Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Evidence??
January 8, 2015 at 9:23 am
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2015 at 9:24 am by robvalue.)
I think so. Because everything that exists exists, anything we want to exist also exists.
Funny kind of argument!
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Evidence??
January 8, 2015 at 9:44 am
If everything is god then your question is answered. The question of definition then comes into play. God, to me at least, is all that plus the atemporal < a description which defies definition by it's nature. Likewise 'evidence' : of the atemproal is illlogical.
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: Evidence??
January 8, 2015 at 9:45 am
(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?
short answer no, long answer hell no. everything on this planet can be explained through science and not a book made by ancient man.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Evidence??
January 8, 2015 at 10:28 am
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2015 at 10:29 am by bennyboy.)
(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? That's fine. If you want to say that whatever causes things to exist exists, then go ahead. It's even fine if you want to call it God.
But if you try to go from there to Sky Daddy who clucks disapprovingly while watching teenagers masturbate, or demands that male children have the tip of their weiners chopped off, then fuck off.
The evidence that God is real depends on at least a minimal definition: that God is a sentient entity, and that there is no greater possible entity. Good luck finding evidence for that.
Posts: 23017
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Evidence??
January 8, 2015 at 2:06 pm
A deist god see,ms slightly more likely than your run-of-the-mill monotheistic god ... and a bit less meaningful, too.
Posts: 3634
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Evidence??
January 8, 2015 at 2:24 pm
Wait just a minute here...
Existence exists?!
I'm not sure I'm buying that.
But seriously, why redefine existence as 'God', a word with a truckload of baggage and as many definitions as there are people who believe in one or more?
We seem to already have a perfectly good word for existence. That word is....wait for it....existence.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 7085
Threads: 69
Joined: September 11, 2012
Reputation:
84
RE: Evidence??
January 8, 2015 at 2:28 pm
(January 8, 2015 at 8:10 am)W.Smith Wrote: (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)
If it's not about words, what's it about? Your entire OP is defining "god" as "everything". All your argument is is semantics.
Posts: 67172
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Evidence??
January 8, 2015 at 2:31 pm
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2015 at 2:34 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(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? Seems a bit extraneous to me. Why call "everything that exists" "god". Does "God" describe "everything that exists" in a more accurate way than, oh...I don't know "everything that exists"?
A god, I think, would be fine evidence for the existence of a god. No need to complicate it. If someone asked you to prove that frogs existed.....would you shoot straight for a pet shop to get a frog, or would you prevaricate around some bullshit about defining "frog" to mean "everything that exists"? As for something that holds everything together or "in"..believe what you're looking for is invisible and begins with the letter G.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Evidence??
January 8, 2015 at 2:34 pm
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2015 at 2:35 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
I'll define God as "love", I'll define God as "any one of us", I'll define God as "bacon", and I'll define God as "good". Since God is "everything", that works, right?
So, my statement is "God Gods God, because God says God is God."
I love bacon, because God says bacon is good.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Evidence??
January 8, 2015 at 8:31 pm
(January 8, 2015 at 2:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A god, I think, would be fine evidence for the existence of a god. No need to complicate it.
Glad to see you're in. Pull up a pew.
|
