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

[Flip McWho]

Agathon I went/am going to Victoria University. Just completed first year.

Existence did not begin with the big bang. There was something before that. If we understand God to bethat which existed only after the big bang, then God was created. This is inconsistent with an idea that God was the creator and was not created. God must therefor exist in the universe, the big band and before. As Einstein said, God must be the Totality of everything.

I meant existence as in everything that exists now, like people, planets, solar systems etc. Before the big bang there was this "stuff" (for want of a better word) that I shall call God. Now at some point in time God sacrificed himself which was the big bang. Thus starting the existence as we currently know it. If you can follow what I mean.

The "big bang" did not create anything. This is a common misconception. The Universe existed prior to it, just the dimensions were almost infinitely tiny. The big bang was the point when it suddenly started expanding (and very quickly).

Yeah, and this infinitely tiny universe is what I shall call God before he sacrificed. (I don't necessarily believe this by the way)

[yavoon]

I shall call myself god. since we seem to be using pretty liberal definitions of god. and obviously I exist.

or do I?

[Odin]

My definition of the Universe is "all that exists" and view the sum of all possible universes (the Multiverse) as "all that CAN exist"

BTW: what makes Searle incoherent? His mini-article in Rita Carter's book Exploring Consciousness seemed reasonable to me.

[Ned]

This thread does show that most of us, even atheists, struggle with the concept of God. None of us really know what or who He is, nor can we deny He exists without first defining our conception of God and saying that that conception does not exist.

What also seems extraordianary is that we exist -- intelligent beings with free will that exist in a universe primarily governed by action and reaction. If it is true that we are the inevitable by-product of the universe and whatever caused the big bang, we are the by-product of creation if not a creator. At least this much we can know.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
That's probably also the only meaningful definition of the Universe. Define it as a simple region of spacetime and it loses all of its special properties.

Well according to your definition it is just everything that exists. That leaves it neutral as to what other properties it has.

All you've said is: (x) x is either identical with the set that is the universe or a member of the set which it comprises.

That's compatible with all sorts of weirdness.

Anyway, is the set which you say is the universe a set which is a member of itself, or not?

And if it isn't, then is it a member of the set of all sets that are not members of themselves or not?

[Flip McWho]

This thread does show that most of us, even atheists, struggle with the concept of God. None of us really know what or who He is, nor can we deny He exists without first defining our conception of God and saying that that conception does not exist.

Exactly why I'm agnostic.

[loinburger]

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.

Similarly, the statement that one believes in God presumes an understanding of who or what God is, which may be wrong. Atheists generally use the term "God" in the same way as theists -- the Big Daddy in the Sky, or something along those lines.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Well according to your definition it is just everything that exists. That leaves it neutral as to what other properties it has.

All you've said is: (x) x is either identical with the set that is the universe or a member of the set which it comprises.

That's compatible with all sorts of weirdness.

Anyway, is the set which you say is the universe a set which is a member of itself, or not?

And if it isn't, then is it a member of the set of all sets that are not members of themselves or not?

The Universe is a subset of itself, yes. EVERY set is a subset of itself, by definition.

[Enigma_Nova]

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

Yeah I see some problems with it too.
There's this "Set of all sets" thing which I don't really like. Then you could have the Set of Sets that contain themselves...
And then The Set of Sets which -don't- contain themselves...
Which BTW is a grand stuffup of a paradox.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's simply impossible, on the traditional understanding of God as an infinite being, for finite beings such as ourselves to be able to investigate reality to prove or disprove the existence of such a being.

Bah. I have a decent understanding of aleph-null, aleph-one, and aleph-two. The problem with the gods-concept has nothing to do with infinity.

Agnosticism is the rational response.

In much the same way that solipsism is a rational response, yes. If it quacks like BS and walks like BS, I'd rather call it BS until it learns to quack and walk properly.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), religion is big on precedent, so it never will.

In any case, if God really existed, it would be appalling if he said the things that the fundies say.

Yep. He?

[Mr. President]

God is watching all of you weirdos.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

Electrons don't have surfaces, as they are fundamental particles.

[Sarxis]

So then where are the liberal particles hiding?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
This thread does show that most of us, even atheists, struggle with the concept of God. None of us really know what or who He is, nor can we deny He exists without first defining our conception of God and saying that that conception does not exist.

We could say the exact same thing of a lettuce or a lawnmower. Except we wouldn't be using caps on a pronoun that obviously doesn't need it.

[KrazyHorse]

"You can't argue against God without first defining God. This makes God special"



They teach this sort of logic at law school (if you actually are a lawyer)?