The Million Dollar Question

[Esquilax]

Yes because there is no other way around. Every single person will come to the Same conclusion. Provided he can think.

Okay, you need to stop poisoning the well with this dishonest "if you don't agree with me, you're dumb!" shit. It's childish.

Universe as is existence. And existence is eternal. Or do you say otherwise.

You also need to stop making completely unfounded assertions, and backing them with nothing but "everyone ever will agree with me if they think about it." This isn't even an argument.

You want me to give you a silly simple analogy. Although there is no possible analogy that fits. Because nothing is the first except God.

Another fiat assertion.

Imagine a house. Everything perfectly set., the doors of wood, windows, table chairs, beds everything, In the middle of a desert. Both of us see it. I say what a beutiful house made by X. U say no it just there I can't give you any possible answer because I am refraining to think out of ignorance . While is say there 'must' be a builder it didn't just pop out for no reason. Its obvious.
And then u start blaming me that I am asserting things without evidence and that it just there no need to think about it.

We have evidence that houses are built, though, and no evidence that realities are. False equivalencies are no better than bald assertions.

You are really, really bad at this, you know that?

[Confused Ape]

I didn't even mention subjective experience ever.

You didn't mention it but I did for a particular reason. People have subjective experiences and then interpret them in different ways. I happen to have the kind of brain which produces odd, subjective experiences. If I believed that the things I experience are real I'd be worshipping the planet as a goddess along with the Greek god, Apollo. I'd also believe that some kind of female spirit inhabits a moorland pond in Wales. If I told you this female spirit exists because I saw her, would you take my word for it and believe in her existence?

You don't understand what is God.

And you do? How can you claim to understand something which is -

.... the incomprehensible, unapproachable radiant being whom the ordinary senses and ordinary intellect cannot fathom grasp or able to describe even with partial success. He is the mysterious Being totally out of the reach of all sensory activity, rationale effort and mere intellectual, decorative and pompous endeavor.

A bit further on in that article about Brahman there's -

Though impassioned and above the ordinary feelings of the mind, the masters of the Upanishads some times could not suppress the glory, the emotion, the passion and the poetry that accompanied the vast and utterly delightful , inner experience of His vast vision.

Which brings us back to subjective experiences.

Forget about all religions for a moment. Then think with a free mind.

I am thinking with a free mind. I'm waiting for evidence that a God who can only be experienced and not understood with the intellect actually exists.

If physicists like Amit Goswami can prove that God really does have something to do with quantum physics I'll accept it. And so will other atheists who are waiting for evidence.

In God is Not Dead, Goswami demonstrated that not only are science and religion compatible, but that quantum physics proves the existence of God.

[archangle]

wow,

Well, I guess if you hang out around a toilet you see a bunch of azzez.
What is god? is like asking what is gravity. What is love. Those that need a single answer "yes" or "no" just need to make sure the meds are taken as the doctor suggested.

[Statler Waldorf]

No I understand the dictionary terms supreme and being, but when someone asks what is a god, calling a supreme being is really a non answer because your not defining what it is. It is not like your calling god a toaster, which is something that is tangible and well defined. The reason I ask what is a god is because the term is so poorly defined that, and calling it a supreme being doesn't help

If you know what the words “supreme” and “being” mean then it certainly does help. We have lots of important definitions for intangible things.

A: “What is an integer?”
B: “One of the positive or negative numbers 1, 2, 3, etc., or zero.”
A: “That doesn’t answer my question.”
B: “Sure it does.”
A: “No, what is a number then?”
B: “A numeral or group of numerals.”
A: “That does not help!”
B: “Sure it does!”
A: “What’s a numeral?”
B: “A word, letter, symbol, or figure, etc., expressing a number.”
A: “Aha! You used the word number in your definition!”
B: “Yup, all definitions have a tautological nature to them.”
A: “Well I cannot see integers or touch them…”
B: “So?”
A: “Well then they cannot have a definition!”
B: “Why not?”
A: “I don’t know! I am just making this up as I go!”

This is just a game atheists like to try and play but it ends up shooting them in the foot because it can be played with any word and they too need a coherent definition for “god” in order to be called an atheist.

You can repeat that as much as you want but do you have any independent proof?

This is the fallacy of moving the goalposts. You asked for a definition for the term “god” not proof that any god exists.

C. 'God' is a term which has no meaningful descriptive value.

Then you are not an atheist since you cannot define what you lack a belief in.

Oh buggerations.

I had a reply all written out, went to edit it, then lost it...

I'll reply later when I can think about it all again.

I hate that!!! I was looking forward to reading it. Feel free to PM me if this thread gets off topic, I am always interested in your thoughts.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: whenever somebody says "it's obvious" in lieu of an explanation, what they really mean is "I have accepted this claim as true." I already know you believe this, but it's clear that I don't, and hence just burbling that it's obvious misses so many marks it's comedic. Clearly it's not obvious to me, or I would agree with you; there's a flaw in either my logic or yours, and the way to find out which is to defend your position, and not just lazily assert that it's self evident.

I get this all the time when people try defending Darwinism.

You inserted the assertion "everything else is created". You have also assumed that the universe has a beginning. So, already, your conclusion is unwarranted.

No beginning to the Universe? Are you championing Steady State Theory from the 1920s now?

Why can only one thing be eternal? Why can't the whole of existence, and all of the stuff within, be eternal? That seems far likelier, to me, then all of it being magicked out of nothing, because if there was just God, he's a special exception that can't be justified.

More likely? How are you determining such probabilities?

Some analogies are better than others, and this one stinks. We know from experience that houses and furniture are designed, manufactured objects. What evidence -- aside from your baseless insistence that it is so -- do we have that the universe is a designed thing? We intuit design by contrasting designed objects with naturally occurring objects. On what basis do you decide that nature itself is designed? What are you contrasting it with?

I think this is a bit of a stretch. I have never seen someone build a pyramid but that does not stop me from inferring that the Egyptian Pyramids are the product of an intelligence. We make such inferences all of the time in archeology, anthropology, and engineering. I see no reason as to why such inferences cannot be made in cosmology and biology as well.

Welcome back, Stat! I hope you're fully recovered; this forum has been lacking in heavy YEC arguments since you went on hiatus, not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

It’s ok to admit you missed me…. Thanks buddy.

Impressive in retrospect, especially since you've claimed that there had to be a creator for something that very well may have been natural. It's a shame nothing on so grand a scale occurs much as of late. All your god sees fit to do nowadays is bestow us with his esteemed visage from time to time.

I do not believe I said anything like that in this thread, I was trying to keep it on topic but it’s drifted way off now. When you say the cause could have been natural what do you mean? I am not sure what you mean by natural causes or occurrences.

Anything? Do you really think that we believe nothing exists?

If Fidel’s point that god could be defined as anything is sound, and atheists claim to not believe in god then atheists must not believe in anything. It’s a simple logical substitution.

Why do you make these straw men? You're better than this. Our pal here "lordofgemini" actually thinks that everything, a.k.a., our universe, is god. Discarding his definition of god, does not mean we discard everything with it.

I was addressing Fidel’s point that god is defined as whatever the believer says it is. I am simply arguing against that. I believe you and I are on the same page here.

Straw man again. The real answer is that we are not theists because a person believes cats are gods (e.g. the ancient Egyptians did worship cats). Most people have their own views of cats as simply animals with no supernatural abilities.

It’s not a straw man at all; I believe that is an accurate representation of Fidel’s argument. The definition of the term “god” is completely determined by those who believe in god(s). Therefore if someone wants to define god as “a cat” you’d then become a theist because you also believe in cats. This is why I disagree with Fide’s position, I believe you are an atheist because you do not believe in the existence of a supreme being regardless of what other people think the word “god” means. I take the position that words have correct and incorrect meanings.

By this same token, we understand that you believe there was a man named Jesus. The fact that you worship this man does not also make us theists if we also acknowledge a belief that there was a man named Jesus.

Exactly!!!! You’re agreeing with me. I am arguing that the term god has a specific meaning; it is not defined by those who claim to believe in gods. A god is any supreme being, it is really that simple.

So stop sitting there equating our belief in a thing with someone else's belief in the deistic nature of said thing. You don't have to create straw man arguments just so that you can have a debate with a group of people for which it appears you hold some disdain.

Stop arguing against someone you actually agree with. Fidel is the one claiming that the term god can legitimately mean anything; not me. I was merely reducing that argument to absurdity.

Also, please stop trying to convince us that we don't know the actual definition of "atheist". How hard is it to acknowledge that we have this term applied to us because we simply lack a belief in just one more deity than you?

I am using the philosophically accepted definition for the term; perhaps you’re not actually an atheist?

[Confused Ape]

A god is any supreme being, it is really that simple.

It depends which religion you're talking about.

The Major Olympians

Zeus - King of the gods and ruler of Mount Olympus; god of the sky, and thunder

He was a supreme being in the sense that he was the chief god but there were other gods in the Major Olympian group - Poseidon, Apollo, Ares, Hephaestus, Hermes and Dionysus. The other deities in the group were goddesses. These weren't the only Greek deities either.

[Ksa]

A man came to Imam abu Ja‘far (a.s.) saying, ‘Tell me about your Lord. When did He come into existence?’" The Imam (a.s.) replied, "Woe upon you! Such question is asked only about a thing that did not exist. My Lord, all Glory belongs to Him is and will be eternally. He lives and no How question applies to Him. He did not have any coming into existence and nor there was any being for His coming into being. This does not apply to Him because He is not subject to the effects of space. He was not in any thing or on any thing nor did He invent any space for His own space. He did not become stronger after making all things nor was weak before giving being to the beings. He was not lonely before His inventing all things. He is not similar to any thing that could be called a thing. He was also not without Kingdom before the creation and nor will He be without it after all things. He lives eternally without life and the powerful king before His invention of the things and He is an all powerful king after the creation of all things. To His existence no How or Where question is applicable. There is no limit for Him nor is He definable by analogy. He does not become old due to eternal living. He doe not become alarmed because of any thing but that all things are fearful of His (disappointment). He lived without newly emerging life. He is not a describable being or that could be limit with conditions or that would have a space to depend on. He does not have a place so that He can be considered as neighboring something. He is living and one can know Him. He is the eternal King. He has the power and the kingdom. He has created all that He wanted and when He decided by His will. He can not be limited. He can not be divided or destroyed. He was before everything but no How question would apply to Him. He will be the last but no Where will apply to Him. All things will be destroyed except He. The creation belongs to Him and His is the command. He is the Holy Lord of the worlds. O inquirer, imaginations can not encompass my Lord and He does not face any confusions or bewilderment. Nothing is able to escape Him and nothing happens to Him. He can not be held responsible for anything and He does not become regretful. Neither slumber nor sleep overcomes Him. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth and all that is between them and under the soil.

The problem with giving such a definition of God is that it is tainted in idol worship. Idol worshipers believe that everything is God. If you say God is one, he can never have that definition. He has to be the white beard father, you know, a bit like Santa Claus, sitting on the eternal throne with his son by his right hand and holy spirit in his left hand.

If you say God is not space bound and time bound, you are talking about an entity that can never appear in this world under any form, so it is a handicapped God, like without a hand or a limb. How can you control space/time if you're not part of it? It's like saying Putin controls America...he may lately lol but as long as he's not conquered USA he cannot control it. He has to be there, you get it? Or he has no influence. According to your definition, God doesn't have more control over this world than dead ones do. Because when you die, you also exit time/space...you no longer have a notion of time, and space no longer confines you since you no longer exist in that space.

If God is space-less and timeless, he can't control either one, since one can only control elements that define him.

[Chas]

A subjective experience which is interpreted as God doesn't prove that God actually exists, though. Some people have scary subjective experiences which they interpret as being abducted by aliens. Is this proof that alien abductions really happen?

I didn't even mention subjective experience ever. You don't understand what is God. Forget about all religions for a moment. Then think with a free mind.

I did. There was no evidence for any gods.

[FifthElement]

You inserted the assertion "everything else is created". You have also assumed that the universe has a beginning. So, already, your conclusion is unwarranted.

No beginning to the Universe? Are you championing Steady State Theory from the 1920s now?

Observable Universe, and by that I mean MATTER in motion which we CAN observe indeed had a beginning, in terms of our own logic that is (where concept of time is fundamental, without it we would not be able to comprehend anything at all).

Steady State Theory defends notion that MATTER in the Universe is eternal.

If the Universe is absolutely everything that can possibly be, was and is, than great beyond which OUR (and all other possible ones) universe(s) arose from could very well be eternal and that in itself is a steady state, on a quantum level (eternal foam, lol) of course

[Lemonvariable72]

If you know what the words “supreme” and “being” mean then it certainly does help. We have lots of important definitions for intangible things.

A: “What is an integer?”
B: “One of the positive or negative numbers 1, 2, 3, etc., or zero.”
A: “That doesn’t answer my question.”
B: “Sure it does.”
A: “No, what is a number then?”
B: “A numeral or group of numerals.”
A: “That does not help!”
B: “Sure it does!”
A: “What’s a numeral?”
B: “A word, letter, symbol, or figure, etc., expressing a number.”
A: “Aha! You used the word number in your definition!”
B: “Yup, all definitions have a tautological nature to them.”
A: “Well I cannot see integers or touch them…”
B: “So?”
A: “Well then they cannot have a definition!”
B: “Why not?”
A: “I don’t know! I am just making this up as I go!”

Thats a terrible comparison because the definition of a integer and a numeral are internal coherent and if ask anyone with any education on the subject. Now your definition is a supreme, and that falters unless you wonna say pagans never worshipped gods. You also may want to inform your fellow theists of this definition as they don't seem to understand.

[downbeatplumb]

If you know what the words “supreme” and “being” mean then it certainly does help. We have lots of important definitions for intangible things.

A: “What is an integer?”
B: “One of the positive or negative numbers 1, 2, 3, etc., or zero.”
A: “That doesn’t answer my question.”
B: “Sure it does.”
A: “No, what is a number then?”
B: “A numeral or group of numerals.”
A: “That does not help!”
B: “Sure it does!”
A: “What’s a numeral?”
B: “A word, letter, symbol, or figure, etc., expressing a number.”
A: “Aha! You used the word number in your definition!”
B: “Yup, all definitions have a tautological nature to them.”
A: “Well I cannot see integers or touch them…”
B: “So?”
A: “Well then they cannot have a definition!”
B: “Why not?”
A: “I don’t know! I am just making this up as I go!”

This is just a game atheists like to try and play but it ends up shooting them in the foot because it can be played with any word and they too need a coherent definition for “god” in order to be called an atheist.

A number or integer can be representative of actual things:

I have one sheep oh look there is another sheep that makes two sheep.

We can think of the integer as a box that contains the value of the amount of sheep we have.

C. 'God' is a term which has no meaningful descriptive value.

Then you are not an atheist since you cannot define what you lack a belief in.

No that's not how it works.

Here is what you have just said in essence.

If you can't adequately describe what a god is, we should believe in it.

This is a false line of reasoning based on the assumption that non-belief has to include total knowledge of the thing you don't believe in.

Look there's a Gargle Snark! you have to believe it exists Waldorf because you don't know all of its properties.