Challenge for Atheists: Define God

They mean the god that they believe Christians talk about.
They are right, because Christians have the god idea all messed up.
But most educated atheists do say, "Reality is boss," and all life must bow down to it or become extinct.

 

So you are suggesting that the known edge of the universe is all that there is? Yet at the same time there is the suggestion that the universe is expanding. In order for something to expand, there has to be space in which that something can expand. What is that something into which the known universe is expanding?

Scientifically arrived at constants? In other words, you and the scientific community are both saying that there is absolutely no way that those constants can be in error (error even in the slightest degree)? Remember Newton and Einstein in their theories... they were in error and subsequently had to change them as new evidence appeared..

 

Atheists disbelieve in all the same Gods you do, they just also disbelieve in the one you believe in.....

can you define all the Gods you do not believe in?

.

 

You mean like we do in this day and age with the conjuring of names like quarks, bosons, etc.?

 

The known universe is expanding, it isn't a suggestion, it is an proven observation. As to what its expanding into, how about nothing.

How about this?
http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-is-universe-expanding-into.html

Yes, that is how science works. Constants don't change, theories do. If, thru instrumentation, technology refines the accuracy of the constant, that does not invalidate the use and application of the less precise constant that was used.

Apparently you really can't grasp basic scientific concepts, as your attempts to muddle them establish rather definitively.

 

The solid spherically shaped Earth is 4.534 Billion years old and marks the second of the six days of Geological Time we call the Hadean Era:

 

There are a great many gods of all shapes and sizes but none of them actually exist in reality. Instead they are all just figments of the imagination. A "god" of pine trees "exists" as long as there are those who can convince themselves that this pine tree god exists. If there are no longer any believers then all that remains of that pine tree god would be whatever artifacts the believers had made to worship their pine tree god.

The same applies to any current god(s) that you claim exist.

And the onus is on you to provide verifiable independently reproducible evidence for whatever god(s) you claim exist.

Your OP question lacks merit because you are asking others to read your mind and tell you what it is that you are imagining your god(s) to be.

Since only you can describe the god(s) are in your imagination what you ask is never going to happen.

And no atheist is obliged to read your mind.

 

He means The Reality.

- - - Updated - - -

But Reality, itself, is "a god-like" entity, which demands we either insanely ignore it, or do what it demands and avoid pain and suffering,... right??

 

Do you have a credible link to substantiate your allegation about atheists?

 

Can't even make a simple the distinction. We actually did and do understand the role of sub atomic particles. It comes from advanced quantum physics. Every prediction tested by the LHC has so far affirmed that understanding.

- - - Updated - - -

of course not.

theists perspective of atheists is completely colored by their faith and lack of comprehension of meaningful life without such faith.

 

Your own argument of "nothing can come from nothing" logically means that the universe must always have existed in one form or another and will always exist in one form or another.

Our current limited means of measurement only enable us to measure some of what the current universe happens to be at this point in time.

But the laws of physics tell us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed ergo the big bang was just another form of the existing matter in the universe compressed into a single entity. That might have happened many times in the past and could well happen again many more times for all eternity.

No "creator" needed for an eternal universe to exist.

 

The only "pain and suffering" you are avoiding is that which you believe exists but that you cannot substantiate.

And no, Pascal's Wager is farcical because it relies upon fear. On the positive side you have tacitly admitted to believing in a fear based religion.

I will stick with reality because that I can handle that without needing any superstition to make it through my day, or my life for that matter.

 

"One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science." Read more here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

Wrong on that.
Hawkins has everyone talking about a "singularity" which they assume means something other that the point where matter 13.5 billion years ago suddenly appeared.

That "point" is like a point on a graph.
You could say it was the point from which all matter appeared in a split second.
And then, thereafter, expanded away from to become a universe.

There was NOTHING at first.
No Space or Time existed until Matter appeared.

 

Onus is on you to prove that Hawking claimed that "matter appeared" out of "nothing".

 

Of course this fellow is dead wrong, especially in regard to Mathematics.
Mathematics is BASED upon the Twelve Field Postulates in order to even work.
A postulate is something which has NEVER been proven, but taken as correct in order to proceed further.

These 12 Field Postulates tell us that even Mathematics supports ONLY what the math says is correct if the 12 postulates are correct.

What I am saying is that whatever Discipline one may choose, it is merely an argument for what is true.
But that is exactly why we have the seven different field of inquiry, isn't it?
We want different view points that still agree with one another, as if two different sources support an idea.

- - - Updated - - -

?
Huh...?
I never said Hawkins believed that.

I said a singularity isn't a thing, its a point on the map of the Universe from which all matter suddenly appeared and expanded thereafter.

 

Where is that point, when everything is expanding away from us in every direction?

 

Have you ever seen a "sub atomic particle"? ("seen" meaning with the naked eye) Have you ever held a single "sub atomic particle" in your hand for examination? How about the other three physical senses? Have they ever detected a single "sub atomic particle"? If your answer to any of those questions is 'no', then all you are doing is expressing a condition of faith. A faith that the scientists are correct in their presumptions and arbitrary name giving. Remember, science cannot prove anything to be true... science can only determine if something (a theorem) is false.... therefore, any so called thing of science which is alluded to as 'proven' is merely an assumption based on potentially incomplete evidence.

 

Well that is all very nice Dave, however, where is the PROOF that any of what you have said is true?

 

May I ask as far as evidence goes does the god-being interact with its creation in a way that can be observed or has been observed in a way that should leave evidence?

 

The creator argument? The original example is a watch if I'm correct. To that I ask, say you polished a boulder into a rock. It looks like any other rock now. You throw that rock into a pile of other rocks. A person comes by and picks up that rock. Would they think that this rock, now polished and looking like any other rock is a sign of god? No. It's just a rock. A car is just a car. If a person 4,000 years ago saw a car then would they have seen it as a sign of god, or would they have taken it apart and learned what it was made of without coming across any conclusion? Sure, it's based upon how people see things but that's not really answering the question.

 

no, not like that at all. we have ample understanding of those things by comparison to the medievals who gave names to things they had zero understanding of. no doubt men, in authority, who had to be seen to understand.

 

of course not, silly
conveniently, he hides on the other side of the vail, with all the other gods, spooks, hobgoblins, and vampires. that's the reason we never see hide nor hair of such critters. it's not because they don't exist.

 

Sure... look around you at the things you perceive. Didn't you see God being involved? No? Then whoever did not see God being involved must have spiritual blinders over their spiritual eyes.

 

or, a temperament given to childlike theatrics with simplistic parameters.