A pantheistic argument.

[Edwardo Piet]

[...] If I agreed that the universe was god....then there would be no difference in our beliefs here, and I would no longer be an atheist. I don't agree, you haven't given me any reason why I should agree, and so I still don't believe that god exists. I remain an atheist.

I'm not saying that the universe is god.

Not to our beliefs it doesn't. The universe -could- be god and I still might not believe in gods,[...]

I didn't say the universe was god...

and similarly the universe may not be god and I may still believe that it is.

see above.

Except that it isn't identical, atheists don't believe that the universe is god

1. I didn't say atheists believed that.

2. I didn't even define the universe as god.

See the above

See above the "See the above" quoted above, and hopefully see the rest of my post too.

It is, but I apologize, I assumed that we were both referencing belief here...I didn't know that I was going to have to spell that out..but seeing as how loose words are becoming maybe I should have known better. There are no gods present in my "beliefs"..there is at least one present in yours.

I said that theism and atheism are about belief/non-belief. You appeared to suggest that they are about the truth/falsehood of those beliefs.

Is there a god present in your belief system?

If god is the universe, yes. If god is a supernatural being, natural being or supernatural force, no.

LOL, no, "by my logic" you would be confused. A person who believes in at least one god is a theist, a person who does not believe in at least one god is an atheist. It is not up to me to define what a god is for you, but if you choose to call it a god, then so be it. This is a problem of your own making that does not apply to me.

If X is something and you believe in that something then you believe in X.

Therefore, if god is something and you believe in that something then you believe in god.

Therefore, if god is the universe and you believe in the universe, you believe in god.

Trouble is that I am not "believing in the universe in exactly the same way"...-that much should be obvious....

I shouldn't have used the words "same" or "exactly". Apologies. All I meant by that was that I am giving "god" the typical definition of the universe so, assuming we both believe in the typical definition of the universe then if god is that very universe that we believe in then we both believe in god.

Is it supposed to be some revelation that so long as a word can be defined, redefined, or tasked in any way one wishes to at any moment that communication loses all meaning?

No, I don't know how many times I have to explain that I have already explained my purposes for this thread many times and I have also quoted and re-quoted myself explaining.

In that you believe that it is god..and I do not, again, that should be obvious.

I don't know how many times I have to explain that I didn't say "if the universe is god" I said "if god is the universe". Also, I didn't say that I even believed that god is the universe.

The belief is different in that I don't believe that the universe is god Doubt.......

As I said, I don't know how many times I'm going to have to explain that I didn't define the universe as god. And not only to you.

I'm saying that if god is the universe, and you believe in the universe, you believe in god. The reasoning there is tautological.

So you are saying that even if god meant "the universe" you still wouldn't believe in god? That would imply that you didn't believe in the universe...

More accurately I would flat out state (you'll never need to wonder what I'm implying..I promise) that I find your definition to be ridiculous. We can both agree that the universe exists, while disagreeing on whether or not it is god.

I didn't say that it was logically sound. I have already explained my purpose for this definition again and again and again and again and again and re-explained and quoted myself and re-quoted myself explaining it. And I've also explained that I've done that too.

I have already said that I'm not arguing that the argument is logically sound. I'm arguing that it is logically valid. If god is the universe and you believe in the universe you believe in god. That is logically valid. I'm not saying that it is sound.

I suppose I simply expect more out of a god, eh?

If god is the universe and you expect god to be more than the universe, why?

Once again, the argument is logically valid, I'm not saying that it is sound. Where did I say that it is sound?

Does the atheist believe the universe is a god?

How many times must I be misunderstood on this matter I wonder? I'm not saying the universe is god. I'm saying "if god is the universe".

I only need to demonstrate that the same particular definition of "god" being addressed is being believed in in both cases.

aaaactually, you'd need to get some agreement from me in the definition you used before you went about telling me that I believed in god...that's fair, don't you think?

If I say "if god is the universe then anyone who believes in the universe believes in god", what is logically invalid about that? I didn't say it was sound. I have stated my purpose for my premise, it wasn't for it to be logically sound. My premise is pragmatic, not logical. My argument and conclusion is logical, not my premise.

This atheist doesn't believe in gods, but also thinks that your definition is ridiculous.

Of course atheists don't believe in gods. I'm not saying that my definition isn't, logically, ridiculous I'm saying that my argument is valid and I explained the purpose of my premise.

Problem is that I don't believe that the universe is god Doubt.

How many more times do I have to say: "How many more times to I have to say that I'm not saying that the universe is god"?

I understand that you do [believe in god]....

If god is the universe, yes.

but that doesn't really mean much to me.

I understand that you don't see my argument as sound but it was never meant to be and I never said that it was. Can you demonstrate how my argument is invalid? I have said many times that if god is the universe and you believe in god then you believe in the universe. That is logically valid. I'm not saying that it is sound, I'm saying that it is valid. And it is, tautologically so.

As for my explained purpose for creating this thread I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on that.

Think I already handled this but I'll do it again...I don't agree with your definition Doubt........

I didn't say you should. I said if. I said if god is the universe and you believe in the universe then you believe in god. That's a tautology. It can't be false, it must be true, by definition. But your answer to that statement was "no".

If they believed in something, and accepted a definition that termed it god they would not be atheists...

How many more times must I say, etc, etc, etc, once again: I didn't say "if the universe is god" I said "if god is the universe".

OR- atheists don't believe god is the universe..

If god is the universe and atheists don't believe in god then they don't believe in the universe. That's a tautology.

---

Hehehe, can't believe this slipped by me Doubt, but did you just refer to the universe (being interchangeable with god, via your statements) as "him"? I think you're smuggling some stuff in with the concept of god that you don't want to talk about when you claim that it's "just the universe".....

Nah, I was the most active atheist on these forums for the first few years and my atheism hasn't changed one bit - I merely left partly to do other things and partly due to mental illness - I still believe a supernatural creator of the universe is about as likely as the flying spaghetti monster. I'm making a valid argument here, that is all.

My point is that whether I believe god is the universe or whether I just believe in the universe it makes no difference because in both cases I'm merely believing in the universe. It is just in one case I label it "god" and in another I don't. Because I'm defining god as "the universe" but I'm not defining "the universe" as god.

It's funny that I said "him", but I assure you that that's just out of sheer habit of 8000 odd posts on these forums with most of them being directed at theists, so when I argue with them about their "God" I refer to it as "Him" because apparently they somehow know that their god has a personality - is a person - and is male.

---

Really, what is the problem with simply saying "The universe is a really really gigantic thing".

Did you not see my post where I responded to you about all the assumptions you had made about me including the fact that you assumed that I was defining the universe as god despite the fact that I didn't say I was? I said that god is the universe. I didn't say that the universe is god. Well, if I did, it was by accident. Check my posts and I assure you that either in all of them I say that "if god is the universe" and not "if the universe is god" or the vast majority of the time and any time I say the reverse, it was an accidental mistake on my part.

Now, the premise of my argument is "if god is..." and I concluded that it lead to the universe being god but I'd already defined "god" as the most influential force in the universe and shown that that was the universe itself, so all I'm really doing is saying god is the universe. I'm not saying the universe is god in the typical sense.