Now Jan, there's no need to be so hard on yourself by limiting yourself with just that choice, there are others you can consider.
Definition of God - one thread to rule them all
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Now Jan, there's no need to be so hard on yourself by limiting yourself with just that choice, there are others you can consider.
Actually, what his methodology is at this time, is he sees himself after numerous warnings as being on the cusp of banishment. This is simply a last hurrah, and to go down and leave in a ball of flames so to speak.And of course me comparing him with the at least decent Teroko character, really set the cat amongst the pidgeons!
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
And of course me comparing him with the at least decent Teroko character, really set the cat amongst the pidgeons!
Yes there is something to be said for your observation, certainly he has noticeably dropped his game and it is always sad to see someone who at one moment is at the top of their game and then a little rap over the knuckles has them going into a tail spin and clearly not coping...I think also being proved so wrong re evolution must have been difficult, I mean that was such a severe crushing when one looks back..he was left with nothing and no place to hide...the great Jan of old would have put up at least some sort of fight...but it is what is...sad in a way.
Alex
Interesting. You say you believe in God because you think that God is the cause of everything. But which belief came first? The belief that God is real, or the belief that everything has a cause?
Tiassa posted about this a bit earlier. Did you read his post?
Not necessarily. If time itself started with the big bang, then asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole. Causes come before effects. If there is no before, there can be no cause as we usually understand causes.
Moreover, if you want to think about some generalised notion of a-temporal causation (if such a thing makes any sense), then you still have some work to do to show that your a-temporal cause is "transcendental". Then you have even more work to do to show that it correlates with traditional conceptions of God or gods.
That's not a definition. You know what a definition is, don't you paddoboy?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
It's a problem for atheists too. They still need to have some idea what it is that they believe doesn't exist (or alternatively, what sort of belief they believe that they supposedly lack). Otherwise atheism would be meaningless.
I'm an agnostic, but I'll take the bait and play the game. (Clarifying our concepts is a valuable exercise.)
As I've written many times, I think of 'God' in three rather different ways.
1) First, there's 'God' as first-cause, source of cosmic order and the reason why there is something rather than nothing. The philosophical 'God' of the traditional theistic arguments. Note that this kind of definition doesn't really seem to deliver up a deity in the traditional religious sense, but rather points towards whatever answers that a set of fundamental metaphysical questions may or may not have. And I don't have a clue what the answers are or even whether answers exist. Not only that, I don't think that anyone else knows either, or that anyone likely ever will. (Not even Krauss who likes to pretend that he does.) This is the kind of God concept that for philosophical reasons is of most interest to me and it's why I consider myself an agnostic.
2) And second, there's figures like Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Vishnu and Krishna, the highly personified deities that we encounter in religious myth and in the pages of religious "scriptures". I don't believe that any of them literally exist. Nor do I believe that the stories told about them bring me any closer to answering the questions in #1. This is where I tend more to atheism.
3) And many people use the word 'God' to refer to a vague subjective sense of transcendence. I share this one myself, but am not convinced that it points me towards anything with objective existence. It seems more psychological than ontological to me, but I don't want to totally dismiss it either. It's probably part of what motivates the sense of cosmic mystery exemplified and rationalized in #1.
Last edited:
Ok, then let's again insert my two prior definitions of god/s...again.
"Mythical entities dreamed up before science reared its head, to explain the wonders of the universe around him/her."
or perhaps....God/s are unscientific, unevidenced mythical concepts, ignorantly fabricated to avoid the reality and finality of death, by substituting a warm, inner pleasurable feeling.
Í'm me...whether you call me agnostic or atheist, is of no concern to me. I don't believe or wish to be labelled.
I see a universe existing....I see life getting a start and evolving on at least one planet in that universe, and as one aspect of that universe, along with many other aspects, that exist or are real...I see the basic nature of the universe and creation events [stars, BH's etc] as well as the evolution of life, as simply a result or properties of this universe that just happened to come about because of as yet, still speculative reasons.
I think they would call that the Anthropic Principal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that any data we collect about the universe is filtered by the fact that, in order for it to be observable in the first place, it must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it.[1] Proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, outside the narrow range thought to be compatible with life it would seem impossible that life (in particular, intelligent life) could develop.[2] The strong anthropic principle (SAP), as explained by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, states that this is all the case because the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. Some critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias (specifically survivorship bias): i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting on the matter. Most often such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes to select from and from which selection bias (our observance of only this universe, compatible with our life) could occur.
Yeah, that's fairly close to what I accept.
The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that any data we collect about the universe is filtered by the fact that, in order for it to be observable in the first place, it must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it.[1] Proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, outside the narrow range thought to be compatible with life it would seem impossible that life (in particular, intelligent life) could develop.[2] The strong anthropic principle (SAP), as explained by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, states that this is all the case because the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. Some critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias (specifically survivorship bias): i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting on the matter. Most often such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes to select from and from which selection bias (our observance of only this universe, compatible with our life) could occur.
Yeah, that's fairly close to what I accept.
We both know God is the cause of everything.
The only thing you and I disagree on, is the nature of God.
I’m about up to chapter 7.
But I’d like to hear it from you.
That’s another way of saying the universe just goes on and on. That being the case we can’t really talk of a Big Bang. Unless you postulate a Big Crunch, Then you are back to square one.
That’s the work of scientists.
Traditional “concepts” of God, hold that God is the transcendental origin of everything. Everything exists, therefore God Is.
They aren’t definitions either Paddo.
That's not for you to decide is it Jan.
And obviously they are definitions, except that they interfere with your own beliefs.
Probably the most important, logical and honest piece I have read for many a long day....
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/much-ado-about-nothing/
extract:
"For millennia humans simply said, “God did it”: a creator existed before the universe and brought it into existence out of nothing. But this just begs the question of what created God—and if God does not need a creator, logic dictates that neither does the universe. Science deals with natural (not supernatural) causes and, as such, has several ways of exploring where the “something” came from."
So much for defining a myth.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/much-ado-about-nothing/
extract:
"For millennia humans simply said, “God did it”: a creator existed before the universe and brought it into existence out of nothing. But this just begs the question of what created God—and if God does not need a creator, logic dictates that neither does the universe. Science deals with natural (not supernatural) causes and, as such, has several ways of exploring where the “something” came from."
So much for defining a myth.
I believe in God.
How can that foolish explanation interfere with that?
On the contrary, it interferes with your belief in God.
Some humans believe that, I agree.
But to answer that point, God, being the origin of time, is not subject to time. God never comes into, goes out of, being.
Last edited:
Wow!!! This should be interesting....I wait with baited breath for the reply.
Nonsense. As you have been told, the BB applies to the observable universe only. The universe may yet be infinite.
Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we dont know: Religion/god are legendary myths of ignorant ancients.
Stop lying Jan. You believe in god...that's your problem.
I believe in science and the scientific method and reject totally unsupported childish myths.
You yourself agreed the universe came from the Big Bang. Are you back-pedalling now?
gobbledygook and word salad...still your overlords may be proud of you.
No you don’t.
You believe something can come from nothing.