Atheists: Supposing God Appeared Before You...

[Heyo]

Amazing.

Every atheist, agnostic, ignostic, believer or non believer here has pretty much defined who or what God must be, what He must look like, what She must act like, what It must be capable of.

(emphasis by me)
You seem to be unaware of what agnostic means.

 

[epronovost]

Amazing.

Every atheist, agnostic, ignostic, believer or non believer here has pretty much defined who or what God must be, what He must look like, what She must act like, what It must be capable of. Once God is properly defined in the imagination of the ag/ig/atheist or theist, then the possible encounter is scripted...and found to be impossible. There. All done, God doesn't exist so if He showed up in the defined iteration, that would be proof that he didn't, and if he does NOT show up as defined, well, that also would be proof that the experience was "not God,' 'more gravy than of grave'

non believers would not accept any evidence of God...especially objective evidence, since of course they have already decided that there can not be any objective evidence of God. How can there be? He doesn't exist.

Circular indeed, but I've never met an atheist who SAW the circularity of it.

I suggest, humbly, that the non believer stop attempting to put this God he doesn't believe in into a box for comfortable definition. He won't fit there.

Just....be. If God wants' to prove Himself to you, He will.

Well, if you want to define your deity as a quatrupedal mammal of the canid family that answers to the name "Pooch" and you show me an actual picture of "Pooch", I will have to agree that your deity exists. I don't think it has anything special and divine and would disagree it can be called a deity, but if that's what you want to call it go for it. Don't expect me to respect or agree with that choice though. To me it's just a four legged dog named Pooch.

 

[ChristineM]

Amazing.

Every atheist, agnostic, ignostic, believer or non believer here has pretty much defined who or what God must be, what He must look like, what She must act like, what It must be capable of. Once God is properly defined in the imagination of the ag/ig/atheist or theist, then the possible encounter is scripted...and found to be impossible. There. All done, God doesn't exist so if He showed up in the defined iteration, that would be proof that he didn't, and if he does NOT show up as defined, well, that also would be proof that the experience was "not God,' 'more gravy than of grave'

non believers would not accept any evidence of God...especially objective evidence, since of course they have already decided that there can not be any objective evidence of God. How can there be? He doesn't exist.

Circular indeed, but I've never met an atheist who SAW the circularity of it.

I suggest, humbly, that the non believer stop attempting to put this God he doesn't believe in into a box for comfortable definition. He won't fit there.

Just....be. If God wants' to prove Himself to you, He will.

Not me, although I did say omni everything, though in fairness to me, onmi everything is a definition of the believers.

And can i ask, how does one define nothing. Or define a bronze age myth. Of define a flowing magic beard in the sky. Or a being with a hammer. Or a being that sneezes universes out its left nostril?
Surely what is already recognised by those who believe a magic sky daddy exists is a good description the the OP would accept?

Oh, and if you can provide objective evidence i and several billion people would like to see it, including the highest religious leaders in the world.

How circular is it to make statements you know you have no chance of testing?

So what size box does you god fit in?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Even if it fell a little short of that but was plenty powerful and declared it was a god, you wouldn't consider it a god? I kinda think most people probably would worship aliens if they came and said they were gods.. but I already had a thread on that, wouldn't want to hijack this one

Worship? That's what indoctrinated slaves do, to "honor" their owners.

Why would we worship aliens, no matter how powerful?

Moreover? Any being demanding worship? Is certainly unworthy to BE worshiped!

That's just narcissism-- immoral and evil, pretty much.

 

[Firemorphic]

An entity is not God, so that cancels out fantasy novels of floating giants in outer-space as qualifying for "God". If you've applied any anthropomorphism whatsoever, to God then you have not described God.

 

[Firemorphic]

A creature with such characteristics would be self-evident. It would be so ubiquitous that no matter where or how we looked at the universe we would see it. Plus, an omnipotent and omniscient creature would be able to find ways to convince every single human being that it exists and is such a creature and not a fraud.

The question would be, what are you expecting to 'see' that you think you aren't?

 

[epronovost]

The question would be, what are you expecting to 'see' that you think you aren't?

A universe in which there are no paradox and logical impossibilities toward the exitence of such a creature. The paradox and impossbilities raised by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, relatable being are very numerous and could take pages. The problem of divine hiddeness, of evil, of omnipotence, of providence, of omniscience, of primacy, etc. are all problems that makes such a being impossible. If there were no such problem in our universe, there could be, but not necessarily be, such a creature.

 

[dianaiad]

(emphasis by me)
You seem to be unaware of what agnostic means.

I'm quite aware.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, if you want to define your deity as a quatrupedal mammal of the canid family that answers to the name "Pooch" and you show me an actual picture of "Pooch", I will have to agree that your deity exists. I don't think it has anything special and divine and would disagree it can be called a deity, but if that's what you want to call it go for it. Don't expect me to respect or agree with that choice though. To me it's just a four legged dog named Pooch.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

 

[dianaiad]

Not me, although I did say omni everything, though in fairness to me, onmi everything is a definition of the believers.

And can i ask, how does one define nothing. Or define a bronze age myth. Of define a flowing magic beard in the sky. Or a being with a hammer. Or a being that sneezes universes out its left nostril?
Surely what is already recognised by those who believe a magic sky daddy exists is a good description the the OP would accept?

Oh, and if you can provide objective evidence i and several billion people would like to see it, including the highest religious leaders in the world.

How circular is it to make statements you know you have no chance of testing?

So what size box does you god fit in?

Thank you for proving my point, Christine.

........and God doesn't fit in a box. He created the boxes. I believe that, should He ever personally appear to me, I would let HIM tell me how to categorize Him. So far all anyone has done (and that very specifically includes you, as per this post) is describe Who or What they think He is, should be, must be...or can't be.


I figure that if there is a Creator God (and I believe that there is) , then He will do whatever He wants in whatever method He chooses. If He wants to sneeze the universe out of His left nostril, who am I to dictate otherwise? Since when does God need to adhere to my requirements?

 

[Firemorphic]

A universe in which there are no paradox and logical impossibilities toward the exitence of such a creature. The paradox and impossbilities raised by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, relatable being are very numerous and could take pages. The problem of divine hiddeness, of evil, of omnipotence, of providence, of omniscience, of primacy, etc. are all problems that makes such a being impossible. If there were no such problem in our universe, there could be, but not necessarily be, such a creature.

I do agree with you but not context you're speaking in. None of what you've described would ever be considered by me to be "God" and to consider the existence of a 'thing' such as that would be absurd.
All you've described is something indiscernible (in principle) from something in 'Creation' itself - just with different incoherent things attributed to it. At least in your description, you seem to explain a thing that lives in the universe, something that is contingent on it's creation. I don't know how that can be reconciled with the concept of "God" (or 'creator').

The dichotomy between creator and creation is so important but I rarely see people thinking about what both terms actually imply and mean (and no, not creationism)

 

[epronovost]

........and God doesn't fit in a box. He created the boxes.

You just "put God in a box". You gave an inherant, necessary characteristics of "God" that he "created the boxes". That's a defining attribute and anything that doesn't match this defining attribute cannot be "God". Thus, you "put God in a box".

 

[epronovost]

I do agree with you but not context you're speaking in. None of what you've described would ever be considered by me to be "God" and to consider the existence of a 'thing' such as that would be absurd.

The same goes for me. I find your definition of God is absurd and would not revere such a creature even if it existed (which I don't think it does).

All you've described is something indiscernible (in principle) from something in 'Creation' itself - just with different incoherent things attributed to it. At least in your description, you seem to explain a thing that lives in the universe, something that is contingent on it's creation. I don't know how that can be reconciled with the concept of "God" (or 'creator').

The dichotomy between creator and creation is so important but I rarely see people thinking about what both terms actually imply and mean (and no, not creationism)

I actually don't care about the process of creation. The only creature/thing I would revere cannot exist in our universe for many reason, but it didn't need to "create" the universe I live in per say. That might be an essential characteristic for you, but not for me.

 

[Firemorphic]

The same goes for me. I find your definition of God is absurd and would not revere such a creature even if it existed (which I don't think it does).

I never defined anything, maybe you're confusing your discussion with someone else.

I would not consider a creature to be God, that is blatant contradiction.

I actually don't care about the process of creation. The only creature/thing I would revere cannot exist in our universe for many reason, but it didn't need to "create" the universe I live in per say. That might be an essential characteristic for you, but not for me.

You don't get what I said. What you keep describing is the "creation" side of the dichotomy, not "creator", that's why I mentioned it. I equally do not believe in and consider absurd the propositions of what you are saying. If not believing in what you're describing makes me an atheist in your eyes, then great, but I am a monotheist for rejecting all semblance to that absurdity.

 

[dianaiad]

You just "put God in a box". You gave an inherant, necessary characteristics of "God" that he "created the boxes". That's a defining attribute and anything that doesn't match this defining attribute cannot be "God". Thus, you "put God in a box".

Hmnn.

Well, you have a point. However, I do think that 'God is that being who created everything' isn't too limiting a requirement.

 

[Alone]

Food for thought; "there are no atheists that have been thrown out of an airplane at a hundred thousand feet without a parachute"

 

[epronovost]

Hmnn.
Well, you have a point. However, I do think that 'God is that being who created everything' isn't too limiting a requirement.

That's actually what I'm trying to illustrate to you and Firemorphic, but it's not easy through such a medium. Gods have all sorts of definition. In the end, the only point in common between all those definition is that a god is something/someone that is worshiped and honored often in a ritualised manner. What are the characteristics of the gods in question varies from religion to religion, from culture to culture and can even change with time or from person to person.

To you, the thing your worship, is "the crearor of all things". That's "your god" so to speak. It's the being you worship and honor often in ritualised manner for example through prayer or fasting. I'm an atheist. I don't worship and honor any being in such a manner for I don't think there is any being deserving of it. The sort of being I would revere and honor like you do would not have the same characteristics and that being cannot exist in our universe. I will not revere and honor a fiction. I'm thus an atheist and you are not. I don't think that my definition is universal or that any "god" definition is universal. We each have or own. Some people have the same, or similar enouh ones, others don't.

That means that for me to start to believe in your god in a religious sense, not only would you have to make the demonstration of its existence to reasonnable degree, you would have to convince me that your god should also become my god. If you can't I will consider your god just like you would consider a person who believes Pooch the dog is a deity. "Sure your god exists, but it's not mine".

 

[Alone]

Epronovost, do you believe there is no God at all or that their God is not your God?

 

[epronovost]

Epronovost, do you believe there is no God at all or that their God is not your God?

Considering that some people have and still worship the Sun, the Earth or some king for example. I would say these exist, but aren't my god. For others, I doubt their very existence. So, depending on which person or god your are talking about, it miht depend.

 

[Alone]

Well that's just it I'm still trying to understand what or who God is so that's why I was wondering if you believed in a God or no God at all or if you do believe in a god which God would that be? Some people would say God is whatever you want him to be I don't necessarily hold that position but I'm not sure which God is the true God it seems that there has to be a god of some sort, because I can't rationalize the thought of my existence being based on pure accident especially unproven accident?