• Benj96
    2.3k
    The problem with any theistic view is just that, it is a “view” held by a singular person. Even if that persons view or belief is attached to that of a larger group (such as in organised religions) it’s very likely the persons theistic understanding personal, based some part of individual experience/ circumstances /culture and is therefore unique and never fully held by all parties. In essence even a Christian differs in their belief of Christian god to other Christians and like wise in Islam, Judaism etc.

    The problem posed here is that “god” or “gods” are inherently subjective metaphysical concepts that repeated fail to be put objectively on paper. That is to say any theistic view is ill defined specifically but generally and collective well understood.

    So how does one from a religious background define their god objectively to atheist? You can use tools and materials (the scriptures of religions) but even then these books don’t claim comprehensive understanding or definition of a god(s).

    But herein lies the irony of atheism. One can equally argue that you cannot with reason or logic as a principle, be atheist towards all gods. Because you do not know “all gods” - the sun of interpretations off all individuals with a belief in such entities.

    At most you can either academically investigate a form of theism/ religion and decide if you should deny the existence of that god based on reason/ logic or scientific grounds but in the end that’s one god. You can be Christian atheist or atheist towards a religious view of a particular individual. Or all major religions atheist. Or all religions you have come across so far atheist. But never in any of those cases could you be a total atheist.

    This really leaves two categories; those who believe in some form of god but have yet to successfully define it or tie it In with modern understanding or their view is rejected by some part of the populous on reasonable grounds and 2). Those who are agnostic and actively refuting each definition provided in search of something they can fully refute/ cannot refute.

    This argument thus seems mute. It’s impossible for an atheist to prove all gods don’t exist just as it is impossible for a theist to (thus far) provide anything more than anecdotal evidence.

    Let’s consider a hypothetical theist now. I find that the more vague a concept is the more difficult it is to refute because of its intrinsically I’ll defined nature. This theists god is the universe and existence. It is omnipotent - all levels of energetic power/potential, omnipresent - all space and time, and omniscient - all information and interactions that can occur die to energy.

    So far I would think it’s rather difficult to find anything to disagree on. Atheists could argue that the universe isn’t conscious its material and therefore external reality cannot be personified as “god” and a theist could argue well I’m a part of the universe and I’m a subject so the universe can definitely be in a state of personhood therefore I’d wish to subjectify it as “God”. Both opinions have validity until argued further whether deliberations and differences occur.

    So herein lies the confusion really. Is universe the correct word? Or is god the correct word? Is there even a difference?

    The real argument To be had is one where spiritual and religious philosophy and science stop trying to deny specifics and arbitrary rules about one other And begin to define something from the most general most fundamental laws and rules bans unite or find common ground in each other’s ideas of how to define existence/ the universe.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    Only the intellectually dishonest state that 'God' or 'No God' is truth. Or, in Biblical, name-calling type language, only the fool says there is 'God' or 'no God'.

    find common groundBenj96

    In general, whatever side assumes a lot is more suspect to not being fact. Strong theories assume very little, such as Evolution and thus show a lot of evidence. Attempted Disproofs can only be based on self-contradiction. Being agnostic seems quite reasonable. Getting off the Agnostic fence, as one must usually do in practice, in such as going or not to Church, can be based on probability.

    The common ground would be that the All can be shown to have to be eternal.
  • Banno
    24.8k
    God, being imaginary, can be whatever one might imagine.

    That's nothing especially profound. Or useful.
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    How can imaginary things not be profound or useful? All “arbitrary” concepts are imaginary when it comes down to it. The second is a completely artificial demarcation of time imagined by humans yet it’s utility is profoundly diverse.

    You likely work every day for an imaginary value that is collectively trusted to work for everyone. Currency. If they all decided not to believe in its value anymore and therefore not accept it as legal tender your money would be nothing more than a flimsy set of paper notes.

    In essence you’re trading in “trust and security of belief in value”. A value that isn’t really there. So I would not go as far as to underestimate the power of imagined concepts.
  • Kenosha Kid
    3.2k
    One can equally argue that you cannot with reason or logic as a principle, be atheist towards all gods.Benj96

    It's true that people can and do make God so ill-defined that one cannot say that it exists or doesn't. But if the thing someone claims exists has no discerning properties, one can dismiss the claim without dismissing the thing itself. If your God is so ill-defined that it might be a teapot or the entire universe, the claim is meaningless and can be rejected on those grounds.

    As Banno said, the discussion isn't particularly useful. One can replace god with a stuvletumpfeckle and we can all have a good ol' debate about whether it exists without ever defining it. Really, the burden lies with the stuvletumpfecklist to define what the hell they're talking about, not for the astuvletumpfecklist to justify their skepticism.

    Also, if each person believes their God exists but no one else's, this isn't a theist versus atheist issue. As Dawkins said, we all agree that most gods don't exist. Atheists just go one god further. You can reconsider your question in terms of two people who do not believe in each other's god. How do you justify their positions? Either all beliefs are equally justified, no beliefs are justified, or else the criteria for a belief being justified lies outside the argumentation put forth here. (It's the third one.)
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    It's true that people can and do make God so ill-defined that one cannot say that it exists or doesn't. But if the thing someone claims exists has no discerning properties, one can dismiss the claim without dismissing the thing itself. If your God is so ill-defined that it might be a teapot or the entire universe, the claim is meaningless and can be rejected on those grounds.Kenosha Kid
    The crux. Amen. :up:
  • Lokii
    8
    Is it so difficult to understand that the mere logical proof of the existence of a "first cause" only proves the existence of "some" God and not of the Christian God in particular? And is it so difficult to understand that as proof of the existence of the Christian God in particular, this proof only has at most a REASONABILITY value, not a SURE one, so much so that it is accepted equally by Muslims and deists? And is it so difficult to understand that, if we admit the Christian God as the only true God, the distance between the mere logical concept of "some God" and the reality of the true God is immeasurable?

    This is the same difference between the knowledge of God by logical necessity and the knowledge of God by his action in the world. The first is generic and the second is, specifically, the Christ.
  • Gnomon
    3.7k
    The common ground would be that the All can be shown to have to be eternal.PoeticUniverse
    Yes. Before the advent of the Big Bang theory, many philosophers and scientists assumed that the ever-changing physical universe itself actually eternal, and cyclical (steady state). But the BB theory implied that the knowable universe is temporal and conditional. Which means that the BB could be interpreted as a creation event : perhaps, something from nothing. However, in an attempt to avoid the special creation implication, some scientists have produced a new Eternal Inflationary Universe Theory. In that case, the physical universe is self-existent, and had no need for a creator --- just an ever-inflating balloon that never pops.

    Therefore, it seems that even Atheist scientists must logically assume that our knowable temporary world is not all there is. For a temporal universe to exist, there must be an external eternal realm of some kind. Exactly what that (non-empirical; unknowable) "kind" may be, is subject to imagination and personal preferences : eternally evolving or recycling Matter, or the timeless infinite potential of immaterial Mind. So, for both Theists and Atheists, Eternity & Infinity must encompass ALL possibilities. And, "The ALL" is one common descriptor of God. Hence, as the OP asked : "Is universe the correct word? Or is god the correct word? Is there even a difference?" :cool:


    The All : The All (also called The One, The Absolute, The Great One, The Creator, The Supreme Mind, The Supreme Good, The Father, and The All Mother) is the Hermetic, pantheistic, pandeistic or panentheistic (and thus also panpsychism/monopsychism/unus mundus/anima mundi) view of God, which is that everything that is, or at least that can be experienced, collectively makes up The All.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_All

    Eternal Inflation : Alan Guth's 2007 paper, "Eternal inflation and its implications",[3] states that under reasonable assumptions "Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

    A Refutation of Time : The 20th century Argentine writer, Jorge Luis Borges, was intrigued by such paradoxes as Time within Eternity.
    http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page23.html

    An Eternal and Uncreated Universe or the Big Bang? : https://medium.com/amazing-science/an-eternal-and-uncreated-universe-or-the-big-bang-12f5ccf7c4fd
  • KerimF
    162


    To me in the least, there are two main images of God: the Ruling God and the Lawless God.

    All religious worshipers, I heard of, see in their God the ultimate supernatural ruling king.

    Therefore, a typical atheist is simply a person who doesn’t mind submitting to an earthly kingdom but not to any imaginary one, said supernatural.

    By the way, Jesus only revealed clearly (on the today’s Gospel) that God is lawless. But this truth had to be cleverly deformed in ALL Christian doctrines; let us say, for practical reasons :)
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.