You're welcome. I assure you I am an atheist. I didn't realize I had missed responding to a question about talking philosophy about God.
Edit: For the record, though, I will avoid questions that are only talking about me.
-
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!
Is it possible to talk with an atheist?
- Thread starter Sanmario
- Start date
Edit: For the record, though, I will avoid questions that are only talking about me.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
How do you define God? I think it is necessary to start with a falsifiable concept of God and define what God is and isn't in order to have any kind of meaningful discussion as to whether or not God exists.
Sanmario
Active Member
@Willamena
Good, you say you are an atheist, and I say I am a Christian and liberal protestant.
Now, you say:
"Edit: For the record, though, I will avoid questions that are only talking about me."
I am not into only talking about you, but inviting you to talk with me about atheists saying that there is no evidence for God existing.
So, let you an atheist and me a theist, talk about God in re existing or not.
Is that okay with you, or you would like to talk about say babies and roses and the sun in the morning sky and the moon in the evening sky?
I am happy to talk about babies and roses and sun and moon, in this thread on Is it possible to talk with an atheist.
So, anyway, my intention is to bring atheists to talk with me on their explanation or even proof why there is no god, and I on my explanation and even proof that God exists.
What is your pleasure, in regard to your position as an atheist?
From my part I like to explain to atheists that God exists, and there is evidence galore in babies, roses, sun, and moon, and everything that has a beginning.
I am at present trying to convince siti to return and continue our exchange, for the man took to the exit and throw up what I call a stink bomb on the way to the exit.
That is not the way people behave in talking philosophy... unless someone has a better opinion, though.
Good, you say you are an atheist, and I say I am a Christian and liberal protestant.
Now, you say:
"Edit: For the record, though, I will avoid questions that are only talking about me."
I am not into only talking about you, but inviting you to talk with me about atheists saying that there is no evidence for God existing.
So, let you an atheist and me a theist, talk about God in re existing or not.
Is that okay with you, or you would like to talk about say babies and roses and the sun in the morning sky and the moon in the evening sky?
I am happy to talk about babies and roses and sun and moon, in this thread on Is it possible to talk with an atheist.
So, anyway, my intention is to bring atheists to talk with me on their explanation or even proof why there is no god, and I on my explanation and even proof that God exists.
What is your pleasure, in regard to your position as an atheist?
From my part I like to explain to atheists that God exists, and there is evidence galore in babies, roses, sun, and moon, and everything that has a beginning.
I am at present trying to convince siti to return and continue our exchange, for the man took to the exit and throw up what I call a stink bomb on the way to the exit.
That is not the way people behave in talking philosophy... unless someone has a better opinion, though.
Sanmario
Active Member
@leibowde84
Thanks for reading my thread and contributing your message.
Now, you say:
"How do you define God? I think it is necessary to start with a falsifiable concept of God and define what God is and isn't in order to have any kind of meaningful discussion as to whether or not God exists."
Dear leibowde84:
I am sure you have come to concepts of God, as you bring in "falsifiable concept of God," may I suggest you give me an example of a falsifiable concept of God, so that we will not be talking about different things.
Did you read up the exchange between siti and me, where he says at the start that in effect he will not give me an easier time, and then without any clue he declared he was going to the exit, but on the way out he threw a stink bomb.
In hindsight, I notice that he says so many things which is his way to trying to win what is a contentious exchange of ideas by barrage of words, and complains that I am repeating the same concept of God, namely, God is the creator of everything with a beginning.
You see, with talkers who invest in verbiage of words in place of concise, precise, and simple clear viable language, it is necessary to repeat the principal issue which is in the context of his and my exchange, the concept of God and the existence of God.
At the present moment I am still in the dark what is his concept of god, while I repeat my concept of God time and again, namely, in concept God is the creator of everything with a beginning.
So, I propose as you bring up the mention of "falsifiable concept of God," please give an example of a falsifiable concept of God, so that I will not be in the dark what your idea of a falsifiable concept of God is, while I call my concept of God in simple clear words:
In concept, God is the creator of everything with a beginning.
That is my concept of God, now I await with bated breath to read from you an example of a falsifiable concept of God.
Thanks for reading my thread and contributing your message.
Now, you say:
"How do you define God? I think it is necessary to start with a falsifiable concept of God and define what God is and isn't in order to have any kind of meaningful discussion as to whether or not God exists."
Dear leibowde84:
I am sure you have come to concepts of God, as you bring in "falsifiable concept of God," may I suggest you give me an example of a falsifiable concept of God, so that we will not be talking about different things.
Did you read up the exchange between siti and me, where he says at the start that in effect he will not give me an easier time, and then without any clue he declared he was going to the exit, but on the way out he threw a stink bomb.
In hindsight, I notice that he says so many things which is his way to trying to win what is a contentious exchange of ideas by barrage of words, and complains that I am repeating the same concept of God, namely, God is the creator of everything with a beginning.
You see, with talkers who invest in verbiage of words in place of concise, precise, and simple clear viable language, it is necessary to repeat the principal issue which is in the context of his and my exchange, the concept of God and the existence of God.
At the present moment I am still in the dark what is his concept of god, while I repeat my concept of God time and again, namely, in concept God is the creator of everything with a beginning.
So, I propose as you bring up the mention of "falsifiable concept of God," please give an example of a falsifiable concept of God, so that I will not be in the dark what your idea of a falsifiable concept of God is, while I call my concept of God in simple clear words:
In concept, God is the creator of everything with a beginning.
That is my concept of God, now I await with bated breath to read from you an example of a falsifiable concept of God.
Sanmario
Active Member
@siti
Dear readers here, this is the post of siti where he talked so haughtily that things would not get easier [see his post below, the line, a warning he hurled at me, I put in bold, italic, and underlined for you dear readers to take attention of his arrogance] for me with his terrific command of what, of nonsense! All hot air without any depth and much less substance.
It turned out that he ran away when the going got tough for him and threw a stink bomb on his way out.
Next, I will show you dear readers the stink bomb he threw on his way out.
You see, dear siti, whatever happens in a contentious exchange never run away, if you are not making good with your original boast, stick to the very end and admit you are not really so hot as you wanted to think and behave as you thought so, wrongly,
Dear siti, return and make good your boast.
Dear readers here, this is the post of siti where he talked so haughtily that things would not get easier [see his post below, the line, a warning he hurled at me, I put in bold, italic, and underlined for you dear readers to take attention of his arrogance] for me with his terrific command of what, of nonsense! All hot air without any depth and much less substance.
It turned out that he ran away when the going got tough for him and threw a stink bomb on his way out.
Next, I will show you dear readers the stink bomb he threw on his way out.
You see, dear siti, whatever happens in a contentious exchange never run away, if you are not making good with your original boast, stick to the very end and admit you are not really so hot as you wanted to think and behave as you thought so, wrongly,
Dear siti, return and make good your boast.
Sanmario
Active Member
@siti
Dear siti, return to this thread and make good your boast - no, he won't because he is not really so hot as he wanted to think so and behave, wrongly.
What he does is to write so many words imagining that with a lot of verbiage he is getting anywhere at all, with his whatever point he is pushing, never realizing that he is all lost with so much words in place of depth and substance.
Tell you what, dear readers here, I will ask siti this question very simple, and you will see how he is going to beat about the bush without ever saying anything of depth and substance.
Dear siti, tell me what is your concept of god or God?
Dear readers, here is the stink bomb siti threw as he took to the exit.
Dear siti, return to this thread and make good your boast - no, he won't because he is not really so hot as he wanted to think so and behave, wrongly.
What he does is to write so many words imagining that with a lot of verbiage he is getting anywhere at all, with his whatever point he is pushing, never realizing that he is all lost with so much words in place of depth and substance.
Tell you what, dear readers here, I will ask siti this question very simple, and you will see how he is going to beat about the bush without ever saying anything of depth and substance.
Dear siti, tell me what is your concept of god or God?
Dear readers, here is the stink bomb siti threw as he took to the exit.
Sanmario
Active Member
@siti
@Readers here
Dear readers here , for the posts of the debate - that’s what it was in fact, a debate – between me and siti, on whether the universe has a beginning or not, Sanmario for the affirmative, siti for the negative, see Annex below.
Dear readers, when siti threw his stink bomb on the way out, I thought that he was not going to the exit because we had not yet finished, and I wrote a reply to him on his stink bomb, see quote below from me.
You see, what I notice from the start is that siti has this habit of putting words in my mouth, and when I ask him to cite the link of the words he put in my mouth, he will choose to forget about my request for the link of the words he put in my mouth.
Do you readers notice that his stink bomb also consists in asserting, that “so far you [ I ] have failed to post a coherent sentence - let alone a compelling argument - in support of that baseless assumption" [ universe has a beginning ].
So, I am still open to talk with atheists on their position that there is no God, or more specifically that the universe has no beginning.
And I welcome anyone atheist or theist or deist or Satanist or whatsoever -ists to for us to exchange thoughts on God exists or not, and also all issues connected with God exists or not.
Annex
Is it possible to talk with an atheist? Post 65 from siti
Is it possible to talk with an atheist? Post 68 from Sanmario
Is it possible to talk with an atheist? Post 69 from siti
Is it possible to talk with an atheist? Post 70 from Sanmario
Is it possible to talk with an atheist? Post 71 from siti
Is it possible to talk with an atheist? Post 72 from Sanmario
[…]
Up to Post 115, last post of the debate, see above, because at this point siti chose to stay away, i.e. he took to flight after throwing a stink bomb on the way out.
[ End of Annex ]
@Readers here
Dear readers here , for the posts of the debate - that’s what it was in fact, a debate – between me and siti, on whether the universe has a beginning or not, Sanmario for the affirmative, siti for the negative, see Annex below.
Dear readers, when siti threw his stink bomb on the way out, I thought that he was not going to the exit because we had not yet finished, and I wrote a reply to him on his stink bomb, see quote below from me.
You see, what I notice from the start is that siti has this habit of putting words in my mouth, and when I ask him to cite the link of the words he put in my mouth, he will choose to forget about my request for the link of the words he put in my mouth.
Do you readers notice that his stink bomb also consists in asserting, that “so far you [ I ] have failed to post a coherent sentence - let alone a compelling argument - in support of that baseless assumption" [ universe has a beginning ].
So, I am still open to talk with atheists on their position that there is no God, or more specifically that the universe has no beginning.
And I welcome anyone atheist or theist or deist or Satanist or whatsoever -ists to for us to exchange thoughts on God exists or not, and also all issues connected with God exists or not.
Annex
Is it possible to talk with an atheist? Post 65 from siti
Is it possible to talk with an atheist? Post 68 from Sanmario
Is it possible to talk with an atheist? Post 69 from siti
Is it possible to talk with an atheist? Post 70 from Sanmario
Is it possible to talk with an atheist? Post 71 from siti
Is it possible to talk with an atheist? Post 72 from Sanmario
[…]
Up to Post 115, last post of the debate, see above, because at this point siti chose to stay away, i.e. he took to flight after throwing a stink bomb on the way out.
[ End of Annex ]
That would be fine.
First, no one could possibly prove that there is no god--it's not logically possible, especially as reason allows the possibility of divine essence, in the Classical Greek sense. So I will stick to explanation, instead.
The Greek concept of divine essence is a pantheistic and animistic image of God that has the whole of the universe alive and with a consciousness. This differed greatly from the Middle Eastern image of the time, of which I have only vague information, and differs radically from the modern image of God that is a 'spirit' inhabiting a 'plane' of existence beyond and exterior to the universe.
It is the latter that I would argue against: that there is no 'exterior' to the universe; that the reified 'spirit' is a misuse of the idea (literally); and that mythology plays a role in misinterpreting what that image should be.
I am curious to hear your explanation of God that argues from a position of 'everything has a beginning.'
Just as I prefer not to talk about myself, it's also best form not to talk about others, especially in their absence: the former being ad hominem in a debate setting, and the latter being gossip.
To assert that 'God' is not a scientific theory is pretty underwhelming, but you go far beyond such assertion. Let me ask you a question: What are your thoughts about the following statement from RationalWiki:String_theory ...
Because string theories as they now stand make few predictions and often lack the ability to be tested with falsifiable experiments, some doubt that they have any relevance to physics at all. Elegance does not guarantee correctness. Nonetheless, while there are other attempts at a Unified Field Theory, string theory has so far received the most attention, both within academia and among the general public.
Specifically, would you discount discussions surrounding string theory as meaningless?
@Williamena, should the above be interpreted as a rejection of panentheism as well? Also, do you see multiverse theories as in any way posing a challenge to the claim that "there is no 'exterior' to the universe?"
But without your super-suit you're nothing.
Not in my Torah.
I'm not terribly familiar with multiverse theories, and unless some author I read touches on them in an appealing manner, I doubt I'll bother to learn much about them. As such, I wouldn't argue for or against them.
Yes, panentheism is an image of a god exterior to "time and space," and so pantheism is a rejection of panentheism.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Without a falsifiable concept of God, defining not only what God is, but also what God isn't and cannot be, there is no discussion possible of God's existence. Just saying that God is the creator of everything with a beginning isn't enough, as it is not falsifiable. But, I guess we can start there.
Btw, my concept of God is not falsifiable, so I would never try to claim any logical argument for God's existence. My belief is based on faith, not reason.
But, if you want to support your claim that God exists, you would have to show that 1. the cosmos (everything in existence at this point) had a beginning ... and we don't know that for sure at this point. 2. you would have to show that an uncaused cause is a possibility. If the universe has to have a beginning, you have to explain why God doesn't need a beginning (and, obviously, just repeating your claim that God is the uncaused cause doesn't cut it).
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I would say that, until string theory becomes falsifiable, a discussion on it being true or not would be meaningless. It is a very interesting topic to discuss in regards to how it would work and what it would explain, but there is no use, as of yet, to discuss whether it is true or not. It isn't a scientific theory, and, for foreseeable future, cannot be.
I agree and would take this a little further.
One of the things we seem to be learning as we find out more and more about reality is that nothing really begins. It's all a vast assortment of transformations. We use the word "beginning" to describe transformation of previously existing stuff into something for which we have a different label, but it didn't just pop into existence.
To use @Sanmario example of a rose, that rose is really a transformation of the soil nutrients and water and solar energy and such into something we refer to as a rose. And as the cycle of life and transformation continues it too will be transformed into mulch and supply nutrients for other organisms and so on. That rose can though be traced back to the singularity as hydrogen was fused into heavier elements in a star somewhere eons ago and condensed into our planet and life developed and evolved into the organisms we have labeled as "roses".
"Beginnings" are rather like "horizons". The fact that we perceive them doesn't mean that they have objective existence.
Tom
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
One could opine that the converse is also true.
Sanmario
Active Member
@siti
@leibowde84
@Willamena
@ALL readers
First, addressing lady Willamena, please don't bring in ad hominens in regard to my critique of siti running away, so he is afraid to talk philosophy with me on universe has a beginning, yes or no.
I am asking him to return to this thread and to resume our exchange, he has not done so, wherefore it is evident the man is afraid to talk with me on philosophy in re universe has a beginning, yes, no.
You see, I meet endless posters who run away from an exchange or from continuing our exchange for all kinds of silly excuses, like that I am into ad hominems, that they find me irritating, that I can;t write coherent sentences, that I am moving the goalposts, that I can't read, etc., etc., etc.
Now, dear Willemena, you are resorting to the ad hominems excuse for siti running away from fear to continue our exchange, he has no nerves or intellectual guts to continue our exchange much less to resume it, that is evident.
And that is literally ad hominem, i.e. to his character, a fact.
Dear readers, I have a reply for leibowde84, see my next post.
I want very much to exchange thoughts with leibowde84 on one on one basis, so I will not be replying to other posters here but I thank you all for your contributions.
When leibowde84 is not keen for an one on one exchange with me, then I will invite Columbus for an one on one exchange with me, for the man is complaining that I do not react to this posts.
Read my next post addressed to leibowde84.
@leibowde84
@Willamena
@ALL readers
First, addressing lady Willamena, please don't bring in ad hominens in regard to my critique of siti running away, so he is afraid to talk philosophy with me on universe has a beginning, yes or no.
I am asking him to return to this thread and to resume our exchange, he has not done so, wherefore it is evident the man is afraid to talk with me on philosophy in re universe has a beginning, yes, no.
You see, I meet endless posters who run away from an exchange or from continuing our exchange for all kinds of silly excuses, like that I am into ad hominems, that they find me irritating, that I can;t write coherent sentences, that I am moving the goalposts, that I can't read, etc., etc., etc.
Now, dear Willemena, you are resorting to the ad hominems excuse for siti running away from fear to continue our exchange, he has no nerves or intellectual guts to continue our exchange much less to resume it, that is evident.
And that is literally ad hominem, i.e. to his character, a fact.
Dear readers, I have a reply for leibowde84, see my next post.
I want very much to exchange thoughts with leibowde84 on one on one basis, so I will not be replying to other posters here but I thank you all for your contributions.
When leibowde84 is not keen for an one on one exchange with me, then I will invite Columbus for an one on one exchange with me, for the man is complaining that I do not react to this posts.
Read my next post addressed to leibowde84.
I didn't complain, I observed.
Feel free to continue ignoring me if you don't have anything to say.
Tom