RE: A Question From Atheists
June 23, 2017 at 4:46 am
(This post was last modified: June 23, 2017 at 5:09 am by nosferatu323.
Edit Reason: Deleted a reference to Einstein's belief to avoid the misunderstanding that his scientific status was meant to be used to support the argument
)
Quote:We find out that people think that the term means many different things, but that those things share some commonalities which justify their inclusion in the set of x. We also find, that some people, include things in the set of x that are not like the others. Things like...the universe.I think our latest conversation shed some light on where exactly our disagreement lies, so I make another attempt to resolve it.
Here you are ambiguous. You must be more clear. What exactly are those commonalities? assume we have 10 different sets each sets corresponds to a definition of god. S1, S2, S2,..., S10, let's assume the universe is S1. You are claiming that S1 has very little in common with the intersection of the other 9 sets. You need to justify it. My common sense tells me that your claim is not true. Actually I think Zeus has much much less in common with the God of major religions than the universe. This is just my assumption though. This claim cannot be easily justified.
What I want to highlight is that your feeling that the universe have very little in common with other definitions of god might be a subjective opinion and you have not supported your argument by actual evidences.
In fact I find the universe to have many of the features that other gods have: It's basically our creator, she created us through evolution. The moral laws that we have invented are also rooted in evolution and ultimately rooted in the laws of the universe. So basically the universe has given us our morality. The universe is our sustainer it's gives us food and energy to continue living, we will return to the universe after we die, the universe is constantly watching us through ourselves, the fact that I'm aware of myself can also mean the universe is aware of me, because I'm part of the universe, not separate etc.
The only thing that might be (just a guess) a big deal for you is the matter of consciousness maybe (just maybe) you have this assumption in the back of your mind that a god must have consciousness the way we do and be a person like us. But why is that?! in fact there are very few religions that have these assumptions, among them is Christianity.
Quote:Bold mine. This is why it is meaningless. Instead of just calling something "god" and expecting that to make it more special somehow, it's far more meaningful to tell me what it is (not just what you call it) and why you believe it. Even if it is something that I believe exists (like the universe), I might just have a more accurate word for it that actually gives it individual value (like universe). We already have a word for these things.
No it's not meaningless. Please read the paragraph in italic above. You see when you refer to universe as god it's not just a choosing of words and as absurd as you assume it to be. It can give you different perspectives which are not necessarily unscientific. For a pantheist both the universe and god are useful words. (s)he uses universe when (s)he is referring to it from a specific perspective and (s)he uses god when (s)he is referring to the same thing but from another perspective.
As an analogy, when I call my wife Honey I'm seeing her from a certain perspective when I call my wife Jennifer I'm referring to the same thing but from a different perspective.
As an another analogy, when a physicist refers to light as particles it's looking at it from a certain perspective, when he refers to light as wave he is referring to the same thing but from a different perspective.
Quote:There's that strawman argument again. Stop that. I am not just pulling god from one culture. I am not pulling any definition of any god from anywhere. You tell me what you believe and I will give you my feedback on it no matter what it is.I never meant to use Strawman argument. I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, so maybe that's why I'm repeating it. You can explain more clearly what you mean next time if you care. I'd be glad to learn a thing or two about logic here!
Quote:I may have missed this because I'm not going to bother reading through every page here, but please describe the god that you do believe in. I don't care about the god(s) that you don't believe in.The above arguments and descriptions might be my best attempt to try to describes it. But the way those words portray it is really farm from how I perceive it. The best way to perceive the god that I believe in is to see him/her in silence. I might be able to help a friend who has some trust in me to see the god that I believe. But I can not go much further describing god than it is on this post. Which I admit is not much at all. BTW, I assume this is off-topic. You know the rules here better than me. If you think it doesn't fit the rules here and you are interested in further discussion, let's discuss this in a different thread or through privet messaging.
Quote:In all honesty, even the off the shelf religions have got so much filler in them to make them palatable with the modern world, that every person who tries it also describes a different unique taste as you do... As we are emotional (we don't like using "spiritual" here, (more meaningless woo)) creatures, A belief in god should always be a customised god for those that need one.The way I have understood religions is that most of the major religions are talking about the same god in which I believe. The need for belief in transcendental and woo stuff is to help you let go of some of your prejudices in your mind which greatly helps you through the path of the specific religion. Of course believing in woo things can have negative effects also and not always lead the individual in the path designed by the creator(s) of the religion. This is my subjective understanding and derived from my personal experience and I do not insist on any part of it to be true.
Quote:It would probably be useful, at this juncture, to point out that you have not accurately represented pantheism Nos. Pantheism does not hinge upon the assertion that the universe is god, left hanging and unsupported out there in the wind. The case cannot be made by mere assertion, no case can.You are right. I was not accurate. Pantheism itself is a broad term and refers to various beliefs. The pantheism of Spinoza matches my argument. Also various traditions of Hinduism which believe in a non-personal gods are compatible examples. Yes there are some examples of pantheistic beliefs that attache woo characteristics to the universe, but there are also beliefs that don't do that.
Quote:Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" [Deus] to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...." Thus, Spinoza's cool, indifferent God differs from the concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity.
