"Atheist proves god does exist"

[Jan Ardena]

I think you need to read back through this thread from the beginning but this time take the info in.

I read the OP, and that's what I'm responding to.

You have to explain what God is, why you think only an atheist
could prove existence. You have to show why being curious to science
improves ones chances of discovering God.

And that's just for starters mate.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

How can an atheist find God, when an atheist doesn't believe God exists?
How will he determine what is God?

jan.

Aren't they in the most plausible position to prove God? You know they don't have a bias in favor of it. For instance, if in my thread, I predicted the Japanese earthquake in some detail, as just a guess, that would be too much of a coincidence, and one would have to conclude that God wanted to prove himself to me.

 

[wynn]

People with no bias have an interest in Everything, come on this is basic stuff.

Someone with an interest in everything will do nothing, because they won't be able to decide what to do.

Could you specify the relevant selectivity I am employing please?

You insist in the notion that narrowing down the parameters is wrong, for example.

Praising and praying works from a psychological view like a placebo for the mind/body. No one is saying religious types do not find happiness in their bias. This success is not finding tested facts though ie the existence of god or not.

What makes you so sure you know what goes on in the privacy of religious people?

So what of scripture? Are most of the religions wrong or are all of them right. I could say that they are all right in their metaphorality (within an assumption god exists for argumental purposes) because god is adaptable. But can the practitioners?

Why are you concerned about the practitioners?

Spoken like a true acolyte. Narrow the parameters to find the truth.

If any reserach is to be done, on anything, then the parameters need to be narrowed down. Otherwise, nothing gets done, obviously.

People's definitions of god are not really relevant hence the mention of scripture (which is a representation of what people think god is(what you were talking about)).

How do you know that scriptures do not come from God, or are otherwise not relevant when it comes to knowledge about God?
On the grounds of what should all scriptures be excluded from the quest for God?

 

[wynn]

Aren't they in the most plausible position to prove God? You know they don't have a bias in favor of it.

Well, aren't biologists in the most plausible position to prove the existence of black holes or the latest Ponzi scheme? You know they don't have a bias in favor of it.

For instance, if in my thread, I predicted the Japanese earthquake in some detail, as just a guess, that would be too much of a coincidence, and one would have to conclude that God wanted to prove himself to me.

:huh:

 

[universaldistress]

I read the OP, and that's what I'm responding to.

You have to explain what God is, why you think only an atheist
could prove existence. You have to show why being curious to science
improves ones chances of discovering God.

And that's just for starters mate.

jan.

Firstly I am not your 'mate' as you like to put it. Secondly, if you are asking me to re-explain myself because you can't be bothered to read through the thread then it smacks of (almost symbolically embodied) the laziness of not wanting to find the truth, because the evidence is to hard to acquire and instead fixate on the wrong/any conclusion.

These run-arounds are not productive and just fudging the logic as usual.

 

[universaldistress]

Someone with an interest in everything will do nothing, because they won't be able to decide what to do.

I have an interest in virtually everything and yet I am studying the art of writing (specialising myself). Maybe I am the only exception to this ridiculous claim.

You insist in the notion that narrowing down the parameters is wrong, for example.

Use this in context it was intended, not as a generalisation. That's poor debating right there.

What makes you so sure you know what goes on in the privacy of religious people?

Maybe I was one; maybe I am one, had that not crossed your mind? You think I do not understand this from both sides of the fence, at one time.

Why are you concerned about the practitioners?

I am sorry you don't get the point here, it is a good one.

If any reserach is to be done, on anything, then the parameters need to be narrowed down. Otherwise, nothing gets done, obviously.

narrowing the parameters of the search for god, a being that knows all, possibly is all. Yeah. That was my context. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

How do you know that scriptures do not come from God, or are otherwise not relevant when it comes to knowledge about God?
On the grounds of what should all scriptures be excluded from the quest for God?

read this again:
"So what of scripture? Are most of the religions wrong or are all of them right. I could say that they are all right in their metaphorality (within an assumption god exists for argumental purposes) because god is adaptable. But can the practitioners?"

still don't get it?

Nevermind.

Unconfirmed scripture is useless to find something that is as yet unquantified. This is logic?

 

[Kellisness]

If god is ever proved to exist I would suggest that it will proably be an atheist who does it as they are generally more curious in the sciences. How would that sit with the mainstream religions? Because:

A, This may be very unappealing to conventional wisdom (will the atheist be held aloft?)
B, All of the religions except one will be wrong (if not all) (?)
C, What would this spell for the continuation of any form of praising as god will now be tangible and have his own methods, that do not necessarily relate to conventional wisdom?

I have little doubt that scientists (not necessarily atheists, but I think it's very likely to be) will find proof of god's existence or at least reach a point where god is the most plausible explanation, and I think it will occur within about 20 years, or most likely 10. The same goes for the true history of the world.

 

[Rav]

Predictable, or what?

You said that the idea of the universe being God is a confused one. Pantheists do not believe that God created the universe, they believe that the universe itself is the only thing that is eternal. It's clear then, based on what you said, that you believe that Pantheists are confused.

You also said that one should look to scripture for a definition of God. But Deists do not believe in the type of miraculous events that are typically present in religious scripture, and tend to reject all scripture as a possible source of real information about God.

Your contention that Pantheism and Deism are essentially the same as Christianity or any other religion based on scripture is complete bullshit. And it's not even me who is making that argument. The pantheists and the deists are.

 

[universaldistress]

I have little doubt that scientists (not necessarily atheists, but I think it's very likely to be) will find proof of god's existence or at least reach a point where god is the most plausible explanation, and I think it will occur within about 20 years, or most likely 10. The same goes for the true history of the world.

Finally some sense from the theist camp?

 

[SciWriter]

Many atheists who are scientists have been looking at everything, for they exult in mystery and the solving of it, and so they are open to all possibilities, unlike theists, who declared all mystery solved all at once by dogma thousands of years ago.

 

[universaldistress]

Finally some sense from the theist camp?

Not quite lol

 

[Jan Ardena]

This guy says;

1. If god is ever proved to exist I would suggest that
it will proably be an atheist who does it...

2. ...as they are generally more curious in the sciences.

Then he asks; How would that sit with the mainstream religions? Because:

A, This may be very unappealing to conventional wisdom (will the atheist be held aloft?)

B, All of the religions except one will be wrong (if not all) (?)

C, What would this spell for the continuation of any form of praising as god will now be
tangible and have his own methods, that do not necessarily relate to conventional wisdom?

So let's deal with no.1;

If god is ever proved to exist I would suggest that
it will proably be an atheist who does it...

What does he mean by god?
By implying that god is not yet proven, i take it he means the trancendental
personality, figured in the scriptures, worshiped and believed in by the religions he refers to
in point A, and the object of praise in point C.

So he puts forward that if God is to be proven to exist, to the point where all religions
stop, due to the fact that he has NOW been proven, and is now tangible (physical), it can only be done by an atheist, who, within this guys thinking is more curious in the sciences.

When we examine what an atheist is, we find that he is someone who,at one end of the scale, a
person who believes God (trancendental) does NOT exist. So wtf is this guy actually saying?
And, a person who does not believe in God, for whatever reason.

Is he saying that an atheist may accidently come across some (physical) evidence and proclaim; 'this is the god
that previously didn't exist, due to the illogical claims of anything existing outside of time and space,
but low and behold i have found evidence which proves he does actually exist'?

Or, is he saying; 'here is some physical evidence, this is god, but he is not trancendental as believed by religions,
and defined in scriptures'?

Bear in mind that the person is atheist.

If it is the former, then how can that person be atheist? As he would have to believe his findings, in order to proclaim here is God.

If it is the latter, how would he determine that this is god?
What would that god actually be to him?
Why would religions be compelled to stop praisng a trancedental god?

This is just the tip of the iceberg, regarding what seems a crazy,ill-thought out idea.

Does anyone have answers to these questions.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You said that the idea of the universe being God is a confused one. Pantheists do not believe that God created the universe, they believe that the universe itself is the only thing that is eternal. It's clear then, based on what you said, that you believe that Pantheists are confused.

You also said that one should look to scripture for a definition of God. But Deists do not believe in the type of miraculous events that are typically present in religious scripture, and tend to reject all scripture as a possible source of real information about God.

Your contention that Pantheism and Deism are essentially the same as Christianity or any other religion based on scripture is complete bullshit. And it's not even me who is making that argument. The pantheists and the deists are.

About my statement;

Does the pantheist claim that the universe IS God, or do they claim that if anything is be called God, it is the universe, as that is all that exists, and is the source of everything?

To me, the former creates confusion, and violates occams razor, as there is
no need to invoke another entity as the universe already exists.
That is why I said ''the universe IS GOD'' is a confused statement.

Does that make sense?

jan.

 

[Rav]

Does the pantheist claim that the universe IS God, or do they claim that if anything is be called God, it is the universe, as that is all that exists, and is the source of everything?

I believe that a typical pantheist would probably agree with both of those statements, for the most part. To a pantheist, the natural laws that govern the physical universe and everything that derives from those laws including things like life and consciousness itself is God. It's the God that Einstein was talking about when he said:

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

It can be further characterized as follows:

"Spinoza's system also envisages a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, according to this understanding of Spinoza's system, God would be the natural world and have no personality." - See this WikiPedia page.

To me, the former creates confusion, and violates occams razor, as there is no need to invoke another entity as the universe already exists.
That is why I said ''the universe IS GOD'' is a confused statement.

Does that make sense?

I don't think that it does make sense.

 

[SciWriter]

A rose equals a rose.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

I believe that a typical pantheist would probably agree with both of those statements, for the most part. To a pantheist, the natural laws that govern the physical universe and everything that derives from those laws including things like life and consciousness itself is God. It's the God that Einstein was talking about when he said:

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

It can be further characterized as follows:

"Spinoza's system also envisages a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, according to this understanding of Spinoza's system, God would be the natural world and have no personality." - See this WikiPedia page.

Spinoza didn't see the universe as God, I'm afraid you are mistaken;

Spinoza believed God exists only philosophically and that God was abstract and impersonal. Taken from your link.

Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two NAMES for the same reality,

...His identification of God with nature was more fully explained in his posthumously published Ethics

God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, uncaused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

I have explained the nature and properties of God. I have shown that he necessarily exists that he is one: that he is and acts solely by the necessity of his own nature; that he is the free cause of all things and how he is so; that all things are in God and so depend on him, that without him they could neither exist nor be conceived; lastly, that all things are predetermined by God, not through his free will or absolute fiat, but from the very nature of God or infinite power.


How is it that you come to understand that Spinoza/Einstein believe that God
is the universe? I find it amazing.

[quoteI don't think that it does make sense.[/QUOTE]

I totally understand why you don't.

jan.

 

[SciWriter]

A cosmos is a cosmos the same.

 

[universaldistress]

I read the OP, and that's what I'm responding to.

You have to explain what God is,

Its about the nature of us finding god. I do not claim that I have found god.

 

[universaldistress]

This guy says;

1. If god is ever proved to exist I would suggest that
it will proably be an atheist who does it...

2. ...as they are generally more curious in the sciences.

Then he asks; How would that sit with the mainstream religions? Because:

A, This may be very unappealing to conventional wisdom (will the atheist be held aloft?)

B, All of the religions except one will be wrong (if not all) (?)

C, What would this spell for the continuation of any form of praising as god will now be
tangible and have his own methods, that do not necessarily relate to conventional wisdom?

So let's deal with no.1;

If god is ever proved to exist I would suggest that
it will proably be an atheist who does it...

What does he mean by god?
By implying that god is not yet proven, i take it he means the trancendental
personality, figured in the scriptures, worshiped and believed in by the religions he refers to
in point A, and the object of praise in point C.

So he puts forward that if God is to be proven to exist, to the point where all religions
stop, due to the fact that he has NOW been proven, and is now tangible (physical), it can only be done by an atheist, who, within this guys thinking is more curious in the sciences.

When we examine what an atheist is, we find that he is someone who,at one end of the scale, a
person who believes God (trancendental) does NOT exist. So wtf is this guy actually saying?
And, a person who does not believe in God, for whatever reason.

Is he saying that an atheist may accidently come across some (physical) evidence and proclaim; 'this is the god
that previously didn't exist, due to the illogical claims of anything existing outside of time and space,
but low and behold i have found evidence which proves he does actually exist'?

Or, is he saying; 'here is some physical evidence, this is god, but he is not trancendental as believed by religions,
and defined in scriptures'?

Bear in mind that the person is atheist.

If it is the former, then how can that person be atheist? As he would have to believe his findings, in order to proclaim here is God.

If it is the latter, how would he determine that this is god?
What would that god actually be to him?
Why would religions be compelled to stop praisng a trancedental god?

This is just the tip of the iceberg, regarding what seems a crazy,ill-thought out idea.

Does anyone have answers to these questions.

Do you think the universe will definitely be able to contain humans forever?

A lot of you niggles have already been addressed.

 

[SciWriter]

Panthea?
No.​