On what God is

[water]

On what God is


I keep getting things like this when asking about God:


Thinking something imaginary is a certainty,
is simply irrational.

or

God is a product of imagination,
therefore God doesn't exist.


Those are not valid arguments.

If one defines something as "imaginary", then it surely is irrational to believe in that.
But on what basis can one define God as imaginary?
Where is the compelling evidence that says that God is imaginary?

Also, the many ways of saying "God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist" are circular.

If one thinks something is irrational: How can one rationally prove that something is irrational?

Next, if one, *in advance*, define something as "nonexistent" or "imaginary" then NO scientific quest can come up with findings contrary to that definition.

One cannot find something that one has in advance defined as nonexistent.


So why do people use those circular arguments anyway??

 

[duendy]

On what God is


I keep getting things like this when asking about God:


Thinking something mimaginary is a certainty,
is simply irrational.

or

God is a product of imagination,
therefore God doesn't exist.


Those are not valid arguments.

If one defines something as "imaginary", then it surely is irrational to believe in that.
But on what basis can one define God as imaginary?
Where is the compelling evidence that says that God is imaginary?

D~~If you mean 'God' as has been invented by the patriarchy to justify their oppressive manipulation of women, Nature and others, then you CAN find it is imaginary if you research about all that.

Also, the many ways of saying "God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist" are circular.

If one thinks something is irrational: How can one rationally prove that something is irrational?

D~~we are a continuum which includes potential for chaotic ecstasy, and logtical analysis. due to the patriarchal doctrines which have 'divided' 'logic' from 'instinct/intuition' many are believing they are in conflict between these two modes. but that in reality is not true. you CAN see what is irrational

for example. one of the tricks of patriarchy to coopt power over--over women and Nature, was to have--in mythology--men/gods BIRTH like women. do you not agree that is irrational? And propigate beliefs that our 'spirits' are trapped in Nature. is that not irrational?
And that 'God' is 'all-good' and will eventually conquer 'evil'.what about that? do you see that idea as irrational, using your logic and insight to explore about it?

Next, if one, *in advance*, define something as "nonexistent" or "imaginary" then NO scientific quest can come up with findings contrary to that definition.

One cannot find something that one has in advance defined as nonexistent.


So why do people use those circular arguments anyway??

'science' as it is being accepted--mainstream science, has no regard for anything it can't measure. so 'spirit' is dismissed. all this can be learnt about logically. how science came to be as a reaction against the Church's 'age of superstition...how it eventually 'throws out 'God'...then becomes totally mechanistic, seeing Nature and animals, and humans as mere machines. Machines to be manipulated

 

[pavlosmarcos]

But on what basis can one define God as imaginary?
Where is the compelling evidence that says that God is imaginary?

not being carporeal, not being seen/touched,tasted,heard,smelt.
if you know another way then please: enlighten us. have you source material, please share it thank you.

taken from xians are hypocrites
posted by misty.



The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.



sinbad


we are waiting in anticipation.

 

[the preacher]

into the realms of fantasy, we go.

If one defines something as "imaginary", then it surely is irrational to believe in that.
But on what basis can one define santa as imaginary?
Where is the compelling evidence that says that santa is imaginary?

Also, the many ways of saying "santa doesn't exist because santa doesn't exist" are circular.

If one thinks something is irrational: How can one rationally prove that something is irrational?

Next, if one, *in advance*, define something as "nonexistent" or "imaginary" then NO scientific quest can come up with findings contrary to that definition.

One cannot find something that one has in advance defined as nonexistent.


So why do people use those circular arguments anyway??

the word god replace by me.

you could argue the same for santa, the tooth fairy, tinka bell, the easter bunnie, I think a lot more people would prefer these fantasy figures, there sweeter.

 

[duendy]

into the realms of fantasy, we go.the word god replace by me.

D---ok, let's ratio-nalize that

-'God' = 'me'

from therer i would use reason to inquire what Is this 'quantity' (cause science deals with quantities, not qualities) 'God'? what does it mean. Then ask, what is this 'me', and what does It mean
like, are you saying 'all there IS is me'? or that I am now omnipotent? so you must explain further what you mean by replacing 'God' with 'me'. we need to understand those terms more fully for us to reason-ably understand what you mean

you could argue the same for santa, the tooth fairy, tinka bell, the easter bunnie, I think a lot more people would prefer these fantasy figures, there sweeter.

same with 'santa', 'the tooth fairy', 'the easter bunny'..SURELY we must use our reason to explore,
what these terms mean,
where they originated from.
and how they relate to irrationality

 

[water]

not being carporeal, not being seen/touched,tasted,heard,smelt.
if you know another way then please: enlighten us. have you source material, please share it thank you.

taken from xians are hypocrites
posted by misty.


The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist
/.../

We have no operational obligatory definition of God.
As such, I don't see how either claims that God exists, nor claims that God does not exist can be made.

As for God supposedly not being corporeal, not being seen, touched, tasted, heard, smelt. This implies the definition that only things that can be seen, touched, tasted, heard, smelt exist.

"Love", "friendship", "abstraction", "hate", "metacognition", "transcendent" and so on cannot be seen, touched, tasted, heard, smelt. Yes people will tell you that they exist! How then?

Because we are capable of abstraction and inference.

For example, "love" or "hate" or "metacognition" cannot be seen, touched, smelt, heard, tasted. From a certain perception of certain phenomena that can be seen, touched, smelt, heard, tasted, we then INFER that that thing is to be called "love" or "hate" or "metacognition".

The same way, God can be inferred and a definition attempted.


Evolution also cannot be seen, smelt, heard, tasted, touched directly: evolution is something that is *inferred* from what can be seen, smelt, heard, tasted, touched.

* * *

D~~If you mean 'God' as has been invented by the patriarchy to justify their oppressive manipulation of women, Nature and others, then you CAN find it is imaginary if you research about all that.

In this case, the argument would be against religious tradition not against God.
I think we can all agree that God and religious tradition are not the same. Hence arguments against religious traditon don't necessarily say something about God.

And that 'God' is 'all-good' and will eventually conquer 'evil'.what about that? do you see that idea as irrational, using your logic and insight to explore about it?

This once more all depends on the definition of God. If we don't have a definition, we can't talk about God being "all-good" or "conquering evil". If we don't have a definition, talking about those things is beyond our scope.


* * *

the word god replace by me.

you could argue the same for santa, the tooth fairy, tinka bell, the easter bunnie

Well, yes ... if you define something as imaginary and worthless, then to you, no matter what anyone says, it will remain imaginary and worthless. Some scientist you are.

 

[duendy]

We have no operational obligatory definition of God.
As such, I don't see how either claims that God exists, nor claims that God does not exist can be made.

As for God supposedly not being corporeal, not being seen, touched, tasted, heard, smelt. This implies the definition that only things that can be seen, touched, tasted, heard, smelt exist.

D--also read this which is very relevant:
"Galileo's program offers us a dead world. Out go sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell, and along with them have since gone esthetic and ethical sensibility, values, quality, soul, and consciousness, spirit. Experience as such is cast out of the realm of scientific discourse. Hardly anything has changed our world more during the last four hundred years than Galileo's
audacious program. We had to destroy the world in theory before we could destroy it in practice." (R.D. Laing, quoted in The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter, by Fritjof Capra)

"Love", "friendship", "abstraction", "hate", "metacognition", "transcendent" and so on cannot be seen, touched, tasted, heard, smelt. Yes people will tell you that they exist! How then?

Because we are capable of abstraction and inference.

For example, "love" or "hate" or "metacognition" cannot be seen, touched, smelt, heard, tasted. From a certain perception of certain phenomena that can be seen, touched, smelt, heard, tasted, we then INFER that that thing is to be called "love" or "hate" or "metacognition".

The same way, God can be inferred and a definition attempted.


Evolution also cannot be seen, smelt, heard, tasted, touched directly: evolution is something that is *inferred* from what can be seen, smelt, heard, tasted, touched.

* * *



In this case, the argument would be against religious tradition not against God.
I think we can all agree that God and religious tradition are not the same. Hence arguments against religious traditon don't necessarily say something about God.




This once more all depends on the definition of God.

D-- Then water, you must define WHAt you mean by 'God with the big 'G'?

If we don't have a definition, we can't talk about God being "all-good" or "conquering evil". If we don't have a definition, talking about those things is beyond our scope.


* * *



Well, yes ... if you define something as imaginary and worthless, then to you, no matter what anyone says, it will remain imaginary and worthless. Some scientist you are.

xxxxxxx

 

[surenderer]

Hmmm......Well how about darkness? Is there such a thing? There is only the absence of light right? But we know it exists(darkness) dont we? can darkness then be measured? If not then I guess science would say there is no such thing but wouldnt science be wrong about that?

 

[SnakeLord]

Personally I find people who try to relate it as similar to 'love' or darkness, as simply avoiding the issue. You can't seriously think that any comparison can be made between turning the lights off and a cloud being.

Let's stick to something along the same lines, say... leprechauns.

If you now said you believed in the existence of leprechauns, you would get some funny looks from people around you. You must also admit that believing in leprechauns without so much as a molecule of evidence to support it is an act of pure lunacy. Therefore you don't... which is the same as santa, the tooth fairy, dragons, ogres, and el chupacabra.

god is slightly different to the human mind, and you'll bump into this quite frequently in discussion. You see, leprechauns, ogres etc don't offer anything, and do not doom you to hell if you don't believe. That fear, in what would be normally rational humans, means many accept it without the evidence - because they don't want to take the risk of it being true. It's the very essence of pascals wager, and is born from fear.

"I don't want to burn for eternity.. and what if.. what if god does exist? Then I must believe. Ok, I believe".

It's as simple as that, and much as most people don't actually notice or recognise that within themselves, it is there.

Negative things stay in the mind more than good things. While no grown human would even consider santa as being a reality, that very same human will think of vampires and werewolves if there is a sound outside his house at night, or a 'bogeyman' if his eyes glimpse something moving in the darkness of his bedroom.

Fear is so powerful and more often than not, relies on something imaginary to keep it fed. It is the very foundation of belief in god, and has accompanied belief since day 1.

It reminds me of when Abraham was on the mountain, and instead of wanting to be loved, god wanted to be feared.

And that is how humans are.. We all have fears, and not only general ones, but specific fears: a fear of cats, snakes, spiders, a fear of heights, closed spaces, homosexuals and so on.

I know many people who get a headache and instantly think it's a brain tumour, or people that are about to stand on a stage fear they'll fall flat on their face and become a laughing stock. I could mention many more scenarios, and while most can be 'fixed' - allowing the person in fear to see how irrational their fear actually is, in the god instance it can't be fixed- because nobody even recognises that it's there. They are automatically 'protected' from it, by the "reward". This is why every religious person feels they're right and will 'claim the prize'. In general I guess it's a good enough method with which to avoid the fear aspect, but in the long run it hasn't worked out too well for humanity. Now there's billions of people all thinking they get the prize and it's the others who get doomed. This leads to the heap of shit mankind is now in.

It could come across as being a good thing. We no longer sacrifice animals or people to escape our fears, and belief in a grand prize certainly seems less harmful.. but alas, it hasn't actually solved anything.

If there was nothing to fear, nobody would be religious.

 

[surenderer]

Personally I find people who try to relate it as similar to 'love' or darkness, as simply avoiding the issue. You can't seriously think that any comparison can be made between turning the lights off and a cloud being.

I think you are intelligent enough to know thats not the comparison I am making......What i was responding to was someone who said that since Science cant measure or record God then he doesnt exist

 

[TruthSeeker]

Even if you cannot see God or perceive him physically, maybe you can imply His existance through something which is physical and affected by Him....

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'm happy some here can see the fallacy of saying God doesn't exist because we haven't found any evidence for Him....
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42975

Unfortunately, some people (Xev) doesn't quite get over that.....

 

[water]

D-- Then water, you must define WHAt you mean by 'God with the big 'G'?

I am using the term "God" as a placeholder until further notice and clarification.

xxxxxxx

Translate, please.


* * *

Personally I find people who try to relate it as similar to 'love' or darkness, as simply avoiding the issue. You can't seriously think that any comparison can be made between turning the lights off and a cloud being.

One:
What compelling scientific evidence do you have on the basis of which you can competently define God as a "cloud being"?

If one would take a plane and fly up there, would one there, according to you, find God?


Two:
The comparison between "love" and "God" is in that we understand both by inference, not directly.

"I don't want to burn for eternity.. and what if.. what if god does exist? Then I must believe. Ok, I believe".

This is faulty.

If one is afraid of burning in eternity, then it must be that one is taking this threat seriously. But how can one take this threat seriously unless one FIRST believes that it should be taken seriously?
One can believe in damnation only if one first believes in a certain religious ideology.

Some people are downright greedy when it comes to believing self-harming things, and some non-believers are downright greedy when it comes to accusing all believers that they believe out of fear.

If there was nothing to fear, nobody would be religious.

If we'd fear nothing, we'd be gods, or robots.

 

[Leo Volont]

Dear Water,

The best arguement that God is not imaginary is to assert that there have been concrete instances of God's Providence.

This is nothing that a Protestant can do because no Protestant Church has ever seen a single instance of God's Divine Intervention.

But the Catholics have had dozens of Saints who have demonstrated God's Providence with hundreds and thousands of Miracles, all in the order of the same Miracles Christ performed, or even greater.

 

[Cris]

Water,

You appear to have misunderstood such quotes and you haven’t quoted them correctly anyway. I hope I can correct your mistakes.

Thinking something imaginary is a certainty, is simply irrational.

Irrationality in this context comes from the absence of logic in religious assertions. A logical premise must use a fact or evidence if it is to be valid. Religious assertions cannot form any valid premises since they have no factual basis, i.e. faith is used instead. Religious assertions are therefore necessarily illogical, i.e. are irrational.

By its very definition an imaginary object has no factual basis, i.e. it would not be imaginary otherwise. To then assert that something imaginary does exist simply defies the rules of logic and by definition is an irrational claim.

God is a product of imagination, therefore God doesn't exist.

This is a misquote or probably something you have assumed but you have probably not seen any atheist state this. Or if they have then they should know better.

No definition of a god in the history of mankind has any factual support. Religious institutions know this extremely well hence their overwhelming need to assert the importance of faith. If they had any evidence then faith would never be needed. If a concept has no factual support then the object is imaginary. This does not exclude the possibility that some factual support might materialize in the future at which time the object would cease to be imaginary.

The conclusion in your quote is simply a non sequitur. The issue is not that a god does not exist but that theists cannot show that their imaginary gods do exist.

But on what basis can one define God as imaginary?
Where is the compelling evidence that says that God is imaginary?

Absolutely no factual support. If you know of a god that is not imaginary then quote a single fact that proves such a god exists – otherwise such a god is no more than a product of imagination.

Also, the many ways of saying "God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist" are circular.

That’s why no responsible atheist uses such arguments. Take care not to believe your own religious propaganda.

If one thinks something is irrational: How can one rationally prove that something is irrational?

If it is asserted to be true in the absence of factual support then it is illogical according to the rules of logic and hence irrational.

Next, if one, *in advance*, define something as "nonexistent" or "imaginary" then NO scientific quest can come up with findings contrary to that definition.

You have confused “imaginary” with “non existent”, these are not the same thing. Something currently imaginary may in fact exist yet there is no factual support for it. For example stories of extra-terrestrial aliens are products of human imagination since we have no factual support for such beings. Many suspect that one day such beings might be discovered and then they will not be imaginary. Similarly if a god ever appears then the concept will cease to be just imaginary.

One cannot find something that one has in advance defined as nonexistent.

Quite right. So I hope I have now explained your confusion and misunderstandings.

So why do people use those circular arguments anyway??

Because they are probably religionists listening to their own propaganda.

 

[Cris]

Mohammed please do not cross post your long sermons. I have requested your post be deleted since we have seen it elsewhere.

 

[Cris]

Leo,

The best arguement that God is not imaginary is to assert that there have been concrete instances of God's Providence.

An assertion still does not show that God is not imaginary. You must do more than assert and actually demonstrate proof of existence. And to date no person has ever achieved that. Until then your god is imaginary.

But the Catholics have had dozens of Saints who have demonstrated God's Providence with hundreds and thousands of Miracles, all in the order of the same Miracles Christ performed, or even greater.

These are again mere assertions and none of these claims can be linked with a real god. You still have only an imaginary god with imaginary miracles.

 

[wesmorris]

On what God is

I keep getting things like this when asking about God:

Thinking something imaginary is a certainty,
is simply irrational.

or

God is a product of imagination,
therefore God doesn't exist.

Those are not valid arguments.

I agree, but I'm not sure it matters. It is impossible to prove or disprove god by way of reason. The only means of acceptance is circular.

But on what basis can one define God as imaginary?

Just to entertain the thought: How about the basis that the concept itself confines it to imagination. Taking just the word "omnipresent" as a typical characteristic of the definition, it seems to me that it is necessarily imaginary because it cannot be empirically concluded. The concept of "omnipresent" necessarily keeps it from being knowable in that to demonstrate something satisfying the definition of omnipresent, one would have to distinguish it from something else. Since however it's omnipresent, it must be everywhere and thus one space-time coordinate cannot be shown to be part of the whole in any part more than just however you define the whole; e.g "the universe". So something omnipresent is thus "the universe". It's dance around the identity "the universe = the universe": The joy of circular reasoning.

Where is the compelling evidence that says that God is imaginary?

That god cannot be demonstrated as "real" to the satisfaction of all rational
observers of the test.

Also, the many ways of saying "God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist" are circular.

Indeed. The concept of god is a setup for this kind of goodness. You can't reach valid objective conclusions about things that don't have valid objective conclusions due to the way they're constructed.

If one thinks something is irrational: How can one rationally prove that something is irrational?

One can only utilize the essence of baye's theorum: What's the probability of this if that happens? You can really only talk rationally about something given something. The basis of any information system is circular, as definitions must be. There are no conclusions without conventions.

Next, if one, *in advance*, define something as "nonexistent" or "imaginary" then NO scientific quest can come up with findings contrary to that definition.

This is also true if the conclusion that god can only be shown to be imaginary as a repucussion of the definition. It's not that god is or isn't, it's that it can't be demonstrated to be either to the satisfaction of all rational observers.

One cannot find something that one has in advance defined as nonexistent.

Really that's the crux of the matter I suppose. I don't think the concept of god can be defined in a way that's rational. If you were to do so, I don't think it would really capture the meaning of the original definition at all. Then you've simply changed the definition or need to come up with a new word to describe your construct. God is purposefully intended to exactly explain that which is unexplainable. That observation directly requires that God cannot be rationally demonstrated. If it could be, then the whole point is crushed.

So why do people use those circular arguments anyway??

Circularity is the basis for communication. Ultimately however, people rationalize their conceptual inter-relationships on the fly. Current short term memory queues onto the relationships which were established by previous stimulous, thus filtering the concepts that were formed by that former stimulus into the action centers (nervous system controls), perpetuating this circle by leading to new stimulous, back to concepts, back to action, repeat. Circular argument arise when folks burn the value of belief into their conceptual inter-relationships in a way that supercedes the value of consistent reason.

Please note that I do think the percieved survival function (including their capacity for reason) of the individual and their circumstance very often combine to render circular logic a preferable choice. The rational choice for logical consistency is often at odds with convenience (convenience being value's real time profit function). Value is maximized by the mind. You seek what you like based on what you've become (what you are).

 

[Brutus1964]

God is literally the father of our spirits. We have his DNA. That is why we are intelligent beings. God is a physical being with flesh and bones. Only in perfect form. He created everything in natural ways. *God said "My work and My glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man". If we succeed and return back to him we will receive his ultimate blessings. Which is everything he has. Hell is not fire and brimstone but a temporary condition until those that did not accept Christ’s atonement answer for their sins themselves. After that even they will receive a glorious reward. Satan and his spirit followers along with those who become sons of perdition will be consigned to outer darkness and will forever be lost. It was God's plan all along for man to fall, be tested and then ultimately receive his greatest blessings. He will not force anyone. You must choose for yourself.

*Moses 1:39 Pearl Of Great Price. LDS Scripture "For behold, this is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."

 

[Doomdayx]

On what God is


I keep getting things like this when asking about God:


Thinking something imaginary is a certainty,
is simply irrational.

or

God is a product of imagination,
therefore God doesn't exist.


Those are not valid arguments.

If one defines something as "imaginary", then it surely is irrational to believe in that.
But on what basis can one define God as imaginary?
Where is the compelling evidence that says that God is imaginary?

Also, the many ways of saying "God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist" are circular.

If one thinks something is irrational: How can one rationally prove that something is irrational?

Next, if one, *in advance*, define something as "nonexistent" or "imaginary" then NO scientific quest can come up with findings contrary to that definition.

One cannot find something that one has in advance defined as nonexistent.


So why do people use those circular arguments anyway??

i don't think many understood your point of question!
but i will see if you or others can understand my answer!!!

god is imaginary because there is nothing apart from the unseparated, undivided, unbroken, unfragmented, unlimited reality of wholeness..... or oneness; the one alone that was referred to as allah in the quran.

or

there cannot be a god as long as there is oneness.

got it?