I see how that could be useful, but theism, by definition, is belief in the existence of a god(s), and this is the root word in pantheism. Gods can be either immanent, transcendent, or both (panentheism). Nonetheless, they're still gods.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: What would the universe look like if a god existed?
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
That's fine for the category label 'god/s'. 'God' with a capitol 'G' would be a proper noun, the label for a specific thing, right? If your specific thing is not the same thing as another's, using a different proper name label would seem the best way to maintain clarity on what was being talked about.
The OP was using the common noun. I thought that's what was being discussed in this thread.
Yep, but we're on a bit of a tangent here I indicated my depart from the OP by prefacing my comment with "As an aside ...".
Apologies for any confusion.
Fair enough.
Personally, I think the proper noun is overused, and I personally only use it when referring to the God of Abraham by name.
I see your point. I would say that I have no god belief and also that I reject all claims that gods exist.
Also, I'm not familiar with your use of implicit and explicit in this context to mean weak and strong atheism, both of which are forms of explicit atheism. Here's how I use those terms:
Atheism - the absence of a god belief:
1. Implicit atheism - a "what's a god?" answer to the question of whether one holds a god belief: "Implicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it." This is infant atheism - no god belief but no rejection of gods yet, either.
2. Explicit atheism - a "no" answer to the question of whether one holds a god belief.
- a. Strong (or gnostic) atheism - a "no, because there is no such thing as a god" answer the question of whether one holds a god belief
- b. Weak (or agnostic) atheism - a "no, because I don't believe things such as that gods do or don't exist without a compelling reason to"
I believe if somebody worthy of being called God existed, they would have created the Universe in a way that is not hostile to mankind. Mankind would be able to travel from one planet to the next as easily as he can travel from one spot on Earth to another.
On planet Earth there would be no such a thing as useless salt water, all of the waters of the seas and oceans would be usable fresh water that humans can drink, and use to grow crops. Useless inedible weeds would not exist, all plants would either be edible or in some way useful to mankind. All animals would be herbivore no animal would be forced to kill another in order that he might live. And all of mankind would know the same God and there would be agreement on what messages, desires, and instructions this God has for us because this God would keep in contact with mankind on a continual basis thus not allowing fake non-existence Gods to be made up by some very wild imaginations.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I couldn't say a priori.
But if we assume this god has described the universe she supposedly created in some holy book through whatever means, one could perhaps at least expect to have that description match the universe in actual reality...
But that doesn't seem to be the case with any of the supposed "holy" books....
PureX
Veteran Member
Why are you assuming this, though? You clearly don't believe it, so why not assume a version of God that you might be able to accept, or want to exist?
PureX
Veteran Member
Yes. They really don't seem to want to consider the possibility of a God of their own conceptual design.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What would be the point? The answer to the question in the OP could be literally anything depending on what sort of god I make up, including exactly as it is now (for a disinterested deist god).
I don't assume it, believers often do or did. I take my cue from their claims then apply rational thinking to what is claimed
Why would i want a god to exist?
PureX
Veteran Member
If you had no answer, why'd you bother?
PureX
Veteran Member
It was a question for YOU. If you had no answer, why'd you bother?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
To point out that the OP question and your response were all but meaningless. The OP was also addressed to atheists.
PureX
Veteran Member
Wouldn't it have been more honest to simply state that you can't or won't conceive of any God on your own, and therefor can't answer the question?
I answered, just because you don't like the answer is not my problem
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No, because it would be dishonest to say that I can't or won't, I just regard it as a pointless exercise as the answer would be an arbitrary choice from a vast, if not infinite, set of options.
PureX
Veteran Member
So ... you both can't and won't.
Is it really that hard just to be honest?
I'm not an atheist, but I have no idea what the term 'God' would refer to in any realistic sense. Yet I have an imagination, and can easily imagine something I might wish to be 'God'. And then imagine how the world would be if it were so. I agree it's a somewhat odd thing to do. But it's certainly possible. So I don't think the thread was really asking anyone the impossible. And yet, it seems it is impossible for many atheists. Which I find odd.