(October 17, 2015 at 5:31 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:(October 17, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I'm probably going to say what almost everyone will, only I'll get in first - my position on the existence of gods depends on how those gods are defined. Borrowing from Richard Dawkins, if the god you're proposing is a special tree carved with totem symbols, then I will accept that it exists as a tree. There's no way I'm automatically going to accept any claims made for your god(s), which is why you hear us asking for evidence all the time. It's not us being contrary for the sake of it, though that can be fun too; it's more that you (generalising) keep asking us to adopt a position of belief based on nothing we can test. Worse, those things that we can test always fall apart under the simplest of examination.
Now I'm going to go a stage further than the usual atheist line and state that I don't believe a god as defined in common popular religious mythology can exist in a Universe like ours. The nature of this god is usually defined to be totally at odds with the reality we experience on a daily basis, to the point where nothing coherent can be said about it without it devolving into a battle of personalities and hurt feelings.
so would you be open to the possibility of God existing outside of religious mythology such as the concept that God is in everything that exists or God is nature or in some form that did not contradict science ?
Answering for myself, no. Because that would be redundant and useless (except for poetic use). Why call that God?