TerryTryon

My point exactly. Does making god co-existent with the universe make the universe, in some way, a closed system. Where there's reality, there is god, or at least the mind and power of god.

Family Man

God isn't -- since the theist will keep redefining the poor guy -- but claims about God are. If a claim is made, for instance, that all morals come from the universal Christian God, then there are certain logical consequences from that claim that are testable. (Think about it for a while, I'll bet you could come up with a few.)

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

TerryTryon

I think it is important here to once again repeat that I am talking about the God of Abraham (GoA) who is the foundational character of the three main monotheistic religions. I claim that the theologians (medieval and modern)have created an alternate god to GoA whose definition is purely inconceivable nonsense. This alternate god is nontestable and an insult to the intelligence of anyone who ponders its existence.

However, if we restrict ourselves to the god described in the Old and New Testament, as well as the Koran, the GoA may be tested. Its attributes are well described, and although they evolve through time and culture, there is enough evidence of absence to state with confidence that the GoA does not exist. And the absence is apparent whether it is called Jehovah, the Trinity, or Allah.

I am insisting that there are two definitions of god. One consisting mainly of incoherent attributes and the other being the god of scripture. The two gods are different and unless we see that and refuse to allow the willy-nilly cherry-picking of attributes of one or another, we are pretty much stuck in the quagmire of agnosticism that the theologians have created for us and must restrict ourselves to making fruitless attempts to load the burden of proof on the proper beast.

doodad

Sorry for the vagueness. I'm saying that God is a concept, like in a virtual god. That concept exists, and he is that concept, so he exists.
It's like the spirit of freedom, which is akin to a concept. It can be described, but does it exist in the material sense? No. Does that mean there is no such thing as the spirit of freedom.

doodad

Terry I understand what you are saying, at least I am trying to, but true as it is, it's frivolous.
The GoA is a faith object, an object of faith, and is personified as a material being or entity.
A deity, which is a faith object, represents power, wisdom, and all that stuff that folks attach to it. It doesn't matter whether the faith object is the GoA, which is a supernatural entity, or a bronze calf if people attach divine attributes to it.

It's the belief that influences peoples' thoughts and behavior, so if you want to destroy the practice of religion you are working on the wrong end of it. Destroying God will not destroy the belief that He exists.

The God of scripture is a symbolic God, or hadn't you guessed by now?

bluefugue

Okay. I will agree that God already exists as a concept -- as do Freedom, Anti-Americanism, unicorns, etc. But to admit this does not admit that the full-fledged God of the Abrahamic religions actually exists. Concept-God can inspire us to take certain actions, but he cannot directly flatten a city, or create a species of living organism, or control what happens to us after death, etc. Just as, for instance, Concept-Unicorn can delight a little girl but cannot actually gallop across Wisconsin.

doodad

Agreed agreed agreed. I'm don't think the GoA actually exists either, the point being that it's not necessary for him to actually exist for a belief system to influence people' thinking and behavior. Look around, can you deny that?

Practically speaking, if religion is a nemesis of mankind we have more to fear from the religious zealots than from the religious principles. The WTC, Mt. Carmel, Jonestown Massacre, and the early Christian crusades are prime examples of religion gone nuts.

doodad

TerryTryon

I am trying to work this out in my mind as the thread progresses. The concept, GoA, himself is filled with absurdities and internal contradictions. As the concept evolved, the GoA became ever more remote and nebulous. Jehovah walked with Adam and Eve, but he showed himself in the form of a physical man with great reluctance to Moses. By the time we get to the later prophets, he is only speaking, and later he communicates only through inspiration. What I have been calling the god of the theologians doesn't even have enough form to call a spirit. It seems to be merely a state of faith with virtually no focus on any entity.

If I reconceptualize this as an evolutionary continuum from a fully-human form Zeus-type God to a nebulous mish-mash of incoherent gibberish, and give up the GoA/god of the theologians bifucation, then it would seem that evidence of absence is beside the point, GoA is disintegrating before our eyes.

Ironically, the very attributes that made the GoA unteneable as first formulated are the same attributes that made him attractive as an object of worship. So what we get are religions trying to preserve these traits while simutaneously trying to explain them away. The Christian mind has become deeply compartmentalized. Many irreconcilable and contradictory attributes are assigned to god and are psychologically isolated from each other. Thus, when atheists speak to christians, the atheist finds no ground on which to debate.

The early Zeus-like god, most apparent in Genesis is held as the same entity as the conceptual disaster of modern theologians. The GoA is unteneable because it is testable. The theologians' god is unteneable because it is incoherent, but by compartmentalizing, the whole sorry mess can be held together in a very resilient belief system.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: TerryTryon ]</p>