If God is the Universe - are you still an Athiest?

[Sava]

blah blah blah...

[Flip McWho]

Well in the dictionary I just looked up it defines God as 'the creator and ruler of the universe'. This would suggest that God is not the actual universe.

Anyway, if God is defined as the universe then yes as we all should be undoubtfully aware the universe does exist and as such God should exist. Considering I wouldn't use this definition, I'm agnostic as there is no way to prove that a God exists or not. No way at all.

I do have a theory though. Once upon a time God did exist but God sacrificed himself to start the universe and all existence, i.e God was everything but then the big bang (God sacrificing himself) happened and thus started off all existence. Nice theory eh, now prove it wrong.

Oh skywalker is right. If God is not a part of the set of the universe that contains everything then God cannot exist. Becaues if the universe contains everything then it is illogical for something to not be apart of everything.

[Sava]

Nice theory eh, now prove it wrong

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon
No, because by hypothesis God transcends the universe. Therefore he is not subject to its laws. Saying that elves exist within the universe requires that they exist in accordance with scientific laws.

Wait.

Why must them elves obey scientific laws? They could also transcend this universe, but could only be found on the surface of electrons.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by korn469
how can you understand something that doesn't exist besides understanding that it doesn't exist?

You can understand concepts that have no concrete existance.
As soon as you formulate the phrase "It doesn't exist" you've invented a concept (whatever 'it' referrs to) which you can understand.

If God were the Universe... I can be as sure of the Universe existing about as much as I am sure that I exist - no absolute proof in either sense.

But on a purely practical level I believe in the Cosmos (and its Kosmos) so I'd say that if Universe == God then I'll act like I believe it.

I don't believe in the Torah god (as an exact description) under any circumstances. Though there may be invisible forces.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Well in the dictionary I just looked up it defines God as 'the creator and ruler of the universe'. This would suggest that God is not the actual universe.

Anyway, if God is defined as the universe then yes as we all should be undoubtfully aware the universe does exist and as such God should exist. Considering I wouldn't use this definition, I'm agnostic as there is no way to prove that a God exists or not. No way at all.

I do have a theory though. Once upon a time God did exist but God sacrificed himself to start the universe and all existence, i.e God was everything but then the big bang (God sacrificing himself) happened and thus started off all existence. Nice theory eh, now prove it wrong.

Oh skywalker is right. If God is not a part of the set of the universe that contains everything then God cannot exist. Becaues if the universe contains everything then it is illogical for something to not be apart of everything.

You know, people who argue from dictionary definitions usually fail their first year philosophy essays. It's a totally sophistical way to argue since you are begging the question against the theist.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Wait.

Why must them elves obey scientific laws? They could also transcend this universe, but could only be found on the surface of electrons.

Nice troll...

That's basically a contradiction. Electrons and their surfaces are part of the physical universe, therefore it is not only physically impossible, but logically impossible for them to transcend it.

[Kuciwalker]

What does sophistical mean? Is it a reference to the Sophists in Greece? What did they believe again? (all I know about the history of philosophy I got from Sophie's World )

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by skywalker


Actually, in the absence of evidence, the negative would generally be held to be correct (hey, we don't know there aren't any elves living on the surface of electrons, so we can't tell you they aren't ).

It's called Occam's razor. Make the theory as simple as possible so long as it all works.
Yes it's a fudge but it's a practical fudge; The human brain lacks the computational power to consider every possible opportunity.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: If God is the Universe - are you still an Athiest?

Originally posted by Ned
Another thread discussing philosophy and the universe got me thinking about how one could be an atheist and deny the existence of God, when we do not precisely know who or what God is.

Firstly, atheists do not necessarily deny the existence of god(s). They merely deny that there is any good reason to believe in one. Secondly, using "God" customarily denotes the big Y, or the god of Judeo-Christianity, who is pretty well defined according to orthodox Christian doctrines. Third, isn't it more ironic that theists believe in something they don't know who or what if such is the case?

Originally posted by Ned
If we define God as the Universe (as the Universe did create the heavens and the Earth and all the rest) could you still be an atheist?

You can't simply keep redefining words or moving goal posts. What if we define humans having 3 eyes and 6 legs?

Originally posted by Ned
So, the very statement that one is an antheist presumes an understanding of who or what God is, which may, of course, be wrong.

Not necessarily. Atheism merely is an outgrowth of naturalism and materialism, which states that there's nothing outside this universe and there's nothing supernatural.

Originally posted by Ned
Athiests, please explain your understanding of God.

I understand "God" as the orthodox Judeo-Christianity deity.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon


Nice troll...

That's basically a contradiction. Electrons and their surfaces are part of the physical universe, therefore it is not only physically impossible, but logically impossible for them to transcend it.

Not necessarily. Maybe there's no way for us to detect them otherwise? Or they simply has a preference to gather around the surface of electrons?

[Yes, it's so simple when you can completely ignore logic and laws of physics ]

[Kuciwalker]

Not necessarily. Atheism merely is an outgrowth of naturalism and materialism, which states that there's nothing outside this universe and there's nothing supernatural.

Isn't the term "supernatural" somewhat self-defeating?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova

You can understand concepts that have no concrete existance.
As soon as you formulate the phrase "It doesn't exist" you've invented a concept (whatever 'it' referrs to) which you can understand.

If God were the Universe... I can be as sure of the Universe existing about as much as I am sure that I exist - no absolute proof in either sense.

But on a purely practical level I believe in the Cosmos (and its Kosmos) so I'd say that if Universe == God then I'll act like I believe it.

I don't believe in the Torah god (as an exact description) under any circumstances. Though there may be invisible forces.

Oh no, you have struck the old problem of non-being - around this gather confusions upon confusions, for as father Parmenides said:

Come now, I shall tell you, heed my story, hearing,
Which paths of inquiry there are alone for thinking;
The one: that that it is and that it cannot not be,
Is the path of persuasion (for it follows truth
The other: that it is not and must not be,
I indicate to you to be a path utterly unlearnable;
For you may neither know what is not (for that is impossible)
Nor could you point [it] out.

I translated that from the Greek myself for my students.

[shameless plug] here's the whole thing[/shameless plug]

[Flip McWho]

You know, people who argue from dictionary definitions usually fail their first year philosophy essays.

Ha I actually passed all my first year philosophy essays. Did reasonably well to. So there goes that one. Though you did say usually. Anyway I don't argue from the dictionary. In philosophy lectures we were given the typical christian definition of a omniprescent, omnipotent (sp? for both of those) and a third property which I cannot recall. Thats the definition I usually use.

skywalker, from the very same dictionary sophistically is a derivative from sophist which means: A person who uses clever but fallacious arguements. I think that would be the meaning that he means.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Not necessarily. Maybe there's no way for us to detect them otherwise? Or they simply has a preference to gather around the surface of electrons?

That's not the argument. His argument is that they are elves, but given everything we know about the world (such as what sorts of things minds are) we have good reason not to believe in elves around electrons, just as we have good reason to believe pigs can't fly or that telepathy works. These things don't cohere with our scientific thinking - that is itself a reason to reject them. Of course we may not know enough about the physical universe, but that is different from knowing nothing.

About transcendent entities, we have no reasons either way.

Yes, it's so simple when you can completely ignore logic and laws of physics ]

I don't think theists ignore the former.