To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

[Seattle]

So what is a river brown trout?

Material and not supernatural.

 

[Great Old One]

Right away I will inquire of the atheists here, is it all right to conflate God with invisible unicorns?

Yes. God as the Abrahamists want to flesh it out is ok to equate with unicorns invisible or otherwise.

 

[Sarkus]

Material and not supernatural.

It seems some deem "natural" to be equivalent of "that which would occur without human intervention" or some such... which would put genetically modified items as "not natural".
I find this distinction to be adequate when looking around a supermarket and only looking for such "natural" products. But not in philosophy discussions.
In such discussions others, myself included, would argue that humans are part of nature, and that what we do to the world around us is just as natural (especially when discussing the difference between natural and supernatural) as anything that might exist without human intervention.
Our intervention is part of nature.

But some may not be able to cope with the same word meaning different things in different contexts.

 

[iceaura]

... a particular God - the Abrahamic one, for example, doesn't work.
"Jesus replied to them, "My Father is working right now, and so am I."

For creating and operating the universe and everything with a beginning, the "Jesus" subdeity conception - most believers contend him identical with the Abrahamic God - doesn't work either.

 

[davewhite04]

Material and not supernatural.

A wild brown trout is as natural as nature gets. See how easy it is to manufacture nature? Does that mean human beings are "supernatural" because they can make something natural using non natural methods.

 

[Yazata]

It seems some deem "natural" to be equivalent of "that which would occur without human intervention" or some such... which would put genetically modified items as "not natural".

Yeah, the adjective is typically used that way by the general public. The noun 'nature' is used as if it meant something like 'uninhabited wilderness'. There's still kind of a nature/human dichotomy in people's thinking that's almost medieval. But a big difference between contemporary and medieval usage seems to be that where the medievals placed greater value on the human (spiritual beings trapped in a world of matter), a great deal of contemporary popular thinking (influenced by 19th century romanticism perhaps) places greater value on 'nature' (the garden of eden dispoiled by man).

I find this distinction to be adequate when looking around a supermarket and only looking for such "natural" products. But not in philosophy discussions.

Philosophy seems to use 'nature' most often in a metaphysical sense to mean something like 'the universe that's revealed by the senses and all of its contents'. As contrasted with 'supernatural', which seems to typically suggest a separate mode of spiritual being. The ancestry of this one in medieval thought is clear.

In such discussions others, myself included, would argue that humans are part of nature

That's where modern scientific thinking seems to have diverged from medieval thought. Instead of thinking of humans as temporary spiritual visitors to the material plane, modern scientific thinking sees man as fully a part of the physical universe. In other words, scientific thought deemphasizes the natural/supernatural distinction, and along with it the ancient human/nature dichotomy.

and that what we do to the world around us is just as natural (especially when discussing the difference between natural and supernatural) as anything that might exist without human intervention.
Our intervention is part of nature.

I tend to think of the world in what I've termed the modern scientific way. And I don't really see New York City as being any different, in fundamental metaphysical terms, than a bee-hive or a coral reef. Despite the obvious differences in complexity and elaboration, it's all equally natural, equally of this world.

 

[davewhite04]

I tend to think of the world in what I've termed the modern scientific way. And I don't really see New York City as being any different, in fundamental metaphysical terms, than a bee-hive or a coral reef. Despite the obvious differences in complexity and elaboration, it's all equally natural, equally of this world.

So do you think serial killing of innocent human beings is natural?

 

[gmilam]

So do you think serial killing of innocent human beings is natural?

Troll. I'll beat the rush on you too and put you on ignore now.

 

[Seattle]

A wild brown trout is as natural as nature gets. See how easy it is to manufacture nature? Does that mean human beings are "supernatural" because they can make something natural using non natural methods.

No, human beings didn't make the universe. You think "God" did. God isn't material. There is no evidence of God (unlike human beings).

 

[Seattle]

So do you think serial killing of innocent human beings is natural?

It's material and not supernatural.

 

[Pachomius]

Pachomius said:
Okay, please tell me what you mean by nature, or give me your concept of nature.

From Seattle, Yesterday at 11:59 AM #597
I just did "of this material world" and not supernatural.​

Thanks, notify me if I don't get you correctly.

By nature you mean "of this material world and not [of the] supernatural [world]?


Okay, here are our original contentions:

From Pachomius, Saturday at 7:44 AM #569
My contention is that I know from thinking on facts and logic that God in concept exists as creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

From Seattle, Saturday at 8:10 AM #570
My contention is that I don't know what created our universe and neither do you. Anything that "God" can do can be done by [natural] nature without involving a god.

I will be repeating our respective contentions as we go along with out exchange.


Now, what is your information of the concept of God?

From my part, my concept of God is that He is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

 

[Seattle]

​

Now, what is your information of the concept of God?

From my part, my concept of God is that He is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

I don't have a concept of God since I don't have an evidence for God. Any "concept" of God which any evidence for God would just be whatever story someone (anyone) who believes in such a concept has made up.

Whoever wrote the story about "Superman" decided that he can fly using a cape. I can't give you my "concept" of Superman unless you are just asking me if I've read the story.

In that case you wouldn't need my "concept" as it wouldn't matter. Just read the story.

 

[kerux]

Right away I will inquire of the atheists here, is it all right to conflate God with invisible unicorns?

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/atheos.html Definition

1. without God, knowing and worshipping no God
2. denying the gods, esp. the recognised gods of the state
3. godless, ungodly
4. abandoned by the god

I prefer to say that there are more definitions of "atheos" than those four mentioned. When St. Paul saw an altar which said "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD" [Acts 17:23], what comes to a religious thinker's mind is that those men simply are atheists who were searching for that God. I know some here portraying atheistic principles but surprisingly they are just remnants of those mentioned in Acts 17:23. Therefore, because no god or gods suffice the god-qualities they are looking for, then they resort to a "forum" like this simply to "confuse" because an advertiser who cannot convince anyone about the superiority of his product throws confusion to everybody.

 

[kerux]

By way of a digress on the meaning of the word conflate:​

Okay, conflate is used routinely by atheists to compare God with absurd entities like invisible pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster or tooth fairy or Santa or cake in the sky or with Bertrand Russell, an orbiting teapot.
Annex

These are diversionary tactics of people who are crippled in following debating standards, people who cannot go down to the level of the least of human thoughts. Why in the world would fiction be compared to facts? If scientists can no longer archeologically trace the story of the 8 men inside the Arc of Noah, then of course somebody would concoct tales of the origin of man for the same reason - to confuse humankind. The Genesis portion of the Bible is still the most misunderstood among readers of all ages. See http://www.controversyextraordinary.com/2014/11/creation-most-misunderstood-portion-of.html

 

[iceaura]

From my part, my concept of God is that He is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

That's not necessarily a concept of God. That could be just another reference to quantum mechanics. Lots of people think quantum mechanics created and now operates the universe, which includes everything with a beginning. But many of these people are atheistic, and many others would reject your use of sex pronouns such as "he" as well as the singular entity for their deities. So you need a concept, not a vague criterion that can be met by all manner of concepts you would not accept and stuff no one wants to worship.

And it has to be different from the invisible unicorn type of deity, which we have noticed is pretty common whenever a believer starts talking about "God".

 

[Sarkus]

Therefore, because no god or gods suffice the god-qualities they are looking for, then they resort to a "forum" like this simply to "confuse" because an advertiser who cannot convince anyone about the superiority of his product throws confusion to everybody.

I would say that you have it backwards: Atheists aren't the ones advertising, but instead they are asking the ones who are advertising more questions about why they should adopt what the advertiser is selling.
Any confusion is because the advertiser (the theist) is unable to adequately, accurately or meaningfully explain why what they peddle is any better than what the atheist currently has.

 

[Sarkus]

These are diversionary tactics of people who are crippled in following debating standards, people who cannot go down to the level of the least of human thoughts. Why in the world would fiction be compared to facts?

Care to ask the same question without begging the question?
It is precisely because we have nothing on which we can stick the label "fact" that we merely question why we should adhere to one thing that appears fictitious rather than another thing that appears fictitious.
As soon as you claim it is a comparison of fact versus fiction then you must surely provide us with your reasoning for considering your "facts" as such. So please do so?
And please try to do it with something more than just reliance on that which you wish to claim as factual.

If scientists can no longer archeologically trace the story of the 8 men inside the Arc of Noah, then of course somebody would concoct tales of the origin of man for the same reason - to confuse humankind.

"No longer" implies that they once could... And you have documented evidence of this? Outside the bible, of course, given that this would appear to be what you are claiming veracity for... And we wouldn't want you to beg the question again.

The Genesis portion of the Bible is still the most misunderstood among readers of all ages. See http://www.controversyextraordinary.com/2014/11/creation-most-misunderstood-portion-of.html

Indeed, a blog that merely tries to fit an old text into modern understanding and claim it was known from the outset...
At least, reading through the comments section, there seems to be one person with any critical thinking ability.

 

[spidergoat]

Okay, addressing all atheists, tell me, Do you maintain that the universe came forth from nothing?

I don't know, but that is one plausible theory that is not inconsistent with physics. Or it was eternal, or it came from something else, like another universe.

 

[spidergoat]

"A widely supported scientific theory in modern physics is the zero-energy universe which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero."


That is a mathematical construct in the minds of speculators who do not notice that the universe is operating notwithstanding the mathematical construct inside their minds, by which the universe should have long ago self-destructed itself into nothingness.


You see, everyone here, when you read something supposedly from scientists, you have to be critical; keep your feet on reality, the ground on which you are standing, the nose in your face which if you accidentally bang it hard in the dark against a concrete wall, it bleeds.


Just keep in mind that you are living and operating and eating and sleeping and making love and bringing up kids, these are all facts, and the logic is that against facts there can be no argument, not even from speculator-scientists with math inside their skull to the effect that the total energy level is exactly zero.


Another thing with in particular speculating scientists, they suffer from the taboo of not thinking outside the box of their science inside their minds; so that as their calculations bring them to t=0, they stop thinking at that point in their mind, and therefore proclaim they know nothing from that point; but they forget to keep in mind that t=0 in their mind's math calculation is no longer a fact at present, in actual reality outside their minds, the universe is still cruising in time and in space, and folks with their minds not boxed in by the speculative math of scientists, they can and do think beyond t=0.


The fact is that scientists doing mathematical constructs to delve into the universe, they are doing it inside their minds, but their minds exist in the real world of breathing, eating, sleeping, loving, all the world of experience outside the realm of conceptual mathematics inside their minds.


Now, what is reality? The mathematical constructs in the minds of speculating scientists who are bordering into absurd science fictions or the world were we move about, go to work, eat, sleep, defecate, suffer a headache, make money, enjoy sex, etc., etc., etc.


You tell me.

This is really unfair. First you ask for the scientific alternatives to magic, then you ridicule them. For what? Coming from a mind? The energy of the entire universe seems to be exactly balanced by gravitational potential energy. Address that if you can.

 

[Yazata]

After 620 posts, the thread seems to have returned full circle to the original mistake in the subject line.

These are diversionary tactics of people who are crippled in following debating standards, people who cannot go down to the level of the least of human thoughts. Why in the world would fiction be compared to facts?

In post #7, I wrote this:

"What atheists are typically doing with the 'invisible unicorns' analogy is responding to a bad theistic argument that says in effect:

Inability to prove that God doesn't exist means that it's reasonable to think that he does. (Certainly as reasonable as the atheist belief that he doesn't.)

The 'invisible unicorn' example, along with 'Russell's teapot' and other variants, are part of the counter-argument that there are no end of things, some of them quite ridiculous, whose existence we can't actually disprove. It certainly isn't reasonable to believe in the existence of all of those things.

Which in turn suggests that stronger epistemic justification is necessary. We need credible and positive reasons to believe in the existence of things. Noting that the existence of something can't be disproven is insufficient reason to believe in its reality."