"Atheist proves god does exist"

[universaldistress]

Forget about scripture. It is simply the stories of manipulative men. No one doubts the importance of the bible in sculpting civilisation, but now itt is time to leave the wet nurse behind.

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.

Atheists search the cosmos. Theists search the bible, koran and so on.

Is he saying that an atheist may accidently come across some (physical) evidence and proclaim; 'this is the god

What science seeks to do is discover the secrets of the universe and its formation. God is suggested to have created the universe. Can you fill in the gaps or is this too logical for you.

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'?

Scripture has no relevance. it is just stories written by clever men to manipulate stupid men and women.

This is the limit of your imagination. Hence relying on other men's imaginations to form your universal view. Science offers many views or stances which any scientist can use as a starting point to any argument he wishes to engage in. Mainstream religious types choose one view and stick to it.
Can you explain to me the nature of things which are not physical? Has anyone ever found anything that isn't physical. Maybe a concept isn't physical. And that is what god is UNTIL it is discovered. Some atheists are open to the possibility that god exists. And you can be damned sure thatif it is proven then more hardline atheists will follow.

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.

Bearing in mind you are relying your argument on semantics, falsely I might add because you are just showing you do not understand the term 'atheist'. Are you ready for your lesson?

This lifted from this boards guidelines on definitions, so this is essentially the contexts I will lose in this lesson:

"Atheist opinions will vary from absolute certainty that gods do not exist through various degrees of uncertainty to simple skepticsm. Typically when asked, an atheist will say they do not believe in the existence of gods. Many atheists will leave open the possibility that gods might exist providing appropriate evidence is provided."



Atheists are ever searching because they are open.

The person would be an atheist until he tries to assert his findings.

Transcendental means what? Transcendental gods are usually defined as the creator of the universe? if an atheist discovers a creator of the universe then most if not all scripture is proved to be wrong (i have explained the ins and outs already, see above)

If an atheist discovers god then you could argue the assertion of gods existence would then make this person a theist after the fact, once he tries to assert. But there would be a subtle difference. Present theists assert without evidence. This individual would have evidence. So this person would be a scientist. Would a new term be coined for the new TRUTH, or would theism as a concept be so severely shrunken that its appellation is of no regard anymore. This doesn't prove that it will not in all probability be an atheist who finds god though. That is what you are arguing against, and have failed to lucidly address.

God would BE what it is proved to be. If religions still choose to ignore the truth then this will just compound the idiocy.

Once again for the thick-headed. An atheist can be open to the possibility of god. And only once he tries to assert evidence of god could he be (under present appellation) referred to then as a theist. Belief with proof though is different to belief without proof.

So do we all as scientists (this is a science forum I might add, if you don't want to discuss within scientific context then bog-off quite frankly) define now theism as the assertion of god without testable evidence? And say that assertions of god with evidence are in fact science (and that god would then become a subject of study for science (so then study not praise, communication not reverance?)).

 

[SciWriter]

Atheists search the cosmos. Theists search the bible, koran and so on.

That's a good one, and a funny one.

 

[SciWriter]

Panthea, the greatest God there never was…

How to explain? She does what nature does. As a rose is still a rose by any other name, then so is a universe a universe the same.

 

[Rav]

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,

I don't see how any of that contradicts what I already quoted.

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.

There is only one substance in the universe. I don't see how you can interpret that to mean anything other than God and the universe are the same thing.

Why don't you just go and do a little more reading. Try here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

You are clearly failing to pick up on some of the important subtleties.

 

[SciWriter]

In my imagination…

“I am the so-called pantheistic God of nature, being one and the same with it—no different; although, that which has no difference is really not any different. Anyway, at least this is how the people awed by nature’s intricacy and beauty refer to me. I am only here in this nebulous vicinity because I don’t actually exist with certainty, but seem to some to be tautological with nature, always existent and beautific.”

“It’s OK, don’t worry about it.”

“Thank you, and welcome to reality.”

“You mean I’m back from all the other figmentations?”

“Well, at least you have one foot in it through, just as I seem to do.”

“I’m going, but why did humans invent the theistic and deistic Gods?”

“Man created them in his image’s inward glance because he was and is terrified of his insignificance, as well as from a fear of losing the beauty of his life’s instance.”

“So man just proudly declared that he was of special creation.”

“Yes.”

“Farewell and thank you for your insight.”

He called after me:

“Enjoy reality—it’s really a place that’s better. There’s nothing more beyond it. All comes from matter. You’re bioelectrochemical creatures—as organic and natural as anything else in nature. Consider this knowledge as the ultimate humility, if you will. Live life, love it—while you can, during your lucky incarnation from the evolving composites of the last 13.75 billions years. You are here. You have arrived.”

 

[wynn]

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

If you have not found God, then how can you make any claims about the nature of us finding God (and you do make such claims)?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't see how any of that contradicts what I already quoted.
There is only one substance in the universe. I don't see how you can interpret that to mean anything other than God and the universe are the same thing.

Why don't you just go and do a little more reading. Try here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

You are clearly failing to pick up on some of the important subtleties.

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.

You're making stuff up. It say's that God is the subtance of the universe,and
anything else is IN GOD.

If he meant God IS the universe, then what ELSE is there?

I think you're the one ''failing to pick up on some of the important subtleties.

jan.

 

[Rav]

If he meant God IS the universe, then what ELSE is there?

Nothing. That's the whole point. Visit the link and read. If I'm making stuff up, so are the people who contributed to the Wikipedia page, so are the people who created the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so is John Toland who wrote on the subject of Spinoza's philosophy and so is everyone else who has performed and in-depth analysis of his work.

I'm curious, too. What is your stake in this? What is it about Spinoza's conception of a naturalistic and impersonal God that you find so impossible to accept? It's not like you have to embrace it.

 

[wynn]

I'm curious, too. What is your stake in this? What is it about Spinoza's conception of a naturalistic and impersonal God that you find so impossible to accept? It's not like you have to embrace it.

Sulphur stinks, and most people do their best not to breathe it in.
Similar with conceptions of God that one finds inferior.

 

[universaldistress]

If you have not found God, then how can you make any claims about the nature of us finding God (and you do make such claims)?

Claims or suggestion of probabilities? We can juggle words around all day. Focus on one sentence and try to expose a minute flaw. Why not address the main issue at hand?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Nothing. That's the whole point.

He say's ''EVERYTHING ELSE''.
Do you understand what that means?

Visit the link and read. If I'm making stuff up, so are the people who contributed to the Wikipedia page, so are the people who created the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so isJohn Toland who wrote on the subject of Spinoza's philosophy and so is everyone else who has performed and in-depth analysis of his work.

I'm curious, too. What is your stake in this? What is it about Spinoza's conception of a naturalistic and impersonal God that you find so impossible to accept? It's not like you have to embrace it.

Well firstly, the concept is not natualistic, at least not in the sense you
speak of.
Secondly, there is concept of an impersonal aspect of God, is well documented in vedic literature. And was used in my conception of God in our last discourse.

jan.

 

[wynn]

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

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.

I do.

I think I can relate to UD's stance very well. He is basically coming from the perspective that only epistemic autonomy is what can bring reliable knowledge. Such a stance is not surprising, it has been hailed as the ideal for thousands of years.
Of course, any serious philosopher will make it very clear that epistemic autonomy is a pipe dream.

Like with MZBoy, I presume with UD, there is some heavy spiritual envy at work.
I'm not sure people can be talked out of that in any foreseeable time.
He might just have to rant until he runs out of steam ...

 

[universaldistress]

Atheists search the cosmos. Theists search the bible, koran and so on.

That's a good one, and a funny one.

Even more funny because it is true

 

[Rav]

He say's ''EVERYTHING ELSE''.
Do you understand what that means?

Everything else in the universe, Jan.

I'm bored of this now. Understand Spinoza's God, or don't. I'm not about to get into an endless debate with someone who refuses to educate themselves.

 

[universaldistress]

I do.

I think I can relate to UD's stance very well. He is basically coming from the perspective that only epistemic autonomy is what can bring reliable knowledge. Such a stance is not surprising, it has been hailed as the ideal for thousands of years.
Of course, any serious philosopher will make it very clear that epistemic autonomy is a pipe dream.

Like with MZBoy, I presume with UD, there is some heavy spiritual envy at work.
I'm not sure people can be talked out of that in any foreseeable time.
He might just have to rant until he runs out of steam ...

You suggest science is a rant lol. very lol. Will science run out of steam? I am only one of many. We will never desist as long as our findings/ideas work, are applicable. You will continue to spurn science's principles and yet still drive your cars, watch your tvs, talk crap or sense on your computers; all devices created by scientific principles. I think there is only one camp here that is going to run out, evolve out, die out, of steam.

I come from the view that reality and proven facts are paramount in understanding the universe, reality, infinity. Not fictions or sub-sets of spiritual mumbo-jumbo that have been purposefully constructed to manipulate the vulnerable.

I set the question in this thread. If you feel this is too narrow a playing field for your ideas to come through then why don't you start a thread that can achieve your aims?

Philosophy is, as I have stated before, a pursuit of any possibility. But this produces cognitive conjecture, no matter how interesting. I am not saying that philosophy or fringe science doesn't possess a theory that is correct. But they can't all be correct?

Science steps in to prove which theories are still relevant at whichever level presently attained.

Suchlike non-sensical babblings proffered to me here could cause any scientist to run out of steam, but only in his/her willingness to continue to participate pointing out the obvious to the unenlightened, uneducated, blind, ignoring envoys of a childlike state of humankind. Come on, it is time to grow up and wean yourself off the traditonal controlling malefactors.

Could you even present an argument that could make me suffer spiritual envy?

I lay down a challenge for anyone to try, I'm game.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I do.

Like with MZBoy, I presume with UD, there is some heavy spiritual envy at work.
I'm not sure people can be talked out of that in any foreseeable time.
He might just have to rant until he runs out of steam ...

I think you're right.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Everything else in the universe, Jan.

I'm bored of this now. Understand Spinoza's God, or don't. I'm not about to get into an endless debate with someone who refuses to educate themselves.

You can pretend to be as bored as much you like, but i'm gonna correct you anyway.

The quote is;

There is only one substance in the universe;

it is God;

and

everything else that IS,

IS in God.

jan.

 

[wynn]

You suggest science is a rant lol. very lol.

Learn to read.

Suchlike non-sensical babblings proffered to me here could cause any scientist to run out of steam, but only in his/her willingness to continue to participate pointing out the obvious to the unenlightened, uneducated, blind, ignoring envoys of a childlike state of humankind.

Ah, what messiahs you all are!

Could you even present an argument that could make me suffer spiritual envy?

Look inside an tell us what drives you.
If it is not the envy of the certainty you assume some people (theists in this case) have, then what is it?

It's not bad to have this kind of envy, mind you, the Buddhists would say this is a good kind of envy because it pushes you forward on the path. But one must be aware of it, lest it wreaks havoc.

 

[universaldistress]

Learn to read.





Ah, what messiahs you all are!




Look inside an tell us what drives you.
If it is not the envy of the certainty you assume some people (theists in this case) have, then what is it?

It's not bad to have this kind of envy, mind you, the Buddhists would say this is a good kind of envy because it pushes you forward on the path. But one must be aware of it, lest it wreaks havoc.

I offer science. You say I rant. You work it out, duh.

I do not need the comfort of religion to feel empowered

 

[Jan Ardena]

universaldistress,

Some atheists are open to the possibility that god exists. And you can be damned sure thatif it is proven then more hardline atheists will follow.

I've asked question regarding this illusory idea.
Can you answer them, or are you just going to keep on babbling?

Bearing in mind you are relying your argument on semantics, falsely I might add because you are just showing you do not understand the term 'atheist'. Are you ready for your lesson?

There is nothing to understand.
The idea of an atheist such as yourself being open to such possibility
is nothing more than an attempt to give the appearance of open-mindedness.
What you really want, are things on your own terms.
Prove this is not the case if you can.

"Atheist opinions will vary from absolute certainty that gods do not exist through various degrees of uncertainty to simple skepticsm.

The atheist opinion is God does not exist, you yourself prove that.
Talk is cheap, and I'm willing to bet you cannot demonstrate these various
degrees outside of that.

Typically when asked, an atheist will say they do not believe in the existence of gods. Many atheists will leave open the possibility that gods might exist providing appropriate evidence is provided."

There is no 'leaving open', you're just kidding yourself.
If your mind was open to the possibility
you would act, not talk.

Atheists are ever searching because they are open.

Open to what?
You attempt to close down every avenue.

Transcendental means what?

Outside the confines of matter.

Transcendental gods are usually defined as the creator of the universe? if an atheist discovers a creator of the universe then most if not all scripture is proved to be wrong (i have explained the ins and outs already, see above)

You've explained nothing.
You only think you have.

If an atheist discovers god

If an atheist discovers God, he is no longer an atheist.
To stand outside of God, and claim to know God or to have discovered God
is nothing but folly.
If you have within your imagination other ideas of what God is, or could be,
be my guest..

...then you could argue the assertion of gods existence would then make this person a theist after the fact, once he tries to assert.

Your talking nonsense.
Your idea of God is based on you being equal to God.
You will be prepared to accept anything as God, if it suits your small ideals.

This individual would have evidence. So this person would be a scientist.

He may be a scientist, he may be a glass collector. It makes no difference.

Would a new term be coined for the new TRUTH,

New truth?

or would theism as a concept be so severely shrunken that its appellation is of no regard anymore.

Wishful thinking.

This doesn't prove that it will not in all probability be an atheist who finds god though. That is what you are arguing against, and have failed to lucidly address.

An atheist will not find God, because an atheist has no interest in finding God. An atheist wants what he wants, and doesn't really know what to do beyond that.

Once again for the thick-headed. An atheist can be open to the possibility of god.

And once again for the ignorant.
An atheist is open to the possibility of a god that allows them to keep their
position of atheist. Hence an athiest is not open to the possibility of God.
When he becomes open to such a possibility, he is already a theist.

And only once he tries to assert evidence of god could he be (under present appellation) referred to then as a theist. Belief with proof though is different to belief without proof.

There is already evidence of God, that is why there are theists.
To assert that every single theists belief (from time immemorial), is the
product of blind-faith. And that they are all stupid people, is the very reason why you are atheist, and incredibly arogant.


The fact that you don't regard the evidence of God as evidence, or that you completely rubbish every scripture, and every commentary that has been left by great souls gone by. Is not my problem.

So do we all as scientists (this is a science forum I might add, if you don't want to discuss within scientific context then bog-off quite frankly) define now theism as the assertion of god without testable evidence?

Yes it is a science forum, but I don't see you setting an example.
I asked you some questions in my previous post, most of which you have ignored. Prove your scientific worthiness by going through them, answering them in a scientific context, instead of chatting a load of old bollox.

Don't be a hypocrite.

jan.