To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

It doesn't but it is

Otherwise what does it matter ? god exists as an uninformed enitity of imagination of the simple minded who do not investigate the roots of any religion

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks everyone for your posts.


The title of this thread is

To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.
See Post #1.

​

In my preceding post I was asking you all to determine whether my concept of God is valid or not, namely:

God is in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.
​

​

Yzata says:

My concept of God addreses the most supreme credit to God in his relation to the universe and man, namely:

God is in concept the creator and operator of the jniverse and everuything with a beginning.
​

You can heap all kinds of verbal praise on God but if He did not create the universe and operates the universe and everything with a beginning, then I ask you, who intelligent human will take Him seriously?


River says;

I concur with you, River, because if God in concept is not the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning (which is the concept in substance in the three Abrahamic faiths), then God is worth nothing insofar as man is concered starting with myself.


James R asks:

My concept of God implicates that He is eternal, without beginning and ending, He envelops the universe which exists in time and in space, and but He also permeates every nook and corner of the universe and also is present in the most abysmal depths of the sub-atomic realm.

According to science today, the universe has not always existed, it started to exist when time and space began to exist, and as we know that the whole universe is immersed in time and in space as in a marinating pickling mixture for cuts of vegetables, here is something for you to entertain your imagination in:

The universe began to exist when time and space started from zero to advance outward in all direction, but pray when did time and space start to exist? Time and space began to exist when the universe as from a point started to exist and expand outward in all directions, and still continues to expand to this very hour, together with time and with space and in time and in space.​

Still, if you will, we can talk about an eternal universe, in which case it is not anymore the universe studied by physicists who address a universe as I said that is marinating as in a pickling solution for vegetable cuts, but that pickling mixture is composed of time and space.

Tell me if you want to posit an eternal universe.


See you guys again tomorrow, in the meantime, please work on the validity of the concept of God as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning; my idea of a valid concept is that all the components of the concept should be mutually consistent and coherent.




Annex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Scientists do posit an eternal universe, so.. work on that.

Anyway, even if it did have a beginning (also possible), that doesn't mean the cause of the beginning was God. Your statement, "God is in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning." isn't anything that needs to be refuted, it's just a statement of faith. It's at best a tautology, "what's God?"," God is the creator and operator". It says nothing while sounding deep. A mechanistic universe doesn't need to be operated. There are plausible scientific and naturalistic explanations for everything from the origin of life to the existence of black holes. In other words, they operate due to their own physical properties, they aren't operated upon by some outside force.

 

Atheists don't typically conflate the concept of 'God' with the concept of 'invisible unicorns'.

Atheists do typically think that both of these concepts share certain characteristics in common, such as not being discernable by the senses and it being impossible to prove their nonexistence with absolute certainty.

Other than those similarities, 'invisible unicorns' isn't intended to be synonymous with 'God'. Its imagery and connotations are meant to be as dissimilar as possible. It's supposed to be ridiculous, that's the whole point. 'Invisible unicorns' is meant as a reductio-ad-absurdum of a certain kind of bad theist argument, since 'invisible unicorns' can be substituted for 'God' in those arguments and similar conclusions reached about invisible unicorns as about God.

That has nothing to do with proving that God doesn't exist. It's a demonstration that certain theist arguments in favor of belief that God does exist can lead to absurd conclusions as well as the desired one.

So the original problem with this thread is that its subject line is false.

 

It isn't clear what you want. 'Valid' in what way? To whom?

And how is this question relevant to the false premise in the subject line?

In an earlier post I pointed out that this proposed definition leaves out probably the most important element of theistic religion, namely God's divinity and holiness.

'Creator' and 'operator' of the universe could arguably apply to the big-bang and to the laws of physics, and people don't worship them.

How does one make the move from abstract philosophical functions like 'first-cause' to an object of religious passion, devotion and prayer? What is it that makes something, no matter how grand and cosmic it might be, into a suitable and proper object of worship?

This problem is of vital importance in the 'Abrahamic' traditions, where idolatry is the worst of sins.

So at the very least, your proposed definition seems to me to be woefully incomplete, since it leaves out what's arguably the most important ingredient.

 

You make a key point there which reminds me of another point, and it's easily observed when you listen to a believer about different events.

I'll never understand why on the news almost every night they show human suffering and tragedy, and when they interview some of the victims, they thank God that their dog was spared. It's a miracle that God performed, because, well, it was a good thing, so God must be responsible. As for the fire that wiped out their entire possessions they worked so hard their entire life for, well, God wasn't responsible for that, it was Satan that's responsible, they claim.

Or when a tornado wipes out an entire neighborhood, someone is always there to thank God for sparing their lives. What a wonderful guy he is, eh? He lets Satan wipe out a neighborhood, but he steps in to save the people!!

 

That's not a concept, yet. It's a couple of criteria the concept has to meet.

It's possible to come up with a God meeting those criteria that is equivalent to an invisible unicorn, and (with more work) one that is not.

 

You folks are the ones who say your God is invisible. And I suspect less than 1 atheist out of 1,000,000 has the word "unicorn" in mind at all. For example, do people not descended from Western Europeans even have unicorn in their language?

While you're at it: what is Hebrew for "unicorn"? Greek? Aramaic? And any other language your scriptures may be written in (I mean the oldest codices, not the translations).

Yes it is invalid. The word "universe" only had meaning beginning around 1930, and has evolved quite a bit since then. Yet the word "God" is ancient. Therefore, God has (in Western tradition) merely been relegated to the creation of "the sky and the ground" (incorrectly cited a "heaven and earth").

​

And no, it is logically impossible for your God to create and operate everything, especially the universe, since time was necessarily created at the outset of the Big Bang. Nor do the laws of nature apply to any kind of operator at all.

Alos, without time, God can do nothing. God can not say "Let there be light" (in any language) in zero time. Nor can God speak in a vacuum. Of course it's all myth, so only really crazy nutty people would think any of the Bible's Creation Myth is anything other than myth.

No, the Western God has as much value as Ra, Brahma, Ea, El, Mithra, Thor, Marduk, Odin, Zeus, Jupiter, the Great Wolf, or any other deity you can name.

That's a very old definition, not really yours, and evidently one you were indoctrinated into.

That's impossible. No person is physically larger than the largest human. Therefore God can not be a person and be bigger than a human, nor can such a person exist without actually being merely human. So no enveloping of anything is possible, other than a peanut butter sandwich or a tofu burger or whatever. I guess God eats meat since He really likes animal sacrifice. But that's another thread. Of course the way you cast Him, God seems to be an amoeba. Except, of course, they can't exist in a vacuum. So maybe it's better not to try to tie religion and cosmology together at all.

No, because you said he existed before time and space even existed, which is just plain nutty.

Yeah, God lives in the pathogens that kill innocent people. Completely absurd.

As opposed to the science of the middle ages, which you prefer?

You were doing OK until you got to the immersion part. And no, the universe did not necessarily ever start to exist. It may have been starting to exist for an infinite amount of time, relative to our clocks.

ridiculous.

No one knows what t=0 means, nor have you begun to address it. Nor does this pertain to your God in the slightest other than you have convinced yourself of what appears to be a fundamentalist Christian world view (or some equivalent God).

Physicists study phenomena, which has little or no bearing on this.

That's nonsense.

You seem to more interested in the disparate subject of cosmology but then you are not addressing the meaning of "creation of time and space" which makes God all the more absurd. Even worse than invisible unicorns. Now you want to go and throw eternal dimensionless unicorns into the mix.

How about you work on the meaning of "creation of space and time"?

That excludes all religions. They are all at odds with themselves, each other and/or empirical evidence.

 

PhysBang,

What is the history of religion?

Philosophy, and, science, are tools of religion. They both came about through religion. Not stoneage people.

God is what it is. There is no goalpost shifting. Goalpost shifting belongs in the secular domain, whether religious or non religious claims are put forward.

jan.

 

Yazata,

I disagree. It is meant to end the discussion like asking ''who/what created God'', when they know that the theist believes that God is neither created nor destroyed. In fact that is fundamental to theism. If God were material we wouldn't regard Him as God.
It shows an unwillingness to accept the definition of God (belief aside), and an eagerness to kill God in the minds of people.
It is also used to poke fun.

Theists don't believe in God on the basis of arguing whether or not He is real. Believing that God exists does not make someone a theist. To believe in something, one has to do more than sign on a dotted line. It is clear that Anthony Flew, throughout his atheist campaign believed that God existed, but tried to convince himself that He didn't. Also there are priests, vicars, and pastors, who spend years of their life pretending to believe that God exists.

Belief, is actual, not fantasy, or some idea, which is why man cannot extinguish the idea of God, fully within peoples minds. That time will naturally arise, just like it say's in the scriptures. We can see it occurring throughout the world, everyday as it becomes a little more God-less.

Russel knows that is not the basis upon which all people who accept God, believes. He could simply have said ''I can't believe in God'' and leave it there. But he tried to ridicule it by reducing it children's fairytales.

Credit to him though, it struck a chord with some, who have sought to disrupt religious dialogue, successfully.

If you need what you regard as credible and positive reasons to believe in God. It suggests, that (a) you currently don't believe in God (for which you have equally not credible and positive reasons), and (b) you have not allowed yourself to accept who and what God is, by dint of scriptures. IOW, you are only prepared to choose a brand of satisfaction.

(a) is your current position, your zone/platform, regarding your perception of this world through your experience within it. My position is the opposite, period. There is no right or wrong regarding either of our positions, as we are being truthful to ourselves.

If you need to be convinced that God exists, then you will never be convinced, anymore than you would be convinced that your wife will love you for the rest of your life, due to some psychological evaluation from a number of experts (so-called)

I can, and do, act as though God doesn't exist. More than I act as though He does. This means that a good portion of the day is spent with God not in mind. But I cannot believe that He does not exist, anymore than an atheist can believe He does.

(b) is quite simple. You don't accept the scriptures. Atheists in general cannot bear the scriptures. They see it as some book of moral codes they have to live by, or they will burn in hell forever. This is the nonsense they focus on even though that is not in any scripture, and is not what they, or real religion is about. I'm not sure what your real position is, so I don't put you in this bracket. But it is brain-washingly synonymous with card carrying atheists.

I am convinced that there are atheists who will never, ever believe in God, in this life, because they are doing everything they can to not open their minds to it, and such divergences such as pink unicorn, and celestial teapot, is used to ensure this.

It didn't work for Anthony Flew.

jan.

 

[This inscription is posted here before I left this forum -- for the present session:]

My concept of God is that
​

He is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.​

========================



Thanks everyone for your posts.


What do you say? Do you have at all any concept of God which you deny to exist?


My concept of God is the following and forgive me for the repetition:

The creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

As you are denying God exists, suppose you be logical and tell me what is your concept of God, otherwise I would not know what you are talking about in denial.

So in your next post, please just put at the top of your post, this text:

My concept of God is [followed by your verbal inscription in English words representing your concept of God].

I will add at the top of my post here before I leave this forum -- for the present session, the following inscription, namely:

My concept of God is that of

the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.​

You see, everyone, in this manner we will all know what we are talking about in affirmation or in negation; otherwise we are talking past each other's head, and that is not talking on the same subject or issue or proposition, you get me?

Please inform yourselves that when you say your concept etc, and I say my concept etc., we are for this exercise not already accepting the existence of God, but only putting up a working concept like a hypothetical concept, otherwise how can we at all do any discussion, without a concurred on concept?



See you guys again soon.



Annex

My protocol for proving God exists, it can be used also by atheists to prove God does not exist.

From Pachomius:

So that readers and the owners and operators of this forum will not suspect that I am just into dilly-dallying here, I will now present again the order of my argument for the existence of God, this procedure can also be used by atheists to prove God does not exist.


Discussion phase

Step 1 -- For the sake of argument theists and atheists concur that God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

Step 2 -- Theists concur among themselves that the universe has a beginning.

Step 3 -- Atheists concur among themselves that the universe has always existed.


Expedition phase

Step 4 -- Theists invite atheists to join them to proceed on an expedition in the universe to search for God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, by looking for all instances of existence with a beginning and/or all instances of existence to have always existed.

Step 5 -- Atheists invite theists to join them to proceed on an expedition in the universe to search for God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, by looking for all instances of existence to have always existed and/or all instances of existence to not have a beginning at all.

Step 6 -- Will theists find all instances of existence in the universe and also the universe as a whole to have a beginning, and cannot find any instance at all in the universe to have always existed: and conclude God exists as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning?

Step 7 -- Will atheists find all instances of existence in the universe to have always existed, in particular the universe as a whole has always existed, and cannot find any instance of existence that has not always existed: and conclude that God as creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning is not needed at all?


Take the nose in our face, it is a part of the universe, does it have a beginning or it has always existed?

Starting from the nose in our face all will proceed farther and on to the deepest depths of sub-atomic space and to the most distant stars at the nth distant fringes of the universe.

That is the way of expedition, while the way of discussion is the preliminary work in our minds to concur for the sake of argument on the concept of God and the ideas of universe with a beginning or universe has always existed.

With critical comments from everyone here, we will revise my proposed argument system accordingly, so that when the conclusion is reached it will be accepted by everyone be he a theist or an atheist.


Atheists, if you care to avail yourselves of a template for your argument against God existing, you are welcome to freely employ the order of argument above, you can adapt it for proving the non-existence of God.

For example, you can start with Step 1 and continue successively with 3 and 5 and 7.

For myself, I will also start with Step 1 and continue successively with 2 and 4 and 6.

Of course we must work together to come to concur on Step 1, that God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

If you don’t accept my concept of God for the purpose of our exchange, then you propose your concept to God and I will see whether we can at all exchange views on the existence of God according to your concept.

​

 

My concept of God is that God is a spirit that resides in those that believe.

For me, there is no difference between God, The FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster), the Easter Bunny, Santa, Bigfoot (Squatch!), Ghosts, Vampires, Devils, The Great Pumpkin. They are all imaginary, and nobody has ever seen one.

 

But what does it matter whether god is the creator and operator of the Universe ? This god is fickle , some beings survive some don't

The only way for Humanity to survive is to fight gods fate for us

 

We are going in circles here. Atheists can believe the universe had a beginning and that the cause was not a god. You are going to have to counter it by proving how things with a beginning need a god. If a god can be eternal, why can't a universe be eternal? There is evidence at least for a universe, but not for a god.

 

the Universe had NO beginning

I was just saying that if the Universe had a god that it really doesn't matter , since all beings are left to themselves to survive

the Universe is eternal

yet intelligence seems to be a quality which is Universal , a god ? well no , not in the common sense of the word , but biology and the advancement of biological beings seems to point to a nature of evolving intelligence

but to point to a god as being responsible for this evolution of the brain and mind and body , it doesn't seem to matter , in the end

either we grow up or we don't , or either we survive or we don't , either we face the reality of other beings in this Universe or we don't

 

That's the dance of the theist.

 

What do you mean by "everything with a beginning"? If I bake a cake, does that mean I'm God?

 

Who mean ?

 

Pachomius