A Question From Atheists

[Whateverist]

Hey nostril323, would I be a theist if I admitted I believe in gods as works of fiction or as products of the mind? What about you, are you a theist in that sense only or do you actually believe some gods exist in an empirical sense? Can you tell me more about those gods?

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm also wondering what's the point in attaching the god label to 'the universe' if it's indistinguishable from what an atheist means by 'the universe'. Unless there is some supernatural magic power attached as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

The op is just looking for a way to rationally arrive at a desired conclusion.  That's logic in reverse...but ultimately it's one way to figure out what a compelling argument might be if the propositions supplied were true. 

If the universe were like a god, in important and meaningful ways, then it -would- be possible to rationally conclude that the universe was a god.  Pantheists -do- believe that the universe is like a god, in important and meaningful ways.  Nos believes that the universe is sacred, holy, divine, worthy of worship (not, as he maintains, a tautological issue, btw).  These are attributes commonly given to gods.  This is what makes a pantheist a pantheist...not a belief in the universe.  Similarly, a person who believes in the universe is under no obligation to believe in what makes a pantheist a pantheist. Nothing about what makes them pantheists is necessarily true or even implied by the existence of a universe.

It's really that simple.

[nosferatu323]

Add this proposition number 0 in the beginning to fix this:

0. The definitions for X that we pick up from the dictionary are assumed to be true. They are our premises. All the definitions that there are for X in authentic dictionaries and encyclopedias are assumed to be valid and do not need any sort of justification. They are the basis of our knowledge and true. 

You're now assuming what you seek to establish.  Textbook circular argumentation.

Definitions are capable of very accurately describing things that do not exist, take dragons..for instance.  Assuming a definition to be true makes no existential implications, and therefore cannot help you to establish what you seek to establiosh.  Making the faux paus above entirely pointless.

I think there is a misunderstanding. I did not say everything that is there in the dictionary truly exist and my argument does not depend on that. Proposition 0 simply states that we should not argue over the definitions that there are in the dictionary. But you are insisting that that definitions must be proven. 

dragon |ˈdraɡən| noun1 a mythical monster like a giant reptile.

I understand your argument as insisting that we should justify and prove "dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile". We do not need to do that. We just pick up the definitions from the dictionary and we assume it to be true. we assume that it's true that "dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile." then we infer from the laws of logic that dragon does not exist.

Similarly, in the case of god, we pickup this definition "In some religions god is identical with the universe" we do not argue over it. It does not need any justification, just like how "dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile" does not need any justification. We just pick up this definition and we say: "Well this is a rather unusual definition but certainly we cannot deny the existence of this sort of god" we can further say "those people who believed universe is god where stupid!" ok you can say whatever you want. But the term "god" encompasses this "stupid" conceptions according to your dictionary. So when you are asserting "no god exists" you are also denying this sort of gods which is nonsensical. 

Just read the first page. I don't usually begin by saying I don't believe in gods. My first question is what's a god? I can't very well define for you what gods I don't believe in when I have no idea what we're even talking about. You show me a god, I'll tell you if I believe in it. But so long as it stays hypothetical then, nope, I don't believe in silly stuff.

I think this is a valid position. My argument is about this assertion "No god exists, whatever it might be" which doesn't seem to be yours.

[Cyberman]

If he wants to define the god we don't believe in as the Universe, I'm okay with that. My response would be to agree that it does indeed exist; but I would dismiss the claim that it is a god. That's the part for which I would need to see some evidence - but since he's shooting his own argument through the head by insisting he doesn't need to show evidence, that really is the end of the conversation.

[FatAndFaithless]

But your argument isn't "Pantheists believe that the universe is god." Everyone already accepts that Pantheists believe this. You're asserting that the universe is in fact god - which is something that you need to justify.

I can say "a unicorn is defined as having one horn and magical powers," but I would never say "there exists a unicorn that has one horn and magical powers."

[nosferatu323]

If he wants to define the god we don't believe in as the Universe, I'm okay with that. My response would be to agree that it does indeed exist; but I would dismiss the claim that it is a god. That's the part for which I would need to see some evidence - but since he's shooting his own argument through the head by insisting he doesn't need to show evidence, that really is the end of the conversation.

A common misunderstanding in a theist/atheists conversation is that the theist ones always intend to "convert" the atheist ones or vice-versa. This was never my intention. I'm not intending to prove to you that god exists or your should believe in god. I wanted to demonstrate that the proposition:

"I don't believe in any gods" 

Is nonsensical from a logical perspective. Since when we investigate the word "god" we come across the cases where this proposition leads to clear fallacies.   

I made the mistake of talking about my personal beliefs in several occasions which might have been mis-leading for some that I'm trying to justify my own belief, which is not the case. I'm sorry about that.

But your argument isn't "Pantheists believe that the universe is god." Everyone already accepts that Pantheists believe this. You're asserting that the universe is in fact god - which is something that you need to justify.

No I'm not intending to prove that. I'm sorry if my lack of focus on the main topic made you to believe that I'm intending to prove that. I actually think it's logically absurd to try to "prove" such a belief.

[FatAndFaithless]

If he wants to define the god we don't believe in as the Universe, I'm okay with that. My response would be to agree that it does indeed exist; but I would dismiss the claim that it is a god. That's the part for which I would need to see some evidence - but since he's shooting his own argument through the head by insisting he doesn't need to show evidence, that really is the end of the conversation.

A common misunderstanding in a theist/atheists conversation is that the theist ones always intend to "convert" the atheist ones or vice-versa. This was never my intention. I'm not intending to prove to you that god exists or your should believe in god. I wanted to demonstrate that the proposition:

"I don't believe in any gods" 

Is nonsensical from a logical perspective. Since when we investigate the word "god" we come across the cases where this proposition leads to clear fallacies.   

I made the mistake of talking about my personal beliefs in several occasions which might have been mis-leading for some that I'm trying to justify my own belief, which is not the case. I'm sorry about that.

But your argument isn't "Pantheists believe that the universe is god." Everyone already accepts that Pantheists believe this. You're asserting that the universe is in fact god - which is something that you need to justify.

No I'm not intending to prove that. I'm sorry if my lack of focus on the main topic made you to believe that I'm intending to prove that. I actually think it's logically absurd to try to "prove" such a belief.

So what point are you trying to make, exactly?  Your posts have been confusing, rambling, and irrelevant.  Can you just, please, clearly and concisely state the point you're trying to make.  For all our sake.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think there is a misunderstanding. I did not say everything that is there in the dictionary truly exist and my argument does not depend on that. Proposition 0 simply states that we should not argue over the definitions that there are in the dictionary. But you are insisting that that definitions must be proven. 

Which is nothing more than insisting that we take no care to ensure that our propositions are sound.  That;s checking out of a rational conversation, not dialing in.

dragon |ˈdraɡən| noun1 a mythical monster like a giant reptile.

I understand your argument as insisting that we should justify and prove "dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile". We do not need to do that. We just pick up the definitions from the dictionary and we assume it to be true. we assume that it's true that "dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile." then we infer from the laws of logic that dragon does not exist.

Assuming that the definition is true does not yield the conclusion you're trying to arrive at....it doesn't even speak to it. But lets do that, let's assume it's true- that the definition of a god as "the universe" is something people believe in (and hey, why not, it is).  We can now infer from the laws of logic that a god proposed as stated by that definition is an equivocation.  Further by explaining that pantheists do actually seek to maintain that the universe is like a god and so can be justifiably called a god...and that those things which they believe...while they are their true beliefs, the only thing the definition is capable of attesting to...are not necessarily true of the universe ..we can show that this line of rationalization is fundamentally bankrupt.

You are not in a position, from this argument, to comment upon the rationality of anyone who disagrees with you or points out the many, many fatal logical flaws that you'd saddled pantheism with....for no reason other than to say "you believe in god too...it would be stupid to say you don't.

No, Nos, we really don't. We really don't believe in gods..no matter what -you- believe about gods..or universes.

Similarly, in the case of god, we pickup this definition "In some religions god is identical with the universe" we do not argue over it.

Some religions -believe- that god is identical to the universe....but you don;t believe in a god that;s identical to the universe.  You believe in a god that's universe +.  You believe in a universe that has the attributes of a god.... I don't.  

It does not need any justification

Yes, it does...and it's not as if those justifications don't exist.  I believe that they are poor justifications, but if you believe that they they are strong..then it would be rational, in a sense, for you to believe what you do...or at least a lot less than completely irrational.  

, just like how "dragon is a mythical monster like a giant reptile" does not need any justification.

OFC not, but justification is required to maintain that this definition accurately refers to anything beyond the concept to which it is applied.  To, for example, any existent mythical creature in the universe.  The same is true of a god..no matter what you decide to call it.  

We just pick up this definition and we say: "Well this is a rather unusual definition but certainly we cannot deny the existence of this sort of god"

I can and have denied the existence of such a god..repeatedly.  

we can further say "those people who believed universe is god where stupid!"

That would be flirting with an ad hom...why not say what I've explained to you, that the definition of a god as "the universe" on it's own is an equivocation, not a full description of their (or your) beliefs about why the universe is a god, and not accurate with respect to the universe in any objective or verifiable sense? Believing in "he universe" doesn't make -you- a pantheist, Nos..that took more.

ok you can say whatever you want.

Not in spinozas pantheism, I can't..lol.  I say whatever I'm determined to say.  

But the term "god" encompasses this "stupid" conceptions according to your dictionary. So when you are asserting "no god exists" you are also denying this sort of gods which is nonsensical. 

Many terms have encompassed stupid shit that doesn't exist.....dragons and gods being two examples.

[Cyberman]

This is pointless.