"Atheist proves god does exist"

[universaldistress]

I don't even want to entertain your nonsensical babblings with a response. You frequently ignore my explanations and reassert the same claptrap.

Your core attack directed with the idea scientists discovering god then becoming theists -when they would in fact clearly remain scientists- has been successfully routed. Now I see you have nothing left of substance with not one utterance of a logical proffering.

You even quarrel with the definition guidelines set down by the moderators of this forum and the contexts they choose for terminology for this board. Are there no lows you will not drop to?

Don't attack the messenger, attack the topic in a scientific, coherent way (sciforums.com)

If not believing god exists is narrow minded then I am happy to be it lol.

Scientific avenues are open. Mumbo jumbo bullshit is offbounds on a science forum?

"tran·scen·den·tal
   /ˌtrænsɛnˈdɛntl, -sən-/ Show Spelled[tran-sen-den-tl, -suhn-] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
transcendent, surpassing, or superior.
2.
being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; supernatural.
3.
abstract or metaphysical.
4.
idealistic, lofty, or extravagant.
5.
Philosophy .
a.
beyond the contingent and accidental in human experience, but not beyond all human knowledge. Compare transcendent ( def. 4b ) .
b.
pertaining to certain theories, etc., explaining what is objective as the contribution of the mind.
c.
Kantianism . of, pertaining to, based upon, or concerned with a priori elements in experience, which condition human knowledge. Compare transcendent ( def. 4b ) . "

""If you have within your imagination other ideas of what God is, or could be,
be my guest..""

I do actually. Something that could blow the whole thing open. But I wouldn't leak it to religious types as they would just use it to manipulate.

Not ideals. SCIENCE.

""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.""

Already addressed this point. You are very good at ignoring a opposing point, does it take practice?

I made points and you made points. I counter your points but you ask me to make new ones when I have already made the relevant ones which you have chosen to ignore. Weak. Look to your own ability to win a debate . . .

Hypothetically: When god is real and not imaginary he will be a subject of science and not theism.

Can you give me evidence of god please because I am all out. Your stance is ridiculous.

Your questing is totally illogical and any scientist would be unable to engage in this talking for talkings sake.

The only question you offered in your last post that I haven't already addressed in this thread is this one:

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

If you define god as being beyond physical. Let me explain something to you. Everything is anchored in the physical. That is SCIENCE. That is what we are here to address. Infinity is a physical existence. If you look to an imaginary mode of existence to explain the universe then atoms may as well all be pink elephants.

Hence you are the one outside of science. My argument is firmly rooted in science so your closing claims are again non-sensical.

 

[universaldistress]

Why don't you address my foremost points instead of going back down the stream of the argument to previously resolved points.

Does she do this often guys??

 

[universaldistress]

Ok Jan

I'll throw you a line. Can you concisely explain the nature of the god you believe in? I would be interested to know what you vehemently argue to uphold.

I am opening up.

Why do you believe god isn't physical, and how does that work within the universe, and what evidence do you have to support your view? If your god is non-physical how does he manipulate the universe (if he does (please excuse my use of the term 'he'))

 

[Kellisness]

You're not opening up. You're a liar.

 

[universaldistress]

You're not opening up. You're a liar.

Interesting assertion lol


Is this flaming?

 

[Kellisness]

No.

 

[universaldistress]

No.

I believe claiming I am a liar to goad a response, with no evidence IS flaming.

You would do well to not do it again or I may have to report it :deal:

 

[Kellisness]

All of a sudden, I don't think you're a liar any more. But you're not opening up even though you said you are. Some would say you're a liar but I wouldn't. Please don't ask me how that can be because if I tell you, you may report me.

 

[universaldistress]

All of a sudden, I don't think you're a liar any more. But you're not opening up even though you said you are. Some would say you're a liar but I wouldn't. Please don't ask me how that can be because if I tell you, you may report me.

The fact you retract the deed doesn't mean it wasn't enacted.

I am willing to hear and consider Jan's response.

You are lucky I was only joking . . . gotcha! If one continually pisses into the wind, one gets wet lol. Best not do it again anyway

 

[Kellisness]

I'll do whatever I like. Only joking. Maybe.

 

[universaldistress]

I'll do whatever I like. Only joking. Maybe.

Definitely maybe.

 

[Rav]

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.

God didn't create the universe. The universe is God. God is the universe. The universe is defined as the totality of all that exists. God and nature are the same thing, and everything that exists, exists within nature.

I wonder why you believe that Spinoza even bothered to open his mouth, or why he was branded by some as a heretic, or even an atheist (a somewhat serious charge at the time) if he was simply proposing the same conception of God that most people already believed in.

You seem to be of the belief, Jan, that Spinoza's God is essentially no different from your own. This is, I suspect, the primary cause of your enthusiastic objections to what I am saying. One way to resolve this would be for you to lay your own beliefs on the table for us to examine and compare to those of Spinoza. You may believe that you have already done this in previous discussions, but from what I've seen you've always managed to be quite vague/non-specific.

 

[SciWriter]

Panthea, the greatest God there never was, for she does but what nature does…

 

[Jan Ardena]

universaldistress,

I don't even want to entertain your nonsensical babblings with a response. You frequently ignore my explanations and reassert the same claptrap.

LOL!! You're looking for a fight, aren't you?

Your core attack directed with the idea scientists discovering god then becoming theists -when they would in fact clearly remain scientists- has been successfully routed. Now I see you have nothing left of substance with not one utterance of a logical proffering.

What are we discussing here, atheists, or scientists?
Or are you asserting that scientists and atheists are the same? :shrug:

You even quarrel with the definition guidelines set down by the moderators of this forum and the contexts they choose for terminology for this board. Are there no lows you will not drop to?

I see and understand those guidlines, but in the field I experience something
different. I'll go with my experience everytime.
Bear in mind, the guidelines are set by atheists, who are not sympathetic (to say the least) to my position.

Don't attack the messenger, attack the topic in a scientific, coherent way (sciforums.com)

Then put foreward a premise, complete with definitions and boundaries.
I will happily comply.
At present you are nowhere.

If not believing god exists is narrow minded then I am happy to be it lol.

''Believing'' is more of a word than the dictionary definition implies.

Scientific avenues are open. Mumbo jumbo bullshit is offbounds on a science forum?

Good.
Then apply it.

"tran·scen·den·tal
   /ˌtrænsɛnˈdɛntl, -sən-/ Show Spelled[tran-sen-den-tl, -suhn-] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
transcendent, surpassing, or superior.
2.
being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; supernatural.
3.
abstract or metaphysical.
4.
idealistic, lofty, or extravagant.
5.
Philosophy .
a.
beyond the contingent and accidental in human experience, but not beyond all human knowledge. Compare transcendent ( def. 4b ) .
b.
pertaining to certain theories, etc., explaining what is objective as the contribution of the mind.
c.
Kantianism . of, pertaining to, based upon, or concerned with a priori elements in experience, which condition human knowledge. Compare transcendent ( def. 4b ) . "

You forgot to add what it means when applied to God.
Good job I covered it heh!

""If you have within your imagination other ideas of what God is, or could be,
be my guest..""

I do actually. Something that could blow the whole thing open. But I wouldn't leak it to religious types as they would just use it to manipulate.

Right now, you need to say it, otherwise this whole thread is a futile exercise.

""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.""

Already addressed this point. You are very good at ignoring a opposing point, does it take practice?

It could be your presentation;

When you want to quote someone, highlight the portion you wish to quote,
then press the little paper-script thingy, next to the little picture with mountains, underneath to right blue return arrow, and the section will have quote marks around it. If you wish to say who the quote is by the put '=' then the name, after the front quote (

.

This way your posts will be easier to grasp.
If you already know this then forget what I just said. I am merely trying
to help you.

What?
I can kick your sorry-ass butt, and help you at the same time.

Hypothetically: When god is real and not imaginary he will be a subject of science and not theism.

I refuse to go any further unless you define ''god'' and ''science''.

Can you give me evidence of god please because I am all out. Your stance is ridiculous.

Since when did this thread become about giving evidence of ''god''?
But then again, what else have you got as armoury.

'' I can't see God with my eyes, so God doesn't exist''

That's all you've got.

Your questing is totally illogical and any scientist would be unable to engage in this talking for talkings sake.

Not in pop-science, I agree.
Then again I'm not interested in ''pop'', music, fashion, mags, anyways.
I grew out of that when I became an adult.

The only question you offered in your last post that I haven't already addressed in this thread is this one:

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

If you define god as being beyond physical. Let me explain something to you. Everything is anchored in the physical. That is SCIENCE.

Let me correct you on that. Science (natural) deals with the physical.

That is what we are here to address. Infinity is a physical existence. If you look to an imaginary mode of existence to explain the universe then atoms may as well all be pink elephants.

Interesting.
Please expand upon that.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ok Jan

I'll throw you a line. Can you concisely explain the nature of the god you believe in? I would be interested to know what you vehemently argue to uphold.

I am opening up.

Why do you believe god isn't physical, and how does that work within the universe, and what evidence do you have to support your view? If your god is non-physical how does he manipulate the universe (if he does (please excuse my use of the term 'he'))

Here.

jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

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 certainly hope the to-be pre-eminent atheist includes an explanation of how science is capable of contextualizing the claim for god's existence in his thesis ... I mean heaven forbid if he is only preaching to the converted ...

 

[SciWriter]

Jan's faulty dictionary has 'believe' wrong and 'science' not in it.

 

[universaldistress]

I certainly hope the to-be pre-eminent atheist includes an explanation of how science is capable of contextualizing the claim for god's existence in his thesis ... I mean heaven forbid if he is only preaching to the converted ...

My idea of any possible god would remain theory/fiction until anyone could prove its validity. I am aware that my theories on infinity and a possible creative force are not proven, so I do not assert them as fact or even scientific. Maybe fringe scientific, with predominantly untestable components. It is called philosophy I believe.

universaldistress,

What are we discussing here, atheists, or scientists?
Or are you asserting that scientists and atheists are the same? :shrug

Tackled this point already but for the lazy:

universaldistress

In Britain (as an example) there are a darn sight more people who don't believe than who do. And within the sciences I would say that the percentage is higher still. So if discovery of evidence of god is a fringe thing, which is suggested by traditional religions total lack of scientific (find the truth) evidence. Then it holds that science pushing outwards or inwards will be the source of discovery.

You can't argue with the fact most scientists are not believers, but either hardline atheists or atheists open to the possibility of god. The latter I might add is my stance.

I see and understand those guidlines, but in the field I experience something
different. I'll go with my experience everytime.
Bear in mind, the guidelines are set by atheists, who are not sympathetic (to say the least) to my position.

wiki tows the same line, my cambridge paperback encyc. tows the same line. Why can't you relent and use the universally agreed upon terminology? Is this a symptom of a stubborn ignore the facts outlook?

Then put foreward a premise, complete with definitions and boundaries.
I will happily comply.
At present you are nowhere.

If you had read this whole thread, which you clearly haven't -or are choosing to ignore the context established- then you would be aware of the OP and its logical implications.

You forgot to add what it means when applied to God.
Good job I covered it heh!

Did you not mean a metaphysical god? Transcendental could be attributed to a physical being having transcended, transcending, or could transcend to a godlike state?

Right now, you need to say it, otherwise this whole thread is a futile exercise.

I am sorry but this is a massive flaw in your approach. This threads validity isn't contingent on my conjecturalising on the possible form any god might take (not to say I won't reveal it in the future, if i see fit.) It is a theist's role to define god, not a scientist's. Scientists just interpret evidence. If the evidence leads to god then a scientist will need to define god according to restrictions of the evidence. Get it. Of course I could have a theory but that isn't relevant to the suggestion an atheist will find god.

It could be your presentation;

I don't think so. Read the thread through. You can read? or are you using the force to understand me?

What?
I can kick your sorry-ass butt, and help you at the same time. )

Only one ass being kicked here honey All my posts are understandable to someone who can read. Is this a considered counter to my OP?

I refuse to go any further unless you define ''god'' and ''science''.

God and science are self explanatory. Look in the dictionary


Jan

Since when did this thread become about giving evidence of ''god''?
But then again, what else have you got as armoury.

Since you said this duh! :

Jan

There is already evidence of God, that is why there are theists.

You didn't want me to counter this? So why did you assert it?


Jan

'' I can't see God with my eyes, so God doesn't exist''

That's all you've got.

We can't see atoms but are they there? Yes. By running a small metallic needle (comb or something) over silicon we measured the movements and realised atoms are real. It is called an 'experiment'. Through experiments god wouldn't need to be seen. Evidence can be acquired and then one can make a sound judgement. I thought 10 year olds had a reasonable grasp of the basics of science.

Not in pop-science, I agree.
Then again I'm not interested in ''pop'', music, fashion, mags, anyways.
I grew out of that when I became an adult.

Pop science. that sounds wonderful. Fact is you have a very limited grasp of any core qualities any scientist needs to reach any thing near logical conclusions.

uni

If you define god as being beyond physical. Let me explain something to you. Everything is anchored in the physical. That is SCIENCE.

Jan

Let me correct you on that. Science (natural) deals with the physical.

Everything is anchored in the physical. That is what science proves (is that more clear for you? Why focus on such fickle points when the real issue you leave insufficiently addressed?)

Interesting.
Please expand upon that.

Maybe I will one day. It isn't relevant to this debate, though I know you really wan't to know. If you want to get closer to my idea you should read my last thread.

Your argument is illogically contingent on on a definition of god being established. I am a scientist not a theist. It is a scientists job to acquire and interpret evidence. Then base theories around this. Not blindly believe in a definition. If you want to offer your definition as an argument buoyed by evidence and use this to disprove the notion that an atheist is more likely to discover god than a theist then be my guest. I have asserted my defence to my suggestion. I am a scientist. I do not have a definition (definitive one) of god as such. I do have an imagination, but any fictions I may harbour have no relevance to THIS discussion.

I did not ask if it is possible to find god, simply suggested that if he is discovered chances are (statistically) it will be an atheist. And I have built an argumnet to support this. All you have done is tried to subvert this thread to your own ends, namely extracting a definition of god from an unbeliever.

My presentment isn't contingent on this definition crossing my lips so why would I entertain the notion. It is rather naive of you to try and extract a fiction from me in a erroneous besmirchment via miasmal corollaries. Your argument is patently an unsifted approach you have probably had success with in the past. A wholesale fudging preceding attempted subjugation incorporating techniques more fitted to a 'wind-up party' than a serious logical debate.


Originally posted by Jan

God is complete reality.

Physical.

This reality is comprised of His energies which are:
consciouness (spiritual)

Consciousness is a physical mode.

marginal (spiritual mixed with physical)

Physical.

physical (mundane).

Physical (yes this is very mundane)

He is eternal, He is a person, He has innumerable forms, and names.
He is cause/source of the material worlds.

So according to this god IS physical. And therefore your belief is in line with my OP suggestion. What will happen when consciousness is cracked by scientists and proved to be purely physical? (possibly deeper than we thought, maybe quantum? Maybe then theists will try to come up with a scientific approach to a creator? But what will that spell for your belief? We will see.)

Do conscious dogs/bitches go to heaven with their owner's faith?

 

[universaldistress]

Science seeks to (know) uncover the secrets of the universe and its formation. God IS the universe or created it, so therefore scientists in a broad sense are always looking for god/lack of god/truth.

Go figure. . .

 

[Enmos]

Science seeks to (know) uncover the secrets of the universe and its formation. God IS the universe or created it, so therefore scientists in a broad sense are always looking for god/lack of god/truth.

Go figure. . .

I don't think a lot of atheists would object to the usage of the word 'God' as a synonym for 'Universe'.