Definition of God - one thread to rule them all

I believe the term Intelligent design is far more applicable and covers a whole range of the obscure thinking that IDers have to side step the evidence we do have for abiogenesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Then I found this paper......
https://web.archive.org/web/2011051...et/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf

UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. I. Introduction: What is at stake in the dispute over intelligent design? This paper will examine the intelligent design (ID) movement (which, for the reasons set forth below, will be referred to as the intelligent design creationist movement). In particular, this paper will examine the ID movement’s organization, its historical and legal background, its strategy and aims, and its public policy implications. As this paper demonstrates, the ID movement is the most recent version of American creationism. In promoting “intelligent design theory”—a term that is essentially code for the religious belief in a supernatural creator—as a purported scientific alternative to evolutionary theory, the ID movement continues the decades-long attempt by creationists either to minimize the teaching of evolution or to gain equal time for yet another form of creationism in American public schools. Accordingly, the ID creationist movement threatens both the education of the nation’s children and the constitutional separation of church and state, which protects the religious freedom of every American (Forrest and Gross, 2005). Despite political and legal setbacks (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, 2005), ID creationists continue their campaign to de-secularize public education and, ultimately, American culture and government, thereby undermining foundational elements of secular, constitutional democracy. Both the right to religious freedom, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the right of every child to be educated in public schools have been among America’s greatest sources of domestic strength and stability. The separation of church and state has engendered vibrant religious diversity while protecting Americans from religious coercion, either by the government directly or by their fellow citizens who would use the government as an instrument of such coercion. To advance their anti-science and anti-secularism agenda, ID creationists at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture seek to use public schools “to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies,” “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God,” and to “see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life” (Discovery Institute, 1998).
the conclusion follows.......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From the previous link.........................

VI. Conclusion.
As this paper demonstrates, the ID movement is nothing more than barely camouflaged creationism. Seeking to convince the public that ID is something different, ID proponents avoid open debate on the least defensible elements of earlier creationism such as the young age of the earth and “flood geology” based on the biblical story of Noah’s flood. Their attempt to manufacture a “scientific” controversy and their sanitizing of ID terminology reflect their effort to tailor their strategy to the current legal landscape and to the current attitudes of the American public. Hoping to appeal to Americans’ instinctive notions of fairness, which would allow “both sides” to be heard, ID creationists have tried to exploit this alleged scientific controversy by pushing public schools to “teach the controversy” or “teach the full range of scientific views.” However, the only real controversy is the one that the ID creationists have fabricated for the precise purpose of advancing their agenda. There is no legitimate scientific debate between ID and evolution, and there is no controversy within the scientific community concerning the status of evolutionary theory. Accordingly, we recommend that educators, local and state boards of education, and all responsible government officials at every level reject any attempt to insert ID into the classroom, whether by expressly teaching ID or by more subtle means, such as “disclaimers” read in biology classes, stickers placed in biology textbooks, or euphemistic proposals to teach the “strengths and weaknesses of evolution,” etc. Because ID is a religious belief, allowing it to be inserted into the public school science classroom violates the constitutionally protected separation of church and state. Just as significantly, introducing ID into the classroom is detrimental to the teaching of real science. The methodology of modern science has consistently produced notable scientific achievements for more than three centuries. To ensure that American scientific progress continues—especially if American students are to contribute to it as scientists—we must ensure that our children have a proper understanding of science. We should not exaggerate the threat posed by the ID creationist movement. As the Kitzmiller case and ID’s defeats in Kansas and Ohio have demonstrated, concerned scientists and Center for Inquiry, May 2007 28 (Amended July 2007) laypersons—with the law and good science on their side—can protect both the Constitution and science education (Forrest and Gross, 2007a, 318-21). But we certainly must not discount this threat. Given the strong anti-Enlightenment sentiments of ID proponents and their alliances with other groups, some of which are extremist, ID poses a danger to constitutional government and, by extension, to a free, open society. ID proponents and their Religious Right allies promote a distorted understanding of secularism, presenting it as synonymous with atheism and antireligious animosity. However, contrary to this misconception, “secular,” properly understood, merely means “not religious” rather than “anti-religious.” In the same vein, criticism of ID as a religious belief rather than a scientific theory is not criticism of religion per se. To reject secularism as the Religious Right does, based on their distortion of its meaning, is to reject one of the First Amendment’s most important protections: the right to live and work without being constrained by religious doctrines not of one’s choosing; and to worship, or not worship, as suits one’s conscience.

This right implies the attendant obligation to refrain from requiring that others be constrained by one’s personal religious preferences (Forrest, 2004). Yet ID creationists, as well as the Religious Right generally, seek to convert their personal religious commitments into public policy. In their minds, merely refraining from including creationism and other examples of their favored views in public school classrooms constitutes active discrimination against religious people. This position is not only illogical, but it is not shared by the vast majority of Americans, who understand that the strongest protection for people of faith lies precisely in maintaining government neutrality with respect to matters of religion. Only when the government refuses to promote or endorse religious beliefs (or antireligious beliefs) can we achieve the freedom necessary for both religion and civic friendship to flourish and for rational inquiry to guide the development of public policy. Yet this is precisely what ID proponents are unwilling to countenance. While they benefit from living in a secular democracy, they would use its gifts of free expression and personal freedom to force American culture, science, and education backward into a pre-modern era. Civic friendship means, at the very least, being reasonable enough and respectful enough of one’s fellow citizens to trust that they can be good people—good neighbors—without adopting one’s own religious views, or perhaps without any religious views at all. The hope of civic friendship is among the central legacies of the Enlightenment, along with tolerance of religious diversity and the confidence that embracing modern science and rational inquiry does not destroy, but rather strengthens, the moral bearings of one’s fellow citizens. In “Public Reason and Democracy: The Place of Science in Maintaining Civic Friendship,” political scientist Steven M. DeLue expresses this hope beautifully (DeLue, 2005, 26, 38-39):

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, this happened when I was a child and that was not in the 15th century, but in the 20th century and it was not the Inquisition but a gang of Christian zealots, you know those self proclaimed "soldiers of God". Let me be brief; at ten years old, at school, I advanced the idea that all matter including people, are made from atoms (read it in one of my father's science books).
After school a gang of teenagers beat the crap out of me, because I had committed blasphemy. Today I can look back and understand the mentality of the religious priests who tore Hypatia (the first woman astronomer) to shreds.
Trust me, not much has changed

Yes, Christians became more subtle about it and just settled for racial discrimination. If you're black you're a criminal, unless you become a Christian, then you will be tolerated......praise the Lord !

p.s. To your credit you have now disavowed or discarded 90% of all religious arguments about the biblical definitions of God. So what's left to argue about a possible definition of God, in answer to the OP question?

I understand, but do not agree with your posit that God has Agency. That is a wholly inadequate definition as it explains nothing about a "Divine Sentient Universal Overlord". What motive does this Agency need? Entertainment?

OTOH.......2 + 2 = 4..... deterministically...... dependably.......(logical) Agency....... probabilistic potential!

The mathematics of the Implicate Order........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The previous paper regarding ID was related to the American scene and rather lengthy.
The Aussie version is far more precise.....
https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-policy/submissions-government/letter—intelligent-design-not-science

Letter—Intelligent design is not science
More than 70,000 scientists and science teachers are represented in an open letter warning that 'intelligent design' should not be taught in school science classes. The letter was published in major Australian newspapers on 21 October 2005.

The full text of the letter follows:

As Australian scientists and science educators, we are gravely concerned that so-called 'intelligent design' (ID) might be taught in any school as a valid scientific alternative to evolution. While science is a work in progress, a vast and growing body of factual knowledge supports the hypothesis that biological complexity is the result of natural processes of evolution.

Proponents of ID assert that some living structures are so complex that they are explicable only by the agency of an imagined and unspecified 'intelligent designer'. They are free to believe and profess whatever they like. But not being able to imagine or explain how something happened other than by making a leap of faith to supernatural intervention is no basis for any science: that is a theological or philosophical notion.

For a theory to be considered scientific it must be testable – either directly or indirectly – by experiment or observation. The results of such tests should be able to be reproduced by others as a check on their accuracy (and, importantly, if repeated testing falsifies the theory it should be rejected rather than taught as part of the accumulating body of scientific understanding). Finally, a scientific theory should explain more than what is already known: it should be able to predict outcomes in novel situations. Evolution meets all of these criteria but ID meets none of them: it is not science.

We therefore urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science. To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views – be they astrology, spoon-bending, flat-earth cosmology or alien abductions – and crowd out the teaching of real science.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

There it is...."agency" of an imagined and unspecified 'intelligent designer', is not a scientifically supportable concept. i.e. not definitive.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, I don't know Christian "soldiers of God", which is why I thought you were talking about the Islamic extremists, who go by that name. https://www.amazon.com/Soldiers-God-Warriors-Afghanistan-Pakistan/dp/1400030250

You must have grown up in one hell of a backwater, inbred, third-world country of a place. Because I've never heard of any Christian who would care that people are made of atoms. What's much more plausible is that you were as much an ass then as now, and they were just tired of your yap. And if you're still stuck in the past, maybe you should seek therapy.

The depth of your ignorance and motivated reasoning is astounding.

No, I haven't. You just can't stop making ignorant assumptions long enough to simply ask.

And? I didn't say it was an all-encompassing description. I said it was the "image of God" that man was created in. Learn to read, please.

Pure gibberish.

Only a devout materialist and true believer in scientism would demand that every answer be scientifically supportable, completely ignoring all the human knowledge beyond scientific methodology.

 

To you, not to mathematicians and cosmologists...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You want an "image" of the causal Agency.
Mathematics give Majesty to the Universe.
Consider,
The Fibonacci sequence is a marvel of a self-referential exponential function. It so beautifully describes the mathematical nature of a dynamically "evolving" system, and the Implication of continued Order.
Very much like the fractal function in a geometric sense. And a dynamical exponential fractal "unfolding" is expressed in ever more complex patterns becoming expressed as physical objects, but always related to and part of the greater wholeness.

Natural selection is a mathematical functional process in the chronology of the Law of Probability.

 

No, I am not stuck in the past, religions are! Evolution has been declared fact by the Vatican, yet not a single word in Genesis as been revised to reflect that "minor" fact.

OK and I asked you about that "image of God"? You answered "Agency" and I demonstrated that was a wholly inadequate answer to the question.

Care to try again?

 

No, there is no probabilistic potential or agency in 2+2 =4.

Implicate order is ontological and metaphysical, not scientific (it actually contradicts several scientific tenets). So not only is it gibberish, you're also contradicting your claim that everything must be scientific.

Yes, because as I've said a hundred times, evolution doesn't contradict creation. Only abiogenesis does that.

No, you didn't. You only imagine you did.

 

Do you believe that tomorrow 2 + 2 will not equal 4 ? I believe the implication that tomorrow 2 + 2 = 4 is well established as a universal mathematical Order.

All equations are of an Implicate nature.

As he wrote,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order

 

That and any other pertinent theories and/or facts that show ID to be what it is, will not change the direction of this current religiously fanatical redneck.

 

To do what? Convince you? Or merely to expose you and the other atheists to a way of thinking about the 'God' concept that many of you may have never considered?

I think that the idea has a long pedigree in philosophical theology, especially in the Eastern Orthodox traditions where it is central. The idea is that God is unknowable in essence, in our inability to say what God is. God is the Source that transcends all knowledge and concepts. (The Neoplatonic influence is obvious.) All that humans like us can know are God's energies (energia), God's effects here in the reality that we inhabit. If you want to argue against it, then it behooves you to familiarize yourself with it.

Soren Kierkegaard made a similar argument in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript, arguing that knowing that something (most notably God) is, is prior to our understanding what it is. (Hence the existentialist slogan, 'existence precedes essence'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence–energies_distinction

I personally like it. It appeals to my sense of the transcendent (the idea that reality exceeds my knowing) and it isn't unlike natural theology's idea of 'God' as being whatever the unknown answers to the fundamental metaphysical questions might be. But my liking it doesn't mean that it convinces me. (The main problem I see is that whatever the answers are to the metaphysical questions, whatever reality's Source might hypothetically be, isn't necessarily a suitable object of religious worship and likely has nothing to do with Yahweh, Allah or Krishna.) So I remain an agnostic.

This thread asked theists to clarify what they take the word 'God' to mean. Vociferous did as JamesR asked and tossed an idea out there. That's no justification for attacking him for doing as he was asked. Just because you or other atheists don't like Vociferous' concept is irrelevant in the context of this thread.

Nobody's demanding that you have to accept it or find it convincing. Nor is there any requirement that theists must only produce concepts of God that are acceptable to atheists. (That's an empty set by definition.)

 

What makes you think that atheists are incapable of visualizing the God concept from a theistic POV? The hubris of assuming that "knowledge of God" is a privileged status is a priori prejudicial .

I believe I argued against the idea and showed it wanting. Moreover I provided an alternative perspective.

No, they must produce ideas that are scientifically acceptable, which he has admitted he cannot. "It's a belief and not subject to examination".

Well, shiver my timbers, if a belief is not subject to examination what are we doing asking the question? Why am I the bad guy here?

In effect, I have given a "definition of God" which objectively assigns a "mathematical" essence to the dynamical universal pattern as a perfectly scientifically supportable alternative to "spiritualism", which to me sounds like a purely subjective experience and therefore not subject to examination at all.

There is not One God. There are as many humanly conceived gods as there are theists.
God is a subjective experience. That's why theists have gone to war over God for millenia.

It is the Theists who cannot agree on a definition of God, but insist on accusing atheists and everyone else (including other theists) of;
"You just don't understand .........sigh".....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Atheists do not go to war because God tells them it's a good idea. Theists do.

 

Nope. Still pure nonsense. Just like the science you pretend to understand, you don't comprehend this either. You're just playing word games in lieu of comprehension. Too bad you can't tell the difference.

 

Straw man. He said "may have never considered", not "incapable of visualizing".

No, yo just argued the supremacy of your own subjective beliefs.

Outright lie, as no one said "It's a belief and not subject to examination". You're desperately making up bs now.
The OP doesn't ask for a "scientifically acceptable" definition. You're complete inability to accept anything, that doesn't fit with your materialist ideology and blind faith in scientism, does imply that you are incapable of understanding such concepts though.

Because you're lying about anyone claiming it's not subject to examination. Every reasonable person sees that I have repeatedly told you that you are justified to question theism and that there is no evidence that makes it compelling.

No, your scientific illiteracy and blind faith has just led you to pseudo-religious nonsense. That you feel any need at all to propose alternatives to God and spirituality demonstrates that you feel a need to fill those gaps. Hence the most literal science-of-the-gaps I've ever seen.

Our understanding of God is a subjective experience. Glad you've finally accepted that. But our understanding of reality is a subjective experience as well. Neither deny that there may be an objective something that we subjectively experience. That's why we can agree on a lot of reality and on, at least, the broad attributes of God (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc.). People have gone to war, mostly for territory, and used God as justification. That is human nature, not specific to theism.

In 5 millennia worth of wars - 1,763 total - only 123 (or about 7%) were religious in nature. Furthermore, if you remove the 66 wars waged in the name of Islam, that number is cut down to a little more than 3%.
https://www.str.org/w/debunking-the-religious-wars-myth
​

 

Now that would have to be the biggest obtuse dishonest answer I have seen with relation to the myth in question!
I've seen christians marching claiming to be soldiers of God, and then of course we have the crusades, all claiming to be soldiers of whatever god they imagine.

That beautiful phrase coming from one who has complained more then once about adhoms directed at him. You also need to be careful, that our philosophical agnostic friend doesn't start tearing shreds off you for such insults. I won't hold my breath though.

Image of God? Where did you read that? The bible? Is this the same bible you have claimed we shouldn't take literally? Or is this just another example of how you pick and chose whatever supports your mythical ID process...you know, as you so often have done with the sciences...reject and/or accept whatever supports your delusions.

Another cop out answer.
Areas that some view as non science, like for example history, or art, can in actual fact be scientifically based.....history depends on evidence and of course art depends on knowledge of many things to be able to undertake whatever art one is trying to express.
The accepted non sciences, based on the human condition, morality, ethics etc, seem to change with scientific and technological advancement and enlightenment.
Religion and pseudoscience both fail in any scientific application or methodology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-science

Scientism as you use it as a term of derision, is far from that in actual fact. If adhering to the opinion that science, rationality and the scientific method far exceeds any other ares of knowledge gathering, then I will proudly accept such a label. Just as you seemingly accept the label of a fanatically inspired IDer and red neck.

 

I would not worry too much, after all throwing mud and in the case of some monkeys other stuff, is all disgruntled ID type theists can manage and their rants are pathetically transparent to rational folk, I mean if they had anything to evidence their delusions they would use such...but in the absence of evidence and realising their fantasy is becoming a laughing stock they desperately try to discredit ...that is the stated aim as you recently pointed out. They follow the idea that the best form of defence is attack so armed with crap that's what they do... nothing new and it won't change because they are incapable of change...the theists we see here are trolls bent on stirring us up and wasting our time and again as I said if they had anything , anything at all, we would not here the end of it instead of all the tiresome waffle.
And as you have pointed out in the past each tomorrow will see evolution and the support for abiogenesis still the best explanation which unfortunately simply pushes their beliefs under the bus.
It is cold here..in the van zero and a huge frost.
Alex

 

"Soldiers of God" is not a unique ideological subset of Christians, like he seemed to be implying. And since his description didn't fit Christians in general, it only made sense to assume he was talking about some ideologically unique subset. But sure, I probably should have just chalked it up to a hasty generalization or straw man. And no doubt, you'll continue to prove your intellectual dishonesty and deny that as well.

 

You're the one wasting your own time. Even when I don't respond to you.

 

Obviously you are not familiar with David Bohm and "Wholeness and the Implicate order". Actually David Bohm was very interested in the spiritual world. Read some of his stuff.