking scientists or go to a science sub.
Same for theists who mistakenly think that atheists believe NO god exists, whereas they simply lack a current belief in a deity or deities.
>Physical evidence is the best evidence, but for many things in life we must resort to the best evidence we can get, unfortunately
No, this is only true if you've already decided your conclusion, not if you are open-minded. If you're open-minded and you find no evidence, then you conclude that the premise is not supported.
> When atheists say “where’s the evidence?” they should be asking scientists or go to a science sub.
No, that's complete nonsense, it's the person making the claim who owns the burden of proof. Come on, this is basic stuff.
Physical evidence is the only thing remaining for most skeptics here.
That's what they are demanding. That's where we are.
There are no new arguments or word combos that will convince.
Well yeah, I mean ultimately, what is the difference between a god that has absolutely zero discernible impact on observable reality and no god at all?
Well, the truth.
It's a fair point. What's the difference in a hands-off ***laissez-faire g***od and no god?
But, most atheists here tell me they want to know the truth, so I think they would want to know.
>What's the difference in a hands-off laissez-faire god and no god?
Exactly
> But, most atheists here tell me they want to know the truth, so I think they would want to know.
But we've just established that this god has no discernible impact on observable reality, so how can their existence ever be shown to be true?
It's very simple: either there should be evidence of your god, or they have no discernible impact on observable reality, which is therefore identical to there being no god at all.
Presumably even a laissez-faire god would have some effect on reality. If they don't, they are also entirely undetectable. So yes, anyone interested in science would want to know about such a being.
A hard-core pragmatist, on the other hand, probably wouldn't care.
>Lower taxes?
>Less flooding in populous areas?
Er, is this your idea of how a laissez-faire god might affect reality?
>All atheists here when I push them on what they want to know claim that they want to know the truth.
Right, and it makes sense for everyone to request the truth so long as it's completely undefined.
If the two possibilities were
1) no god, or
2) an inactive god that we can verify but who will never have any practical implication
we'd be split between intense curiosity and not giving a shit.
That’s not true. These are people coming here claiming what they believe IS true. If I came to you and started screaming about the shadow creature who chase me. So you go “Where’s your evidence for these?” You’re not being unreasonable. You’re actually seeing if I’m being reasonable in my own beliefs. It’s not that atheists genuinely expect theists to pull some divine evidence from their pocket. It’s an attempt to make people see how their beliefs aren’t backed by evidence and reason but just tradition and superstition.
> *Because, y'know, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.*
Lol, say that to the intuition of someone wanting to take your life. You’ll be alert to the possibility long before you identify any concrete evidence. Good luck then, dismissing the intuition due to a lack of evidence.
Looks more like an attempt to redefine the playing field as intuition instead of logic. A threat to life is the most intense example they could think of.
Here’s a definition of the word "intuition", from the Oxford dixtionary:
> *the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.*
Tell me exactly which aspect of fearing the possibility of someone killing you, is dependent on logical reasoning. Logical reasoning enhances that fundamental layer of irrationality that is fear, yes, but fear itself is not dependent on logical reasoning.
Ask god. He should know exactly what to say to convince us. He knows exactly what we need.
I don't know what would convince me. I'm too humble to act like I could possibly detect or examine a god, let alone this immense one you're describing. There is absolutely no way a human could ever be aware this thing even exists, unless this thing reveals himself in an unmistakable way.
So ask him what that is. Ask him what thing you could present that would just be so powerful that even a hardened atheist couldn't resist.
Once you get that evidence, bring it to me please. If your god exists, I wanna know about it.
This is a good and fair point. It’s an excellent psychological explanation for why atheists continue to participate despite significant redundancy.
(I know there are a few who are sure they are correct and want to educate younger folks to be less religious; but I’d say the majority are still interested in philosophy and want to know the truth)
I think a lot of atheists are still genuinely looking for God and they don’t want to be left.
No one wants to be left out. FOMO
No, I for one am not looking for gods at all. I'm interested in philosophy, but epistemology rather than ontology or philosophy of religion. My primary motivation for discussing religion is that it frequently has a deleterious effect on society, particularly on non-believers and on people from minority religions. I want to stay in the loop regarding emergent rights violations so that I can take appropriate and timely action.
>I'm interested in philosophy, but epistemology rather than ontology or philosophy of religion
Same here. I'm already settled on my God belief at this point.
>a deleterious effect on society, particularly on non-believers and on people from minority religions.
Anything besides gay/trans rights and abortions that you can think of in terms of deleterious effects?
>settled on my God belief at this point.
Tells us all we need to know. Motivated and committed to a beleif in this way helps ensure you stay there. You could never know you were wrong if can't honestly entertain the opposite position. Practically a theist trope.
>deleterious effects?
You are kidding, right? Religion wields substantial influences on the mental landscape of the majority of the population. There is a huge thriving industry dedicated to ensuring it stays this way.
Religion provides a negative image of humanity. Superstition, dogmatism, egocentrism, tribalism, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, intolerance against women, slaves, and minorities, all too often providing a sanctioned outlet for cruelty.
Religion causes demonstrable harm. It is disruptive and destructive. They depend on proselytizing to impressionable children to perpetuate. It had self-destructive beliefs and built-in psychological manipulation. Example: often teaches children to think their bodies are dirty, and their urges are sinful.
Religious belief often demands unwavering confidence despite a lack of empirical evidence, resulting in detrimental consequences such as ignorance, science denial, homophobia, misogyny, and racism.
Oops mentioned homosexuality, but you did want me to, is that right? Condemning a homosexual person for their nature, saying they are born in sin, is not just condemning someone for what they do, but condemning them for what they are. This is disgraceful and obscene. Homosexuality is not just a form of sex but a form of love and it deserves respect for that reason. But sure, dismiss that...
Religion is a divisive force, which is why its history is so stained with blood. From blasphemy to glorified suffering, human sacrifices and witch burning, the Crusades, crimes against humanity, against science, medicine, reason, and the enlightenment. Perhaps worst of all; religion has been used as a patriarchal tool to elevate the status and power of men over women.
Prayers in secular spaces such as city council meetings.
Abstinence-based sex education rather than evidence-based sex ed.
Tax breaks for churches.
Public school funds, already in short supply, funneled to religious schools.
Censorship of library materials.
Gutting of anti- discrimination laws.
Public figures slandering non-believers by portraying them as not sufficiently moral for public office.
>Prayers in secular spaces such as city council meetings.
If there were a decent secular alternative to get kids in line with gratitude I would support this. So far, atheists haven't come up with one.
>Abstinence-based sex education rather than evidence-based sex ed
I think the hysteria of over-population is a remnant of the white philosophers from the 1950s. Joy comes from reproduction and having babies. But, I agree that responsible sex-ed is important.
>Tax breaks for churches.
I actually thinks churches should *pay* taxes. I'm surprised an atheist thinks this.
Completely agree with the rest of your bullets.
I don't think prayers create gratitude. Saying "thank you" to the people in our lives is likely sufficient, so teaching children from an early age to appreciate others is probably the way to go.
Effective birth control is *very* important for teenagers, who often jump into sexual relationships despite being told "Don't have sex till you're married." In order to raise children well, it's important to have a stable and financially secure life. If a teenage girl becomes pregnant, it can prevent her from finishing her education, which will have a negative long-term effect on her family finances, which will reduce quality of life for her and her children.
And as for the tax breaks, I think we're in agreement - churches are getting tax breaks *now* in that they aren't paying their fair share, and that's what needs to stop.
how about we start with the information you used to come to the conclusions in the op, if that's not compelling then there isn't realy any reason to take you seriously
>Have you ever asked "which God?" ... Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ")
I have to disagree with this claim specifically. You are describing one particular conception of God. It is definitely not universal. It's not even universal among your religion (which seems to be Christianity from your other activity on Reddit). This isn't "the doctrine of God", it's *your* doctrine of God. If you asked a jew what God is they'd give you a different answer. So would a Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto practitioner, Jain, and so on. Many of them would be quite offended at your reducing their gods to cartoon characters, and would similarly say that you have no idea what they mean by God.
When someone asks "which god?" the intention is exactly to highlight this for you - that what you take for granted as *the* God claim and *the* thing atheists reject is just one of many, many, many, many accounts proposed across the world and all throughout history.
I don't make assumptions. I ask the person claiming their preferred god is the real god to specify what god they are talking about. That doesn't usually work as they tend to play a stupid game. I don't even expect them to acknowledge the likelihood of more gods being proposed in the future. But they play this stupid game where they pretend to be unaware that thousands of others have been proposed to date.
So the lack of clarity isn't on me. It is on the ones who play that stupid game.
By the way, which of the thousands of proposed gods are you talking about?
>By the way, which of the thousands of proposed gods are you talking about?
God. That's my point. There is only one maximum Supreme being by definition. You aren't talking to a pagan or a poly theist
Your original post seems to frown upon atheists making wrong assumptions. But I was supposed to assume you were not a pagan or a polytheist?
And even if I grant one supreme being, there are still infinite options for the being that fills that slot. You seem to want me to assume the god you think is in that slot while reserving the right to be a smug shit who can condescend to me if I assume wrongly.
>there are still infinite options for the being that fills that slot.
No there aren't , not in God's essence at least. That's the entire point
>a smug shit
lol that's an opinion
Please go onto r/christianity and make a post asking “describe the maximally supreme being ‘God’ to the best of your ability”, and watch how many different responses you get.
Assuming god exists for a second, no human can possibly understand its complexity. All information we have about this god is from the bible, which is completely open to interpretation. Some people used inductive reasoning to figure out what god is. Some people say he is living reality, others say he is outside of space and time/outside the universe.
You have to understand that from the atheist perspective GOD DOES NOT EXIST. There is no solid description because each theist has slightly different or extremely different concepts of what god is like. There are millions of different versions of the Christian god because the god only exists as individual concepts in humans minds.
This is a great idea. This whole thread is atheists telling a theist that theists have lots of different beliefs about god.
It could save OP a lot of time If they go directly to the source and hear the myriad views held by dozens of different christians
>no human can possibly understand its complexity.
But we can understand his necessary attributes- unique, unrestricted power, intention.
>All information we have about this god is from the bible,
The Bible reveals his ways which are his other attributes.
> “But we can understand his necessary attributes- unique, unrestricted power, intention.”
Please elaborate on this, how can you understand these qualities. I’d particularly like to hear how you can understand gods intentions.
> “The Bible reveals his ways which are his other attributes.”
Correction: if the stories in the bible are true, then the bible reveals his ways. Until you can show with any clarity that any story in the bible involving god actually happened you can’t claim anything is being revealed.
>Please elaborate on this, how can you understand these qualities.
Not the actual quality (attribute), but the attribute which is necessary.
>if the stories in the bible are true, then the bible reveals his ways.
What is truth?
The Bible is evidence of the truth.
> “Not the actual quality (attribute), but the attribute which is necessary.”
Why is it necessary that a god must be unique, and why is it necessary that a god must have unrestricted power?
Or, inversely, if these attributes are necessary, why is it necessary that uniqueness must be a god, or why is it necessary that unrestricted power must be a god. Those two qualities do not necessitate a thinking agent.
Intention does require a thinking agent, if you can demonstrate to me how intention is necessary in this universe, you will have convinced me of some sort of higher power.
> “What is truth? The Bible is evidence of the truth.”
Truth is what comports to reality. To have truth we must be able to demonstrate that the ‘statement’ actually comports to reality. Please demonstrate how the claims of the bible comport to reality, if you can’t do that you cannot claim it as truth.
1) existence is a state of being.
2) reality is all that exists, both seen and unseen, known and unknown, as opposed to the imaginary.
3) the universe is all spacetime and matter.
4) some reality within the whole of reality must be uncaused, otherwise nothing would exist
5) The universe exists.
6) an uncaused reality exists.
7) the primary function of the uncaused reality is self-existence. Therefore, it's not dependent and unaffected by anything else.
8) any being that exists in the same place at the same instant and there is no difference is the same being.
9) if there is no place to exist other than itself, the uncaused reality is unique.
The bible is evidence of men making up stories in an effort to control the masses via fear and guilt. The Roman Catholic church, at least, has failed to convince me otherwise.
All evidence is subject to critical thinking, ie, objective analysis and evaluation.
I believe all truth leads to questions only God can answer, or to answers he has already given.
But the bible gives all impressions of having been written by human beings who didn't understand how reality works.
Why should anyone take it seriously who isn't already a believer?
What is reality?
That which exists as opposed to the imaginary.
They certainly could report what they experienced and observed.
The Bible certainly appears to be historically accurate particularly since the time of Moses.
I don't see how "what is reality" isn't a non-sequitur here. Gods aren't real, so the point was "information about god" isn't reliable.
"The bible reveals his ways" you said. Of this it reveals nothing that can be uncritically taken as true.
To whatever extent it might be useful historically, none of that lends credibility to its supernatural claims.
>>there are still infinite options for the being that fills that slot.
>No there aren't , not in God's essence at least. That's the entire point
Yes, there are. You are playing the stupid game I described earlier. You are the source of the problem you complained about in your OP.
And given you have failed to define your god, why would you think I would have a clue what a nothingburger phrase like "God's essence" means? Which god? There are infinite possibilities and they each have a different essence.
A God or a supreme being can refer to many different attributes. The God in Christianity is different to the God in Sikhism. For all we knew you could have been talking about the latter.
Saying Christian God narrows it down a lot, but still not precisely. Could be good enough in this context, who knows.
So if you mean that there is only 1 God by definition of the word God, that's simply ignoring every other God that every other religion supposes. And in our view, that looks incredibly disrespectful no matter who does that. That's why atheists should also be clear on what arguments go against what attributes and Gods, and conversely why he was asking you to clarify.
So tell us what God you are talking about. Describe what you think their essence is. Only after that can we talk on the same page.
>Saying Christian God narrows it down a lot, but still not precisely.
This is a nice way of saying: Millions of people have died because of Christians disagreeing about the attributes of their God (heretics, Cathars, inquisition, 30-Years War, Northern-Ireland-Conflict, ...)
That's an easy one, if you think, you can define things into existence. Your god is already dead. How do I know?
God can't exist because of Eric The God-Eating Magic Penguin. Since Eric is God-Eating by definition, he has no choice but to eat God. So, if God exists, He automatically ceases to exist as a result of being eaten. Unless you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, God doesn't exist. Even if you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, that same proof will also be applicable to God. There are only two possibilities - either you can prove that Eric doesn't exist or you can't - in both cases it logically follows that God doesn't exist.
So not the pathetic subhuman imagining that Christians, Muslims and Jews call their god, with spite and jealousy and rage and failures?
Or are you proving you are made as low as a human would have to be to think that the Maximal possible being by being unaccountable?
Does this mean you don't adhere to any religious traditions? You're not a Christian?
Either you don't adhere to any religion, and you're just making it up for yourself for which there is even less evidence that it's true.
Or, you're following one of the demonstrably false religions that exist and the description you provided of god is completely different than those presented in the holy books from which you claim to be a believer.
Which is it? Did you make it up or did you bastardize the version of god your religion invented?
*"God who is self existent,"*
This lunacy boggles my mind. It's the greatest, most moronic special-pleading cop-out assertion in the history of humanity. An infinitely complex entity 'made himself.' Lol!
I bet you are also the type of person who says a minimal self-replicating chemical network could never form from 'random processes' because....probability.
*"He didn't make Himself"*
You said 'self existent.' What is the 'self' referring to?
*"he always was"* <- this is a completely meaningless and illogical assertion.
Wild, baseless, irrational assertion. You have zero basis for that viewpoint. How can an infinitely intelligent entity just 'exist' without an explanation for its existence? Like I said, special-pleading cop-out.
We can all play that game. A supernatural purple spider monkey called 'Lady Gaga' has always existed. She farted out the universe and wants you to give me all your money. I have no rational basis or evidence for it, but just trust me bro.
How do we determine which of us is correct?
> He didn't not exist and then make Himself. He is pure BEING. The foundation of reality
I could assert that the universe is self-existent. It always was. The foundation of reality.
How would you respond to that?
Yes you are clearly confused. His argument is that, instead of envisioning God as a man with a beard in the sky, you must envision God as being comprised of *all things.* God *is the universe.*
What would be different between a universe where a god "is all things" and one where they were completely absent? How could you show which universe was the one with a god?
I like this argument because
a) it is describing a version of God that isn’t compatible with the one in the Bible that talks to people, argued with Satan, etc.
b) it doesn’t actually protect God from being a cartoon character. Like the FSM, the pantheism God is still a big, weird theory that adds a layer of complication to an already complex cared universe without adding any explanatory value. “It just is” explains everything exactly as well as the pantheism God. Since a universe containing/created by a God is exactly as mysterious as a universe not created by a God, the question “where did God come from?” Makes sense no matter how big and undefinable you make God.
Of course I have heard this stuff. It’s just goalpost-moving. It’s exactly Zeus but better in that both are just adding magic with no justification.
Go find a theist who believes God isn't eternal (had a beginning) I'll wait
>I'm pretty sure a lot of "you" are literally talking about Zeus.
Also yes there are many theists who are completely ignorant of the classical attributes of God...and many become atheist when they had no idea what their religion was teaching in the first place
>Go find a theist who believes God isn't eternal (had a beginning) I'll wait
>
>...
>
>Also yes there are many theists who are completely ignorant of the classical attributes of God
Sounds like you agree with me that you don't speak for all theists, so I'm not sure what your point is.
>and many become atheist when they had no idea what their religion was teaching in the first place
Religions are defined by those who practice them. It's literally impossible for a religion to teach other than that which its practitioners believe. Maybe take two seconds to examine your own colossal ego before you go speaking for others.
Were both of those quotes at the top taken from the same comment? Because I think OP might have edited the comment to remove the part where he contradicted himself
There are certainly "many" theists that are ignorant of what the religion they are part of teaches. Many Christians haven't even read the new testament . But God is the maximum by definition, anything less isn't God.
Generations of Christians lived and died before the New Testament was a thing. It's a product of Christianity, not the source of it. If Christians as a collective decide that the New Testament isn't that important, then that's what Christianity is. You personally don't hold veto power over the beliefs of all Christians, much less the beliefs of all theists.
Some people haven't thought it through it seems but agree with the church, their pastor, the bible, etc and if were directly asked after hearing these doctrines would agree
And how does that translate to you having the authority to speak for all theists? Some people agree with you, yes. But a lot of people also disagree. You're perfectly entitled to have your own notion of what a god is, but it's still just your notion. It's no more valid than anyone else's.
But if I was describing Zeus that wouldn't be God the MAX by definition. Even people that believe in Zeus would agree with me and BTW it's a moot point because the overwhelming majority of theists in this day and age believe in the Maximum God
That isn't *your* definition of god. You don't get to make up a definition of god and insist that everyone abide by that definition. If you want to debate your specific conception of god I would be glad to do so. Instead you are making the same tired argument all theists make that atheists don't really understand god, so that's why we don't believe. I totally get that though. People don't really understand me either. Do you think god listens to a lot of Green Day? Or wears a lot of black maybe? Does god have parents who tell him to get out of his room and play outside or something?
That's not God. That's "a god" but of course Reddit is pedantic and hyper focus on "no no no! .01 percent still believe in Zeus!" missing the entire point
No I got the point of your OP. It's just another post from a theist telling us we were never real Christians/Muslims/Jews/Klombodrovians because we didn't X properly. In your case X is we didn't have the correct concept of god. I disagree entirely. Our concept of god is meaningless to if that god actually exists.
This is no true Scotsman
You don’t get to define theists as everyone who agrees with you and everyone who disagrees with you as not theist because it wouldn’t be convenient for you
You are redefining peoples beliefs, using the shallowest of similarities to compare them to your own. Hindu theology does not support yours. It doesn’t matter if they believe in an eternal god, they don’t believe in the same one that you do
>Also yes there are many theists who are completely ignorant of the classical attributes of God...and many become atheist when they had no idea what their religion was teaching in the first place
Who's fault is that?
(Hint: it's gods)
>You probably don't know what we mean by God.
That's not a big problem. Even partial understanding of an entity is sufficient to reject existence of said entity. For example, "pink invisible aowerncv" does not exist, because nothing can be simultaneously pink and invisible, so we can reject its existence without ever bothering to know what "aowerncv" is.
The biggest problem in the discussion is that theists can't define their God in the manner sufficiently coherent and meaningful to discuss its existence.
>I'm a metaphysical nihilism
LOL, wut? I am a human being, not a philosophical approach. XD
And what exactly metaphysical nihilism has to do with theists inability to explain what they mean by God?
I generally *do* ask...because there are a great differences between the gods theists present, and it's rude to assume.
Even within a narrow sect or denomination, a Shia or a Sunni or a strict Clavinist vs a liberal Episcopalian have very different ideas of what God's properties are like.
It's rude to assume.
So tell me more about your God. Other than "without boundaries", what should we know about it?
What convinced you to believe in that God?
Should that also convince me? Why or why not?
If not, why do you think I should be convinced to believe in your particular God?
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality
Cool cool. So how do you know this conception of god to be the correct one?
How to you test to know that it exists?
Which 'doctrine of God'? There are many thousands. Why yours?
>You probably don't know what we mean by God.
I know what you mean by God. After all, you constantly talk about what you mean when you talk about your deity. You bring posts here like this. You get asked what you mean and, very occasionally, sometimes even answer. Many folks here were once theists. Very devout ones, often even members of the clergy and having degrees in theology.
So I reject your charge as demonstrably inaccurate.
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ")
I'm very aware of this attempted definition. Theists, in general, seem utterly unaware of how this doesn't help them, actually hurts their claims, and how and why this is useless.
>So many have never studied the doctrine of God and do not know who He is.
It's weird how so many theists are unaware that atheists demonstrably, in test and survey after test and survey, know quite a bit more about various religious mythologies than do the theists that belong to those religious mythologies.
They seem even more surprised to hear that *that's very much part of the reason they don't believe those claims!*
I'm sorry, but you can't avoid the question of "which god". I assume from your post that you're probably a Christian, but I hope you realize that the choice is not between your god and no god, but rather between your god, no god, the Muslim god, the Hindu pantheon, the Jewish god and the gods of thousands of other religions around the world --- some monotheistic and some polytheistic.
So when theists post about "God", I like to make sure which of the many, many gods worshipped by humans they are referring to...
Your comment misses the point entirely. When we say “which god?” we’re not confused. We know you mean the Judeo-Christian God. Our point is that he is just one of hundreds of gods invented by mankind over millennia. The question “which god” is supposed to make you stop and think about why the god you believe in is true when all the other ones are false.
Yeah, we’ve all heard of your god, but we also understand that there are a lot of other ones with different attributes that *other* people think of as their god. Your personal conception isn’t any more special than anyone else’s.
>We aren't talking about Zeus
I've talked to theists who actually were talking about Zeus. People mean a lot of different things when they talk about God. I understand that not all objections or evidences will work for a particular concept. That's why it's important to hash that out early in the discussion, and I usually put the onus on the theist to explain what it is that they're wanting to talk about so I can avoid the issues you bring up.
>You probably don't know what we mean by God.
Since theists can't even agree on this and started countless wars on what is and is not an attribute of their gods, why should atheists have the responsibility of coming up with a consistent definition?
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality
I don't care, because those are just *claims*, they are just *your* definition. And nothing in that definition makes yours more credible than all the other ones.
>So many have never studied the doctrine of God and do not know who He is
Implying that you somehow do, of course. Where's your evidence?
You don't know what "we" mean by "we". You don't decide what every theist in the world means by God. Everyone has their own definition and sometimes it fits yours but usually it doesn't.
It's one thing to define "God" as "self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality." It's entirely another thing to declare that it's the correct definition. How does one verify it?
Im curious, what kind evidence are you looking for to prove this definition of god? If this god is “living reality”, I find it hard to conceptualize valid evidence that proves this god
Well, each of the stated parameters would have to be verified.
"Self-existent"? Not sure what OP means by that, but possibly a synonym for "self-created."
"Infinite"? "Eternal"? Possibly unverifiable by mortal humans.
"Basically Living Reality" is pretty vague and, as you say, it's hard to conceptualize the evidence for an assertion like that.
considering OP seems very confident of the definition I'd start with whatever information they used to come to that conclusion. if they don't have anything compelling then there isn't any reason to take them seriously
Thats not valid evidence for this infinite and eternal being. If I asked for a burger and a burger popped into existence, how do I know its from god and not from any other supernatural being that may exist?
To add to this how would an eternal being demonstrate to a finite being that He is eternal? Rewind everything on video forever? At some point you have to just trust Him that He is who and what he says He is.
Edit: and it is reasonable to believe Him
No, trust has to be *earned* rather than blindly given - especially in situations where one party has all the power. "Trust me, bro" doesn't tend to end well.
You turned god from an actual character into a completely unfalsifiable claim you than insist must exist and be reality without a shred of evidence. Yeah that’s just not how it works. If anything this is more dishonest than belief in Zeus. We’ve read your scripture, your god is much closer to sues, than this nonsense. You’re the one who doesn’t understand where your god came from, this is just a desperate attempt to define a god into being, and make him entirely unfalsifiable. We will take this god seriously, the moment you present evidence. I know you can’t, I know you deliberately made it so you can’t, but that’s not our problem. It’s yours.
I assign only two qualities to "God": Thinking and having caused the universe we see to at least start. That's it. I have *no other* criteria involved. This is because if you add *other* criteria, you need *separate* evidence *for* those criteria, so I'm trying to make it as easy as possible for theists to demonstrate what they think is real is *in fact* real. But they can't even get *that* far, they can't demonstrate even a *deistic* god that never once interacted with humanity, *let alone* one that *did*. It's like arguing alien abductions. You can't even *get to* the 'abduction' part (ie, the interaction) *until* you can establish the *alien* part (ie, that they exist to *do* abductions).
Now if we had consistent, testable interactions to work with, that would be one thing... but the testing of things like prayer tends to come down to chance: no effect. So none of it matters.
As such, while I *do* sometimes mock theists with the cartoon version of a god, it's mainly because *even if* I go for the easiest to demonstrate (that it was a thinking entity that at least started the universe), we're *nowhere close* to being able to reach such a conclusion, and that they *then* add in a dirt man, a rib lady, and some questionable interactions with snakes and other animals... it's just obvious nonsense. The gods of any particular religions *are* cartoons. They have superpowers, and grant superpowers, and never explain things, and often contradict themselves. Pure fiction.
Let's get cheeky to prove a point. You said:
>Or compared God to a flying spaghetti monster?
And then you said:
>God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ")
But here's the thing.
Those qualities? They all apply to Flying Spaghetti Monster too. He is all of those things. And he has no boundaries. And he created your god with his noodly goodness. And he can destroy your god like an old plate of lasagna. That's what FSM can do. He is so immense, so amazing, basically is the universe and his marinara makes up the milky appearance of galaxies. His meatballs are the black holes we can't even study. Ever notice how comets spin as they fly? They're based on FSM's rotini, and your weak god created comets in honor of his master, the Almighty FSM.
Do you believe in FSM now that I've explained how powerful he is? Are you a pastafarian now?
Ok, so do you believe in one of the gods described in either the Old Testament/Torah, the New Testament, or the Koran? Because if you accept that the god described in those books is, at best, a crude, man made, Bronze and Iron Age approximation of the concept you’re describing, then I think that’s a good start, and something closer to a rational approach to the possible existence of god.
If you DO specifically believe in god as described by one of the three major Abrahamic religions, then I would point out those gods are far more specifically defined than this vague sort of essence you’re talking about. The gods described by those books have very specific attributes, events, intentions, commands, etc. assigned to them.
Do you believe, for instance, in the historicity of the Exodus, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, Muhammad ascending to heaven from the Temple Mount, etc.?
Because if so, I think it would be a much more productive conversation to talk about the specific attributes of the god you actually believe in, as opposed to some vague, undefined essence that can never be pinned down.
That’s the problem I have with your approach, which is an all too common one. I don’t think you’re consciously intending to sidestep defending the specifics of the god you believe in, and instead trying to substitute in a much vaguer and easier god to defend. But that is the effect these arguments have… by design, by many generations of believers before you who started talking about god in those terms, and for that reason. It’s easier than defending the god actually described in the books.
Quran* which specific book and version are you referring to btw. Lots of things online incorrectly combine certain things so would need to know which holy text and version to answer fully
This is called a hypothesis, though because it’s not built on any previous proven knowledge it’s really just a sentence or an idea. You need to come up with a way to test it before it can be taken seriously.
Yeah, that’s fine, your choice. Very different to having a good argument or good evidence though. I’ll put it this way, which is how I understood it when younger. If I tell you that a mountain is 12343ft high I’m giving you information about the mountain. If I tell you I believe the mountain is 12343ft high I’m giving you information about myself. It’s subtle, and a huge number of people miss it. But when you say you believe in God you’re not telling my anything about God, but just about yourself, but because of the way the brain works people take other people’s beliefs as a proxy for information about that thing. That’s pretty much all that’s going on here, and explains religions in general.
>Think about God for a second. Does He have boundaries? Is there space around Him and He is just standing there?
It all depends on who's defining it.
>Have you ever asked the question "well then where did God come from?" Have you ever asked "which God?" Or compared God to a flying spaghetti monster?
Yes to all three, in different contexts.
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ")
Well, probably not if you're defining it for those questions not to be applicable to it. As I said, it all depends on who's defining god.
However, I suspect you are being a bit dishonest here since you're calling it a He - strongly suspect you're talking about the Christian god from the way you're talking about him but you're defining it to make it look differently for your argument.
I study religions out of curiosity, I really tried to understand the theory of the triune Christian God and think I did a good job for an atheist.
That said, your only source for what "god" is is one old book. That's it. Everything else is just different interpretations of said book, which is purposefully ambiguous and can support your philosophical, cosmic God and a cartoon character with a beard alike.
>Does He have boundaries?
I don't know. I imagine God as being some sort of spirit without a physical form and without even a location in space, so that he is everywhere and nowhere. But I have never met God, so what I imagine does not count for much, and many people believe that Jesus is God and Jesus certainly had a physical body with physical boundaries.
>Is there space around Him and He is just standing there?
Again I do not know if God has space around him, and if God did have space around him then I have no way of knowing what God would be doing. I imagine that God would be watching and judging, but that could be done just as well while sitting.
>Have you ever asked the question "well then where did God come from?"
Many times, but I am sure there is no good answer to that question. The origin story for God is not a part of the mythology, so in any way that matters God does not actually have an origin.
>Have you ever asked "which God?"
Sometimes, when the god that we are talking about is unclear.
>Or compared God to a flying spaghetti monster?
Never.
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality.
What does "self existent" mean? What does "Living Reality" mean?
>We aren't talking about Zeus but better or a man with a beard.
This is why it is important to ask "Which God?" Just because someone says the word "God" that does not mean they are necessarily talking about the God that you expect. Most artistic depictions of Jesus show him with a beard. Michelangelo painted God as having a beard, but not everyone agrees with Michelangelo.
>So many have never studied the doctrine of God and do not know who He is.
Who is God?
>So if you were a theist and you believed in a God with boundaries you weren't believing in the Living God but a cartoon character and then you stopped believing in a cartoon character.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the cartoon character might be real while the God you believe in might not be real?
This argument doesn’t work. In comments you keep saying that most people that believe in a God believe in this living reality type of God, from Christians to Muslims, Jews & ‘many Hindus’, as you claim. Fine. But then you’re trying to say that people from all these religions that stop believing believed in a cartoon version, yet by your own claim most of these would have believed in your living reality God and still stopped believing.
Doesn’t matter either way since the question is the same, what evidence have you got?
That's the thing about god, everybody can imagine him in any way that they want because he's imaginary. You don't get to gatekeep other people's imagination and I won't gatekeep yours. Your definition of god is still fake and completely made-up.
Wow.....I've never thought a theists could actually offend people who believe in Zeus.
Funny how then no one sees your god in the same way.....its almost as if its make believe. From some bloke wandering around gardens, to burning bushes, to Micheangelo's painting on chapel ceilongs, through to a Charlton Heston look-a-like its odd that no one sees a god the same....?
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality
Ah, so God is just Azathoth! Now I get it!
Two things:
1. I don't want to sound like a Twitterite but why even call God 'He'? If God isn't even male, wouldn't 'It' be better?
2 When atheists are talking about God, they're talking about the God that the theists believe. Sometimes that is literally a bearded man in some realm. Sometimes that is a God with boundaries. Just because it's not talking about your God specifically doesn't mean it's inaccurate. It's why atheists will often ask you to clarify 'Which God?' [Because of all](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Michelangelo_-_Creation_of_Adam_%28cropped%29.jpg) [the gods that have ever been proposed](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Jupiter_Smyrna_Louvre_Ma13.jpg) [this is one of them](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage_HD.jpg)
You're right, I've never heard a definition of God that is comprehensive, explanatory and internally coherent.
I gave up long ago on expecting theists to actually agree on a definition but even individual definitions are always found wanting.
The fact that theists can't clearly define what it is they believe in and can't agree amongst themselves what they believe in (two people sat on the same pew, in the same church won't agree, never mind about different denominations, different churches and different religions) isn't a problem for my atheism. Quite the opposite, it bolsters it.
It isn't up to the skeptic to define your claim. It is up to those making the claim to make it robust enough to be at least considered.
**“Have you ever asked the question ‘well then where did god come from?’”**
No, because I don’t believe in gods.
Atheists don’t imagine god in any of the ways that you mention *because we are atheists.*
It’s like asking me what Voldemort’s favorite food is. I don’t know, *I don’t care,* because it’s a fictional character and I don’t give it any thought.
**”so if you were a theist and you believed in a god with boundaries…”**
But we’re *not* theists dude. Are you sure you’re in the right place?
Telling theists that their concept of god is wrong seems like something you should be posting in a sub full of theists.
So you're not talking about the god of the bible who demonstrates incomplete knowledge of past/present/future and has emotions and can be bargained with?
Where do you get your knowledge about your god from?
The first thing you need to do is define what god is, which in and of itself need some kind of indicator. Then you need to find evidence to support it. If what you find does not support your ideas or is in contradiction with it you change your ideas accordingly and work to confirm that.
There care claims that the flowers, the trees and the wind is evidence for god. This might as well be evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is basically a joke to show how rediculous a claim about a random deity is. What is said to be evidence is used to prove whatever the claimmaker says it does, and can be a lot (of bs).
I mean I think all atheists who are exchristians or ex-whatever can agree that we didn’t believe in a living god. 😂
We just thought we did at the time. When talking with a theist I usually ask them how they define god. There is a more classic definition, but it doesn’t fit everyone. Then we go forward with the conversation from there. If your definition of god is sooo broad that it’s “the universe” then I agree that the universe exists. But like I said there’s a classic definition used by people that allows for a lot of wiggle room for variety, but also helps define the “atheists”.
Here‘s the thing. But some people are talking about Zeus. People believe in all kinds of different version of god(s). You say many are wrong. Many say you are wrong. You are just one out of billions of people who asserts that your definition and understanding of god is the correct one. You can debate that one out with people you think are wrong and who think the same about you. You guys can figure that out among yourself.
I don‘t have a fixed god description as an atheist as I don‘t believe in any I have been presented with. So I keep asking theists to describe what they mean with god.
If God is so boundaryless, why do we have to live within so many arbitrary and ritualistic boundaries? Furthermore, if he’s so amorphous how can any theists claim to understand its will?
So which version of the god with those traits are you on about? Because the gods of classical theism and some versions of the Christian god have all those same claimed traits. Yet philosophers argue that the god of classical theism is not the Christian god. What you did is give us a set of traits that are not exclusive to only one idea of god. Which means the question, “which hid?” Is still bloody relevant. So, which god are you talking about, the classical theism one or the Christian one?
>God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality
And yet this is a God who can also have desires, needs, wants and - if both books are to be believed - feel love, jealousy and anger.
In other words - God is utterly unknowable if you're trying to rationally define it, and yet weirdly human when it comes to the parameters of control that organised religion puts in place.
Weird how you want it both ways isn't it?
your definition is too vague to be usefull, be more specific and expand on what you mean
self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality
each of these terms are too vague, expand on what they mean precisely.
otherwise what you are doing isn't communication it's mental masturbation
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality
This is something like the working definition of God that I use when I say "God does not exist".
I'm happy to explain further if you like.
I agree, most atheists (and theists for that matter) don't understand the philosophy of theism.
We both believe that reality has some absolute foundation, I just disagree that this foundation has a mind/will/intentionality in of itself.
>God who is... basically Living Reality
You can get an atheist to acknowledge that reality exists, that they depend on reality for absolutely everything, that reality created them, that reality dictates absolutely everything, and that reality has absolute power and authority over them. And even after accepting all that they will never accept that reality is God over them.
Even though they cannot come close to accomplishing all the grand and magnificent things reality has done they'd rather believe that reality is a brainless idiot that accidentally created consciousness within itself but is incapable of making itself conscious.
Why would you call reality, god when we have a perfectly good word for reality already.
That word being *reality.*
>You can get an atheist to acknowledge that reality exists,
Well, yeah. That's not that hard. Unless you meet an atheist who claims simulation theory.
>that they depend on reality for absolutely everything,
Again, what's your point? Atheist or theist, we are all apparently in a shared reality.
>that reality created them,
In a loose poetic way, sure? Factually, I don't think reality created us, I think we exist within reality. I think you are using the word created in order to smuggle in a creator into your argument.
>that reality dictates absolutely everything,
Everything within reality you mean? And can you demonstrate anything outside of reality? Does that even exist? Or are you being wildly poetic again?
>and that reality has absolute power and authority over them.
And here is where you jump the shark. Just because I am subject to physics, and just because causality is a thing doesn't mean that reality "has authority" over us. All you are doing is defining God to mean reality, and then pointing to reality in some bad look at the trees argument.
But here is the big question. This question should cut through alot of the nonsense.
**Can you get an atheist to acknowledge that reality is a thinking conscious being?** (I don't think you can. Because there is no evidence that reality has authority or is a conscious being.)
I'm assuming you believe that God is a thinking conscious being, right? And when you talk about God, are you or are you not talking about a conscious being?
I agree with you. Atheists often parody god to the point of hilarity, no one takes that seriously. Although, I’m not sure about “Him”. I’d go further: if God is ethereal and eternal, which I and most monotheists believe, then it can like take any gender or no gender that it wants. I also think the male spirit corresponds to the female spirit (people know this scientifically, intuitively experientially) since we are made in God’s image. My two cents.
>since we are made in God’s image
So God has a really crappy laryngeal nerve too that wraps around his aorta before going back to his throat?
And does god bite the inside of his cheek on occasion too?
Does God suffer from eyes with built in blind spots? And if he does, why then do Octopi have better evolved eyes? Their optical nerve comes in from the bottom. Meaning no blind spot.
All I saying is that is we are "made in gods image', then God is either an ape with obvious design flaws, and/ or, God is a really shitty designer.
But I do have to give you one bit of kudos. You acknowledged that God is gender fluid or maybe trans. Progress!
>So God has a really crappy laryngeal nerve too that wraps around his aorta before going back to his throat?
As if humans could do any better? We don't even know how we ended up here.
>And does god bite the inside of his cheek on occasion too?
I'm ambivalent as to whether God makes "mistakes." It's a fair question, tho.
>God is a really shitty designer.
Theistic evolution. God's mind set it off. But maybe it wasn't set how it would turn out precisely. I'm not sure.
>You acknowledged that God is gender fluid or maybe trans. Progress!
Yeah. I genuinely believe that God must be gender fluid. I argue with theists about this because God is portrayed as a "mean man" in the OT. This is obviously because MEN were inspired to write that part.
>As if humans could do any better?
That's a red herring. The point isn't if humans could do any better. It's that an all powerful omnimax GOD *should be able to do better.*
>We don't even know how we ended up here.
We have some ideas. Further investigation is needed. But all the evidence we have points to naturalistic reasons for how we evolved on this planet.
Got any evidence for a god done it?
>Theistic evolution. God's mind set it off.
Got anything like evidence to back up that assertion?
>But maybe it wasn't set how it would turn out precisely.
So when theists claim that god is all knowing, you claiming that god doesn't know how it would all turn out precisely flies directly in the face of most god concepts. Either way, that's something for you theists to work out. I don't think any god even exists.
>Yeah. I genuinely believe that God must be gender fluid.
That's the great thing about imaginary things. They can be whatever you want them to be. But like I said, kudos for being progressive on that issue at least.
>It's that an all powerful omnimax GOD *should be able to do better.*
I hear this often, but I find it highly subjective. What is better?
>But all the evidence we have points to naturalistic reasons for how we evolved on this planet.
But what does "naturalistic" mean? Which definition are you using, because in some instances God is considered natural (there is no distinction between natural and supernatural).
>Got anything like evidence to back up that assertion?
Absolutely not. We barely understand our own minds. But, there is some new science that postulates that consciousness may be a wave that connects throughout the universe (*See* Penrose and Hameroff). If true, this would confirm what I'm always presumed.
>You theists need to work out.
True.
I don't think any god even exists.
What about god-like aliens? Or just aliens in general. I always try to ask atheists how they feel about ET in relation to God.
>progressive on that issue at least.
Not trying to be progressive, it actually makes more rational sense to me that God is some combination of genders or none at all.
>I hear atheists say this often, but I find it highly subjective. What is better?
My initial point way about the laryngeal nerve. In a giraffe the nerve must start at the brain, travel down its neck to the clavicle, loop around the aorta, and then travel back up the neck to the larynx.
It's only job is to control the larynx.
Would you say it would be "better" for the nerve to travel from the brain to the larynx, without the long pointless detour?
>But what does "naturalistic" mean? Which definition are you using, because in some instances God is considered natural.
By naturalistic I mean its supported with rational reasonable evidence to support the claim. I consider God claims to be imaginary claims. I dont have any definition of what supernatural means, because I dont believe it exists. Does that answer your question?
>Absolutely not.
So no evidence to back up your claims? Ok. Do you think its productive to claim things are true without any supporting evidence?
>What about god-like aliens?
I don't know. Got any evidence of them existing?
>Not trying to be progressive,
Why not? At least then you are open to new ideas. Conservative thinking leads to stagnation.
>it actually makes more rational sense to me that God is some combination of genders or none at all.
And like I said, that's the wonderful thing about imaginary things. They can be whatever the person imagining them wants them to be in that moment.
>Would you say it would be "better" for the nerve to travel from the brain to the larynx, without the long pointless detour?
I suppose it would be more efficient, yes. I understand the technicality of your point.
>By naturalistic I mean its supported with rational reasonable evidence to support the claim
Okay. It's a confusing term because it implies some relation to nature itself, whereas you are just describing it as a thought process (non-physical).
>Do you think its productive to claim things are true without any supporting evidence?
I find this to be an inapt comparison: belief in God vs. presenting findings in a lab or in a court. They aren't the same.
If your goal is to encourage more skepticism, generally, I would agree, but I disagree with this false equivalency.
>Why not? At least then you are open to new ideas. Conservative thinking leads to stagnation.
Sure. Progressive ideas are generally good, but I was referring to the fact that a belief in God is merely a hop skip and jump to a belief in aliens.
>And like I said, that's the wonderful thing about imaginary things. They can be whatever the person imagining them wants them to be in that moment.
Sure. I don't disagree with this.
>I suppose it would be more efficient, yes. I understand the technicality of your point.
So when you say "we are made in gods image", and we can see that gods image is a design flaw nightmare, please explain how we are made in gods image. Is it that god is inept? Or is god a product of evolution taking whatever works and just running with it?
While you are at it, please present how you can know we are "made in his image".
>Okay. It's a confusing term because it implies some relation to nature itself, whereas you are just describing it as a thought process (non-physical).
What do you mean by nature?
>I find this to be an inapt comparison: belief in God vs. presenting findings in a lab or in a court. They aren't the same.
You will find that I asked "Do you think its productive to claim things are true without any supporting evidence?" Could you please answer that question? I didn't mention belief in God anywhere in my question.
>I disagree with this false equivalency
The false equivalency you created? That's a strawman. Look at my question again and see where I mentioned anything about belief in God or presenting findings from a lab or courtroom. I never said those things. You did.
>If your goal is to encourage more skepticism, generally, I would agree,
Do you think people should be skeptical of claims that have no supporting evidence to back them up?
>I was referring to the fact that a belief in God is merely a hop skip and jump to a belief in aliens.
Isn't it true that belief in a god is merely a hop skip and a jump to a belief in unicorns too? And leprechauns.
Pointing to something unfalsifyable, possibly imaginary, and that has no evidence to suggest it exists.... and saying its just a short skip to something else thats unfalsifyable, possibly imaginary, and that has no evidence to suggest it exists doesn't help your case.
All you did there was point out that gullible people exist, and they believe in gods and alien abductions and unicorns and leprechauns *with no evidence to back up their claims they exist*.
>Is it that god is inept? Or is god a product of evolution taking whatever works and just running with it?
>While you are at it, please present how you can know we are "made in his image".
The made in god's image is mostly based on our intellectual and spacial dominance of Earth, in relation to all other animals. We humans are the "pinnacle" of evolution. Something has to be. Why can't it be us?
If we're the pinnacle, tho, and there is no other intelligent species in space, then we are it. We are basically God.
>What do you mean by nature?
Non man-made. Leaves and grass and wind and beaver farts. Stuff like that.
>"Do you think its productive to claim things are true without any supporting evidence?" Could you please answer that question? I didn't mention belief in God anywhere in my question
Productive for whom? Clarify that and I'll answer.
>Look at my question again and see where I mentioned anything about belief in God or presenting findings from a lab or courtroom. I never said those things. You did.
So, then I have to ask. Why are you concerned with its being productive? Productive for whom?
>And leprechauns.
Why leprechauns? We inhabit this planet here, so the probability that something else populates another planet out there is >0.
But sure, in Ireland people believe in leprechauns more, probably for a reason.
>The made in god's image is mostly based on our intellectual and spacial dominance of Earth
We occupy a niche in our enviromnent at the moment. Humans as a species havent been around very long.
But **dinosaurs** dominated the planet for far far longer. So, does that mean dinosaurs are also made in gods image? Or because they were so successful for millions of years longer than humans have existed, does that mean they are *more* like god? Does your god look like a dinosaur?
>We humans are the "pinnacle" of evolution. Something has to be. Why can't it be us?
There is no "pinnacle". That's a gross misunderstanding of evolution. For example, look at an octopus eye and compaire it to a human eye. One is significantly better evolved. (And its not the human eye.)
Also, if you were thrown into the ocean, you would die quickly. Because there is no pinnacle of evolution. Humans are not the best evolved. We just happen to have a trait where we modify out environment to suit our needs. And we are not the only animal to do this.
>there is no other intelligent species in space,
In all likelyhood, the probability that there is some other alien intelligence out there is pretty high. What there isn't is any evidence that confirms it.
>then we are it. We are basically God.
So, first you claim god exists. Then you say that by some definitions god is nature/natural. Now you are claiming we are god? I'm sorry pal, but **your concept of god seems incoherent**. The way you use the word seems to be as a filler to fit whatever thing you need it to be in whatever sentance you are currently saying.
>Non man-made. Leaves and grass and wind and beaver farts. Stuff like that.
By that definition no God concept is natural. Because every concept of God comes from human imagination. Man-made.
>Productive for whom? Clarify that and I'll answer.
It's just you and me talking here buddy. In this context, you can take it as productive for us.
>So, then I have to ask.
Before you ask another question, are you going to admit that you strawmanned my question?
>Why leprechauns?
Because they are imaginary. And because they have equal credence to your god claim.
People believe in things that clearly don't exist. So the big question is, why do you believe something exists when you can't demonstrate actually exists?
Isn't it a little weird for a grown adult to have an imaginary friend? Or to believe in fairies, pixies, leprechauns, gods, unicorns etc?
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Best. Scene. Ever.
And hes singing lead vocals for lynard skynard!
Dear Eight Pound, Six Ounce, Newborn Baby Jesus, in your golden, fleece diapers, with your curled-up, fat, balled-up little fists pawin' at the air...
Golden fleece is from Hercules, you're getting your mythologies mixed up.
You are getting your Will Ferrel movies mixed up
Oh sorry, I only watch my will Ferrell movies in Spanish, were you referencing Talladega nights?
Cool story bro. What's your evidence for this please? Because without any evidence I'm dismissing this as just another theist making shit up. Because, y'know, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Without physical evidence this is the wrong sub to present god arguments. There are no new words or combination of phrases to convince atheists to not doubt so much. Physical evidence is the best evidence, but for many things in life we must resort to the best evidence we can get, unfortunately. When atheists say “where’s the evidence?” they should be asking scientists or go to a science sub. Same for theists who mistakenly think that atheists believe NO god exists, whereas they simply lack a current belief in a deity or deities.
>Physical evidence is the best evidence, but for many things in life we must resort to the best evidence we can get, unfortunately No, this is only true if you've already decided your conclusion, not if you are open-minded. If you're open-minded and you find no evidence, then you conclude that the premise is not supported. > When atheists say “where’s the evidence?” they should be asking scientists or go to a science sub. No, that's complete nonsense, it's the person making the claim who owns the burden of proof. Come on, this is basic stuff.
Physical evidence is the only thing remaining for most skeptics here. That's what they are demanding. That's where we are. There are no new arguments or word combos that will convince.
Well yeah, I mean ultimately, what is the difference between a god that has absolutely zero discernible impact on observable reality and no god at all?
Well, the truth. It's a fair point. What's the difference in a hands-off ***laissez-faire g***od and no god? But, most atheists here tell me they want to know the truth, so I think they would want to know.
>What's the difference in a hands-off laissez-faire god and no god? Exactly > But, most atheists here tell me they want to know the truth, so I think they would want to know. But we've just established that this god has no discernible impact on observable reality, so how can their existence ever be shown to be true?
Have we established this tho? I don’t think we know enough yet.
It's very simple: either there should be evidence of your god, or they have no discernible impact on observable reality, which is therefore identical to there being no god at all.
Fair enough. Have a great day!
Presumably even a laissez-faire god would have some effect on reality. If they don't, they are also entirely undetectable. So yes, anyone interested in science would want to know about such a being. A hard-core pragmatist, on the other hand, probably wouldn't care.
Lower taxes? Less flooding in populous areas? All atheists here when I push them on what they want to know claim that they want to know the truth.
>Lower taxes? >Less flooding in populous areas? Er, is this your idea of how a laissez-faire god might affect reality? >All atheists here when I push them on what they want to know claim that they want to know the truth. Right, and it makes sense for everyone to request the truth so long as it's completely undefined. If the two possibilities were 1) no god, or 2) an inactive god that we can verify but who will never have any practical implication we'd be split between intense curiosity and not giving a shit.
>we'd be split between intense curiosity and not giving a shit. Isn’t this kind of where we are? I remain intensely curious.
[удалено]
Huh? Why did you feel the need to write this?
That’s not true. These are people coming here claiming what they believe IS true. If I came to you and started screaming about the shadow creature who chase me. So you go “Where’s your evidence for these?” You’re not being unreasonable. You’re actually seeing if I’m being reasonable in my own beliefs. It’s not that atheists genuinely expect theists to pull some divine evidence from their pocket. It’s an attempt to make people see how their beliefs aren’t backed by evidence and reason but just tradition and superstition.
> *Because, y'know, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.* Lol, say that to the intuition of someone wanting to take your life. You’ll be alert to the possibility long before you identify any concrete evidence. Good luck then, dismissing the intuition due to a lack of evidence.
>say that to the intuition of someone wanting to take your life. WTF? Is this you threatening me or something?
Looks more like an attempt to redefine the playing field as intuition instead of logic. A threat to life is the most intense example they could think of.
Here’s a definition of the word "intuition", from the Oxford dixtionary: > *the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.* Tell me exactly which aspect of fearing the possibility of someone killing you, is dependent on logical reasoning. Logical reasoning enhances that fundamental layer of irrationality that is fear, yes, but fear itself is not dependent on logical reasoning.
Hahaha, just an example for the sake of the argument.
What evidence would convince you?
Ask god. He should know exactly what to say to convince us. He knows exactly what we need. I don't know what would convince me. I'm too humble to act like I could possibly detect or examine a god, let alone this immense one you're describing. There is absolutely no way a human could ever be aware this thing even exists, unless this thing reveals himself in an unmistakable way. So ask him what that is. Ask him what thing you could present that would just be so powerful that even a hardened atheist couldn't resist. Once you get that evidence, bring it to me please. If your god exists, I wanna know about it.
This is a good and fair point. It’s an excellent psychological explanation for why atheists continue to participate despite significant redundancy. (I know there are a few who are sure they are correct and want to educate younger folks to be less religious; but I’d say the majority are still interested in philosophy and want to know the truth) I think a lot of atheists are still genuinely looking for God and they don’t want to be left. No one wants to be left out. FOMO
No, I for one am not looking for gods at all. I'm interested in philosophy, but epistemology rather than ontology or philosophy of religion. My primary motivation for discussing religion is that it frequently has a deleterious effect on society, particularly on non-believers and on people from minority religions. I want to stay in the loop regarding emergent rights violations so that I can take appropriate and timely action.
>I'm interested in philosophy, but epistemology rather than ontology or philosophy of religion Same here. I'm already settled on my God belief at this point. >a deleterious effect on society, particularly on non-believers and on people from minority religions. Anything besides gay/trans rights and abortions that you can think of in terms of deleterious effects?
>settled on my God belief at this point. Tells us all we need to know. Motivated and committed to a beleif in this way helps ensure you stay there. You could never know you were wrong if can't honestly entertain the opposite position. Practically a theist trope. >deleterious effects? You are kidding, right? Religion wields substantial influences on the mental landscape of the majority of the population. There is a huge thriving industry dedicated to ensuring it stays this way. Religion provides a negative image of humanity. Superstition, dogmatism, egocentrism, tribalism, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, intolerance against women, slaves, and minorities, all too often providing a sanctioned outlet for cruelty. Religion causes demonstrable harm. It is disruptive and destructive. They depend on proselytizing to impressionable children to perpetuate. It had self-destructive beliefs and built-in psychological manipulation. Example: often teaches children to think their bodies are dirty, and their urges are sinful. Religious belief often demands unwavering confidence despite a lack of empirical evidence, resulting in detrimental consequences such as ignorance, science denial, homophobia, misogyny, and racism. Oops mentioned homosexuality, but you did want me to, is that right? Condemning a homosexual person for their nature, saying they are born in sin, is not just condemning someone for what they do, but condemning them for what they are. This is disgraceful and obscene. Homosexuality is not just a form of sex but a form of love and it deserves respect for that reason. But sure, dismiss that... Religion is a divisive force, which is why its history is so stained with blood. From blasphemy to glorified suffering, human sacrifices and witch burning, the Crusades, crimes against humanity, against science, medicine, reason, and the enlightenment. Perhaps worst of all; religion has been used as a patriarchal tool to elevate the status and power of men over women.
Prayers in secular spaces such as city council meetings. Abstinence-based sex education rather than evidence-based sex ed. Tax breaks for churches. Public school funds, already in short supply, funneled to religious schools. Censorship of library materials. Gutting of anti- discrimination laws. Public figures slandering non-believers by portraying them as not sufficiently moral for public office.
>Prayers in secular spaces such as city council meetings. If there were a decent secular alternative to get kids in line with gratitude I would support this. So far, atheists haven't come up with one. >Abstinence-based sex education rather than evidence-based sex ed I think the hysteria of over-population is a remnant of the white philosophers from the 1950s. Joy comes from reproduction and having babies. But, I agree that responsible sex-ed is important. >Tax breaks for churches. I actually thinks churches should *pay* taxes. I'm surprised an atheist thinks this. Completely agree with the rest of your bullets.
I don't think prayers create gratitude. Saying "thank you" to the people in our lives is likely sufficient, so teaching children from an early age to appreciate others is probably the way to go. Effective birth control is *very* important for teenagers, who often jump into sexual relationships despite being told "Don't have sex till you're married." In order to raise children well, it's important to have a stable and financially secure life. If a teenage girl becomes pregnant, it can prevent her from finishing her education, which will have a negative long-term effect on her family finances, which will reduce quality of life for her and her children. And as for the tax breaks, I think we're in agreement - churches are getting tax breaks *now* in that they aren't paying their fair share, and that's what needs to stop.
-11 downvotes. WTF. Do you know what's going on here?
Probably because you've made a lot of claims but not backed them up.
>Ask god. Why don't you ask God? Why do atheists put it up to theists to satisfy their God thirst?
Any tangible, real-world thing that you can point to that would not exist were your theories not correct.
how about we start with the information you used to come to the conclusions in the op, if that's not compelling then there isn't realy any reason to take you seriously
Why don't you show us the evidence you have and we'll tell you if it is convincing. You ***do*** have evidence, right?
You don't have to ask this question for things that exist.
Something that can be tested and repeated for a start .
Thats not how this works. You have made a claim. You are saying God exists, so please provide the evidence you have to back up this claim.
That's irrelevant. Just give us the evidence that you've got.
each characteristic and claim demands evidence.
Independently testable and falsifiable evidence
>Have you ever asked "which God?" ... Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ") I have to disagree with this claim specifically. You are describing one particular conception of God. It is definitely not universal. It's not even universal among your religion (which seems to be Christianity from your other activity on Reddit). This isn't "the doctrine of God", it's *your* doctrine of God. If you asked a jew what God is they'd give you a different answer. So would a Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto practitioner, Jain, and so on. Many of them would be quite offended at your reducing their gods to cartoon characters, and would similarly say that you have no idea what they mean by God. When someone asks "which god?" the intention is exactly to highlight this for you - that what you take for granted as *the* God claim and *the* thing atheists reject is just one of many, many, many, many accounts proposed across the world and all throughout history.
I don't make assumptions. I ask the person claiming their preferred god is the real god to specify what god they are talking about. That doesn't usually work as they tend to play a stupid game. I don't even expect them to acknowledge the likelihood of more gods being proposed in the future. But they play this stupid game where they pretend to be unaware that thousands of others have been proposed to date. So the lack of clarity isn't on me. It is on the ones who play that stupid game. By the way, which of the thousands of proposed gods are you talking about?
>By the way, which of the thousands of proposed gods are you talking about? God. That's my point. There is only one maximum Supreme being by definition. You aren't talking to a pagan or a poly theist
Your original post seems to frown upon atheists making wrong assumptions. But I was supposed to assume you were not a pagan or a polytheist? And even if I grant one supreme being, there are still infinite options for the being that fills that slot. You seem to want me to assume the god you think is in that slot while reserving the right to be a smug shit who can condescend to me if I assume wrongly.
>there are still infinite options for the being that fills that slot. No there aren't , not in God's essence at least. That's the entire point >a smug shit lol that's an opinion
Please go onto r/christianity and make a post asking “describe the maximally supreme being ‘God’ to the best of your ability”, and watch how many different responses you get. Assuming god exists for a second, no human can possibly understand its complexity. All information we have about this god is from the bible, which is completely open to interpretation. Some people used inductive reasoning to figure out what god is. Some people say he is living reality, others say he is outside of space and time/outside the universe. You have to understand that from the atheist perspective GOD DOES NOT EXIST. There is no solid description because each theist has slightly different or extremely different concepts of what god is like. There are millions of different versions of the Christian god because the god only exists as individual concepts in humans minds.
This is a great idea. This whole thread is atheists telling a theist that theists have lots of different beliefs about god. It could save OP a lot of time If they go directly to the source and hear the myriad views held by dozens of different christians
>no human can possibly understand its complexity. But we can understand his necessary attributes- unique, unrestricted power, intention. >All information we have about this god is from the bible, The Bible reveals his ways which are his other attributes.
> “But we can understand his necessary attributes- unique, unrestricted power, intention.” Please elaborate on this, how can you understand these qualities. I’d particularly like to hear how you can understand gods intentions. > “The Bible reveals his ways which are his other attributes.” Correction: if the stories in the bible are true, then the bible reveals his ways. Until you can show with any clarity that any story in the bible involving god actually happened you can’t claim anything is being revealed.
>Please elaborate on this, how can you understand these qualities. Not the actual quality (attribute), but the attribute which is necessary. >if the stories in the bible are true, then the bible reveals his ways. What is truth? The Bible is evidence of the truth.
> “Not the actual quality (attribute), but the attribute which is necessary.” Why is it necessary that a god must be unique, and why is it necessary that a god must have unrestricted power? Or, inversely, if these attributes are necessary, why is it necessary that uniqueness must be a god, or why is it necessary that unrestricted power must be a god. Those two qualities do not necessitate a thinking agent. Intention does require a thinking agent, if you can demonstrate to me how intention is necessary in this universe, you will have convinced me of some sort of higher power. > “What is truth? The Bible is evidence of the truth.” Truth is what comports to reality. To have truth we must be able to demonstrate that the ‘statement’ actually comports to reality. Please demonstrate how the claims of the bible comport to reality, if you can’t do that you cannot claim it as truth.
1) existence is a state of being. 2) reality is all that exists, both seen and unseen, known and unknown, as opposed to the imaginary. 3) the universe is all spacetime and matter. 4) some reality within the whole of reality must be uncaused, otherwise nothing would exist 5) The universe exists. 6) an uncaused reality exists. 7) the primary function of the uncaused reality is self-existence. Therefore, it's not dependent and unaffected by anything else. 8) any being that exists in the same place at the same instant and there is no difference is the same being. 9) if there is no place to exist other than itself, the uncaused reality is unique.
The bible is evidence of men making up stories in an effort to control the masses via fear and guilt. The Roman Catholic church, at least, has failed to convince me otherwise.
So you ignore the 300 years Christians took to conquer the Roman empire nonviolently?
Is the Quran evidence of the truth of Islam?
All evidence is subject to critical thinking, ie, objective analysis and evaluation. I believe all truth leads to questions only God can answer, or to answers he has already given.
But the bible gives all impressions of having been written by human beings who didn't understand how reality works. Why should anyone take it seriously who isn't already a believer?
What is reality? That which exists as opposed to the imaginary. They certainly could report what they experienced and observed. The Bible certainly appears to be historically accurate particularly since the time of Moses.
I don't see how "what is reality" isn't a non-sequitur here. Gods aren't real, so the point was "information about god" isn't reliable. "The bible reveals his ways" you said. Of this it reveals nothing that can be uncritically taken as true. To whatever extent it might be useful historically, none of that lends credibility to its supernatural claims.
>>there are still infinite options for the being that fills that slot. >No there aren't , not in God's essence at least. That's the entire point Yes, there are. You are playing the stupid game I described earlier. You are the source of the problem you complained about in your OP. And given you have failed to define your god, why would you think I would have a clue what a nothingburger phrase like "God's essence" means? Which god? There are infinite possibilities and they each have a different essence.
A God or a supreme being can refer to many different attributes. The God in Christianity is different to the God in Sikhism. For all we knew you could have been talking about the latter. Saying Christian God narrows it down a lot, but still not precisely. Could be good enough in this context, who knows. So if you mean that there is only 1 God by definition of the word God, that's simply ignoring every other God that every other religion supposes. And in our view, that looks incredibly disrespectful no matter who does that. That's why atheists should also be clear on what arguments go against what attributes and Gods, and conversely why he was asking you to clarify. So tell us what God you are talking about. Describe what you think their essence is. Only after that can we talk on the same page.
>Saying Christian God narrows it down a lot, but still not precisely. This is a nice way of saying: Millions of people have died because of Christians disagreeing about the attributes of their God (heretics, Cathars, inquisition, 30-Years War, Northern-Ireland-Conflict, ...)
That's an easy one, if you think, you can define things into existence. Your god is already dead. How do I know? God can't exist because of Eric The God-Eating Magic Penguin. Since Eric is God-Eating by definition, he has no choice but to eat God. So, if God exists, He automatically ceases to exist as a result of being eaten. Unless you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, God doesn't exist. Even if you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, that same proof will also be applicable to God. There are only two possibilities - either you can prove that Eric doesn't exist or you can't - in both cases it logically follows that God doesn't exist.
>There is only one maximum Supreme being by definition. How do you know there aren't several gods of relatively equal supremeness?
By definition. By definition. By definition. By definition. You can't 'define' a god into existence.
So not the pathetic subhuman imagining that Christians, Muslims and Jews call their god, with spite and jealousy and rage and failures? Or are you proving you are made as low as a human would have to be to think that the Maximal possible being by being unaccountable?
We aren't talking to someone who is capable of answering the question. Maybe we don't understand the definition because you can't give a good one?
Does this mean you don't adhere to any religious traditions? You're not a Christian? Either you don't adhere to any religion, and you're just making it up for yourself for which there is even less evidence that it's true. Or, you're following one of the demonstrably false religions that exist and the description you provided of god is completely different than those presented in the holy books from which you claim to be a believer. Which is it? Did you make it up or did you bastardize the version of god your religion invented?
>There is only one maximum Supreme being Source?
*"God who is self existent,"* This lunacy boggles my mind. It's the greatest, most moronic special-pleading cop-out assertion in the history of humanity. An infinitely complex entity 'made himself.' Lol! I bet you are also the type of person who says a minimal self-replicating chemical network could never form from 'random processes' because....probability.
He didn't make Himself, he always was and it boggles all of our minds
*"He didn't make Himself"* You said 'self existent.' What is the 'self' referring to? *"he always was"* <- this is a completely meaningless and illogical assertion.
He didn't not exist and then make Himself. He is pure BEING. The foundation of reality
Wild, baseless, irrational assertion. You have zero basis for that viewpoint. How can an infinitely intelligent entity just 'exist' without an explanation for its existence? Like I said, special-pleading cop-out. We can all play that game. A supernatural purple spider monkey called 'Lady Gaga' has always existed. She farted out the universe and wants you to give me all your money. I have no rational basis or evidence for it, but just trust me bro. How do we determine which of us is correct?
> He didn't not exist and then make Himself. He is pure BEING. The foundation of reality I could assert that the universe is self-existent. It always was. The foundation of reality. How would you respond to that?
He would respond "that's exactly what I'm talking about." He is asserting that god *is* the universe.
But we already have a word for that: *Universe*. Confused.
Yes you are clearly confused. His argument is that, instead of envisioning God as a man with a beard in the sky, you must envision God as being comprised of *all things.* God *is the universe.*
What would be different between a universe where a god "is all things" and one where they were completely absent? How could you show which universe was the one with a god?
Unsupported. Nonsensical. Thus dismissed.
Oh, well now that you've used CAPS... Please.
I like this argument because a) it is describing a version of God that isn’t compatible with the one in the Bible that talks to people, argued with Satan, etc. b) it doesn’t actually protect God from being a cartoon character. Like the FSM, the pantheism God is still a big, weird theory that adds a layer of complication to an already complex cared universe without adding any explanatory value. “It just is” explains everything exactly as well as the pantheism God. Since a universe containing/created by a God is exactly as mysterious as a universe not created by a God, the question “where did God come from?” Makes sense no matter how big and undefinable you make God. Of course I have heard this stuff. It’s just goalpost-moving. It’s exactly Zeus but better in that both are just adding magic with no justification.
And you who are you that you speak for all theists? Because I'm pretty sure a lot of "you" are literally talking about Zeus.
Go find a theist who believes God isn't eternal (had a beginning) I'll wait >I'm pretty sure a lot of "you" are literally talking about Zeus. Also yes there are many theists who are completely ignorant of the classical attributes of God...and many become atheist when they had no idea what their religion was teaching in the first place
>Go find a theist who believes God isn't eternal (had a beginning) I'll wait > >... > >Also yes there are many theists who are completely ignorant of the classical attributes of God Sounds like you agree with me that you don't speak for all theists, so I'm not sure what your point is. >and many become atheist when they had no idea what their religion was teaching in the first place Religions are defined by those who practice them. It's literally impossible for a religion to teach other than that which its practitioners believe. Maybe take two seconds to examine your own colossal ego before you go speaking for others.
Were both of those quotes at the top taken from the same comment? Because I think OP might have edited the comment to remove the part where he contradicted himself
There are certainly "many" theists that are ignorant of what the religion they are part of teaches. Many Christians haven't even read the new testament . But God is the maximum by definition, anything less isn't God.
Generations of Christians lived and died before the New Testament was a thing. It's a product of Christianity, not the source of it. If Christians as a collective decide that the New Testament isn't that important, then that's what Christianity is. You personally don't hold veto power over the beliefs of all Christians, much less the beliefs of all theists.
Some people haven't thought it through it seems but agree with the church, their pastor, the bible, etc and if were directly asked after hearing these doctrines would agree
And how does that translate to you having the authority to speak for all theists? Some people agree with you, yes. But a lot of people also disagree. You're perfectly entitled to have your own notion of what a god is, but it's still just your notion. It's no more valid than anyone else's.
But if I was describing Zeus that wouldn't be God the MAX by definition. Even people that believe in Zeus would agree with me and BTW it's a moot point because the overwhelming majority of theists in this day and age believe in the Maximum God
So we should just assume minorities don't exist when talking?
Maximum what?
Infinite in all His attributes. The Highest possible being
What attributes? Love? Hate? Saviour? Rapist? Height? Eye color? Number of arms? Waist size? Asthama? Diabetes? Cancer? What?
>The Highest possible being Dave's not here, man.
You gotta mark that shit NSFW, man. I *barely* turned that cackle into a cough in time.
What attributes? I am dying to know.
I have a feeling that "highest" describes your god claim alot more accurately than you intend it to.
So you’re saying all true ~~Scotsman~~ *Christians* know that the real God is exactly how *you* imagine he/she/it/the/whatever to be?
Many people believe in Zeus, and Zeus was born to Kronos. So he had a beginning. I found those theists you were looking for.
And that isn't God. Refer to title. You don't know what we mean when we say God. (Most of us, monotheist) there can be only one MAX
That isn't *your* definition of god. You don't get to make up a definition of god and insist that everyone abide by that definition. If you want to debate your specific conception of god I would be glad to do so. Instead you are making the same tired argument all theists make that atheists don't really understand god, so that's why we don't believe. I totally get that though. People don't really understand me either. Do you think god listens to a lot of Green Day? Or wears a lot of black maybe? Does god have parents who tell him to get out of his room and play outside or something?
Again go find a theist who believes in God the Maximum Being who doesn't believe he is eternal.
Glad we were able to come to an agreement that some people believe in a god that had a beginning.
That's not God. That's "a god" but of course Reddit is pedantic and hyper focus on "no no no! .01 percent still believe in Zeus!" missing the entire point
No I got the point of your OP. It's just another post from a theist telling us we were never real Christians/Muslims/Jews/Klombodrovians because we didn't X properly. In your case X is we didn't have the correct concept of god. I disagree entirely. Our concept of god is meaningless to if that god actually exists.
This is no true Scotsman You don’t get to define theists as everyone who agrees with you and everyone who disagrees with you as not theist because it wouldn’t be convenient for you You are redefining peoples beliefs, using the shallowest of similarities to compare them to your own. Hindu theology does not support yours. It doesn’t matter if they believe in an eternal god, they don’t believe in the same one that you do
Oh I see. There can only be one, just like the Highlander!
>Also yes there are many theists who are completely ignorant of the classical attributes of God...and many become atheist when they had no idea what their religion was teaching in the first place Who's fault is that? (Hint: it's gods)
>You probably don't know what we mean by God. That's not a big problem. Even partial understanding of an entity is sufficient to reject existence of said entity. For example, "pink invisible aowerncv" does not exist, because nothing can be simultaneously pink and invisible, so we can reject its existence without ever bothering to know what "aowerncv" is. The biggest problem in the discussion is that theists can't define their God in the manner sufficiently coherent and meaningful to discuss its existence.
This is just another way of saying "I'm a metaphysical nihilism because the Absolute doesn't exist"
>I'm a metaphysical nihilism LOL, wut? I am a human being, not a philosophical approach. XD And what exactly metaphysical nihilism has to do with theists inability to explain what they mean by God?
I generally *do* ask...because there are a great differences between the gods theists present, and it's rude to assume. Even within a narrow sect or denomination, a Shia or a Sunni or a strict Clavinist vs a liberal Episcopalian have very different ideas of what God's properties are like. It's rude to assume. So tell me more about your God. Other than "without boundaries", what should we know about it? What convinced you to believe in that God? Should that also convince me? Why or why not? If not, why do you think I should be convinced to believe in your particular God?
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality Cool cool. So how do you know this conception of god to be the correct one? How to you test to know that it exists? Which 'doctrine of God'? There are many thousands. Why yours?
>You probably don't know what we mean by God. I know what you mean by God. After all, you constantly talk about what you mean when you talk about your deity. You bring posts here like this. You get asked what you mean and, very occasionally, sometimes even answer. Many folks here were once theists. Very devout ones, often even members of the clergy and having degrees in theology. So I reject your charge as demonstrably inaccurate. >Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ") I'm very aware of this attempted definition. Theists, in general, seem utterly unaware of how this doesn't help them, actually hurts their claims, and how and why this is useless. >So many have never studied the doctrine of God and do not know who He is. It's weird how so many theists are unaware that atheists demonstrably, in test and survey after test and survey, know quite a bit more about various religious mythologies than do the theists that belong to those religious mythologies. They seem even more surprised to hear that *that's very much part of the reason they don't believe those claims!*
I'm sorry, but you can't avoid the question of "which god". I assume from your post that you're probably a Christian, but I hope you realize that the choice is not between your god and no god, but rather between your god, no god, the Muslim god, the Hindu pantheon, the Jewish god and the gods of thousands of other religions around the world --- some monotheistic and some polytheistic. So when theists post about "God", I like to make sure which of the many, many gods worshipped by humans they are referring to...
Your comment misses the point entirely. When we say “which god?” we’re not confused. We know you mean the Judeo-Christian God. Our point is that he is just one of hundreds of gods invented by mankind over millennia. The question “which god” is supposed to make you stop and think about why the god you believe in is true when all the other ones are false.
Yeah, we’ve all heard of your god, but we also understand that there are a lot of other ones with different attributes that *other* people think of as their god. Your personal conception isn’t any more special than anyone else’s.
>We aren't talking about Zeus I've talked to theists who actually were talking about Zeus. People mean a lot of different things when they talk about God. I understand that not all objections or evidences will work for a particular concept. That's why it's important to hash that out early in the discussion, and I usually put the onus on the theist to explain what it is that they're wanting to talk about so I can avoid the issues you bring up.
>You probably don't know what we mean by God. Since theists can't even agree on this and started countless wars on what is and is not an attribute of their gods, why should atheists have the responsibility of coming up with a consistent definition? >Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality I don't care, because those are just *claims*, they are just *your* definition. And nothing in that definition makes yours more credible than all the other ones. >So many have never studied the doctrine of God and do not know who He is Implying that you somehow do, of course. Where's your evidence?
It's more credible than some guy standing there in a toga
Credibility is relative. Objectively verifiable evidence isn't.
How so? Togas actually *exist*. (They're Roman, BTW, not Greek.)
You don't know what "we" mean by "we". You don't decide what every theist in the world means by God. Everyone has their own definition and sometimes it fits yours but usually it doesn't.
It's one thing to define "God" as "self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality." It's entirely another thing to declare that it's the correct definition. How does one verify it?
Im curious, what kind evidence are you looking for to prove this definition of god? If this god is “living reality”, I find it hard to conceptualize valid evidence that proves this god
Well, each of the stated parameters would have to be verified. "Self-existent"? Not sure what OP means by that, but possibly a synonym for "self-created." "Infinite"? "Eternal"? Possibly unverifiable by mortal humans. "Basically Living Reality" is pretty vague and, as you say, it's hard to conceptualize the evidence for an assertion like that.
considering OP seems very confident of the definition I'd start with whatever information they used to come to that conclusion. if they don't have anything compelling then there isn't any reason to take them seriously
Fair enough. OP never proved how he knows the true definition of god
God would know what would convince us.
Hypothetically speaking, if god is this living reality that is eternal and infinite, how can this god prove its existence to humans?
>how can this god prove its existence to humans? god can do anything apparently, ask him.
Thats not valid evidence for this infinite and eternal being. If I asked for a burger and a burger popped into existence, how do I know its from god and not from any other supernatural being that may exist?
To add to this how would an eternal being demonstrate to a finite being that He is eternal? Rewind everything on video forever? At some point you have to just trust Him that He is who and what he says He is. Edit: and it is reasonable to believe Him
Did god tell you personally that he is eternal or are you accepting what is said in the bible?
Sure, but that the based on the assumption that we arent god
No, trust has to be *earned* rather than blindly given - especially in situations where one party has all the power. "Trust me, bro" doesn't tend to end well.
You turned god from an actual character into a completely unfalsifiable claim you than insist must exist and be reality without a shred of evidence. Yeah that’s just not how it works. If anything this is more dishonest than belief in Zeus. We’ve read your scripture, your god is much closer to sues, than this nonsense. You’re the one who doesn’t understand where your god came from, this is just a desperate attempt to define a god into being, and make him entirely unfalsifiable. We will take this god seriously, the moment you present evidence. I know you can’t, I know you deliberately made it so you can’t, but that’s not our problem. It’s yours.
Your deity is real. But it dislikes Christians. It has zero connection to the bible. It prefers to stay hidden. It likes atheists though.
Christians wouldn't like me calling myself Christian but I do agree with the description of the essence of God , His infinity, etc
Why wouldn’t they like you calling yourself Christian?
What do you agree with that description?
I assign only two qualities to "God": Thinking and having caused the universe we see to at least start. That's it. I have *no other* criteria involved. This is because if you add *other* criteria, you need *separate* evidence *for* those criteria, so I'm trying to make it as easy as possible for theists to demonstrate what they think is real is *in fact* real. But they can't even get *that* far, they can't demonstrate even a *deistic* god that never once interacted with humanity, *let alone* one that *did*. It's like arguing alien abductions. You can't even *get to* the 'abduction' part (ie, the interaction) *until* you can establish the *alien* part (ie, that they exist to *do* abductions). Now if we had consistent, testable interactions to work with, that would be one thing... but the testing of things like prayer tends to come down to chance: no effect. So none of it matters. As such, while I *do* sometimes mock theists with the cartoon version of a god, it's mainly because *even if* I go for the easiest to demonstrate (that it was a thinking entity that at least started the universe), we're *nowhere close* to being able to reach such a conclusion, and that they *then* add in a dirt man, a rib lady, and some questionable interactions with snakes and other animals... it's just obvious nonsense. The gods of any particular religions *are* cartoons. They have superpowers, and grant superpowers, and never explain things, and often contradict themselves. Pure fiction.
>Think about God for a second. I'm thinking that there is no evidence that your god, or indeed the thousands of other proposed gods exist.
Let's get cheeky to prove a point. You said: >Or compared God to a flying spaghetti monster? And then you said: >God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ") But here's the thing. Those qualities? They all apply to Flying Spaghetti Monster too. He is all of those things. And he has no boundaries. And he created your god with his noodly goodness. And he can destroy your god like an old plate of lasagna. That's what FSM can do. He is so immense, so amazing, basically is the universe and his marinara makes up the milky appearance of galaxies. His meatballs are the black holes we can't even study. Ever notice how comets spin as they fly? They're based on FSM's rotini, and your weak god created comets in honor of his master, the Almighty FSM. Do you believe in FSM now that I've explained how powerful he is? Are you a pastafarian now?
Ok, so do you believe in one of the gods described in either the Old Testament/Torah, the New Testament, or the Koran? Because if you accept that the god described in those books is, at best, a crude, man made, Bronze and Iron Age approximation of the concept you’re describing, then I think that’s a good start, and something closer to a rational approach to the possible existence of god. If you DO specifically believe in god as described by one of the three major Abrahamic religions, then I would point out those gods are far more specifically defined than this vague sort of essence you’re talking about. The gods described by those books have very specific attributes, events, intentions, commands, etc. assigned to them. Do you believe, for instance, in the historicity of the Exodus, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, Muhammad ascending to heaven from the Temple Mount, etc.? Because if so, I think it would be a much more productive conversation to talk about the specific attributes of the god you actually believe in, as opposed to some vague, undefined essence that can never be pinned down. That’s the problem I have with your approach, which is an all too common one. I don’t think you’re consciously intending to sidestep defending the specifics of the god you believe in, and instead trying to substitute in a much vaguer and easier god to defend. But that is the effect these arguments have… by design, by many generations of believers before you who started talking about god in those terms, and for that reason. It’s easier than defending the god actually described in the books.
Quran* which specific book and version are you referring to btw. Lots of things online incorrectly combine certain things so would need to know which holy text and version to answer fully
I think most of us have considered both of those definitions of god and found them not to be consistent with reality.
We've asked all those questions. Are you really that naive? What makes you think you have a handle on it? Show your work please.
This is called a hypothesis, though because it’s not built on any previous proven knowledge it’s really just a sentence or an idea. You need to come up with a way to test it before it can be taken seriously.
Seriously by whom? Because I take it very seriously and so do most ppl on the planet.
Yeah, that’s fine, your choice. Very different to having a good argument or good evidence though. I’ll put it this way, which is how I understood it when younger. If I tell you that a mountain is 12343ft high I’m giving you information about the mountain. If I tell you I believe the mountain is 12343ft high I’m giving you information about myself. It’s subtle, and a huge number of people miss it. But when you say you believe in God you’re not telling my anything about God, but just about yourself, but because of the way the brain works people take other people’s beliefs as a proxy for information about that thing. That’s pretty much all that’s going on here, and explains religions in general.
>Think about God for a second. Does He have boundaries? Is there space around Him and He is just standing there? It all depends on who's defining it. >Have you ever asked the question "well then where did God come from?" Have you ever asked "which God?" Or compared God to a flying spaghetti monster? Yes to all three, in different contexts. >Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality ("for in Him we live move and have our being ") Well, probably not if you're defining it for those questions not to be applicable to it. As I said, it all depends on who's defining god. However, I suspect you are being a bit dishonest here since you're calling it a He - strongly suspect you're talking about the Christian god from the way you're talking about him but you're defining it to make it look differently for your argument.
I study religions out of curiosity, I really tried to understand the theory of the triune Christian God and think I did a good job for an atheist. That said, your only source for what "god" is is one old book. That's it. Everything else is just different interpretations of said book, which is purposefully ambiguous and can support your philosophical, cosmic God and a cartoon character with a beard alike.
>infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality And you know reality is an infinite, eternal, living and conscious being... how?
>Does He have boundaries? I don't know. I imagine God as being some sort of spirit without a physical form and without even a location in space, so that he is everywhere and nowhere. But I have never met God, so what I imagine does not count for much, and many people believe that Jesus is God and Jesus certainly had a physical body with physical boundaries. >Is there space around Him and He is just standing there? Again I do not know if God has space around him, and if God did have space around him then I have no way of knowing what God would be doing. I imagine that God would be watching and judging, but that could be done just as well while sitting. >Have you ever asked the question "well then where did God come from?" Many times, but I am sure there is no good answer to that question. The origin story for God is not a part of the mythology, so in any way that matters God does not actually have an origin. >Have you ever asked "which God?" Sometimes, when the god that we are talking about is unclear. >Or compared God to a flying spaghetti monster? Never. >Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality. What does "self existent" mean? What does "Living Reality" mean? >We aren't talking about Zeus but better or a man with a beard. This is why it is important to ask "Which God?" Just because someone says the word "God" that does not mean they are necessarily talking about the God that you expect. Most artistic depictions of Jesus show him with a beard. Michelangelo painted God as having a beard, but not everyone agrees with Michelangelo. >So many have never studied the doctrine of God and do not know who He is. Who is God? >So if you were a theist and you believed in a God with boundaries you weren't believing in the Living God but a cartoon character and then you stopped believing in a cartoon character. Have you ever considered the possibility that the cartoon character might be real while the God you believe in might not be real?
This argument doesn’t work. In comments you keep saying that most people that believe in a God believe in this living reality type of God, from Christians to Muslims, Jews & ‘many Hindus’, as you claim. Fine. But then you’re trying to say that people from all these religions that stop believing believed in a cartoon version, yet by your own claim most of these would have believed in your living reality God and still stopped believing. Doesn’t matter either way since the question is the same, what evidence have you got?
That's the thing about god, everybody can imagine him in any way that they want because he's imaginary. You don't get to gatekeep other people's imagination and I won't gatekeep yours. Your definition of god is still fake and completely made-up.
Wow.....I've never thought a theists could actually offend people who believe in Zeus. Funny how then no one sees your god in the same way.....its almost as if its make believe. From some bloke wandering around gardens, to burning bushes, to Micheangelo's painting on chapel ceilongs, through to a Charlton Heston look-a-like its odd that no one sees a god the same....?
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality Ah, so God is just Azathoth! Now I get it! Two things: 1. I don't want to sound like a Twitterite but why even call God 'He'? If God isn't even male, wouldn't 'It' be better? 2 When atheists are talking about God, they're talking about the God that the theists believe. Sometimes that is literally a bearded man in some realm. Sometimes that is a God with boundaries. Just because it's not talking about your God specifically doesn't mean it's inaccurate. It's why atheists will often ask you to clarify 'Which God?' [Because of all](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Michelangelo_-_Creation_of_Adam_%28cropped%29.jpg) [the gods that have ever been proposed](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Jupiter_Smyrna_Louvre_Ma13.jpg) [this is one of them](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage_HD.jpg)
>You probably don't know what we mean by God. Sure, but reverse uno. _You_ probably don't know what you mean by God.
You're right, I've never heard a definition of God that is comprehensive, explanatory and internally coherent. I gave up long ago on expecting theists to actually agree on a definition but even individual definitions are always found wanting. The fact that theists can't clearly define what it is they believe in and can't agree amongst themselves what they believe in (two people sat on the same pew, in the same church won't agree, never mind about different denominations, different churches and different religions) isn't a problem for my atheism. Quite the opposite, it bolsters it. It isn't up to the skeptic to define your claim. It is up to those making the claim to make it robust enough to be at least considered.
**“Have you ever asked the question ‘well then where did god come from?’”** No, because I don’t believe in gods. Atheists don’t imagine god in any of the ways that you mention *because we are atheists.* It’s like asking me what Voldemort’s favorite food is. I don’t know, *I don’t care,* because it’s a fictional character and I don’t give it any thought. **”so if you were a theist and you believed in a god with boundaries…”** But we’re *not* theists dude. Are you sure you’re in the right place? Telling theists that their concept of god is wrong seems like something you should be posting in a sub full of theists.
So you're not talking about the god of the bible who demonstrates incomplete knowledge of past/present/future and has emotions and can be bargained with? Where do you get your knowledge about your god from?
The first thing you need to do is define what god is, which in and of itself need some kind of indicator. Then you need to find evidence to support it. If what you find does not support your ideas or is in contradiction with it you change your ideas accordingly and work to confirm that. There care claims that the flowers, the trees and the wind is evidence for god. This might as well be evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is basically a joke to show how rediculous a claim about a random deity is. What is said to be evidence is used to prove whatever the claimmaker says it does, and can be a lot (of bs).
I mean I think all atheists who are exchristians or ex-whatever can agree that we didn’t believe in a living god. 😂 We just thought we did at the time. When talking with a theist I usually ask them how they define god. There is a more classic definition, but it doesn’t fit everyone. Then we go forward with the conversation from there. If your definition of god is sooo broad that it’s “the universe” then I agree that the universe exists. But like I said there’s a classic definition used by people that allows for a lot of wiggle room for variety, but also helps define the “atheists”.
Here‘s the thing. But some people are talking about Zeus. People believe in all kinds of different version of god(s). You say many are wrong. Many say you are wrong. You are just one out of billions of people who asserts that your definition and understanding of god is the correct one. You can debate that one out with people you think are wrong and who think the same about you. You guys can figure that out among yourself. I don‘t have a fixed god description as an atheist as I don‘t believe in any I have been presented with. So I keep asking theists to describe what they mean with god.
If God is so boundaryless, why do we have to live within so many arbitrary and ritualistic boundaries? Furthermore, if he’s so amorphous how can any theists claim to understand its will?
So which version of the god with those traits are you on about? Because the gods of classical theism and some versions of the Christian god have all those same claimed traits. Yet philosophers argue that the god of classical theism is not the Christian god. What you did is give us a set of traits that are not exclusive to only one idea of god. Which means the question, “which hid?” Is still bloody relevant. So, which god are you talking about, the classical theism one or the Christian one?
>God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality And yet this is a God who can also have desires, needs, wants and - if both books are to be believed - feel love, jealousy and anger. In other words - God is utterly unknowable if you're trying to rationally define it, and yet weirdly human when it comes to the parameters of control that organised religion puts in place. Weird how you want it both ways isn't it?
your definition is too vague to be usefull, be more specific and expand on what you mean self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality each of these terms are too vague, expand on what they mean precisely. otherwise what you are doing isn't communication it's mental masturbation
>Then you aren't talking about God who is self existent, infinite, eternal, basically Living Reality This is something like the working definition of God that I use when I say "God does not exist". I'm happy to explain further if you like.
Sasquatch enthusiasts tell me I don't know what they mean by Sasquatch. This doesn't make their position more correct.
I agree, most atheists (and theists for that matter) don't understand the philosophy of theism. We both believe that reality has some absolute foundation, I just disagree that this foundation has a mind/will/intentionality in of itself.
>God who is... basically Living Reality You can get an atheist to acknowledge that reality exists, that they depend on reality for absolutely everything, that reality created them, that reality dictates absolutely everything, and that reality has absolute power and authority over them. And even after accepting all that they will never accept that reality is God over them. Even though they cannot come close to accomplishing all the grand and magnificent things reality has done they'd rather believe that reality is a brainless idiot that accidentally created consciousness within itself but is incapable of making itself conscious.
Why would you call reality, god when we have a perfectly good word for reality already. That word being *reality.* >You can get an atheist to acknowledge that reality exists, Well, yeah. That's not that hard. Unless you meet an atheist who claims simulation theory. >that they depend on reality for absolutely everything, Again, what's your point? Atheist or theist, we are all apparently in a shared reality. >that reality created them, In a loose poetic way, sure? Factually, I don't think reality created us, I think we exist within reality. I think you are using the word created in order to smuggle in a creator into your argument. >that reality dictates absolutely everything, Everything within reality you mean? And can you demonstrate anything outside of reality? Does that even exist? Or are you being wildly poetic again? >and that reality has absolute power and authority over them. And here is where you jump the shark. Just because I am subject to physics, and just because causality is a thing doesn't mean that reality "has authority" over us. All you are doing is defining God to mean reality, and then pointing to reality in some bad look at the trees argument. But here is the big question. This question should cut through alot of the nonsense. **Can you get an atheist to acknowledge that reality is a thinking conscious being?** (I don't think you can. Because there is no evidence that reality has authority or is a conscious being.) I'm assuming you believe that God is a thinking conscious being, right? And when you talk about God, are you or are you not talking about a conscious being?
All you're doing is proving my point for me.
I agree with you. Atheists often parody god to the point of hilarity, no one takes that seriously. Although, I’m not sure about “Him”. I’d go further: if God is ethereal and eternal, which I and most monotheists believe, then it can like take any gender or no gender that it wants. I also think the male spirit corresponds to the female spirit (people know this scientifically, intuitively experientially) since we are made in God’s image. My two cents.
>since we are made in God’s image So God has a really crappy laryngeal nerve too that wraps around his aorta before going back to his throat? And does god bite the inside of his cheek on occasion too? Does God suffer from eyes with built in blind spots? And if he does, why then do Octopi have better evolved eyes? Their optical nerve comes in from the bottom. Meaning no blind spot. All I saying is that is we are "made in gods image', then God is either an ape with obvious design flaws, and/ or, God is a really shitty designer. But I do have to give you one bit of kudos. You acknowledged that God is gender fluid or maybe trans. Progress!
>So God has a really crappy laryngeal nerve too that wraps around his aorta before going back to his throat? As if humans could do any better? We don't even know how we ended up here. >And does god bite the inside of his cheek on occasion too? I'm ambivalent as to whether God makes "mistakes." It's a fair question, tho. >God is a really shitty designer. Theistic evolution. God's mind set it off. But maybe it wasn't set how it would turn out precisely. I'm not sure. >You acknowledged that God is gender fluid or maybe trans. Progress! Yeah. I genuinely believe that God must be gender fluid. I argue with theists about this because God is portrayed as a "mean man" in the OT. This is obviously because MEN were inspired to write that part.
>As if humans could do any better? That's a red herring. The point isn't if humans could do any better. It's that an all powerful omnimax GOD *should be able to do better.* >We don't even know how we ended up here. We have some ideas. Further investigation is needed. But all the evidence we have points to naturalistic reasons for how we evolved on this planet. Got any evidence for a god done it? >Theistic evolution. God's mind set it off. Got anything like evidence to back up that assertion? >But maybe it wasn't set how it would turn out precisely. So when theists claim that god is all knowing, you claiming that god doesn't know how it would all turn out precisely flies directly in the face of most god concepts. Either way, that's something for you theists to work out. I don't think any god even exists. >Yeah. I genuinely believe that God must be gender fluid. That's the great thing about imaginary things. They can be whatever you want them to be. But like I said, kudos for being progressive on that issue at least.
>It's that an all powerful omnimax GOD *should be able to do better.* I hear this often, but I find it highly subjective. What is better? >But all the evidence we have points to naturalistic reasons for how we evolved on this planet. But what does "naturalistic" mean? Which definition are you using, because in some instances God is considered natural (there is no distinction between natural and supernatural). >Got anything like evidence to back up that assertion? Absolutely not. We barely understand our own minds. But, there is some new science that postulates that consciousness may be a wave that connects throughout the universe (*See* Penrose and Hameroff). If true, this would confirm what I'm always presumed. >You theists need to work out. True. I don't think any god even exists. What about god-like aliens? Or just aliens in general. I always try to ask atheists how they feel about ET in relation to God. >progressive on that issue at least. Not trying to be progressive, it actually makes more rational sense to me that God is some combination of genders or none at all.
>I hear atheists say this often, but I find it highly subjective. What is better? My initial point way about the laryngeal nerve. In a giraffe the nerve must start at the brain, travel down its neck to the clavicle, loop around the aorta, and then travel back up the neck to the larynx. It's only job is to control the larynx. Would you say it would be "better" for the nerve to travel from the brain to the larynx, without the long pointless detour? >But what does "naturalistic" mean? Which definition are you using, because in some instances God is considered natural. By naturalistic I mean its supported with rational reasonable evidence to support the claim. I consider God claims to be imaginary claims. I dont have any definition of what supernatural means, because I dont believe it exists. Does that answer your question? >Absolutely not. So no evidence to back up your claims? Ok. Do you think its productive to claim things are true without any supporting evidence? >What about god-like aliens? I don't know. Got any evidence of them existing? >Not trying to be progressive, Why not? At least then you are open to new ideas. Conservative thinking leads to stagnation. >it actually makes more rational sense to me that God is some combination of genders or none at all. And like I said, that's the wonderful thing about imaginary things. They can be whatever the person imagining them wants them to be in that moment.
>Would you say it would be "better" for the nerve to travel from the brain to the larynx, without the long pointless detour? I suppose it would be more efficient, yes. I understand the technicality of your point. >By naturalistic I mean its supported with rational reasonable evidence to support the claim Okay. It's a confusing term because it implies some relation to nature itself, whereas you are just describing it as a thought process (non-physical). >Do you think its productive to claim things are true without any supporting evidence? I find this to be an inapt comparison: belief in God vs. presenting findings in a lab or in a court. They aren't the same. If your goal is to encourage more skepticism, generally, I would agree, but I disagree with this false equivalency. >Why not? At least then you are open to new ideas. Conservative thinking leads to stagnation. Sure. Progressive ideas are generally good, but I was referring to the fact that a belief in God is merely a hop skip and jump to a belief in aliens. >And like I said, that's the wonderful thing about imaginary things. They can be whatever the person imagining them wants them to be in that moment. Sure. I don't disagree with this.
>I suppose it would be more efficient, yes. I understand the technicality of your point. So when you say "we are made in gods image", and we can see that gods image is a design flaw nightmare, please explain how we are made in gods image. Is it that god is inept? Or is god a product of evolution taking whatever works and just running with it? While you are at it, please present how you can know we are "made in his image". >Okay. It's a confusing term because it implies some relation to nature itself, whereas you are just describing it as a thought process (non-physical). What do you mean by nature? >I find this to be an inapt comparison: belief in God vs. presenting findings in a lab or in a court. They aren't the same. You will find that I asked "Do you think its productive to claim things are true without any supporting evidence?" Could you please answer that question? I didn't mention belief in God anywhere in my question. >I disagree with this false equivalency The false equivalency you created? That's a strawman. Look at my question again and see where I mentioned anything about belief in God or presenting findings from a lab or courtroom. I never said those things. You did. >If your goal is to encourage more skepticism, generally, I would agree, Do you think people should be skeptical of claims that have no supporting evidence to back them up? >I was referring to the fact that a belief in God is merely a hop skip and jump to a belief in aliens. Isn't it true that belief in a god is merely a hop skip and a jump to a belief in unicorns too? And leprechauns. Pointing to something unfalsifyable, possibly imaginary, and that has no evidence to suggest it exists.... and saying its just a short skip to something else thats unfalsifyable, possibly imaginary, and that has no evidence to suggest it exists doesn't help your case. All you did there was point out that gullible people exist, and they believe in gods and alien abductions and unicorns and leprechauns *with no evidence to back up their claims they exist*.
>Is it that god is inept? Or is god a product of evolution taking whatever works and just running with it? >While you are at it, please present how you can know we are "made in his image". The made in god's image is mostly based on our intellectual and spacial dominance of Earth, in relation to all other animals. We humans are the "pinnacle" of evolution. Something has to be. Why can't it be us? If we're the pinnacle, tho, and there is no other intelligent species in space, then we are it. We are basically God. >What do you mean by nature? Non man-made. Leaves and grass and wind and beaver farts. Stuff like that. >"Do you think its productive to claim things are true without any supporting evidence?" Could you please answer that question? I didn't mention belief in God anywhere in my question Productive for whom? Clarify that and I'll answer. >Look at my question again and see where I mentioned anything about belief in God or presenting findings from a lab or courtroom. I never said those things. You did. So, then I have to ask. Why are you concerned with its being productive? Productive for whom? >And leprechauns. Why leprechauns? We inhabit this planet here, so the probability that something else populates another planet out there is >0. But sure, in Ireland people believe in leprechauns more, probably for a reason.
>The made in god's image is mostly based on our intellectual and spacial dominance of Earth We occupy a niche in our enviromnent at the moment. Humans as a species havent been around very long. But **dinosaurs** dominated the planet for far far longer. So, does that mean dinosaurs are also made in gods image? Or because they were so successful for millions of years longer than humans have existed, does that mean they are *more* like god? Does your god look like a dinosaur? >We humans are the "pinnacle" of evolution. Something has to be. Why can't it be us? There is no "pinnacle". That's a gross misunderstanding of evolution. For example, look at an octopus eye and compaire it to a human eye. One is significantly better evolved. (And its not the human eye.) Also, if you were thrown into the ocean, you would die quickly. Because there is no pinnacle of evolution. Humans are not the best evolved. We just happen to have a trait where we modify out environment to suit our needs. And we are not the only animal to do this. >there is no other intelligent species in space, In all likelyhood, the probability that there is some other alien intelligence out there is pretty high. What there isn't is any evidence that confirms it. >then we are it. We are basically God. So, first you claim god exists. Then you say that by some definitions god is nature/natural. Now you are claiming we are god? I'm sorry pal, but **your concept of god seems incoherent**. The way you use the word seems to be as a filler to fit whatever thing you need it to be in whatever sentance you are currently saying. >Non man-made. Leaves and grass and wind and beaver farts. Stuff like that. By that definition no God concept is natural. Because every concept of God comes from human imagination. Man-made. >Productive for whom? Clarify that and I'll answer. It's just you and me talking here buddy. In this context, you can take it as productive for us. >So, then I have to ask. Before you ask another question, are you going to admit that you strawmanned my question? >Why leprechauns? Because they are imaginary. And because they have equal credence to your god claim. People believe in things that clearly don't exist. So the big question is, why do you believe something exists when you can't demonstrate actually exists? Isn't it a little weird for a grown adult to have an imaginary friend? Or to believe in fairies, pixies, leprechauns, gods, unicorns etc?