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

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Is there a point to this thread?

If one defines God as "that piece of cake I ate earlier", then I believe in God.

If one defines God as an omniscient, omnipotent consciousness then I don't.

The point is that some people were using their own definition to argue against others who did not accept it as a basis for argument. That's begging the question.

Definitions, schmefinitions...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Flip McWho


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..

Which varsity did you go to?

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Agathon
People like Paul Churchland. They don't believe that there are such things as concepts, mental states, beliefs, etc. They think these are "folk psychological" entities which should be rejected in favour of neuroscience.

Sounds interesting.
What about 'Thoughts' and 'Self'? What do their works mention of these things?

My Thought structure uses Thought as a base, So I'd disagree with the general idea, but am nonetheless intrigued.

---

Field day? (Presuming you are using this to referrence a 'fun' event) What makes you believe it will be fun for them?

---

Non-being... Note that I specifically distincted Concrete things and nonconcrete things.
I could say, "A lion without spots doesn't exist."
It may not exist on earth, but to make that claim, A thought about a spotted lion would have to exist.

It's a bit of a confusion in the definition of 'existence', and I wonder why there aren't more words for grandiose things...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova

Sounds interesting.
What about 'Thoughts' and 'Self'? What do their works mention of these things?

Forbidden, unless we mean brain states and brains/persons.

My Thought structure uses Thought as a base, So I'd disagree with the general idea, but am nonetheless intrigued.

Not everyone agrees, but they have their followers. There's a standard philosophers' joke about Churchland and his wife (both of whom are eliminativists).

Churchland and his wife are in bed after he's given her a good seeing too. He turns to her and says, "so how was it for me?"

Field day? (Presuming you are using this to referrence a 'fun' event) What makes you believe it will be fun for them?

Because they'll rant and rave about how these things don't exist and accuse you of being unscientific, blah blah blah...

---

Non-being... Note that I specifically distincted Concrete things and nonconcrete things.
I could say, "A lion without spots doesn't exist."
It may not exist on earth, but to make that claim, A thought about a spotted lion would have to exist.

It's a bit of a confusion in the definition of 'existence', and I wonder why there aren't more words for grandiose things...

I don't think existence is a thing, or a property. Believing that has got people into all sorts of confusion, from Parmenides onward.

[Solly]

Agnostic here.

A brief additional point is that Materialist Reductionism is absurd.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Agathon


People like Paul Churchland. They don't believe that there are such things as concepts, mental states, beliefs, etc. They think these are "folk psychological" entities which should be rejected in favour of neuroscience.

Plato and Paul would probably not get along then...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Agnostic here.

A brief additional point is that Materialist Reductionism is absurd.

If that means what I think it means, you're absurd

(btw, you're already that way, but that's politics)

[Solly]

Continue this in the philosophy one..

[Odin]

WTF? the Universe isn't conscious. Dualism is a bunch of crock. You canot have consciousness without a brain. My idea of Mind is similar to Prof. John Searle's (University of California, Berkeley): The conscious mind is caused by brain processes and is it's self a higher level feature of the brain.

Oh yeah, I'm Agnostic.

Edit: hard Materialism is crap too.

[Solly]

So consciousness is irreducible in your view?

[Solly]

To be honest I'm looking for something that adequately explains my view, since it's so hard to put this kind of stuff into words.

My thinking is close to Roger Penrose's at points.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Odin
WTF? the Universe isn't conscious. Dualism is a bunch of crock. You canot have consciousness without a brain. My idea of Mind is similar to Prof. John Searle's (University of California, Berkeley): The conscious mind is caused by brain processes and is it's self a higher level feature of the brain.

Your position is far too coherent to be Searle's

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't believe in God as described in any human religious scripture or religion. Nobody knows who or what God is, or if there is such a thing. Anyone who claims to know is wrong... or crazy... or both...

that's my position...

we don't know there is a god... it's not right to say there is one, and not right to say there isn't.

This is very close to where I am at -- until that is, I realized the essential problem is defining who or what God is.

In looking up the definition of God, I found that Einstein did believe in God in the sense of that He was the sum total of everything -- in essence the universe. This is also very close to the Greek understanding of one, everlasting, perfect God. It is not inconsistent with the Christian understanding either.

If we define God to be the Universe, then of course we all believe in God. But if we start from the premise that there is no God, what does one mean by that? One must have an understanding of God to deny that God does exists.

[Kuciwalker]

In looking up the definition of God, I found that Einstein did believe in God in the sense of that He was the sum total of everything -- in essence the universe.

So you believe in the sum total of everything. Wonderful. Why call it God? It doesn't mean you believe in an omiscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being.

If we define God to be the Universe, the of course we all believe in God. But if we start from the premise that there is no God, what does one mean by that?

That there is no omiscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon


God is different. God is supposed to transcend the physical universe so scientific laws do not apply in his/her/its case.

This is the first legitimate attempt in this thread by an atheist (I going through from page one) to define what he understands God to be?

Agathon, where did you get that definition?