1. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    13 Mar '10 22:023 edits
    This isn't to any particular type of poster on here but...

    What sort of properties attached to *edit* Christian *edit* God are atheists (or subscribers to a different god) forced (in the spirit of debate) to take as axiomatic???

    For example; I think I have to take the notion that God is all powerful, and God is creator of the universe as self evident or irreducibly true in the framework of most religions and see what problems I can find with these assumptions.

    Do I really have to take, for example, it as an axiom that God is ground zero for morality (ie his opinion of what is right or wrong), or that he is perfect??? If so why???
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    13 Mar '10 22:162 edits
    If it could be demonstrated that any divergence from Gods morality is wholly detrimental, then its hardly axiomatic nor assumptive. Assumptions are not good.
  3. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    13 Mar '10 22:181 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    This isn't to any particular type of poster on here but...

    What sort of properties attached to God are atheists (or subscribers to a different god) forced (in the spirit of debate) to take as axiomatic???

    For example; I think I have to take the notion that God is all powerful, and God is creator of the universe as self evident or irreducibly tr ...[text shortened]... rality (ie his [i]opinion of what is right or wrong), or that he is perfect??? If so why???
    [/i]There only need be one assumption made ... god refers to something that is supernatural. Certainly that's all I assume, as an atheist.
  4. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    13 Mar '10 22:21
    Originally posted by amannion
    [/i]There only need be one assumption made ... god refers to something that is supernatural. Certainly that's all I assume, as an atheist.
    Pantheism?
  5. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    13 Mar '10 22:28
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    Pantheism?
    I guess pantheism could come from that assumption although I'm not sure what it's point is.
    As I understand it pantheism describes the god entity as being the entire universe. To me that's a trivial, and not very helpful position.
    And I'm immediately cautious of any theism since it seems to head towards the supernatural.
  6. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    13 Mar '10 22:31
    Originally posted by amannion
    I guess pantheism could come from that assumption although I'm not sure what it's point is.
    As I understand it pantheism describes the god entity as being the entire universe. To me that's a trivial, and not very helpful position.
    And I'm immediately cautious of any [b]theism
    since it seems to head towards the supernatural.[/b]
    My point was that your assumption that "God refers to something that is supernatural" does not fit in the case of Pantheism.
  7. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    13 Mar '10 22:40
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    My point was that your assumption that "God refers to something that is supernatural" does not fit in the case of Pantheism.
    Yes, and my point was I don't find pantheism very illuminating or useful ...
  8. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    13 Mar '10 22:492 edits
    My own silly fault but I should have been more specific in what I meant by God since I generally think of capital G God as being mainstream holy book based.

    I accept this of course is a bit short sighted though...edited my OP

    🙂
  9. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    13 Mar '10 22:551 edit
    Originally posted by amannion
    Yes, and my point was I don't find pantheism very illuminating or useful ...
    I understood that you don't find it useful.

    However, you made the following statement:
    "I guess pantheism could come from that assumption although I'm not sure what it's point is."

    Pantheism does not fit your assumption, so how could it come from it?
  10. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    13 Mar '10 23:04
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    I understood that you don't find it useful.

    However, you made the following statement:
    "[b]I guess pantheism could come from that assumption
    although I'm not sure what it's point is."

    Pantheism does not fit your assumption, so how could it come from it?[/b]
    My apologies, I misunderstood your original post and then didn't bother correcting myself later. You're right, I should have indicated pantheism as an alternative to the supernatural assumption.
  11. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    13 Mar '10 23:05
    Originally posted by Agerg
    My own silly fault but I should have been more specific in what I meant by God since I generally think of capital G God as being mainstream holy book based.

    I accept this of course is a bit short sighted though...edited my OP

    🙂
    My position remains to your correction.
    This god you refer to - which I'm just unable to capitalise - needs only one assumption: it's supernatural.
  12. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    13 Mar '10 23:432 edits
    Originally posted by amannion
    My position remains to your correction.
    This god you refer to - which I'm just unable to capitalise - needs only one assumption: it's supernatural.
    ok...fair enough, but if i adopt that position exactly how much progress can I really make with those theists (surely a good number of the regulars here?) who do unquestionably take for granted that God is, say, creator of the universe? (because their Holy book says/defines it as so)
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    14 Mar '10 00:081 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    This isn't to any particular type of poster on here but...

    What sort of properties attached to *edit* Christian *edit* God are atheists (or subscribers to a different god) forced (in the spirit of debate) to take as axiomatic???

    For example; I think I have to take the notion that God is all powerful, and God is creator of the universe as self evident[ ...[text shortened]... rality (ie his [i]opinion of what is right or wrong), or that he is perfect??? If so why???
    If God is our creator then we are wired with his morality. It is only when we go against this inner voice that we begin to go awry. What morality you may ask? It is the morality of doing unto others as you would have them do to you. Once you violate this law, guilt and other ugly consequences begin to creep onto the scene.

    If God is not our creator, then he is not our God. At that point, he becomes one of many gods or voices of morality. I suppose it then becomes a question of who can impose their morality one whom?
  14. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    14 Mar '10 00:27
    Originally posted by Agerg
    ok...fair enough, but if i adopt that position exactly how much progress can I really make with those theists (surely a good number of the regulars here?) who do unquestionably take for granted that God is, say, creator of the universe? (because their Holy book says/defines it as so)
    Issues like god as creator or god as omnipotent or god as instigator of miracles or whatever, just flow out the assumption of supernatural as a valid explanation for phenomena.
    Well, I don't think you can make any progress with a theist. If they assume that supernatural explanations are acceptable then we're at an impasse.
  15. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    14 Mar '10 00:30
    Originally posted by whodey
    If God is our creator then we are wired with his morality. It is only when we go against this inner voice that we begin to go awry. What morality you may ask? It is the morality of doing unto others as you would have them do to you. Once you violate this law, guilt and other ugly consequences begin to creep onto the scene.

    If God is not our creator, th ...[text shortened]... es of morality. I suppose it then becomes a question of who can impose their morality one whom?
    [/i]Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.
    But the morality of do unto others does not arise from a belief in god as a creator or any other sort of supernatural entity.
Back to Top