Freethought & Rationalism Archive

911 · 12-07-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TySixtus

1) The default position for the existence of anything is "No". We, as rational human beings, don't assume anything exists until proven other wise. If you don't believe me, write a book and fill it with things you don't know. The book will either be empty, or infinitely long.

Ty

Look around you - the default position for the existence of the universe is YES

So what is the universe?

The universe is God

Try to write a book about the non existence of the universe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TySixtus

Taking this into consideration, when I say "God does not exist", I'm not required to "prove it". I hate to throw the cliche out there, but neither am I required to prove that unicorns don't exist. Why is that when I apply this reasoning to god, even other atheists will tell me I'm off base?

Is there any discernible difference between the statement "There are no leprechauns" and "there are no gods"?

Ty

If by leprechauns you mean God (you will just be playing with words) then then there is no difference

If by God you mean an infinite being that encompass the entire universe (leaving out the unknown universe for now) that includes you and me then yes; there is a difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TySixtus

2) Even if I were to assume the burden of proof for this scenario, absolute certainty is not required to take a position on Strong Atheism. One can weigh all the available evidence, take into consideration the extraordinary nature of the claim, and still dismiss the idea of god as non-sensical.

The only way I've seen a theist (and even some weak-atheists and agnostics) get around this is to now redefine the term "god" to fit an already accepted paradigm. In other words, they define god into existence.

Anyways, I would really appreciate you strong Atheists chiming in and maybe helping me solidify my arguments. I'm no philosophy major, so I may have messed something up. But as far as I can tell, my position is entirely defensible.

Ty

Ty

God as defined since the beginning of time has been a being that is infinite

God is the universe

the universe is not God since the universe is defined as "material" and not a being.

Weighing all the available evidence you see the universe; you cannot see the edge of the universe; you cannot see the future; you have not seen the whole past.

You must qualify it by saying weighing all the evidence.

You can never say looking at all the evidence.

God can see all the evidence including the future and the past

God is the entire evidence for the entire universe is God

TySixtus · 12-07-2005, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 911

So what is the universe?

The universe is God

You know what this thread needs? An unsupported assertion.

Oh, look! We've got one!

Since the rest of your post hinges on this faulty premise, we need go no further.

Ty

911 · 12-07-2005, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TySixtus

You know what this thread needs? An unsupported assertion.
Oh, look! We've got one!
Since the rest of your post hinges on this faulty premise, we need go no further.
Ty

If I say I am me
You either believe it or you don't
I can give you a fake ID card and you would have been tricked if you based it on a fake id card
If you take my word for it very soon you will find out if I am me or if I am me

There is nothing faulty about the premise

God is the universe

God is the universe cannot be debunked

In a court of law I propose; I have the burden of proof

This proof includes oral evidence from witnesses

I put myself forward as the witness

I tell you now; God is the universe

If you insist that you must know the limit; the edge of the universe before you accept that there is a universe; well that is your perogative

I tell you now

God is the universe and God is God

EnterTheBowser · 12-07-2005, 06:35 PM

No offense, but saying "God is the universe" is about as useful as saying "Love is the universe." If we look at the usual meaning of the word, it's clear that the statement is false. So obviously you're trying to redefine the word, as it were - not necessarily a problem, if you want to introduce a new concept and talk about that. But saying that we're going to call the universe "God" from now on probably isn't exactly what you mean - you are probably saying, and are at least implying, that the universe has some properties traditionally ascribed to God - perhaps consciousness, or being worthy of worship. In any event, you should be clear about what you mean. In conclusion: the moon is green cheese.

911 · 12-07-2005, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

No offense, but saying "God is the universe" is about as useful as saying "Love is the universe." If we look at the usual meaning of the word, it's clear that the statement is false. So obviously you're trying to redefine the word, as it were - not necessarily a problem, if you want to introduce a new concept and talk about that. But saying that we're going to call the universe "God" from now on probably isn't exactly what you mean - you are probably saying, and are at least implying, that the universe has some properties traditionally ascribed to God - perhaps consciousness, or being worthy of worship. In any event, you should be clear about what you mean. In conclusion: the moon is green cheese.

God is the universe
The universe is not God

The universe does not have all the properties of God
God has all the properties of the universe

The universe is Earth
Earth is not the universe

The universe has all the properties of Earth
Earth does not have all the properties of the universe

911 · 12-07-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

In conclusion: the moon is green cheese.

What then is the relationship between the moon and green cheese?

EnterTheBowser · 12-07-2005, 07:03 PM

The universe, among other things, does not have all the proprties of Earth. The Earth orbits the sun; the universe does not. Two-thirds (or thereabouts) of the Earth's surface is covered by water; two-thirds of the surface of the universe is not covered by water.

I guess the million-dollar question is: what in the world do you mean by "God"? And please, don't say that "God is the universe," because that's not going to tell me anything.

911 · 12-07-2005, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnterTheBowser

The universe, among other things, does not have all the proprties of Earth. The Earth orbits the sun; the universe does not. Two-thirds (or thereabouts) of the Earth's surface is covered by water; two-thirds of the surface of the universe is not covered by water.

I guess the million-dollar question is: what in the world do you mean by "God"? And please, don't say that "God is the universe," because that's not going to tell me anything.

By your eloquent post you already know the answer but you do not see it

It is better that you reflect on it than it is for you to believe what I say

When you see God in poo
When you see God in Jesus
When you see God in Buddhism
When you see God in Islam
When you see God in Roman Catholism
When you see God in Evil
When you see God in Good

When you see that God is the universe

You will hear the voice of God

God is speaking to you but you cannot hear

PinkPanther_04 · 12-07-2005, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 911

When you see God in poo

Mr. Hankie? I had no idea!

EnterTheBowser · 12-07-2005, 07:29 PM

No offense, dude, but that has got to be one of the most non-explanative explanations I've ever seen. I look at the snow falling in subway stations on a sunny day (don't ask me to explain), and I see tremendous beauty, but I don't see God. I walk down a windy city street on a winter's day and I love - relish - the feel of cold settling into my skull and jaws and throat, but I don't feel God. I walk up hills in the early morning after an ice storm, and all the trees are so coated in ice that I feel like I'm walking through a fairy tale, but I don't sense the presence of God. And I most definitely do not see God in the faces of children with hunger-distended bellies, in the delirious eyes of my dying mother, in the face of a friend who just lost a father. The "God is speaking but you will not hear" line is a load of unsubstantiated hogwash. Show me explanations, show me rational arguments, show me reasons to believe what you believe and arguments in support. Don't spout off nonsense.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-07-2005, 06:35 PM	#4
EnterTheBowser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,021	No offense, but saying "God is the universe" is about as useful as saying "Love is the universe." If we look at the usual meaning of the word, it's clear that the statement is false. So obviously you're trying to redefine the word, as it were - not necessarily a problem, if you want to introduce a new concept and talk about that. But saying that we're going to call the universe "God" from now on probably isn't exactly what you mean - you are probably saying, and are at least implying, that the universe has some properties traditionally ascribed to God - perhaps consciousness, or being worthy of worship. In any event, you should be clear about what you mean. In conclusion: the moon is green cheese.

12-07-2005, 07:03 PM	#7
EnterTheBowser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,021	The universe, among other things, does not have all the proprties of Earth. The Earth orbits the sun; the universe does not. Two-thirds (or thereabouts) of the Earth's surface is covered by water; two-thirds of the surface of the universe is not covered by water. I guess the million-dollar question is: what in the world do you mean by "God"? And please, don't say that "God is the universe," because that's not going to tell me anything.

12-07-2005, 07:29 PM	#10
EnterTheBowser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,021	No offense, dude, but that has got to be one of the most non-explanative explanations I've ever seen. I look at the snow falling in subway stations on a sunny day (don't ask me to explain), and I see tremendous beauty, but I don't see God. I walk down a windy city street on a winter's day and I love - relish - the feel of cold settling into my skull and jaws and throat, but I don't feel God. I walk up hills in the early morning after an ice storm, and all the trees are so coated in ice that I feel like I'm walking through a fairy tale, but I don't sense the presence of God. And I most definitely do not see God in the faces of children with hunger-distended bellies, in the delirious eyes of my dying mother, in the face of a friend who just lost a father. The "God is speaking but you will not hear" line is a load of unsubstantiated hogwash. Show me explanations, show me rational arguments, show me reasons to believe what you believe and arguments in support. Don't spout off nonsense.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.