Is this comment directed to the word "define" or to the word "god?" It started as though to the former...but ended as though to the latter — Frank Apisa

Both. And...

dictionaries truly do not "define" words (my sense of "define") but rather tell us how the word is most often used — Frank Apisa

My guess is that during this 'preparation stage' was the perfect male, who hunted for the perfect female, and their relationship resulted in the big bang.

I don't feel stupid for suggesting this, I feel inept. — opt-ae

alrighty then

jorndoe
973
Is this comment directed to the word "define" or to the word "god?" It started as though to the former...but ended as though to the latter
— Frank Apisa

Both. And...

dictionaries truly do not "define" words (my sense of "define") but rather tell us how the word is most often used
— Frank Apisa — jorndoe

Okay...then I will respond to the part that deals with the word "god."

I have several "definitions" (explanations of what I mean when I use the word...) "god."

None of them are what you suggest is, "...contradictory, unidentifiable, unshowable or just anything/whatever."

The fact that there are several "definitions" of a word is not unusual...or is it debilitating to conversation or discussion. As a "for instance"...if a person starts a conversation identifying as "an atheist" or "a liberal" or "a conservative"...you still have a way to go before figuring out what is meant...but you CAN converse and discuss with some notions in mind.

I am not a fan of the "what do you mean by god" question from people who use the descriptor "atheist." We can talk about that if you want, but it would be a diversion from the thread, so let's avoid it here.

I have several "definitions" (explanations of what I mean when I use the word...) "god." — Frank Apisa

Just (say) three will do. Don't be coy, Frank, do tell.

Howcome, ?
If someone wants to talk, only to refuse to tell about what, then what are they wanting to talk about anyway? Be it Shiva, "the greatest", The Triune, the universe (or a supposed sentient creator thereof), their feelings, that over there (showing), "the great unknown" (or "unknowable" perhaps), ghosts of imagined entities, ..., whatever.
Might as well predicate sufficiently, or all bets are off, everyone might head off in whatever directions. Before someone starts talking about their gods, these discussions don't come up in the first place.
Granted, sometimes the subject is contextually implicit in the situation, like during a prayer session over at the mosque.
(Incidentally, a Shaivist mystic once scorned me for using the word "God" when referring to the Biblical Yahweh; so I learned to be a bit more respectful with word-use.)
My suggestion earlier round up three possibilities: define, show, go by common usage (coinciding somewhat/partially with your comment). Maybe there are others?

180 Proof
1.5k
I have several "definitions" (explanations of what I mean when I use the word...) "god."
— Frank Apisa
Just (say) three will do. Don't be coy, Frank, do tell. — 180 Proof

No problemo! Each subtly different.

#1:

What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”

I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.

I suspect there may be LOTS of things that do exist…that humans are incapable of detecting in any way. We are, after all, just the currently dominant species on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among thousands of billions of galaxies.

#2:

What I mean when I use the words “God” or “gods.”



Predicates:

It is my opinion that what we humans call “the universe” may well not be everything that exists. All these hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars…may be just a tiny part of something incomprehensibly larger.

Secondly, even here is this thing we humans call “the universe” there may well exist entities that are not discernable to human senses in any way.

Thirdly, I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) makes no sense to me.

Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way.

The notion, we need to revere, honor, and worship any God or gods that do exist does not enter the picture. (I am not saying such a GOD could not exist.) The need for omnipotence or continued involvement in not involved in what I mean. (I am not saying that could not be the case.)

#3:

My definition of "god."

An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”

See above.

Let me tell you, it's a whole lot better than believing in:

a) God, and then the big bang.
b) Nothing, and then the big bang.

a) and b) are equal in stupidity.

How small-minded and boring must one be to confidently express that nothing or God came before the big bang?

I'd rather assume that ancient simulations and intelligences had existed before - we don't have evidence of these because we're too far away - in too strange of a simulation.

Just saying; nothing, is not a sensible answer - it's equal to God in stupidity. What makes you think nothing came before? You have no evidence, it's not like you rounded it down either.

Massive, elemental, big bang, filled with lot's of stuff. How did it get here? "Oh, nothing - or God".

No problemo! Each subtly different. — Frank Apisa

Thanks! :up:

#1:

What do I mean when I use the word “god” ...?

I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”

Well, in so far as the universe's earliest measurable era had a planck radius and was an acausal quantum event (i.e. a random vacuum fluctuation re: Noether's Theorem, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Hartle-Hawking No Boundary, etc), causal agency such as "creator g/G" does not obtain. Evidence of "creation" - higher than minimal entropy - must be observable (directly or indirectly) like all other events / physical transformations in the universe and yet there is no such evidence whatsoever; therefore, this entails that there is no - never was a - "creator g/G". Theism - Abrahamic, Vedic, Greco-Roman, Norse, etc - is not true.

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.

It doesn't matter whether or not g/G is "supernatural" but whether or not any such g/G is defined as intervening - causing changes - in nature; and if so, because nature is scienfically observable and therefore changes in nature are scientifically observable, then the claims of believers or scriptures that some g/G has intervened - caused changes - in nature entails observable (direct or indirect) evidence - and yet there is none whatsoever. Again, theism is not true.

One must not know whether or not there is scientifically observable nature in order not to know whether or not there is (at least one) g/G that intervenes - causes changes - in, or created, nature. Scientific (& historical) illiteracy notwithstanding, nature itself is evidence that there is no theistic g/G - theism is not true. If someone claims that an angel walked across wet cement, then there must be footprints; if there are no footprints in the wet cement, then that 'walking angel' so described does not exist - or the claim that she walked across the wet cement is not true - insofar as walking on wet cement causes the observable effect of leaving behind footprints.

#1:

What do I mean when I use the word “god” ...?

I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”
Well, in so far as the universe's earliest measurable era had a planck radius and was an acausal quantum event (i.e. a random vacuum fluctuation re: Noether's Theorem, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Hartle-Hawking No Boundary, etc), causal agency such as "creator g/G" does not obtain. Evidence of "creation" - higher than minimal entropy - must be observable (directly or indirectly) like every other events / physical transformations in the universe and yet there is no such evidence whatsoever; therefore, this entails that there is no - never was a - "creator g/G". Theism - Abrahamic, Vedic, Greco-Roman, Norse, etc - is not true. — 180 Proof

Okay...if you and the others say so.

Although I prefer to be more circumspect.

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.
It doesn't matter whether or not g/G is "supernatural" but whether or not any such g/G is defined as intervening - causing changes - in nature; and if so, because nature is scienfically observable and therefore changes in nature are scientifically observable, then the claims of believers or scriptures that some g/G has intervened - caused changes - in nature entails observable (direct or indirect) evidence - and yet there is none whatsoever. — 180 Proof

Okay, if you say so. But I prefer to be more circumspect.

As for things like, "...because nature is scienfically observable and therefore changes in nature are scientifically observable..."...well, I prefer to be more circumspect. Some humans seem to think that things can only exist if humans can detect them/it. Those humans may be all wet.

Jury is still out as far as I am concerned.

Again, theism is not true. — 180 proof

Oddly worded comment. Give it another try and I'll respond.

can stand up and move my arms. Yes, you can do two things at once and here you are doing one thing (daydreaming) while not doing another as efficiently or not doing entirely at all (driving). How is this contradictory? — substantivalism

Because it transcends logic: bivalence/LEM.

you will support your burden of proof on christianity? That Jesus really existed or was god.
21h — substantivalism

Yes, Jesus existed. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? I'm still confused regarding your burden of proof argument.

F-it. I'm done, this is giving me anxiety with your constant convolution of the discussion or constant re-adjusting of positions/lines of argumentation. I'm going to take the advice I should have from the other few posters I directly asked about this discussion or you and just stop. — substantivalism

Well, I'm sorry you feel frustrated enough to throw in the towel. I was just getting ready to provide some additional fodder to digest. Meaning, there are other features of conscious existence that are equally as mysterious ( aside from how the conscious and subconscious works together). With respect to metaphysics, (the Will) as we've been discussing, does in fact function in other mysterious ways during cognition/everydayness.

For instance,

• St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know.

"

1. There was something before the big bang...
2. There was nothing before the big bang... — opt-ae

3. There is no "before the big bang".

This last is the view implicit in the very physical theory that deduced the big bang.

3. There is no "before the big bang". — Banno

Are you sure? That seems to be patently false because energy was created prior to the Big Bang.

Oddly worded comment. Give it another try and I'll respond. — Frank Apisa

But you already have! Thanks, Frank. :smirk:

That seems to be patently false because energy was created prior to the Big Bang. — 3017amen

It was? And how do we know this? Or are you again just making stuff up?

I think you would be making stuff up if you were to try and argue that. Kind of like arguing multiverse.

From THE MATHEMATICS OF THE BIG BANG

Assuming certain conditions satisfied by our universe such as the predictability of the past and future, the limited speed of matter and energy, and the expansion of space translated into the language of Lorentz manifolds, an inevitable consequence is that any path a particle has traveled to get to this current moment in time cannot be longer than a fixed upper bound which can be interpreted as an upper bound on the age of the universe.

...that is, time started with the big bang.

180 Proof
1.5k
Oddly worded comment. Give it another try and I'll respond.
— Frank Apisa
But you already have! Thanks, Frank. :smirk: — 180 Proof

If by "theism is not true" you mean that the assertion, "There is a god" is not true...

...then there is no way I could possibly have answered it. I have no idea if the assertion, "There is a god" is true or false...just as I have no idea if the assertion, "There are no gods" is true or false.

If you want to discuss this issue, let's do so. If you are just messing around...let's not.

I agree, in the absence of evidence there is no reason to claim that god exists; nor any reason to suppose that he does not.

But I don't think we need stop at that. We can ask if there is a coherent notion of god.

This, of course, puts the ball in the theists court; it is up to them to present a description of god that is consistent and tenable. But we can go a step further and say that if an agnostic is going to claim that god is possible, then they also should be able to present an account of what god is, that is consistent and tenable.

And in the absence of such an account, atheism seems the reasonable conclusion.

If you want to discuss this issue, let's do so. — Frank Apisa

We've already discussed it for months now. We don't even disagree actually because your assertions are incoherent (not even false) and don't address my arguments substantively. It'd help 'our discussion' if you'd carefully read what I've written on this topic (here and elsewhere) and respond accordingly, but you haven't and still won't (or can't). I now only respond to your 'agnostic confusion' in order to edify - provoke - others who might be as confused, though not as incorrigibly as you clearly are, Frank.

I don't understand why there isn't a "before the big bang"; do you care to elaborate?

Prior to the big bang was potentially many simulations like the universe; why must we be the only existence?

Isn't that small-minded?

Why nothing? Nothing is lack of anything; if there ever was nothing; how did it become a big bang? If it was nothing, then how did it gather the power needed to become something?

I expect you to say "I don't know" to my question, and given that I tend to agree with my own theory about ancient simulations (involved in big bang science).

I completely understand what you mean by there's no evidence to suggest g/G that there is no evidence to suggest ancient civilizations - but when deducing what may have caused - and I'm saying there was a cause to - the big bang, other life seems reasonable.

When I take in your comment about nothing being there I'm confronted by the questions I asked earlier; how did it become a big bang?

If nothing undergoes transformation and becomes a big bang, that transformation is the part I'm pointing to.

I'd even go as far to blindly guess that intelligent life existed.

This isn't something I'm assured of, I'm making a suggestion - it is a 'God-of-the-gaps' typo proposition. This is based on my experience of people's will-to-live, their creativity and so forth.

Do I think life before the big bang was possible? Why can't a different simulation form like the universe? Do we take up all the space in existence? This is what bugs me.

(I might be wrong - I don't know - you're confusing me with confidence).

I don't understand why there isn't a "before the big bang" — opt-ae

What is south of the South Pole?

The question makes no sense. The notion of "south of..." stops working at the south pole.

Same goes for "before..." at the big bang. That's what the mathematics says.

I completely understand what you mean by there's no evidence to suggest g/G that there is no evidence to suggest ancient civilizations — opt-ae

Not at all sure what this is about.

That's what the mathematics says.

"before..." at

You lost me.

Usually, there is a before, during and after. The mathematics you claim to know is, during and after but before makes no sense.

Again, you lost me. I've had enough of this, I'll leave God to you guys.

So, think on the question: What is south of the South Pole?

"South" starts at the pole.

""before" starts at the big bang.

See the second answer here...

I tend to agree with my own theory about ancient simulations (involved in big bang science). — opt-ae

I didn't see this, and on a quick look did not find a post about it...

But claiming that the universe is a simulation does not seem to me at all helpful in explaining why the universe exists...

Suppose that this universe is a simulation. Then, there is another, second universe in which this universe is simulated; this universe is a simulation, the second universe in which it is simulated is the real universe...

But then we can ask, why is does that second universe exist? Why is there a second universe in which this first universe can be simulated?

How do you answer that? is that universe itself a simulation? then there must be yet a third universe in which the second universe is simulated...

Simulations all the way down?

Correct; there is no before in context of universe-time; universe time begins at the big bang.

Given it had a cause(something I brought up that is continuously ignored), I'm not limiting myself to illusions or abstractions of nothing.

There was nothing - contextually: universe life - before the big bang.



Yes, ancient simulations, other simulations, now you're hearing me out. I don't think it's illogical like you suggest though, simulations of this universe may only be one segment of another simulation - such as the space where the super computer exists that observes it.

Given it had a cause(something I brought up that is continuously ignored), I'm not limiting myself to illusions or abstractions of nothing. — opt-ae

Cause is over-rated.

Banno
8.6k
↪Frank Apisa
I agree, in the absence of evidence there is no reason to claim that god exists; nor any reason to suppose that he does not.

But I don't think we need stop at that. We can ask if there is a coherent notion of god.

This, of course, puts the ball in the theists court; it is up to them to present a description of god that is consistent and tenable. But we can go a step further and say that if an agnostic is going to claim that god is possible, then they also should be able to present an account of what god is, that is consistent and tenable.

And in the absence of such an account, atheism seems the reasonable conclusion. — Banno

The first part of what you said there sounds very fair to me, Banno...

...although we might have to discuss what "consistent and tenable" means. We can do that!

That last part sounds gratuitous to me.

In the absence of this "consistent and tenable" thing...the reasonable conclusion I see is "the theists are not being successful." Nothing more.

The "atheist" part means assigning a descriptor to that lack of success...and the descriptor "atheist" carries lots of baggage. I doubt, for instance, we could conclude, AS DO SOME ATHEISTS, that therefore NO GODS EXIST.

180 Proof
1.5k
If you want to discuss this issue, let's do so.
— Frank Apisa
We've already discussed it for months now. We don't even disagree actually because your assertions are incoherent (not even false) and don't address my arguments substantively. It'd help 'our discussion' if you'd carefully read what I've written on this topic (here and elsewhere) and respond accordingly, but you haven't and still won't (or can't). I now only respond to your 'agnostic confusion' in order to edify - provoke - others who might be as confused, though not as incorrigibly, as you clearly are, Frank. — 180 Proof

If you would prefer to divert to that kind of shit, 180...do it with a fellow amateur, not with me.