In this blog I do not intend to prove to an atheist that there is a God, nor do I wish to show why any certain God is better than any other. The scope here is limited to attaining a definition that qualifies the most common and inclusive of all faiths definitions of that word. A definition that is inclusive, not divisive.
There are thousands of claims made concerning the will of God, and how that being, if present, wants us to act in many situations. Each Sunday in tens of thousands of locations an equal or greater number of people speak about their own interpretations concerning the Christian God, and that version is only one of the many ways of seeking understanding of the person or concept that is referred to by that name. My own interpretation carries no more authority than any of those other well intentioned people.
Nearly every monotheistic religion agrees that God is the creator, and to some extent, the controller of all creation. Some maintain that every step is predestined from the beginning, and others allow that ‘free will’ is allowed to individuals within the ‘law’ which God established. Creation is also depicted in many ways from a definite origin such as Genesis or a Big Bang, to a steady state of an eternal universe where God is more like the director, and creation is as it always has been.
Many other attributes are less universally applied to the word. Some like Omnipotence (all powerful), Omniscience (all knowing), and Perfect Benevolence are common, but not even accepted by all Christian theorists, let alone the many others. Details like Afterlife, morality, personality, and salvation are the source of division, and knowable only through conflicting revelation, and interpretation. Adding personality and human like motives to the concept also begins many arguments, but is beyond the very broad meaning that I am intending here.
So the basic definition is: God is the creator and controller of everything.
I would like to see answers and opinions to these questions:
All:
Are there any other qualities that must be included in this, hopefully, all inclusive definition?
Theists (all religions):
Is there anyway in which the God you have faith in is not the same as reality and all natural law?
Atheists:
Is there any reason that reality and natural laws absent personality cannot be referred to as God as Pantheism does?
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
Previous Blog in series.
http://www.progressiveu.org/023149-reality-right
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
If there was no God, there would be no universe and no earth with nobody on it. Something had to have created other planets, other galaxies.
And if that is the case, then something had to have created God so that God could create the creation.
I know chillbill's view on this, but still, this is the entire problem with the God theory.
The same problem plagues the Big Bang theory.
Any thoughts on this question?
Atheists:
Is there any reason that reality and natural laws absent personality cannot be referred to as God as Pantheism does?
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
I actually liked that idea, but it doesn't account for supernatural occurances that supposedly happen, that I am highly skeptical of.
No,there is no reason that they cannot be called God. This is why I don't feel comfortable calling myself an atheist. You should come visit my blog and read my view. It can be found here:
http://www.progressiveu.org/074528-my-religion-or-lack-thereof
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!
But that leaves the question what reason is there to call them god?
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I think it depends on the individual. Some people would say that isn't God because God is a vaporous being, or God has control over us, or whatever. Others would agree that this is God because God created the world, and if some type of activation energy force created the world then we can call that creator God. I think that words only have the meanings that the sayer and listener give them, so we could call it "hairdryer" as long as we were on the same page.
I like the idea of The Force, or The Activation Energy, but I think it would be hard to take The Force seriously. :)
Click here to read about new ways to save money and the environment that you have never heard!
I have read a great number of views on this debate and it is my most firm belief that there exists a Creator, and that said Creator is the God of the Bible.
God Bless!
-Tim
Theists (all religions):
Is there anyway in which the God you have faith in is not the same as reality and all natural law?
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
God is a source, everything we know is a part of that same source, to create an understanding one needs to align within to see and witness truth!
This source mirrors all we see, even when peeking at a mirror, most fail to understand we are in fact nothing more than a thought seeking a way to identify itself.
Who are you?
If God is a source, then what is God?
"most fail to understand we are in fact nothing more than a thought seeking a way to identify itself."
I throughly like that quote.
God is the beauty of stillness which put’s one in the moment of experiencing now! This stillness allows one to witness and become part of now.
Now is not the future nor the past, now is don’t think, be!
There is no greater gift one can wish for than to walk around in the now with a heart that carries an abundance!
This abundance is God, it is the love that drives us all, it is the lack of love that divides us all while it is stillness that makes us to become one!
In stillness lies the answer for all to find because it is the source of all truth and love!
If you like to know more about “now and stillness”
So many times before have I said people look the wrong way,
You are different, you question wisely, this is way cool, question everything and you will find the answers, more fun than talking to the dead I can assure you!
I don’t know you, how do I know you are real?
Who are you?
This whole platform is a projection of our thoughts, this is why we like to hang around here! We love this place because we treat it with importance in order to make it even more meaningful. Regardless of the hurt we come across most of us find freedom and a peace of mind in here.
One fine day, stillness will manifest itself within this platform, projecting our thoughts so full of abundance, love will step right in our hearts…
God is a thought…
Of course not. You COULD call the gnur under your toenails God if you want. But since the common definition of "God" includes anthropomorphic qualities, you risk losing the distinction that your "God" doesn't have these qualities.
Conceptually, what do you gain by calling the laws of nature "God" instead of just leaving them as the "laws of nature"?
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"Conceptually, what do you gain by calling the laws of nature "God" instead of just leaving them as the "laws of nature"?"
What you gain is one interpretation of what the originators of monotheism may have been driving at.
Though they were less educated than modern man, and had fewer terms and concepts, there is no reason to think of them as less inteligent than man is today. Worship of pantheistic gods, ancestors, and aspects of nature were the rites being replaced as monotheism grew to dominate world views.
The panteistic single Gods were, at first, just a superior god above the others. The nature and elemental worship that held wind, fire, sky, darkness to be deity evolved into many varieties of worship of nature as a whole. Attempting to align ones self with nature is the basis of 'natural philosophy' which is what they called science in Newtons time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
It didn't take you long to fall into the problem I first mentioned. Your loose terminology has already allowed you to lose the distinction that equating natural laws with God means God is not anthropomorphic.
Wrong ... there is no reasonable doubt that the early Gods were anthropomorphic.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"Wrong ... there is no reasonable doubt that the early Gods were anthropomorphic."
Actually the inventors may or may not have believed that. They were working with some vast array of superstition in those days. Then as now, people will believe just about anything, and in the days before monotheism they certainly did. Imagine yourself in those days trying to convince people to only believe observable facts. It would have been an uphill battle, and your own lack of explanations for most natural phenomena, which we take for granted today, would not have helped. Frustration could have led you or other more objective people to reinvent this sea of superstition into a more manageable single creative and controlling force, perhaps as a step toward the goal of eliminating superstition altogether. It has begun to work out that way as history has played out.
---
"Your loose terminology has already allowed you to lose the distinction that equating natural laws with God means God is not anthropomorphic."
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. I understand that you do not believe nature to be anthropomorphic, and using the term God in that place creates the implication that it is. I would not suggest, or expect you to adopt the equivalent in daily conversation, just while reading references to god such as the bible. If you do you will see that for some declarative statements it fits very well, and makes some seemingly impossible claims obviously true.
As I've told you before, I do not wish to 'convert' you; I just want to improve acceptance and understanding between people. Adversarial confrontation is a very useful thing, but for some goals conciliation is the better tact. Man's relationship to god or nature is not static it is fluid. Perceptions like Christianity or Atheism tend to shift dramatically, but smooth transitions are possible through slight alterations of insight.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Actually, they did believe God was anthropomorphic. There is no reasonable doubt on that point. Read the bible.
That's because you have already forgotten the question you asked that I have responded to
You asked:
I replied
Then you say that
But what is of NO REASONABLE DOUBT the originators of monotheism had an anthropomorphic God in mind. BOOM!! You have just fallen into the trap that I mentioned.
You seem to want to come up with a God we can all agree on. But there isn't a God we can all believe in. The differences are real and irreconcilable. You can't resolve the differences by claiming that God is not anthropomorphic and then tacitly assuming that he is. That's ignoring the differences and it leads to MISunderstanding instead of understanding.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"There is no reasonable doubt on that point. Read the bible."
Monotheism predates the bible by some time.
---
"You seem to want to come up with a God we can all agree on. But there isn't a God we can all believe in."
I'm not trying to make you believe. All I have as a goal here is to limit the amount of cluttered claims that exist arround the concept. I was an agnostic since I was an atheist, so there are many claims regarding god that I find to be beyond my personal faith. I really just don't know. As an athiest I understand that you consider those same claims as baseless, and just plain wrong. I can respect that, though I think it also assumes too much.
I am not claiming that a non anthropomorphic god is my belief. It is just a point of potentially common ground. I think there is a reasonable possibility that awareness and inteligence could exist on a very large scale. It does in eight pounds of human brain matter.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
If you are going to try to claim that early monotheistic gods were NOT anthropomorphic then make your case. Otherwise we have every right to consider your claim that the originators of early monotheism may have thinking of natural laws when referring to God to be a statement from ignorance.
Funny way to achieve your goal ... by making another meaningless claim about God.
What assumes too much?
One thing I hate is for people to tell me what they DON'T claim. Tell me what you DO claim.
But let's go back to what I was responding to:
A God that is "[n]atural laws absent personality" IS a non-anthropomorphic God.
Which is an attempt to find a God that we can all believe in ... like I said.
What evidence do you have to think that to be a reasonable possibility?
The human brain is about 3 pounds.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
That phrase is the best description IMHO of our differences. It is a phrase an objective person would not use unless solid evidence was availiable. Unless coroboratable and unconflicting evidence can be found there is always a reasonable doubt. How can you be so certain?
If in fact the ORIGINATORS of monotheism, not rank and file members of the congregation, are certain to have considered God anthropomorphic think about what that implies. Everyone else was worshiping statues and suddenly a person became certain there was only one God that made everything, and took a personal intrest in humanity. Since this happened thousands of years ago I cannot be certain, but this would lend a great deal of credability to beliefs that direct revalation of some sort was at work. Another way in which your certainty could be realized is if the first man and woman 'walked with God' as the bible literaly states.
On the other hand the POSSIBILITY I raised is just suggesting that primitive man was capable of rational thought, doubt, and perhaps even Atheism. That doesn't seem like so big a stretch to me. I am not saying that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt, or even that a preponderance of evidence suggests it. I already laid out how I think it could have happened it my earlier post.
Atheism assumes that a scientific and causal universe is the only possibility. Agnosticism which admits that the nature of god is in fact unknown and perhaps unknowable. As I have said before too much certainty about the unknown is bias. and that clouds a persons ability to think about and see things as they are. Perhaps I also assume too much, but I do entertain a 'reasonable doubt' when I do not know.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
(1) The reason I can be so certain is a little something called EVIDENCE. I agree that is a major difference between you and me. I consider it, you dismiss it claiming uncertainty.
Here is the evidence
(1) The first monotheism known was from Egypt. That instituted by the pharaoh Akhenaten. His God was Aten who was one of the Egyptian pantheon of Gods. In other words, Akhenaten modified it from a polytheistic religion.
(2) Judaism did not start as a monotheistic religion either. El, one of the names the bible uses for God, was a Sumerian God. Judaism began more as a henotheism (worship of a single God without denying the existence fo other Gods) rather than a monotheism.
(3) Zorasterianism is another early form of monotheism. It's God is Ahura Mazda, an anthropomorphic God. It too has evidence of polytheistic past.
Those are about it for the origin of religions we consider to be monotheistic. They all were derived from polytheistic roots. Furthermore, all the religions that were in existence before then that we know of were also polytheistic.
The EVIDENCE is clear. There is no reasonable doubt.
You try to say well there COULD BE something that we don't know about that suggests otherwise. You think that is intellectual honesty. It isn't. It is about as intellectually DISHONEST as you can get ... especially the way you use it.
You use it to give credence to ideas that have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for it, and ALL the evidence going against it. Intellectual honesty is assessing the EVIDENCE, not saying, oh well, the evidence COULD be wrong. Of course the evidence could be wrong. Do you have any reason to think it is? NO ... or at least you haven't given any.
To say the evidence COULD be wrong when there is nothing to suggest it is, is no better than saying that God could of whipped everything up 30 seconds ago and instilled in us false memories. That is a logical possibility and one that cannot be possibly proven wrong, but there is no reason to give it any credence.
How can I be so sure, all the evidence points that way and NONE points your way. Get some evidence that suggests otherwise and then we'll talk. But until then your suggestions as to possibilities in the face of ALL available evidence is nothing more than a ruse to try to have it the way you want it to be ... Again, that is NOT intellectual honesty, but its antithesis.
(2) My atheism doesn't assume that a "scientific and causal universe" is all that is possible. First of all, at a quantum level the EVIDENCE says the universe is NOT causal. Second, what my atheism DOES say is that from all available EVIDENCE there is no justifiable reason to think that a supernatural world exists.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
...by selective attention.
Casting your net a bit further reveals more.
http://www.copperwiki.org/index.php/Nature_Worship
http://www.marxists.org/archive/thalheimer/works/diamat/14.htm
http://remnantprophecy.sdaglobal.org/Librarypdf/History/Ancient%20Sun%20...
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553236/nature_worship.html
Selecting only one side of the evidence to deny a reasonable doubt is an interesting 'scientific' method. The most irritating trait you exhibit is using an exclusively adversarial approach and claiming it is scientific. Science attempts to be comprehensive, not biased.
---
"at a quantum level the EVIDENCE says the universe is NOT causal."
I think saying that the universe is not PREDICTABLY causal would be more accurate for the evidence we have.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Atheists:
Is there any reason that reality and natural laws absent personality cannot be referred to as God as Pantheism does?"
No, but there is no reason for me to do so since god, in common usage is not a bunch of Universal laws. And if it was, why would I worship it?
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
"No, but there is no reason for me to do so since god, in common usage is not a bunch of Universal laws."
The common usage includes control and authorship of those laws.
---
And if it was, why would I worship it?
That brings up an interesting part of the debate. It is known as The Euthyphro dilemma. Basicaly do you worship (or love god) because god wants it, or because you are so grateful for all of the blessings you receive? In the case of nature as god it would be the later. Having a happy joyous and grateful attitude is its own reward, but many can find no reason.
The word worship brings pictures of alters and dead goats to mind for me.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Indeed, but I don't believe in a controller of Universal laws, or rather, not a sentient controller. More of a self regulating thing.
Well, I'm certainly glad that the Universe exists, but I'm still not going to sing its praise. It's just a rather impressive thing...
"The word worship brings pictures of alters and dead goats to mind for me."
lol
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
"More of a self regulating thing."
It is amazing how many natural systems exhibit that self reulating, or ballancing behavior. It is the rule rather than the exception. Undiscovered aspects of this may mean very large entities do exist, and perhaps even have inteligence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
A large entity with sentence isn't a god.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
...is more or less where it would have to be to qualify. Many of the traits and anecdotes in the bible, and other religious tomes would match that description, but some of the more directly quoted passages would still be very questionable at least in my opinion which is no more definitive than anyone else’s.
We all have different experiences to base our understanding on. I would no longer ridicule the things others believe, though I have been as bad in that regard as anyone in my past. I do think that the fruits of your beliefs are the important factor rather than the basis, or any specific notion. If you are inspired to help not hurt, are happy not sad, Love not hate then you have positive values that should be encouraged. The word you use may be God, Bhagwan, Dao, Shiva, Karma, or Justice. In the end it is the result that matters most.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
I believe in fostering those positive values, but see no deity or entity of any sort lurking in that or any desire. I also see no reason to believe that the universe is sentient. While in may be, I think that an extraordinary claim, so I will need a lot of evidence before I believe that.
And personally, my favorite god is Azathoth.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
lol.
That picture is a lie!!!!
Apparently, no one can look at his face and come away sane so....
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Some laws understood to be true, don’t fit inside where there’s a lack of boundaries for any laws to arise upon…
People don’t have to explain there is no ending universe, most wouldn’t know how to explain a future outlived.
Most of us are like fish inside a bowl submerged in an endless ocean while not understanding there is no bowl.
To understand this bowl is nothing more than an illusion, is to understand laws keep one inside the boundaries of the physical experience, whether those boundaries are found within a bowl or an entire ocean is of no importance.
All we experience is thought,
Unfortunately, in order for your definitions to have any real, rational meaning...this is a necessary first step. If you simply viewed "god" as a subjective concept, you would be well within reasonable bounds to establish an arbitrary defintion for the meaning of that word. However, we know from your comments later in your blog that this is not the case.
If "god" is a "creator" (i.e. being, entity, etc.), then any attepmt to define "god's" existence must be approached as a object. In other words, one does not simply assign arbitrary properties that you would like to see embodied in an object. Rather, one must observe the object and subsequently discover its properties. That of course leads us back to your failure to address the necessary but questionable premise of "god's" existence.
Like ALL theistic ideas, your argument relies on a very basic logical fallacy known as begging the question or more commonly as "circular logic." This error in your thinking renders all of your subsequent conclusions unsound.
You can refer to your imaginary friend by whatever name you wish. But if you wish to be understood by other human beings, then you might want to consider that certain terms are loaded with meanings and connotations that may (and in this case most certainly do) interfere with your ability to get your point across. If you want to refer to reality and natural laws, then it seems unnecessary (and inaccurate) to personify those concepts with an attribution of intelligence for which there is no actual, objective evidence.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"in order for your definitions to have any real, rational meaning"
Definitions of words help understanding of the concept described. Obviously we all have opinions, but the goal here is to reduce the baggage on the word to the most universaly acceptable minimalist level. Idealy that could be a few basic things we all mean when we say God, or god. The questions that are left out are part of the dificulty in discussing this, because each of us brings many disparate conclusions and background with us.
---
"If you simply viewed "god" as a subjective concept, you would be well within reasonable bounds to establish an arbitrary defintion for the meaning of that word. However, we know from your comments later in your blog that this is not the case."
As I said My opinion is not any more valid toward,or the basis of what I am seeking here. We ALL have different opinions, but it is possible to share a definition.
---
"Like ALL theistic ideas, your argument relies..."
No argument, just discussion of a comon definition.
---
Sigh...Can you address the definition, and answer the question for all, and/or atheists? Your statement after you quote that question ignores the question itself.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
If you wished to "reduce the baggage" in your argument, you could hardly have made a poorer choice than attaching your ideas to terms that are as connotatively loaded as "God, or god." In the context of your useage here, these terms are an example of weasel words.
Indeed. Unfortunately, the backgroud that you bring does not appear to be based in a good understanding of the methods of logical argumenation. Your presentation fails to address a very basic logical fallacy, which in my mind brings your "background" into serious question.
When I need a defintion, I normally turn to the dictionary...
-------------------------
Main Entry: 1god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
-------------------------
The first defintion above is not all that different than the one you propose, but note that all of these defintions refer to "god" in the context of an object or being, and only relates to the concept of an "ultimate reality" in a uniquely religious context...i.e the acceptance of a "being" or "spirit" that is assumed to be the "creator" and "ruler of the univese." Defintions like this only work on a conceptual level, based on the a priori religious assertion of the existence of supernatural beings and forces. When one applies empirical logic to the question, however, one quickly realizes that this defintion relies on an assumed premise that doesn't stand up to close examination. This is the core fallacy that is found in all theistically based arguments...quite literally without exception. The reasoning behind such a defintion is inherently circular, i.e. one must already believe that "god" exists before the definition has any real meaning.
I tend to use the term "argument" in a very specific manner, specifically as the term refers to "a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion."
I would never presume to speak for "all" atheists or otherwise. However, I will sum up my own rebuttal for you now:
Your defintion attempts to anthromorphize the natural world throught the use of loaded terminology that glosses over a basic logical flaw in your argument. Your subsequent conclusions are by necessity unsound, relying as they must on a faulty premise that cannot be objectively shown to be true.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"The first defintion above is not all that different than the one you propose, but note that all of these defintions refer to "god" in the context of an object or being, and only relates to the concept of an "ultimate reality" in a uniquely religious context"
The first definition is exactly the one I mean. The word God itself is religious there is no way arround that, except maybe if an atheist uses it as an expetive. I agree that the word implies anthromorphic qualities, but using it does not imply that you believe in those qualities. Only that you are refering to a being that, if one exists, has that role.
"Your defintion attempts to anthromorphize the natural world throught the use of loaded terminology that glosses over a basic logical flaw in your argument. Your subsequent conclusions are by necessity unsound, relying as they must on a faulty premise that cannot be objectively shown to be true."
Subsequent conclusions based on logical argument is not where this is going. Logic leads to proof, or nowhere. In any case where you lack sufficient facts it is the later. Thus the next step after defining God would be experimentation and observation. There is no other way I know of to increase the number of facts you have to work with.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Are you suggesting that you can provide us with a falsifiable test that would demonstrate the truth-value of your hypothesis?
Did you mean "the supreme or ultimate reality as in the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe," or did your mean "the supreme or ultimate reality as in the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind," or did you mean both?
This is disingenuous. You have already established the fact that you believe in this being...and that you even go one step further and see that being the in context on one, specific religion...i.e. the christian one. Also, it seems in any case unreasonable to suggest that one could honestly appeal to these alleged anthropomorphic qualities without believing that they exist.
It is becomming more and more obvious that you have never actually studied Logic.
This is a logical fallacy (shifting the burden of proof). The negative counter to a positive assertion does not require facts to support it. If you are going to continue to appeal to Logic in support of your proposition, then you need to understand that the Logical burden of proof lies with you in this argument.
You are confusing the disciplines of Logic and Empiricism. In Logic, one may only construct a sound argument leading to a valid conclusion if all of the premises of your argument are actually true. In empirical experimentation, one must apply a falsifiable test to your subject, and then adjust your hypothesis accordingly. From a Logical point-of-view, your argument fails because it begs the question of god's existence (which would need to be the conclusion of your argument were it both valid and soundly constructed). From an empirical point-of-view, your hypothesis fails due to simple lack of evidence.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Are you suggesting that you can provide us with a falsifiable test that would demonstrate the truth-value of your hypothesis?"
What hypothesis?
---
"Did you mean "the supreme or ultimate reality as in the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe," or did your mean "the supreme or ultimate reality as in the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind," or did you mean both?"
For the intent of this blog the "spirit" "Worship" "Divine" "infinite Mind" would have to be omitted for users such as you, but "the supreme or ultimate reality" would be acceptable to all, or would it?
---
If you wish to add any of the myriad traits that various claims exist for you would have to find ways to test the validity of those traits. Many if not most people rely upon trusting a source for this purpose. Like you, that is not a method I consider sufficiently convincing. Thus those sources, such as the bible, only provide claims to be tested. The claim with the most obvious testability is prayer. The results of such a test would be subjective as the only possible controls would be internal to the mind of the tester.
You would have to design, execute and evaluate your own test. Thus the results would also apply only to your own belief.
---
"This is disingenuous. You have already established the fact that you believe in this being...and that you even go one step further and see that being the in context on one, specific religion...i.e. the Christian one. Also, it seems in any case unreasonable to suggest that one could honestly appeal to these alleged anthropomorphic qualities without believing that they exist."
You may want to review the blog. I specifically state "I do not intend to prove to an atheist that there is a God, nor do I wish to show why any certain God is better than any other." How "disingenuous" can it be to stick to the intent I laid out? You use the word 'god' with no problem maintaining disbelief. If you wished to 'appeal' to God through prayer in that state I would suggest you preface your appeal with 'If you do exist" or some similar qualifier, though the choice to not bother appealing at all is also present for you.
---
"A subsequent conclusion based on logical argument is not where this is going. Logic leads to proof, or nowhere. In any case where you lack sufficient facts it is the later."
How do think that 'logical fallacy' exists when I say logical argument is not the intent, and will not be forthcoming? You too are not required to prove anything, or disprove anything. Trying to prove the existence of God, especially in a tightly defined religious sense, is the logic that I am saying would lead nowhere due to lack of evidence. You seem to be trying too hard to discredit some argument that nobody is making.
---
One thing from your profile intrigues me. You say that you were raised in a Christian family and school, and then became an ordained Wiccan priest before becoming an atheist. Were you converted by a more compelling theology to join Wicca, or was it a reaction to rejecting Christian teachings? Do you still hold some Wicca views, or have you abandoned those altogether?
I rejected religion and became an atheist, then switched to agnostic because I felt it was more argumentatively defensible, and now Love God as the result of changing my presuppositions of who God is, and reading the bible more as a parable than a history. Experimentation with prayer has convinced me, but to pretend that 'logic' has 'proved' anything to do with this subject would be ridiculous IMHO.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The one that you wish to "test." You said, "First we test, then we trust." The only valid tests are one's that present a falsifiable option. A properly constructed test has to test something, and in the context of an intellectual discussion, that would (typically speaking) refer to a hypothesis of some sort.
Unfortunately, that ommission fundamenally changes the nature of the definition at hand. Webster's doesn't define "god" as "the supreme or ultimate reality" in any general sense. Rather, it notes that this phrase only applies in two very specific contexts, i.e. when the context of the definition refers to a "Being" that is "perfect in power, wisdom and goodness," or who is "worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe." Your attempt to remove the necessary contexts which define the term is disingenous. If you want to use the term "god" accurately, those connotations are part of the meaning that defines that term.
I am sorry, but it isn't my responsibility to come up with a test to prove your claims.
Your evasion in this case is disingenuous, because you are attempting to avoid the necessary first premise upon which all of your subsequent arguments are based. In a debate, you don't get to arbitrarily exclude avenues of inquiry simply because those lines lead to a point that damages your position.
The fact that your argument uses a logical fallacy is an indication of its irrational underpinnings. Whether you want to make a logical argument isn't really the point. Logic is the study of the rational argumentation. If your argument lacks logic, then your argument is poorly constructed.
"Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος logos; meaning word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle) is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration."
A little of both. Perhaps I will write a blog on it.
As a philosophy, yes...I still hold some wiccan views, but as a religion no...I have rejected those beliefs entirely.
I think I have asked you before, but just in case I will do so again now. What "experiments" have you attempted with "prayer" that have convinced you of your current beliefs? I seriously doubt that anything you could explain to us would even approach the level of a reasonably valid test.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"it isn't my responsibility to come up with a test to prove your claims."
No, just any that you feel are needed to verify your own. Thus test, hypothesis and results are personal to each interested party. As far as I can tell you do not know what my 'claims' are.
---
"worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe." is an interesting secondary part of the first definition. Wouldn't the "creator and ruler of the universe" portion of that equate to the natural laws that fulfill(ed) those roles? 'Worship' seems to have at least as many meanings as 'god' and seems to create a bit too much confusion to be helpful to a common definition. "spirit", "Divine", and "infinite Mind" all seem at least a little more universal.
---
"Your attempt to remove the necessary contexts which define the term is disingenous. If you want to use the term "god" accurately, those connotations are part of the meaning that defines that term."
"disingenous" implies an attempt to mislead. That isn't my intention, but you seem to think I'm trying to 'win' here. Perhaps I am if winning means having a more comprehensive meaning for the word.
---
"In a debate, you don't get to arbitrarily exclude avenues of inquiry simply because those lines lead to a point that damages your position."
What debate?
---
"The fact that your argument uses a logical fallacy is an indication of its irrational underpinnings."
What argument?
---
"I think I have asked you before, but just in case I will do so again now. What "experiments" have you attempted with "prayer" that have convinced you of your current beliefs? I seriously doubt that anything you could explain to us would even approach the level of a reasonably valid test."
I don't remember you asking, but I'll gladly answer as best I can. As I said earlier any experiments YOU conduct are important only to your understanding.
The first thing would be considering the source of your knowledge, in my case the bible, in light of the fact that you simply do not know much of anything about God, and most of what you think you know is probably wrong. In my own case simplifying the definition down to a very basic one as I suggest here is how I began. This was needed mainly because I did not believe in any more complex being with anthromorphic qualities as a God. You seem to be struggling with this, but perhaps that is simply due to not seeing the point behind it.
The word god is used in the bible in more than one phrase and context. Reducing the definition to one that you believe is a first step to reading those references in a less sceptical mind set (do you even want to try?). There is a large amount that is valid if you can simply substitute the word 'truth' in place of the one with all those centuries of superstition added to its meaning. Jesus and Psalms/Proverbs hold their meaning especially well with that substitution. Taoism is another religion that seems even more compatable with this technique.
Prayer, if directed toward your best understanding of the universe, is almost identical to meditation. The next step of experimentation that I tried was prayer. Early on that was less than convincing, but after reviewing the basics such as fasting and Ascetic or selfless quiescence the results became more startling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting
Something that is a revalation to me may be old hat to you, or you may not have any interest in the process or results you may find. Not looking is a valid option, but then you lack some point of reference to understand the 'spiritual' discussion you seem to enjoy engaging in.
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Well, it isn't really a "test" in the empirical sense unless your results can be independently reproduced and/or verified. You may feel that your position is quite mysterious, but in reality your basic assertions are pain and frankly rather typical. You have posited the existence of an anthropomorphized entity, which you call "God," in the specific context of the concepts of the christian religion, modified slightly with a dose of agnostic pantheism. Your "hypothesis" or "premise" (depending on which avenue you wish to take to demonstrate the truth-value of your argument) is that this being actually exists. The only truly complex component of your presentation is the obscene level of obscurement in which you engage in order to hide the faulty reasoning which underlies the whole mess.
No, and for several reasons: Scientific Laws do not "create and rule" in the sense that those terms are used in the definition at hand, as Scientific Laws do not appear under any circumstance to possess the intelligence necessary to perform either of these functions. Such Laws are simply an observation of consistently predictable processes. I say, "Scientific Laws," because "natural law" is a concept in philosophy that refers specifically to socio-political constructions, and not to kinds of universal phenomenon that would satisfy your example.
How so? ALL religions represent a form of worship, and your particular brand of that product seems no different in that regard. The idea of worship is central to the meaning of the term "god," and your elimination would once again fundamentally alter the nature of the term.
There is no evidence that "spirit" exists.
There is no evidence that the "Divine" exists.
There is no evidence that an "infinite Mind" exists.
These are all religious concepts. All of them are speculative, subjective and unsupported by any evidence.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. I have watched your arguments evolve over many discussions, and if you think your presentations are not competitive in nature, you need to do a little self-evaluation. And, I do think you are attempting to mislead...not from a malicious motivation I suspect, but rather because you want so badly for your beliefs to be correct that you attempt not only to omit but to actively preclude discussions along lines that contradict your claims.
Sigh...you and I are debating, right now. It is not a formal debate, to be sure...but you are presenting an argument, I am rebutting, and you are attempting to counter that rebuttal. Honestly, this is the kind of comment that leads me to the accusation of disingenuity. I know you aren't stupid, chillbill, and it really is sad when you pretend to be so. It is a rather classic example of the psychological aloof drama, which I suppose I tend to precipitate though my use of interrogative techniques.
Again, please don't play dumb, or I will be forced to treat you as if you are. Argument is a form of "discourse intended to persuade."
The bible is not an objective source. It is demonstrably flawed on a factual level, and in fact contradicts itself in many places. That is, if you can even successfully determine which of the radically disparate cannons of the various christian sects actually constitutes "the bible" to begin with. Such a source does not provide a valid source for experimentation.
The word god is used in the bible in more than one phrase and context.
I can only think of two contexts that are legitimately associated with the term "god" in the books typically referred to as "the bible." One (and this is by far the most common), refers to the "God of Abraham"...a specific being, fully anthropomorphized and worshipped in a religious context. The other would be "god" in the sense of worshipping other "god's," which the book considers to be a punishable act.
Why would I want to "try" to think irrationally?
The problem is that the meaning you are replacing here are not consistent with the actual intent of the authors of those words. Your hoop-jumping machinations are just a desperate attempt to retro-fit your preferred religious beliefs into a reality that does not otherwise support your need to believe in these fantasies.
The act of prayer can produce a meditative state, I do not doubt...however there is one MAJOR difference between prayer and meditation. Meditation is a mental act that focuses the intelligence inward on the actor, while prayer by necessity is an appeal to a result from an outside intelligence.
In my many years as a priest, I engaged in quite a bit of prayer and meditation, thank you. It was a useful psychological tool, but ultimately I found it to lack any objective benefit. I must also point out that nothing you have described here indicates that you made any effort at all to actually "test" your beliefs. But then, that was a foregone conclusion, I suppose...
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Well, it isn't really a "test" in the empirical sense unless your results can be independently reproduced and/or verified. You may feel that your position is quite mysterious, but in reality your basic assertions are pain and frankly rather typical."
Yes, you are right. This is not a subject that will ever lend itself to independant verification. I was not trying to be mysterious, now or then, the results I found are typical, and have been acheived by most if not all that tried the same thing for thousands of years, in many different cultures. Outside of personal experience you will not find what you seek regarding the subject at hand.
---
"You have posited the existence of an anthropomorphized entity"
Please reread. It is getting tiring repeating myself. You have this 100% WRONG which is the basis for the generalization you drivel out in the rest of the paragraph. As you know a bad initial premise renders the rest of your conclusions invalid.
You are the only one here insisting on any type of imaginary or superstitious being.
---
"Scientific Laws do not "create and rule" in the sense that those terms are used in the definition at hand, as Scientific Laws do not appear under any circumstance to possess the intelligence necessary to perform either of these functions."
One of the subtle differences in you reading and my writing is the substitution of 'Scientific' and 'natural.' Natural laws are all of the governing forces AS THEY ACTUALLY ARE. Scientific laws are only our best current understanding of natural laws. One of the two changes, at least slightly, every day the other is often hidden, but present whether we see it or not. Some part of the natural laws is how this universe came to be (science does not know how), and all of it does in fact 'rule' this universe.
"I say, "Scientific Laws," because "natural law" is a concept in philosophy that refers specifically to socio-political constructions, and not to kinds of universal phenomenon that would satisfy your example."
That is only one meaning, and is derived from the one I am using. I comiserate with you in desiring one definition per term, but alas we are speaking english.
A good summary of how the legal meaning evolved from the original:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
Legal definition of science includes natural laws:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/11/28/6104
Even Atheists use this context:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/evil_laws.html
---
"How so? ALL religions represent a form of worship"
"a form of " as in many forms. There is a very large diference between 'love' and 'the blood of a baby goat.'
---
Argument, dabate....
I suppose by making the definition more inclusive of every religion I am trying to persuade you to be more open minded to what the word may mean. I would also like to dispel some of the hostility that an adversarial position creates especially if it is misunderstanding that creates it. No one that is religious thinks that their religion is superstition, while you appear to think they all are. Someone certainly missunderstands in that case.
---
"The bible is not an objective source."
Who said it was? I am saying that if you read certain portions with a specific word/meaning substitution the statements make more sense to me. I also note that other sections this does not work on. Fight it, fight it do not even read the words!
---
"I can only think of two contexts..."
More than those two:
"In the begining was the word and the word was god"
"God is a God of truth"
"Jesus is the truth"
""I am the way, the truth, and the life."
"Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth."
The identity as the truth is not hard to see. If you make that the assumed meaning rather than some imaginary being you get a different read. I cannot say that that interpretation is crucial to further understanding for you, but it was for me.
---
Why would I want to "try" to think irrationally?
I knew that answer was 'no' before I asked. I can't help you overcome the irrational thinking you think of as rational if you can't read since that is the medium we share. You were asked to substitute one definition for another and then read. Any thinking would be done to your best abilities, and if you are unwilling or unable to suspend your misunderstanding for long enough to consider other possibilities then those abilities should be suspect.
---
"actually "test" your beliefs."
Again, what beliefs? The tests changed some of my understanding and belief which is often what happens when you are objective.
"There is no god higher than truth"
Mahatma Gandhi
I'll answer you, below.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
oops.
If this is the case, then your appeals to the "tests" you have performed seem to lack any actual merit as a point of discussion.
I was not trying to be mysterious, now or then, the results I found are typical, and have been acheived by most if not all that tried the same thing for thousands of years, in many different cultures. Outside of personal experience you will not find what you seek regarding the subject at hand.
1) What credible, objective evidence do you have that the "results" that you claim to have found have actually been replicated by even one other person? (Hint: The answer is "none.")
2) An appeal to to the poplarity of theistic beliefs is a logically fallacy.
3) Anecdotal evidence is not a valid butress for logical arguments, and tend to lead to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, as yours has here.
Horsepuckey. You would LIKE to remove the anthropomorphized terminology from your argument, but the essense of your beliefs quite obviously still rely on that presumption. No matter how you slice it, use of the term "god" implies this premise. THAT's why your redefinitional argument is so problematic and prone to fallacy.
A subtle fallacy is still a fallacy, and just as your misuse of the term "god" adds confusion to your argument, your use of the term "natural law" tends to follow the philosophical structure to which this phrase normally refers. The reason that your example fails to work is that your religious corruption of the concept of universal Laws requires the addition of guiding intelligence for which there is no actual, objective evidence.
True, but when one considers that the entire thrust of your position is an attempt to overlay a religious philosophy over the "natural" sciences, it seems the most contextually correct definition to use.
Yes, there are differences...but there is an underlying similarity as well, and that is the direction of "worship" in the religious sense, i.e. the belief that the act is based around a reverence for a "higher" being.
Words in the English language are defined by common useage. Your useage is relative novel, and includes elements which fundamentally alter the normal meaning of the terms in question. I would be far more willing to consider your re-definition of these terms, IF they were based on a meaningful shift in the common useage. However, what we have here is actually an attempt to deprive words of their understood meaning simply in your hope that by doing so your otherwise irrational ideas can be couched in more rational terms.
The fact that "No one that is religious thinks that their religion is superstition" is actually a very good example of why I think that all religions are based on superstition, supported by the fact that there are a vast number of religions on this planet, all of which contradict each other on at least one (and usually quite a few more) significant doctrinal belief(s). My evaluation of religion is very simple, and based on the same standards of credibility and evidence that I expect from any rational assertion. I have discussed religion with many different people, in many different forums and contexts. And without exception, the arguments of theism rely on the willingness of its audience to suspend the normal standards of rational thought that would otherwise govern their decision to accept or reject the information being offered. In this, your presentation here is no different.
If you don't consider the source objective, why would you offer it up for consideration...especially to someone who like myself is known to be insistent in that regard?
As you well know, I am one of the probably very few members of ProU who has actually read the common cannons of "the bible," and one of the even fewer who have actually studied those texts both in a religious and a scholarly context. If you would like to test our relative knowledge of the contents of that (to quote Thomas Jefferson) "dunghill," by all means knock yourself out. If you plan, however, to do as you suggest and to substitute your own invented meanings to replace what was actually written and intended by the original authors, you will once again find me rather implacable.
John 1:1 uses the Greek theos, which according to Strong's Concordance may refer to "a general name of deities or divinities," but in this context refers to "the Godhead, trinity a) God the Father, b) Christ, c) Holy Spirit." This is a direct reference to the "God of Abraham," which is the only "god" that the various bible cannons refer to as an object of worship.
I'm guessing that this was meant to be a reference to Deuteronomy 32:4, in which case the word translated to mean "god" here is 'el, a term that in context refers to "God, the one true God, Jehovah" (again according to Stong's Concordance).
None of these actually refer to the term "god," so they don't seem to support your previous assertion.
It only seems easy to see for you because your interpretations rely on some pretty significant alterations from the intent presented in the texts' original languages. You certainly have a very creative mind, chillbill, but your presentation lacks the serious scholarly basis that would be necessesary to credibly argue for the positions you prefer.