Challenge for Atheists: Define God

Yet another atheist non-answer...

Define to me what you claim "does not exist". Go ahead. Show everybody here what your atheism means.

 

It isn't my problem, if you don't understand that then you have not thought this through properly.

Do you claim that Hibblejubblejobblies don't exist?

 

I don't know what a Hibblejubblejobbly is.

Tell me what it is, and then I'll tell you whether I believe it exists or not.


GO AHEAD, WAITING...............................

I've been waiting years for an answer. I'm entitled to some by now.

 

Read back what you just wrote...too funny.

 

Tell me what a Hibblejubblejobbly is, right now, or you don't have a point.

 

It's obvious that the Hibblejubblejobbly exists, are you claiming that it doesn't?

 

This is very problematic from a semantic point of view as something "non-exisistant" - by definition - does not exist and therefore cannot be described. You cannot describe a "mjgfhtfdsffzx" can you?

Now, I am not atheist, but agnostic yet I am smart dnough to understand this post is flat-out stupid.

 

What? Your question presumes atheism is a ideology; it is not, it is simply a rejection of claims that god exists based on the merit there is no evidence for it.

Christians need to stop treating atheism like it is a religion, it isn't. I am an atheist Buddhist. I tried Christianity for many, many years.

Guess what? No one ever spoke back to me. No prayers were ever answered. Because it's all baloney.

Why do you think people love star wars, and lord of the rings, and all these majestic works of literature and art? Because the mythology binds us together and gives us a sense of meaningfulness in a never ending void of absolute annihilation.

Culture as we know it relies on some mysticism, it is necessary. But it doesn't have to come with all these caveats; do this or xyz happens, etc.

I find that the bible is useful as a guide for specific modes of morality and nothing more.

So, to get to your question; Define God - the short answer is, I don't have to define god. The long answer is that god as defined by who? The ancient greeks? Or, the Romans? Perhaps you'd like a definition of God from Sun Tze? Or, how about Kublai Kahn? Or, perhaps the ancient Mesopotamians?

That's really the hilarious part about these questions. It assumes a position of dominance, in that the only definition possible is one that adheres with the dogmatic approach of judeo-Christian belief.

Your definition of god is inherently tied to the belief system you CHOOSE, and I say choose absolutely; if you had been born in Nepal, you'd probably be worshipping something other then a falsely white jesus.

Your question, then, is simply a trap. It's a meritless trap meant to try and exert some form of moral high ground by presuming one way or the other, and that in and of itself makes the premise of the argument you're trying to make entirely untenable.

 

I try to approach the question of whether or not god exists from as many different perspectives as I can.

Some people define God as the bible does. Within that framework I have considered the idea of a trinity, the idea that Yahweh or Jehovah of the Old Testament and Jesus of the New Testament are the same being and that they are father and son and that they are two separate religious figures grafted together when one culture appropriated the other's mythology.

This is where the primary definition of God that I use comes from - a Judeo Christian perspective.

Others define Gods as separate beings in the different mythologies like Norse, Egyptian, Greek, Roman etc. I have look at these gods way less than the Christian one mainly because they are more easily discountable although I see an artistic value in their presentation.

I have also considered just a general definition of a "supernatural" being that is a prime mover unmoved.

There are lots of definitions of god but none which provide enough certainty to conclude that there is such a being.

I do find meaning in the idea of a pantheist's definition of God wherein "god" is the natural universe, is unmoved by our prayers, is understandable to a limited extent by understanding the laws of nature. This is the god described by Spinoza and Einstein essentially. Sometimes it's easy to go from this understanding into a Buddhist perspective but I find that a little too fanciful as well.

Is there a definition of God the op knows of which an agnostic-atheist such as myself should consider which might give me certainty that god exists?

What did you hope to learn by asking the question?

 

Getting a rational argument out of an atheist is like getting blood out of a stone. Good luck.

Here's my challenge for atheists:

Present a better argument than God for why a rational (non-chaotic) universe which looks exactly like it was designed exists.

 

Why? I take existence as the primary fact, there's no explaining why it is what it is.

It just is.

I'm not sure how God helps you escape this. Surely you must believe that God "just is."

 

Who designed the buildings that you see around you, God or man?

 

What are the criteria we use to choose which argument is better?

 

How exactly does the universe look like it was designed? If it was designed, the designer is shitty and needs to be fired.

 

"Would you not say to yourself, 'Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.'"
— Sir Fred Hoyle, Legendary, Award-Winning Astronomer

"How exactly does the universe look like it was designed? If it was designed, the designer is shitty and needs to be fired."
— Questerr, Guy on a Message Board

 

Atheism is the denial of a proposed deity. You propose the existence of a deity, you lack evidence, and I deny it on account of the lack of evidence.

 

I don't see any reason to accept that the Universe could've been anything else. In other words, I don't believe in the "chance" aspect of this argument.

 

as follows: "according to those who define them (those who proposed the idea in the first place), a god is an invisible being with magical powers".

 

I can see why Sir Hoyle chose to believe that a "superintellect" designed the carbon atom. he has however offered no evidence so his belief cannot be considered knowledge.

It is much like the image below, it can be seen as a candle stick or two faces. One can see it either way. There is no evidence to suggest it is one and not the other. If I saw two people arguing over which one it was I would be surprised if each person could not understand the other's perspective.

 

So for instance, if you encountered a pothole in the middle of the road filled to the top with water, would you marvel at how that pothole must have been created with that specific depth and shape to hold just the right amount of water...

...or would you justly analyze that the water conformed to the pothole?

The idea that something like carbon must have been designed is as idiotic as thinking horses must have been designed for the specific purpose of pulling carts.

The argument literally puts the cart before the horse.

 

In the way of Immanuel Kant, the human mind intrinsically thinks of things as requiring a beginning and an end because we exist in time and space. We ourselves have a beginning and an end and most of what we observe has a beginning and an end. This is an a priori mode of thought. Therefore when considering the universe itself we tend to think of it as having a beginning and an end. We have difficulty grasping something complicated as not having a finite beginning, end an even a designer.

 

RE: Challenge for Atheists: Define God
※→ Heretic, et al,

I find it strange that the "believers" are asking "non-believers" for a definition.

Proving Non-Existence
- Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett, PhD -

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
​

(COMMENT)

In another discussion thread, the question is actually avoided. It turns out that most believes know nothing about the traits, attributes, characteristics, or qualities of their deity. It is even difficult for them to determine whether or not the deity of their particular denomination is beyond nature, or a development of nature.

If there is no God, then there is nothing to define and no comparison or evaluation to make.

Few people know what constitutes a God in the context of the mainstream religions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Historical views of God in Western Civ:
As defined by Aristotle: Perfect being, whose perfection entails the in ability to change, since change implies a state of imperfection (something lacking) - God is the unmoved mover of all things that contemplates only itself.
As defined by Anselm: God is that which nothing greater can be thought - ultimate perfection.
As defined by Spinoza: natura naturans - God is everything (i.e. Nature itself) - there is nothing that is not God
As defined by Hegel: God is the Eternal Idea made real in the becoming of Being (a bit abstract, but similar to Spinoza) - think the Gospel of John (Logos, the wisdom of God, becoming real through incarnation - but rather than just Jesus, this is applied to everything).

The following are traditional claims about what the nature of God is - namely perfection - which seems to entail the following characteristics:
Omniscience: knowing all things - past, present, and future
Omnipotence: the power to do anything (presumably all things that are logically possible)
Omnibenevolence: perfect moral goodness
Omnipresence: there are no limitations to God's being or existence - God is everywhere
Eternality - God has always existed and always will exist (some even claim - e.g. Boethius, that this entails a God outside of time - although, if God is outside of time, this makes for difficulties in understanding how God acts since acts are themselves temporal - with a beginning, middle, and end).
Simplicity: God has no parts, hence God is not a physical being

Now there are various forms of theism. This is typically how Western thinkers have historically conceived of God. It is a specific narrow view of theism (as opposed to a broader view which would entail more esoteric (e.g. Hinduism) or less rigorous conceptions of the divine (e.g. deism or process theology like that of Alfred North Whitehead - God is in the process of self-actualization - but not there yet - i.e. not perfect, or that there is some general divine reality "out there").

As such, atheism can also be atheistic in the sense of denying the narrow view of God (that one does not believe in the existence of the perfect God as outlined above) or it can be a broader form (that one lacks belief in any type of divine reality).

 

RE: Challenge for Atheists: Define God
※→ Adorno, et al,

I agree. This is one of the better definitions (attributes and characteristic) I have seen.

(COMMENT)

Yeah - and - this is the basis for many a discussion concerning the lack of "freewill."

Most Respectfully.
R

 

When I was an atheist I would defined God as a human construct. As a Deist I define God as a theological intangible.