If we look past the issue of appearance when talking about God and instead use the word “God” just as a common dominator for all things that exists. What I mean by that is if we just use the word God to describe the existence of all things seem (and unseen, and because it is short) – What kind of proof would we need, to become convinced of the existence of God? ...What kind of proof would we need to convince us that there really is something (call it God!?) that holds everything “in” existence; that holds it all together? In other words, what would we need as evidence that God is real?

Is this a question of trying to use the existence of a vague wispy philosophical term of a god to support the want of existence for precisely described purported gods that every christian, muslim, and hindu swears to have a personal relationship with?

(January 8, 2015 at 7:47 am)Brakeman Wrote: Is this a question of trying to use the existence of a vague wispy philosophical term of a god to support the want of existence for precisely described purported gods that every christian, muslim, and hindu swears to have a personal relationship with?

This is not about words, it is about pinpointing what kind of evidence we are looking for when we claim that there is not evidence of a God (or whatever you choose to call it)

I grow tired of saying that believers must first DEFINE what a fucking god is, then go around to demonstrate said properties.

Everything else is bullshit. Stop raping philosophy with solipsistic thought!

So using substitution, your question is "What kind of evidence do we need to convince us that things that exist, exist?"

Since the evidence would also require existence, any would be self confirming. It quickly becomes silly philoso-babble that has no effect on lives.

Give us a better definition of your feared god.

If this conversation is to be in any way productive I think some clarification is in order.

Capital 'G' God is conventionally used to invoke the idea of the Judeo-Christian god of Abraham as described in The Bible. This character can in no way be confused with your definition that god is everything in existence.

If god is defined as everything that exists, why not just call it nature, universe, reality, or simply everything? What's the purpose of the label god?

(January 8, 2015 at 7:19 am)W.Smith Wrote: If we look past the issue of appearance when talking about God and instead use the word “God” just as a common dominator for all things that exists. What I mean by that is if we just use the word God to describe the existence of all things seem (and unseen, and because it is short) – What kind of proof would we need, to become convinced of the existence of God? ...What kind of proof would we need to convince us that there really is something (call it God!?) that holds everything “in” existence; that holds it all together? In other words, what would we need as evidence that God is real?

If we look past appearance when talking about God (assuming the Abrahamic, Judeo-christian god), there are still other attributes which define it. Those attributes do not include 'being everything'. Your definition of 'God' as a synonym for 'everything' is not validated by the only set of definitions for God's attributes, the bible.

So the evidence would have to validate that a being, which is demonstrably existent, meets the documented attribute-definitions of 'God'.

There is no set evidence for just "God" because God can mean virtually anything. You'll be lucky to find two people who agree on what they would define it as, if even of them can offer a coherent definition at all.

So you have to be very clear what you are talking about before you ask what evidence is necessary. But as always, the evidence you need is whatever it takes to establish the existence beyond reasonable doubt.

I can say I am God if I want, and I have enough evidence to conclude I exist, therefor "God" exists. I can't then use the same evidence for any other definition of God, though. So if you say God is everything, then god exists, it's a tautology. But that tells you nothing about any other crazy "God" someone can concoct.

Bottom line, it's a stupid word anyway. It just arbitrarily adds a load of baggage and near-impossible qualities to something you haven't even identified properly, or can present any evidence of, in the first place.

So claim first, then evidence of that specific claim

Atheists have no agenda of ignoring evidence. First, you need a coherent and falsifiable claim. No one in my experience has even got that far. Then you can present evidence for it.

(January 8, 2015 at 8:17 am)LastPoet Wrote: I grow tired of saying that believers must first DEFINE what a fucking god is, then go around to demonstrate said properties.

Everything else is bullshit. Stop raping philosophy with solipsistic thought!

Philosophy came on to me.

Is..the OP suggesting that if we define God as "everything", that God exists because everything exists?