"Atheist proves god does exist"

[spidergoat]

That's pantheism, and it is, for all practical purposes, atheism.

 

[Enmos]

That's pantheism, and it is, for all practical purposes, atheism.

Yup. Naturalistic Pantheism

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

God didn't create the universe.

We aren't discussing whether or not God created the universe.
We are discussing that particular quote by Spinoza.

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.

But as I pointed out to you, that is not what he said.

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.

The same reason why the same mindset went all over the world destroying
belief systems, replacing it with their own. It has nothing to do with God, but everything to do with power.
The same thing is being perpatrated today, with science.
Times may have changed, but that negative human spirit remains changeless.

You seem to be of the belief, Jan, that Spinoza's God is essentially no different from your own.

You saw his quote, yet after being defeated, you decide to try another tactic to discredit me. Instead of moving onward and upward from that position, you decide to move sideways, to sidetrack. This is negative thinking.

This is, I suspect, the primary cause of your enthusiastic objections to what I am saying.

Let's not forget the quote.
Even if I am enthusiastic, it does not affect the particular object of my enthusiasm, namely, the quote.

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.

I've already done that, check my link to UD.

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.

Coming from someone who when given a meaning from the horses mouth, somehow or other still denies what is in front of his eyes.
It seems to me the reason why you don't inquire about my meaning is because it suits your position.
Meaning you can say things; like ''... from what I've seen you've always managed to be quite vague/non-specific.''

I'm not going to move further untill you acknowledge that quote for what it is.

jan.

 

[Rav]

We aren't discussing whether or not God created the universe. We are discussing that particular quote by Spinoza.

I mentioned that to help contextualize Spinoza's conception of God. There is a difference between a God who created the universe, and a God who is the fundamental deterministic system that is the universe.

But as I pointed out to you, that is not what he said.

He said what he said. It's you who has misinterpreted him. You're not just disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with a whole bunch of more notable people as I've previously pointed out.

The same reason why the same mindset went all over the world destroying
belief systems, replacing it with their own. It has nothing to do with God, but everything to do with power.
The same thing is being perpatrated today, with science.
Times may have changed, but that negative human spirit remains changeless.

You totally missed the point. Spinoza was branded a heretic and an atheist (by some) because his conception of God was radically different from that which had already been accepted by almost everyone else.

You saw his quote, yet after being defeated, you decide to try another tactic to discredit me. Instead of moving onward and upward from that position, you decide to move sideways, to sidetrack. This is negative thinking.

You see defeat because you are unable to recognize the bias which is responsible for your erroneous interpretation.

Also, how could an examination of your own beliefs "discredit" you?

I've already done that, check my link to UD.

I saw that. Like I said, it's very vague.

I'm not going to move further untill you acknowledge that quote for what it is.

Fine, stay rooted in your own ignorance. I still think that the reason this is so important to you is because you believe that Spinoza's God is the same as your own, which is clearly not the case.

 

[Jan Ardena]

universaldistress,

Tackled this point already but for the lazy:

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.

What is it exactly that these people lack belief in?
I myself do not believe in the Catholic, Christian, Islamic, institutes of religion. Does this mean I don't believe in God, or an idea of God demonstrated by particular institutions. Non-religious people aren't necessarily atheists.

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.

Believers in what?
The proffessional position of scientists, cannot believe or dis-believe.
IOW, they cannot make personal judgments to influence their profession.
The claim for God, IS, scriptural.
It, IS, outside of the physical realm.
Scientific study, CANNOT, comment on this due to it's definition.
Any attempt to bring the actuality of God into the study of the physical realm,
is an attempt to form a new concept of God, and create a NEW belief system.

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?

When these systems of factual information can explain to me the colour of green to the point where it is non different to my experience, or explain, the taste of chips and mushy peas, to the extent that it satifies my pallete. I will abandon my own experience. Until then, no chance.

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.

I have read it, and, we are discussing the lack of logical implications.

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?

Already dealt with it, pay attention;

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.

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.

You argue that science will discover ''god''.
And yet you discard the scripture which gives full description of God, thereby
discarding any theistic notion of God which agrees with it.

So you have set the field as to what is not to be accepted as God, while
stating that if ''god'' is to be found, it will be found by science.
When asked to define ''god'' you say it is a theists role. :shrug:

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.

So if scientists agree upon a finding; ''here is god'', we are to accept it, no matter what, because scientists have agreed.
You're argument is nonsensical.

God and science are self explanatory. Look in the dictionary

God;

supreme being: the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe, worshipped as the only god

science;

study of physical world: the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment

How the f--k can science be the medium that proves the existence of God?

We can't see atoms but are they there? Yes.

Because they are part of the physical world. :shrug:

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.

So you are presupposing that God would not need to be seen?
This is not science. According to you science goes where the evidence leads
and yet here you are making presuppositions.

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.

The fact is, you don't know what the f--k you're talking about.
A fact you have clearly demonstrated from your opening post.

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.

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?)

Are you omnipotent?
You must be to make such a statement as this.
Here is your logic in a nutshell;

God= does not exist.
Scripture= stuff written to fool people
Everything = what i think it is.
Conclusion= whatever you want it to be as long as it conincides with my ideal.

You're all mixed up.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

I mentioned that to help contextualize Spinoza's conception of God. There is a difference between a God who created the universe, and a God who is the fundamental deterministic system that is the universe.

Nevertheless, it is still surplus to requirements at this stage of the discussion.

He said what he said. It's you who has misinterpreted him. You're not just disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with a whole bunch of more notable people as I've previously pointed out.

I'm not misinterpreting him, I'm merely reading what is written.
How can I say that the quote means God IS the universe, when it states
that there is only one substance IN the universe which is God?

How do you see it, why you say it means God IS the universe?

You totally missed the point. Spinoza was branded a heretic and an atheist (by some) because his conception of God was radically different from that which had already been accepted by almost everyone else.

I don't think I've missed the point at all.
Jesus was also branded a heretic for the same reason.

You see defeat because you are unable to recognize the bias which is responsible for your erroneous interpretation.

Why is your interpretation correct, and mine erroneous?

Also, how could an examination of your own beliefs "discredit" you?

You didn't examine my beliefs.
If you look at my definition of God, you will notice that of the three energies,
two of them pertain to the the material world, and our interaction with it.
To me, this is what Spinoza is confronting. An aspect, or aspects, of the Supreme Being.

Spinoza's work may have been a big revolution in the west, but, not really of any big interest in the east, as the impersonal aspect of God is, as I said, well documented.

I saw that. Like I said, it's very vague.

Why?

Fine, stay rooted in your own ignorance. I still think that the reason this is so important to you is because you believe that Spinoza's God is the same as your own, which is clearly not the case.

Why do you believe that Spinoza was a pantheist, in that, he believed that
God IS the universe, and the universe IS God. Despite other minds, views on the subject?

jan.

 

[universaldistress]

That's pantheism, and it is, for all practical purposes, atheism.

Yup. Naturalistic Pantheism

I would go along with their assertion. Did you miss this jan?:

Originally posted by jan

“
God is complete reality.
”
(universaldistress: Physical.)


“
This reality is comprised of His energies which are:
consciouness (spiritual)
”
(universaldistress: Consciousness is a physical mode.)


“
marginal (spiritual mixed with physical)
”
(universaldistress: Physical.)


“
physical (mundane).
”
(universaldistress: 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.
”

Universaldistress: 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.)

Ever met any persons who aren't physical? Your god (if you can call it that) IS PHYSICAL. And therefore discoverable. Spiritual feelings reside in the brain.


uni

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.

Jan

Believers in what?
The proffessional position of scientists, cannot believe or dis-believe.
IOW, they cannot make personal judgments to influence their profession.

AND?

The claim for God, IS, scriptural.
It, IS, outside of the physical realm.
Scientific study, CANNOT, comment on this due to it's definition.

I am.

Any attempt to bring the actuality of God into the study of the physical realm,
is an attempt to form a new concept of God, and create a NEW belief system.

Balls. Scientists just acquire and evaluate evidence. Anything proven to exist is a subject of science. You still not got that?

You have already shown me your god. And I have ascertained your god is physical. Reality is physical. Your god is reality. Your god is physical.

Just because you want there to be something beyond the physical doesnt mean there is (delusion). All evidence points to the universe being a physical realm. No evidence points to anything beyond the physical so therefore 'scientifically' beyond-physical doesn't exist.

I can say there is a tiger over there, but if it isn't there it isn't there. If anyone sees it when it isn't there then it doesn't mean it is there it just means that person is hallucinating/delusional. And that they have succumbed to my ruse. Probably one I have purposefully directed at individuals succeptible to delusion (like you).

How can you blindly believe without any scientific evidence?

Every thought that has ever been has been undertaken within the mind. The claim for god maybe scriptural but it is conceived of in the mind (physical) recorded in a book/computer (physical) and held in the memories of the mind (physical). Can you give me some evidence to prove that human perceptions are not held within the physical structures of the brain? New imaging techniques of the brain are proving that all visual processing goes on in the mind. In fact images of the thoughts of people can be extracted and this technology is getting better. It has been noted in studies that even religious feelings are operated within the brain. So 'god' isn't working outside of the physical with ones mumbo jumbo non existent aura lol.

When these systems of factual information can explain to me the colour of green to the point where it is non different to my experience, or explain, the taste of chips and mushy peas, to the extent that it satifies my pallete. I will abandon my own experience. Until then, no chance.

Delusional vocab too.

I have read it, and, we are discussing the lack of logical implications.

We are discussing the fact you believe in something unproven, with no evidence, that supposedly exists in an illusory concept beyond physical (illogical).


Jan

You argue that science will discover ''god''.

No I do not. Pay attention:

uni OP

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

Jan

And yet you discard the scripture which gives full description of God, thereby
discarding any theistic notion of God which agrees with it.

Theistic scripture is made up. Each religion has different definitions so they are all wrong except maybe one (I have already stated this but you seem to keep going back please see above again)

Jan

So you have set the field as to what is not to be accepted as God,

No, I have said evidence of god is needed for proving he exists. There is no beyond the physical field, can you prove there is?

I have asked you to present evidence which you haven't done. Or logical workings for your assertion beyond-physical exists, which you haven't.

I have simply said that to find god one must look at physical evidence. And that nothing exists outside of physical. Science supports me. Mumbo jumbo doesn't support you because it can't. Your god is physical anyway lol.

stating that if ''god'' is to be found, it will be found by science.
When asked to define ''god'' you say it is a theists role. :shrug:

Theists define (make up a story) god. Scientists prove things are real (you are still just ignoring my points and going back to the same rubbish because you have no logical defence to your claims).

Is god real? Is reality physical.

Scientists do not totally believe their conjectures until they are proven. They acquire evidence and prove. You just believe a proffered conjecture of someone else (or your own mind) and treat it as if it were reality or truth. Can you please explain to me the logic of that??

I think you may have some serious problems with holding onto information. I address your concerns but you just ignore mine and return to flawed arguments which are not cutting it logically (endemic religious mindset).

So if scientists agree upon a finding; ''here is god'', we are to accept it, no matter what, because scientists have agreed.

If god is proven to exist using scientific method then there will always be dullards who wish to say something like "that isn't my god"

How the f--k can science be the medium that proves the existence of God?

Your god is physical, so easily I would think lol. (again this is already covered)

So you are presupposing that God would not need to be seen?
This is not science. According to you science goes where the evidence leads
and yet here you are making presuppositions.

This statement is totally monkey nuts! I have already said that things do not need to be seen to be real. Was the discovery of atoms (in my last post) not science. Oh my you are a bit slow today. You do not have any kind of handle on the scientific process do you?

The fact is, you don't know what the f--k you're talking about.
A fact you have clearly demonstrated from your opening post.

You clearly are at odds with what you believe god is. Your god is a physical one.

My propostion of an atheist finding god is much more likely than, god existing outside of the physical lol (which your belief disagrees with I might add).

Are you omnipotent?
You must be to make such a statement as this.
Here is your logic in a nutshell;

I can't say yes, you may start praising me.

God= does not exist.
Scripture= stuff written to fool people
Everything = what i think it is.
Conclusion= whatever you want it to be as long as it conincides with my ideal.

When did I say god does not exist? Making these kinds of judgements does nothing for your argument at all (though I suppose you don't have an argument anyway. Well only one that relies on an imaginary realm of spiritual poppycock.)

You're all mixed up.

You are delusional.

Fictional beliefs, combined with perceptions of reality, made into a lifestyle = evidence for insanity.

Are you trying to prove blind faith as a scientific principle? You are not going to succeed in that pursuit here methinks.

 

[Jan Ardena]

UD,

When these systems of factual information can explain to me the colour of green to the point where it is non different to my experience, or explain, the taste of chips and mushy peas, to the extent that it satifies my pallete. I will abandon my own experience. Until then, no chance.

Delusional vocab too.

Why? LOL!!

jan.

 

[universaldistress]

I was referring to the interpretation of the word 'Atheist' thing.

 

[universaldistress]

originally posted by Jan on:What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

Okay, God is physical, if it makes you feel better.

You said god is energy and Rav said energy is physical so you said the above.

Gotcha LOL!!!

 

[Jan Ardena]

originally posted by Jan on:What are the conflicts between atheism and science?


You said god is energy and Rav said energy is physical so you said the above.

Gotcha LOL!!!

UD, what IS consciousness?

jan.

 

[universaldistress]

UD, what IS consciousness?

jan.

From an encyc. or my take?

 

[Jan Ardena]

From an encyc. or my take?

your take.

jan.

 

[universaldistress]

let me get back to you tomorrow 'cause it's too late (defo will )

 

[Rav]

Why do you believe that Spinoza was a pantheist, in that, he believed that God IS the universe, and the universe IS God. Despite other minds, views on the subject?

Spinoza wasn't an atheist. He also wasn't a naturalistic pantheist. There is some dispute, however, over whether or not he was a pantheist or a panentheist. So let's have a quick look at some of the information that is out there:

Spinoza's metaphysics consists of one thing, substance, and its modifications (modes). Early in The Ethics Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. He calls this substance "God", or "Nature". In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in the Latin the phrase he uses is "Deus sive Natura"). For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or, what's the same, Nature, and its modifications (modes).

He contended that everything that exists in Nature (i.e., everything in the Universe) is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "that which stands beneath" rather than "matter") that is the basis of the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect is understood only in part.

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.

Within the context established above, let's look again at the quote you've latched on to:

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 have to understand that although Spinoza didn't view God as if he was material, or corporeal in nature, he also didn't believe that God was ontologically distinct from nature. There is no dualism in Spinoza's metaphysics. He believed that everything that exists is made from one substance. The only leap that is made beyond this is the abstract philosophical conception of God as being the deterministic system from which the laws of nature derive. This is similar to saying that God is the laws of physics.

With that in mind, examine the quote again.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Spinoza wasn't an atheist. He also wasn't a naturalistic pantheist. There is some dispute, however, over whether or not he was a pantheist or a panentheist. So let's have a quick look at some of the information that is out there:

Within the context established above, let's look again at the quote you've latched on to:



You have to understand that although Spinoza didn't view God as if he was material, or corporeal in nature, he also didn't believe that God was ontologically distinct from nature. There is no dualism in Spinoza's metaphysics. He believed that everything that exists is made from one substance. The only leap that is made beyond this is the abstract philosophical conception of God as being the deterministic system from which the laws of nature derive. This is similar to saying that God is the laws of physics.

With that in mind, examine the quote again.

Spinoza's concept, as i said, is not new.
He is basically refering to 'Brahman' realization.
This is one aspect of realization of the Absolute Truth, and was included
in my overall definition of God. Allbeit everso cruedelly.



''Not only is Brahman seen as the basis of all that exists in the universe and the fabric of all being, but also mysteriously described as permeating all of non-being as well. Even the human soul in Hinduism, or atman, is widely believed to be connected to, or identical with, Brahman by many followers of Vedanta. While this notion is first touched upon in the Vedas, it was subsequently developed in detail within the Upanishads, the culmination of the Vedic texts.''

also;

Everything we see/perceive IS Atman or Brahman.


also;


''...This is the case because Brahman does not refer to the anthropomorphic concept of God of the Abrahamic religions. When we speak of Brahman, we are referring neither to the "old man in the sky" concept, nor to the idea of the Absolute as even capable of being vengeful, fearful or...''


also;


By this understanding, Brahman is not exactly God in the Christian context, but is more the "nature of God." Within God all of existence resides as "part and partial of the Whole." This works well with verses like Psalms 82:6 and John 10:34. God is eternally the same and the creation is eternally the same, and yet while all of creation exists within God, God is in no way reduced by the creation.

These definitions represent just the tip of the iceberg.
And Spinoza was just commentary, from his environment.


But apart from all that;

Why don't you actually respond to my questions?

jan.

 

[Rav]

Spinoza's concept, as i said, is not new.
He is basically refering to 'Brahman' realization.

I'm reasonably well versed on such things myself. But we're talking specifically about Spinoza, aren't we? Although an exploration of eastern ideas about God may be useful in characterizing those of Spinoza, it is improper to treat them as a definition.

Why don't you actually respond to my questions?

Often I choose to address what I feel are the comments most relevant to the discussion at hand, which at this point is Spinoza's metaphysics. With that in mind, which important questions did I miss?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

These are all in post 106.

I'm not misinterpreting him, I'm merely reading what is written.
How can I say that the quote means God IS the universe, when it states
that there is only one substance IN the universe which is God?

How do you see it, why you say it means God IS the universe?

Why is your interpretation correct, and mine erroneous?


They are relevant to me, which is why I asked them.

jan.

 

[SciWriter]

Brahman, as a supposedly real and fundamental, dreaming Being, cannot exist, for the First cannot be complex. Ultimate Complexity comes way later, if ever. Believers are looking in the wrong direction.

Nor is all Consciousness, for then why did senses evolve if there is nothing out there to take in, it all being merely for show, such as in a night dream.

 

[Rav]

Why is your interpretation correct, and mine erroneous?

I answered every question except this one.

Like I said earlier, my interpretation is based in no small part on the insight offered by others who have examined Spinoza's metaphysics. But I didn't just take their word for it, I examined a lot of what Spinoza said himself and drew the same conclusions. I can offer no explanation for why your own interpretation is erroneous other than the possible fact that you have some kind of vested interest in interpreting him differently.