Atheism, Is not believing in gods a belief or not?

[calamity]

Why don't you and Calamity both deal with the "god" I have been speaking of right along?

IF this thing we humans call "the universe" was "created"...whatever created it I deem to be a god.

I am not going through all that love, worship, rules, commands, and sin crap. The only thing I am attributing to it is "creation." No obligations on our part. Just that, IF this thing we humans call "the universe" was "created"...it created it.

Deal with that.

Why would either of you (particularly Calamity) suggest this god is impossible?

The creator of the universe does not have to be a god, as defined by man: a supernatural supreme being. It could be a non-god intelligence which must follow the laws of nature like everything else in its "universe" or whatever you want to call the place it calls home. In fact, it could be argued that a supernatural supreme being which is above all things possible in nature or on any plane is an absurd notion.

 

[Frank Apisa]

The creator of the universe does not have to be a god, as defined by man: a supernatural supreme being.

If there is a creator of our universe...and you are not willing to say it is a god...then there is nothing I can say which will make sense to you. You are simply determined to say there are no gods...which I consider to be absurd.

ANYTHING that exists...is part of nature. The notion of "supernatural" really should just be considered the part of nature that we do not yet know.

It could be a non-god intelligence which must follow the laws of nature like everything else in its "universe" or whatever you want to call the place it calls home.

You are assuming we humans can know all about nature and it "laws."

I suggest as respectfully as possible...we more than likely do not.

In fact, it could be argued that a supernatural supreme being which is above all things possible in nature or on any plane is an absurd notion.

What I consider absurd it the attempts to define away the POSSIBLE existence of a god or gods.

 

[calamity]

If there is a creator of our universe...and you are not willing to say it is a god...then there is nothing I can say which will make sense to you. You are simply determined to say there are no gods...which I consider to be absurd.

ANYTHING that exists...is part of nature. The notion of "supernatural" really should just be considered the part of nature that we do not yet know.

The common definition of god clearly states it is a supernatural supreme being that has power over all of nature. This is impossible. Agreed?

You are assuming we humans can know all about nature and it "laws."

I suggest as respectfully as possible...we more than likely do not.



What I consider absurd it the attempts to define away the POSSIBLE existence of a god or gods.

No. I am not saying we know all the laws...not even close. But, what I am saying is that the idea that something can be above all possible laws on all possible planes, in all the possible dimensions and universes combined is absurd.

 

[RAMOSS]

Why don't you and Calamity both deal with the "god" I have been speaking of right along?

IF this thing we humans call "the universe" was "created"...whatever created it I deem to be a god.

I am not going through all that love, worship, rules, commands, and sin crap. The only thing I am attributing to it is "creation." No obligations on our part. Just that, IF this thing we humans call "the universe" was "created"...it created it.

Deal with that.

Why would either of you (particularly Calamity) suggest this god is impossible?

Now, do two things.

Define what you mean by 'created'. There is 'created' from preexisting material, and there is 'created' ex-nilho.
2 Show that 'IF' is indeed possible.

 

[Frank Apisa]

The common definition of god clearly states it is a supernatural supreme being that has power over all of nature. This is impossible. Agreed?

The "common definition" of a god may not be a reliable definition.

Fact is...we do not know if any gods exist or not.

As for "supernatural"...if you mean outside of nature...I disagree completely. If a thing exists...it is a part of nature...whether we humans can understand what nature is or not.

In any case, IF this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation...whatever created it I deem to be a god. If the ability to create something as vast as this universe is not enough for you to consider it a god...there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

No. I am not saying we know all the laws...not even close. But, what I am saying is that the idea that something can be above all possible laws on all possible planes, in all the possible dimensions and universes combined is absurd.

Well...stop thinking that a god should be able to do the impossible.

 

[calamity]

The "common definition" of a god may not be a reliable definition.

Fact is...we do not know if any gods exist or not.

As for "supernatural"...if you mean outside of nature...I disagree completely. If a thing exists...it is a part of nature...whether we humans can understand what nature is or not.

In any case, IF this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation...whatever created it I deem to be a god. If the ability to create something as vast as this universe is not enough for you to consider it a god...there is nothing I can say to change your mind.




Well...stop thinking that a god should be able to do the impossible.

If it can't, it would not be a god. Hence, why I think the idea of a god is absurd: it's a contradiction.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Now, do two things.

Define what you mean by 'created'. There is 'created' from preexisting material, and there is 'created' ex-nilho.

If what we humans call the universe was created (no matter how you want it defined)...whatever created it, I deem to be a god. If the creation of something as vast as this universe is not sufficient for you to deem the creator a god...fine. Live with that.

2 Show that 'IF' is indeed possible.

Stop playing games.

 

[Frank Apisa]

If it can't, it would not be a god.

That is self-serving...and offered only so that you can say there are no gods.

If that is what you need...go for it.

Hence, why I think the idea of a god is absurd: it's a contradiction.

And apparently why you are going as far as you are to construct a scenario where you are right...no matter what.

Bad idea, Calamity. Early in our discussions I thought you were above that.

I will add you to the list of people here in this forum who not only assert there are no gods...but that it is impossible for there to be gods.

 

[RAMOSS]

If what we humans call the universe was created (no matter how you want it defined)...whatever created it, I deem to be a god. If the creation of something as vast as this universe is not sufficient for you to deem the creator a god...fine. Live with that.




Stop playing games.

Yet, you can't show if the 'IF" is possible, that is the point I am making. By claiming to know if that 'IF' is possible without any evidence, you are making a claim you can not support. That is in contradiction to your 'we can't know' statement.

 

[calamity]

That is self-serving...and offered only so that you can say there are no gods.

If that is what you need...go for it.

I'm not the one who came up with the definition of god being something with power over all of nature. I believe such a thing does not exist because it is logically inconsistent.

And apparently why you are going as far as you are to construct a scenario where you are right...no matter what.

Bad idea, Calamity. Early in our discussions I thought you were above that.

I will add you to the list of people here in this forum who not only assert there are no gods...but that it is impossible for there to be gods.

Not really. All I am saying is that by the given definition, I believe gods do not exist. I also believe this "belief" is substantiated by the logic outlined in the previous posts.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Yet, you can't show if the 'IF" is possible, that is the point I am making.

Ramoss...if you have to ask if "if" is possible...there is something wrong with you.

Yes..."if" is possible. It is a conditional...actually an essential...to any hypothetical.

Not sure what game you are trying to play here, but don't attempt to package and merchandise it, because it won't sell.

By claiming to know if that 'IF' is possible without any evidence, you are making a claim you can not support.

"If"...Ramoss...denotes a hypothetical. Of course it is possible..

Although I should be thanking you for this part of your argument. It is hilarious.

That is in contradiction to your 'we can't know' statement.

There is no contradiction to any "we cannot know" statement I have ever made.

Quote and link to the "we cannot know" statement you think the word "if" contradicts...and we have some fun with it.

 

[RAMOSS]

Ramoss...if you have to ask if "if" is possible...there is something wrong with you.

Yes..."if" is possible. It is a conditional...actually an essential...to any hypothetical.

Not sure what game you are trying to play here, but don't attempt to package and merchandise it, because it won't sell.





"If"...Ramoss...denotes a hypothetical. Of course it is possible..

Although I should be thanking you for this part of your argument. It is hilarious.




There is no contradiction to any "we cannot know" statement I have ever made.

Quote and link to the "we cannot know" statement you think the word "if" contradicts...and we have some fun with it.

Just because someone speculates 'IF" doesn't means it is possible. "If Ford wins the nomination in 2016, he'll do well against the democrats". Ford can't win the nomination, because he's dead.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I'm not the one who came up with the definition of god being something with power over all of nature. I believe such a thing does not exist because it is logically inconsistent.

Well don't use it then. Just because one possible definition of a god is illogical...does not mean gods do not exist.

Not really. All I am saying is that by the given definition, I believe gods do not exist. I also believe this "belief" is substantiated by the logic outlined in the previous posts.

Then don't use that definition.

There are various definitions of "atheist." Some people here use one definition...some use another. What you are doing is to use one definition...in order to arrive at "therefore there are no gods." That is gratuitous and self-serving.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Just because someone speculates 'IF" doesn't means it is possible. "If Ford wins the nomination in 2016, he'll do well against the democrats". Ford can't win the nomination, because he's dead.

Ramoss...the way I used "if" is logical and reasonable.

You have determined that you are going to be "right" and show me to be "wrong"...and logic and reason are not going to play a part.

It is not going to happen.

My conditional...or my hypothetical stands...whether you like it or not.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Now, do two things.

Define what you mean by 'created'. There is 'created' from preexisting material, and there is 'created' ex-nilho.
2 Show that 'IF' is indeed possible.

IF we do not have definitive and irrefutable evidence of how the Universe began (and we don't), then to write off any possibility which has not been disproven is simply being narrow-minded and absurd. You have definitive proof that supreme beings....even omnipotent beings don't exist somewhere in this universe or another? if you do, please share.

 

[calamity]

Well don't use it then. Just because one possible definition of a god is illogical...does not mean gods do not exist.

It's the definition of gods.

Then don't use that definition.

There are various definitions of "atheist." Some people here use one definition...some use another. What you are doing is to use one definition...in order to arrive at "therefore there are no gods." That is gratuitous and self-serving.

It's the accepted definition in the dictionary. It's you actually who has created his own definition of "god." ..."I deem it to be god."

 

[RAMOSS]

IF we do not have definitive and irrefutable evidence of how the Universe began (and we don't), then to write off any possibility which has not been disproven is simply being narrow-minded and absurd. You have definitive proof that supreme beings....even omnipotent beings don't exist somewhere in this universe or another? if you do, please share.

You seem to be missing the point. I didn't say we should write it off. Our knowledge, or lack thereof doesn't matter if something is possible or not. Something might not be possible, but we not know it. Something might be possible, but we not know it.

The best we can say in the scenario is 'we don't know if it is possible or not'.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I've given the reason before. IF a god does exist...and IF the god were a personal god...it could simply reveal itself in a way that EVERYONE would know with certainty it exists.

At least KNOWING that a god exists is POSSIBLE. (Certainly does not seem it has happened!)

It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW that no gods exist.

Any assertion that a god exists almost certainly is just a guess.

Any assertion that no gods exist IS DEFINITELY JUST A GUESS.

Gods are possible in what context though? If you are saying that gods are logically possible that doesnt mean that gods are physically possible.

You have no actually knowledge of gods being possible. You only rely on basic logical deduction. What you know is that in simplistic deduction that either something is possible or it is impossible. Which amounts to black and white thinking. You are asserting that there can only be two answer to the question of gods existing. Either gods are possible or impossible. If it isnt one then it has to be the other. Your logic is leaving no room for any other conclusion. One obvious conclusion could be that some attributes of gods are possible and some are not. Considering that the word gods is vastly defined in different ways, the logical conclusion shouldnt only be one or the other.

That is anyone thought the questions of gods is a valid proposition which I do not. Given that no human has any actual knowledge of gods the concept remains as a meaningless supposition with no valid value. The question is literally "Does someones make believe god exist?" -The same as asking if a child make believe friend exists/or could exist. The question is actually can make believe gods be possible? Even if you loosely define a god, you did so with your own or with the use of someone elses imagination.

Person A imagines a something, but is unable to actually describe that something.
Person A goes on to make up all kinds of things about this thing that she made up. Then asks Person B if that thing is possible.
Person B cannot answer the question based on the fact that the thing in question has no actual definable value.

Person B then can logically assert that what Person A imagines does not actually exist. Based solely on the fact that person A was only sharing her imagination and had no actual knowledge of what they were sharing. There is any logical reason that Person B needs to believe that Person A's imagination has anything to do with reality. If there is something in the universe that is just like what Person A described it was just a coincidence, it isnt actually what person A imagined. Of course if that similar thing does exist it would mean that it was physically possible. We have no knowledge that a magical omnipotent being could be physically possible in the universe. That is why the people who make up gods describe the gods as transcending reality. They moved the goal posts since without doing so would subject their gods to scrutiny. Having their gods placed in a imagined magical place takes their gods completely out of the world of logic, those versions of gods are then not logical and thus impossible.

 

[Pozessed]

So far, whatever definition people have given their god(s), its existance has shown to be impossible, from what I can tell.

Our universe may have been created by a natural yet superior intelligence to humans. That intelligence which may have created our universe can be attributed the title of a "god" by anyone who wishes to do so. Anyone whom is defining this aforementioned "god" to be a possible creator with no other anchoring attributes has a reasonable understanding to what extent we can define to be a possible "god".

I'd agree that this "god" I defined should not be called god. It should be given a name that narrows its definition, or we should narrow the definitions attributed to the "god" title. However, people are using the definition of god I defined above, and the arbitrary definition of god interchangeably. Which is quite confusing and hindering to this specific conversation.

 

[FluffyNinja]

You seem to be missing the point. I didn't say we should write it off. Our knowledge, or lack thereof doesn't matter if something is possible or not. Something might not be possible, but we not know it. Something might be possible, but we not know it.

The best we can say in the scenario is 'we don't know if it is possible or not'.

I do see your point and I simply disagree. My contention is that ANY scenario which has not definitively been proven to be impossible, is still within the realm of possibility. The existence of ANYTHING is possible (yes, even pink unicorns )until which point we can search every square inch of the universe simultaneously, essentially until we've solved the unrestricted negative conundrum.

500 years ago, if you'd tried to convince some of the more intelligent people on the planet that nearly an entire microscopic universe of tiny unseen organisms were living in a single drop of water, think theyd have even considered it probable....or even possible?

 

[calamity]

Our universe may have been created by a natural yet superior intelligence to humans. That intelligence which may have created our universe can be attributed the title of a "god" by anyone who wishes to do so. Anyone whom is defining this aforementioned "god" to be a possible creator with no other anchoring attributes has a reasonable understanding to what extent we can define to be a possible "god".

I'd agree that this "god" I defined should not be called god. It should be given a name that narrows its definition, or we should narrow the definitions attributed to the "god" title. However, people are using the definition of god I defined above, and the arbitrary definition of god interchangeably. Which is quite confusing and hindering to this specific conversation.

Yes, it makes the "god" arbitrary. The dictionary, however, is quite clear.

God
ɡäd/
noun

1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

 

[RAMOSS]

I do see your point and I simply disagree. My contention is that ANY scenario which has not definitively been proven to be impossible, is still within the realm of possibility. The existence of ANYTHING is possible (yes, even pink unicorns )until which point we can search every square inch of the universe simultaneously, essentially until we've solved the unrestricted negative conundrum.

500 years ago, if you'd tried to convince some of the more intelligent people on the planet that nearly an entire microscopic universe of tiny unseen organisms were living in a single drop of water, think theyd have even considered it probable....or even possible?

You are missing the point entirely.. because 'possible or probably' is not part of the argument I am making. I am just putting it in terms of 'We know', or 'we do not know'. "Possible and probably" needs further information.

I see nothing wrong with 'We don't know, let's see if we can figure it out'. I will also turn the argument in the exact opposite direction. If we don't know if something is impossible, it also implies we don't know if it IS possible either. It means precisely 'We don't know'.

 

[FluffyNinja]

You are missing the point entirely.. because 'possible or probably' is not part of the argument I am making. I am just putting it in terms of 'We know', or 'we do not know'. "Possible and probably" needs further information.

I see nothing wrong with 'We don't know, let's see if we can figure it out'. I will also turn the argument in the exact opposite direction. If we don't know if something is impossible, it also implies we don't know if it IS possible either. It means precisely 'We don't know'.

Fine, I'll try and put it in your terms then: WE KNOW that anything that has not be definitively disproven is STILL POSSIBLE (within the realm of possibility). WE DONT KNOW what is transpiring in every square inch of space in the universe simultaneously.

Perhaps you should attack this concept differently, as in: with our present knowledge base and capabilities, what CAN we know or what CAN'T we know?

 

[Frank Apisa]

It's the definition of gods.

Then abandon the "definition"...because the only thing a dictionary does is to tell us how a word is used.

I am saying if something "created" this thing we humans call "the universe"...I deem it to be a god.

If you do not...if the being has to be able to do more...like make a weight so heavy it cannot lift it...or make a square with no sides...fine. I think it to be absurd...but if you are happy with it...it is yours.



It most assuredly is not mine.

I do NOT know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I am not ruling anything in or out. And I think the REALITY could be a hell of a lot more difficult to comprehend than just "there is a god" or "there are no gods."

It's the accepted definition in the dictionary. It's you actually who has created his own definition of "god." ..."I deem it to be god."

As I said...a dictionary tells us how the word is used.

I do not use it that way.

 

[RAMOSS]

Fine, I'll try and put it in your terms then: WE KNOW that anything that has not be definitively disproven is STILL POSSIBLE (within the realm of possibility). WE DONT KNOW what is transpiring in every square inch of space in the universe simultaneously.

Perhaps you should attack this concept differently, as in with our present knowledge base and capabilities, what CAN we know or what CAN'T we know?

IN which case , you are making things overly complicated, because when you boil that down to it's most basic, simple words, the words are 'we don't know if xyz is possible nor do we know that xyz is impossible'