God is for idiots(lol)!!

Originally posted by rwingett
What kind of gibberish is this? God is a supernatural entity. If you believe in god then you believe in the supernatural. They are inseperable. If you believe in a god then you are NOT an atheist. Atheism means lack of belief in god(s), not lack of belief in supernatural phenomena. If you believe in a god (however weakly), then you are a theist.

Einstein believed in God. However, he reduced God to something natural; something detectable by science (i.e. an abstract set of law which were sovereign). This belief is radical to mainstream theism and is rejected as atheism.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Einstein believed in God. However, he reduced God to something natural; something detectable by science (i.e. an abstract set of law which were sovereign). This belief is radical to mainstream theism and is rejected as atheism.

Nobody cares what mainstream theists think. Except other mainstream theists, of course. Deists used to be reviled as atheists too, but that's hardly the case.

Einstein was a theist. He rejected the mainstream conception of god, to be sure, but not every conception of god. He redefined god to suit his own particular needs, but it's still a god. He never referred to himself as an atheist.

The argument that god = nature, therefore you can believe in god and still be an atheist, is ridiculous. It's nothing more than semantic gibberish. If this "god" equals nature exactly in every way then it's nothing more than nature. To also call it "god" is not only superfluous, but patently ridiculous. You could choose to call nature Don Knotts as well and it would be about as meaningful. If, however, this so called "god" equals nature plus something more, then that extra bit would be the god portion. An atheist would maintain that nature equals nature equals nature, with no extra bits thrown it. Once you start bandying about the "god" word, then you are a theist, no matter how you choose to define your god.

Originally posted by rwingett
Nobody cares what mainstream theists think. Except other mainstream theists, of course. Deists used to be reviled as atheists too, but that's hardly the case.

Einstein was a theist. He rejected the mainstream conception of god, to be sure, but not every conception of god. He redefined god to suit his own particular needs, but it's still a god. He never ...[text shortened]... the "god" word, then you are a theist, no matter how you choose to define your god.

Well, I define God as say, my computer. Thus, there is a God. No? Am I a theist? Yes?
Theism defines God as an agent which is supernatural. If you repudiate God's supernatural compenents you are not a theist.

Also, perhaps I shoud refine Einstein's definition of God. He described God as the laws of nature. These laws would hardly be called God in any dictionary (in fact look it up "god" in your dictionary, if you find no mention of the word supernatural I will be more disposed to agree with you).

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, I define God as say, my computer. Thus, there is a God. No? Am I a theist? Yes?
Theism defines God as an agent which is supernatural. If you repudiate God's supernatural compenents you are not a theist.

Also, perhaps I shoud refine Einstein's definition of God. He described God as the laws of nature. These laws would hardly be called God in any ...[text shortened]... if you find no mention of the word supernatural I will be more disposed to agree with you).

If you repudiate your god's supernatural powers than you don't have a god. You have whatever the thing is. If your computer is just like every other computer then it isn't a god, no matter how much you protest to the contrary. If the laws of nature are just the laws of nature, and nothing more, then they are not god. To refer to them as god as well implies an extra supernatural element. Otherwise just calling them the laws of nature would be good enough and you wouldn't need to drag in the 'G' word.

If you have a god then you're a theist. But if all you're doing is equating nature with god then your argument is nothing more than a flaccid exercise in grade school semantics. If you have a god then you cannot be an atheist, no matter how matter how badly you wish to abuse the language.

Originally posted by rwingett
If you repudiate your god's supernatural powers than you don't have a god. You have whatever the thing is. If your computer is just like every other computer then it isn't a god, no matter how much you protest to the contrary. If the laws of nature are just the laws of nature, and nothing more, then they are not god. To refer to them as god as well implies ...[text shortened]... you cannot be an atheist, no matter how matter how badly you wish to abuse the language.

An execrise in semnatics. Well duh!

All I was saying was that i defined God differently.

Originally posted by Conrau K
An execrise in semnatics. Well duh!

All I was saying was that i defined God differently.

You didn't just define it differently, you defined god as being a non-god.

Originally posted by rwingett
You didn't just define it differently, you defined god as being a non-god.

Of course, it would be a non- God according to your definition, I assume?

Don't worry, I have arrived at a definition of God through logical reasoning. No need to panic.

Originally posted by rwingett
Nobody cares what mainstream theists think. Except other mainstream theists, of course. Deists used to be reviled as atheists too, but that's hardly the case.

Einstein was a theist. He rejected the mainstream conception of god, to be sure, but not every conception of god. He redefined god to suit his own particular needs, but it's still a god. He never ...[text shortened]... the "god" word, then you are a theist, no matter how you choose to define your god.

If nature=nature=nature then how did nature get here? what caused nature ? More nature? Then what caused that? Even more nature? ....etc ..etc...into infinity. What about an uncaused cause? Or would that be too god like for you?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If nature=nature=nature then how did nature get here? what caused nature ? More nature? Then what caused that? Even more nature? ....etc ..etc...into infinity. What about an uncaused cause? Or would that be too god like for you?

It could be that nature has always existed. But proposing god as the cause of nature explains absolutely nothing. Who caused or created god? If god can be said to be eternal then so can nature. The difference is that we just leave god out of it and cut down on the number of variables.

Originally posted by rwingett
It could be that nature has always existed. But proposing god as the cause of nature explains absolutely nothing. Who caused or created god? If god can be said to be eternal then so can nature. The difference is that we just leave god out of it and cut down on the number of variables.

If nature has always existed then nature would be God, but since everything we know about nature tells us that it is finite and temporary (ie even the universe itself is running down and the stars will burn out) then it seems unlikely that nature itself eternal. It seems perfectly rational to look for something beyond nature (supernatural) to explain existence. If you are saying that nature has always existed and has no beginning or end ( and therefore no cause) then it can't be anything like the nature we know of or can imagine. It would have to be some kind of 'super' nature. So you would still have something supernatural anyway.The only alternative is to believe that the whole of life(or nature) had a beginning and came out of nothing at all , but this seems even more unlikely and paradoxical in comparison. Hmmm...what a mystery!

Originally posted by knightmeister
If nature has always existed then nature would be God, but since everything we know about nature tells us that it is finite and temporary (ie even the universe itself is running down and the stars will burn out) then it seems unlikely that nature itself eternal. It seems perfectly rational to look for something beyond nature (supernatural) to explain ...[text shortened]... all , but this seems even more unlikely and paradoxical in comparison. Hmmm...what a mystery!

first of all, on what grounds do you say that if nature always existed then it is god? on the grounds that your religion tells you that the only eternal thing is god? that is a completely unfounded claim. second, just because individual stars burn out does not mean that the universe will end. according to ramifications of string theory, it is more likely that the universe is more closely aligned with hindu cosmology in that the universe goes through cycles of expansion/contraction, creation/destruction - infinetly. thirdly, a nature without beginning, end or a cause may be unlike the nature that YOU know of, but sounds exactly like the nature that i know of.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If nature has always existed then nature would be God, but since everything we know about nature tells us that it is finite and temporary (ie even the universe itself is running down and the stars will burn out) then it seems unlikely that nature itself eternal. It seems perfectly rational to look for something beyond nature (supernatural) to explain ...[text shortened]... all , but this seems even more unlikely and paradoxical in comparison. Hmmm...what a mystery!

Perhaps you should study a little more cosmology and a little less theology. It would do you good to study something other than the bible.

Using supernatural explanations for things is never rational. Never. It is the antithesis of rationality. You can't figure out how something works so you make up some supernatural answer for it. "God done it." Problem solved. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by nomind
first of all, on what grounds do you say that if nature always existed then it is god? on the grounds that your religion tells you that the only eternal thing is god? that is a completely unfounded claim. second, just because individual stars burn out does not mean that the universe will end. according to ramifications of string theory, it is more likely ...[text shortened]... se may be unlike the nature that YOU know of, but sounds exactly like the nature that i know of.

I sense a confusion in your mind between the concept of 'eternal' and 'infinity' . Infinity does not imply eternity! The universe might carry on going for ever in this cycle but it would not be eternal because it would still need a cause. The idea of something have absolutely no beginning or end (infinity boths ways if you like) is utterly awe inspiring to me and corresponds to nothing natural I know of or can imagine. I'm astounded that you feel you know of this thing! Have you really considered what your are saying here?

Oh and by the way ,..all this seemed very self evident to me long before I was anywhere near theism. Your assertion that I just think like this because my religion tells me to is both an inaccurate assumption and a very convenient way for you to dismiss the sound reasoning and philosophical questioning behind the great 'uncaused cause' mystery.

Originally posted by rwingett
Perhaps you should study a little more cosmology and a little less theology. It would do you good to study something other than the bible.

Using supernatural explanations for things is never rational. Never. It is the antithesis of rationality. You can't figure out how something works so you make up some supernatural answer for it. "God done it." Problem solved. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.Bo

What's cosmology ...I've never heard of it! If it says in the Bible that God done it then that's good enough for me! I'd never thought about the question of the supernatural being the antithesis of rationality. I always thought that it DID work that way. I'm so stupid! ....has that confirmed your prejudices/assumptions enough for you? As you seem intent on patronising me I thought I'd play along to make you feel better!

Have you ever considered the possibility that not all theists are creationist Bible bashers? I've thought this through a lot more than you might dare to realise.

How exactly do you think that the ultimate reality of all existence (eternal or otherwise) is going to be rationally understood.?If it was, then it would not be that thing you might claim it to be. Maybe it's beyond the rational? How rational is it to assume that the 'ultimate' can be rationally understood?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If nature=nature=nature then how did nature get here? what caused nature ? More nature? Then what caused that? Even more nature? ....etc ..etc...into infinity. What about an uncaused cause? Or would that be too god like for you?

why do you guys always need a reason for everything? Reason only works within the current state of the universe. Before the universe (although the term before is, of course, loaded) there was just nothing (or perhaps anything, we cannot know) so it's largely immaterial...

Why is the phrase, "we don't know" such a frightening thing for you - when you are quite willing to say you don't know in that other famous way "goddunit".