Your best argument that G-d does not exist

[leibowde84]

So are we talking about me, or what?

I really don't see how anything I've said or asked in this discussion is volatile.
I certainly understand that you dislike my referring to the pantheistic deity as word-play, but I still haven't even gotten a valid response as to why it isn't. If you've address why in other threads or posts, I wasn't a part of those so how would I know otherwise?

Ideas and gods are fair game for criticism and/or plausibility tests. Don't feel bad.

 

[Ouroboros]

So are we talking about me, or what?

No. You and I had a different issue that we worked out.

Edit: I didn't see your whole post on my phone.

Yes and no. You and I have the issue of the word play comment. But the quote where I said they know who they are is about a few atheists who believe that God is rejected in full regardless which definition is used. It's not true that you can do that. Only certain definitions of God can be rejected, not all of them, simply because the word is by default so varied.

I really don't see how anything I've said or asked in this discussion is volatile.
I certainly understand that you dislike my referring to the pantheistic deity as word-play, but I still haven't even gotten a valid response as to why it isn't. If you've address why in other threads or posts, I wasn't a part of those so how would I know otherwise?

I'm not going to address this in this thread. It has to happen some other time.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ideas and gods are fair game for criticism and/or plausibility tests. Don't feel bad.

And different ideas of atheism should also be fair game for criticism and/or plausible tests.

In my atheism, I reject the personal external God image. I don't believe there is such a God.

But I'm also reasonable to realize that the God image varies with people, and not everyone believes God is a personal external God. And it's not atheism to reject the word "God" in any shape and form by itself. To me, it suggests some problem with the word itself rather than with the concept.

 

[leibowde84]

And different ideas of atheism should also be fair game for criticism and/or plausible tests.

In my atheism, I reject the personal external God image. I don't believe there is such a God.

But I'm also reasonable to realize that the God image varies with people, and not everyone believes God is a personal external God. And it's not atheism to reject the word "God" in any shape and form by itself. To me, it suggests some problem with the word itself rather than with the concept.

Hmmm ... interesting concept. I agree for the most part.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hmmm ... interesting concept. I agree for the most part.

Awesome.

I also thought about why it's come to the question of some absolute and objective definition of the word "God". It never was an objective definition. Besides, most atheist reject absolute and objective things in general, not always, and not everything, but how come this very subjective word suddenly has to be judged and dealt with based on some objective dictionary definition (which is extremely simplified, and perhaps put in the dictionary by someone biased)? Shouldn't a skeptical atheist be more open minded about the flexibility of language? Why is this tendency to lock in the words and their definitions? I do it myself, a lot, but why? If we believe in the fluidity, why reject a fluid language? I just wondering.

 

[Ouroboros]

I am not part of that "WE".

It wasn't directed to you and me, but to me and other atheists. Since you're not an atheist, you don't have to take it to heart.

Who are you talking about?... Some silly people who happen to be atheists?.. how about we deal with the smart ones.. and the ones you happen to be addressing yourself to?

Uh? No. You just jumped into the conversation in the middle of it and draw a bunch of conclusions.

I have most definitely not made any insinuation to the intelligence, smartness, dumbness, or anything of that sort to anyone. Now, you're the one making silly remarks. And I have no clue what that has to do with anything being discussed.

 

[Ouroboros]

So are we talking about me, or what?

I really don't see how anything I've said or asked in this discussion is volatile.
I certainly understand that you dislike my referring to the pantheistic deity as word-play, but I still haven't even gotten a valid response as to why it isn't. If you've address why in other threads or posts, I wasn't a part of those so how would I know otherwise?

Honestly, Blastcat is just confusing the issue. I'm not sure what I'm discussing now. It became extremely convoluted all of a sudden and overlapping arguments. Maybe that was his goal. I think we just have to leave this conversation for another time when it's a bit calmer.

Also, do know that I'm not upset with your or anything. We're good in my book.

 

[leibowde84]

Awesome.

I also thought about why it's come to the question of some absolute and objective definition of the word "God". It never was an objective definition. Besides, most atheist reject absolute and objective things in general, not always, and not everything, but how come this very subjective word suddenly has to be judged and dealt with based on some objective dictionary definition (which is extremely simplified, and perhaps put in the dictionary by someone biased)? Shouldn't a skeptical atheist be more open minded about the flexibility of language? Why is this tendency to lock in the words and their definitions? I do it myself, a lot, but why? If we believe in the fluidity, why reject a fluid language? I just wondering.

Nothing can be proven false unless properly defined. This ins't a new thing, it goes for every single concept/entity in existence.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nothing can be proven false unless properly defined. This ins't a new thing, it goes for every single concept/entity in existence.

True. And I'm leaving that part of the discussion for now.

 

[Scott C.]

I don't believe in your god for the same reason you don't believe in the Space Whales of Jupiter.

I rest my case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everything. God is everything, and everything is God.


The reason I call it God is because I realized that the Universe and everything that exists essentially fulfills most of the attributes of what we think is a God, except for personal, external, miracle working, yada yada.

Whatever attributes you think are the attributes of God, wouldn't something have to fill all of them to be considered God, not just "most"?

Wouldn't something with most of the attributes of God be... I dunno... "almost God"?

 

[Ouroboros]

Whatever attributes you think are the attributes of God, wouldn't something have to fill all of them to be considered God, not just "most"?

Wouldn't something with most of the attributes of God be... I dunno... "almost God"?

What are the attributes that you consider have to be fulfilled to be God? Are we specifically talking about the attributes the Christian and Catholic Theologians have decided or are we talking about other attributes from other religions and faiths?

 

[leibowde84]

I rest my case.
View attachment 9178

LOL. I used to spend a lot of time down in Jupiter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What are the attributes that you consider have to be fulfilled to be God? Are we specifically talking about the attributes the Christian and Catholic Theologians have decided or are we talking about other attributes from other religions and faiths?

At this point, I'm just talking about whatever attributes you were referring to. Why would you accept as God something that you don't think meets all your criteria for godhood?

Whether these are the criteria I'd use is a separate issue.

 

[Ouroboros]

I know it's very difficult for non-pantheists to accept the pantheistic view.

Here's an abstract from Stanford's philosophical encyclopedia, that kind'a touches on the "Why" being a pantheist in my case:
"Following the first type of argument, pantheistic belief arises when the things of this world excite a particular sort of religious reaction in us. We feel, perhaps, a deep reverence for and sense of identitywith the world in which we find ourselves. Epistemically it seems to us that God is not distant but can be encountered directly in what we experience around us. We see God in everything. The initial focus of attention here may be either our physical environment (the land on which we live, our natural environment) or else our social environment (our community, our tribe, our nation or, generally, the people we meet with) but further reflection may lead to its more universal expansion."

I don't know if that helps, but maybe it at least is a starting point for people to understand. And I'm sure it could be expanded upon and explained more.

 

[Ouroboros]

At this point, I'm just talking about whatever attributes you were referring to. Why would you accept as God something that you don't think meets all your criteria for godhood?

??? I only consider the criteria for "godhood" those things that apply to the world, reality, universe, true things that exist. I started with the point, what does exist? What do I believe or am certain exists? And what do I believe might exist beyond what we know, to explain what we have? What kind of world do we live in? Also, how can I integrate my being, emotions, feelings, happiness, and such into such a world and feel part of it? And much more. The result is that you see that the only "godhood" criteria you need are the ones that nature, world, reality, existence, life, mind, and so on fulfill.

Whether these are the criteria I'd use is a separate issue.

Why did you ask what they are then? If it's a separate issue, then I don't see why you need them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why did you ask what they are then? If it's a separate issue, then I don't see why you need them.

I started on this tangent because I thought you were saying something like "my God doesn't quite qualify as God." My impression from your replies is that this isn't what you intended.

 

[Ouroboros]

I started on this tangent because I thought you were saying something like "my God doesn't quite qualify as God." My impression from your replies is that this isn't what you intended.

Ah. I see the confusion. I probably misspoke earlier or something.

No, my God doesn't qualify as the traditional Christian/Catholic theological God. The one that is external, sentient, miracle being that somehow created the world. So in that sense, no, my God doesn't qualify as that one.

But, if we look at some of the most fundamental properties of what a God would be, and discard the personal, sentient, etc properties, the most fundamental, in my opinion is "the thing from which all things that exist flow." It's a singularity. Or perhaps it's the higgs field. Maybe it's a matter of us collapsing into a 4D black hole. Or maybe we're a bubble in an infinite ocean of universes. Or ... I don't know what makes our universe be a universe and exist. I don't know what kind of fundamental forces there are that makes it possible to exist. Whatever that is, that is at least the first fundamental property of a "God" of any kind. The source of being. Or the source of existence.

Now, the second thing is, what does that source thingy-majinger become? How did we become a universe from that thing? Well, those are also part of the forces of that thing. And the universe is ultimately also part of that thing. That thing, perhaps I can be allowed to at least capitalize it to signify its importance of being the most ultimate and fundamental thing of all existence? Like "Thing" instead? Or perhaps I could be allowed to call it Non-Christian God? Or maybe I should keep on calling it The Fundamental Force of Existence and Universe and Including Universe and All things that was, is and will be, and we're part of it --- thingy. I mean, it's no problem. I could just add on to a 500 word long "name" each time I refer to that Thingy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah. I see the confusion. I probably misspoke earlier or something.

No, my God doesn't qualify as the traditional Christian/Catholic theological God. The one that is external, sentient, miracle being that somehow created the world. So in that sense, no, my God doesn't qualify as that one.

But, if we look at some of the most fundamental properties of what a God would be, and discard the personal, sentient, etc properties, the most fundamental, in my opinion is "the thing from which all things that exist flow." It's a singularity. Or perhaps it's the higgs field. Maybe it's a matter of us collapsing into a 4D black hole. Or maybe we're a bubble in an infinite ocean of universes. Or ... I don't know what makes our universe be a universe and exist. I don't know what kind of fundamental forces there are that makes it possible to exist. Whatever that is, that is at least the first fundamental property of a "God" of any kind. The source of being. Or the source of existence.

Now, the second thing is, what does that source thingy-majinger become? How did we become a universe from that thing? Well, those are also part of the forces of that thing. And the universe is ultimately also part of that thing. That thing, perhaps I can be allowed to at least capitalize it to signify its importance of being the most ultimate and fundamental thing of all existence? Like "Thing" instead? Or perhaps I could be allowed to call it Non-Christian God? Or maybe I should keep on calling it The Fundamental Force of Existence and Universe and Including Universe and All things that was, is and will be, and we're part of it --- thingy. I mean, it's no problem. I could just add on to a 500 word long "name" each time I refer to that Thingy.

You can call it whatever you want. I won't call it "God" unless I see reason to... and as it stands now, I don't see reason to.

I acknowledge that you consider the Universe or "Thingy" to be God, despite the fact that I see no good reason for me to consider it God myself. My attitude toward your beliefs isn't that different from my attitude to Trinitarian Christians: I see no good reason not to consider the Trinity three gods rather than one, but they're sincere when they say they believe the Trinity is one god, so I consider them monotheists.

 

[Ouroboros]

You can call it whatever you want. I won't call it "God" unless I see reason to... and as it stands now, I don't see reason to.

And I'm totally 1,000% okay with that. Actually, I don't want people to "convert" to my beliefs or views at all. This whole discussion in this thread was much more about bringing awareness to that the concept of God is in fact too vague and to disprove God is impossible.

I acknowledge that you consider the Universe or "Thingy" to be God, despite the fact that I see no good reason for me to consider it God myself. My attitude toward your beliefs isn't that different from my attitude to Trinitarian Christians: I see no good reason not to consider the Trinity three gods rather than one, but they're sincere when they say they believe the Trinity is one god, so I consider them monotheists.

Sure. And I understand that. This thread was about disproving God. But how do you do that when there are as many versions of God as there are human beings? And ultimately, all of us have one, and one only God... ourselves.

--edit

Or let me rephrase some things. I didn't bring my version of God into the discussion for the purpose to convert anyone or convince anyone that my version is somehow the "True" one. Not at all. I only ask for a level of respect that there are other views of God out there that are not the old traditional Christian theology version. My version, regardless if you accept it or not, is impossible to disprove existence of since its definition is "what exists."