KnownUnknown:


The problem with this God that is the universe itself is that it excludes humans from the “universe” itself.

That's an interesting way to look at it.

Although one particular pantheist I've spoken to, believes even humans, are part of “God".

Just as our individual cells are still part of us, and have their functions, some pantheists may subscribe to the idea that even without knowing it, we have a function, just like the cell in our body, which we are carrying out as part of the universe (A.K.A God)

Wilgrea7:


That's an interesting way to look at it.

Although one particular pantheist I've spoken to, believes even humans, are part of “God".

Just as our individual cells are still part of us, and have their functions, some pantheists may subscribe to the idea that even without knowing it, we have a function, just like the cell in our body, which we are carrying out as part of the universe (A.K.A God)

Maybe we live in the kneecap of an unfathomably large giant called God. Or maybe in the mitochondria of a large leaf on a big ass tree called God. I mean it’s probable. How probable? I don’t know.

This is all quite good. You explained that the concept of God differs depending on one's faith. I agree, to an extent. However, I'm asking, not for you to deny faith in any god, but to affirm your atheist stance. I'm talking about positive proof.

You've enumerated some ways god is understood in different philosophies. You do not believe in the existence of any such god. You do not believe that god exists in any form whatsoever. I'm asking why. I'm pointing out to you that your unbelief is unwarranted as you have the burden of disproving the existence of every god ever, or simply invalidating every form of the concept.

Wilgrea7:


I assure you, I'm most certainly not trying to cop out here.

It's just that I think there's more to the question, especially when it comes to the definition of “God"

For example, the theist and deist, believe God to be a single creator deity, separate from the universe itself. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

The pantheist believes the universe IS God. The Panentheist believes the universe is A PART OF God.

A polytheist can believe in multiple eternal Gods, rather than just a single one.

Having engaged with multiple concepts of God, i always like to properly define what the word means to make sure we're on the same page.

When most people ask me if i believe in a God, they're often referring to a monotheistic/deistic concept, for which I hold no inclination towards.

Here's a recent response I gave to someone about my beliefs.

AuthenticKing:

While my view resembles that of a moral consequentialist, it's more complex than you think. If I were in the situation you wrote above, I wouldn't kill the Indian. I would (depending on how influential I am) find out the kind of disturbance these Indians are causing and whether they really deserve to be killed. I would do everything possible to ensure they are not killed.
While this might sound naively idealistic, it just illustrates how complex my view is.

You are right that it is naively idealistic, but more importantly, it misses the point. If you are left with no choice but to kill the Indian, you would have done a "good" thing from your consequentialist point of view. You have minimized the harm and are therefore in the right. On my view, the killing of the Indian would at best be a necessary evil. This warped moral perspective combined with the problems of geography, time, and probability make your view untenable and possibly self-contradictory. It is perhaps more dangerous than you understand it to be.

Well what use is this intrinsic view of yours if we don't see clear negative results of these actions you deem wrong even when it doesn't necessarily pose great harm to proponents involved? And not just that, sometimes sticking to these intrinsic notions could even create adverse consequences for proponents. Would you who hold unto intrinsic notions of right and wrong condemn a policeman who kills a hardened criminal who tries to escape after being caught or those who shot Osama bin Laden, the hardened terrorist or the woman who divorces an abusive husband who is at the verge of killing her?

Of recent, I've come to the conclusion that everything wrong with the world can be traced back to improper foundations in ethical philosophy. The above paragraph exemplifies my belief in a way I could only have hoped for. For instance, the sentence: "And not just that, sometimes sticking to these intrinsic notions could even create adverse consequences for proponents", seems to imply that people shouldn't perform moral actions in order to avoid "adverse consequences". Not only is this contradictory to your earlier "advancement" rhetoric, it is a clear demonstration of consequentialism blurring the lines between morality and amorality. It also unfortunately disregards human selfishness and the tendency to think anything an adverse consequence to avoid having to play good Samaritan.

The examples: "a policeman who kills a hardened criminal who tries to escape after being caught or those who shot Osama bin Laden, the hardened terrorist or the woman who divorces an abusive husband who is at the verge of killing her", present the slippery slope of consequentialist thought. You judge actions by their consequence, but fail to judge the moral worth of the consequences themselves. You view killing as moral based on what you assume the consequences to be. As a result you present the above examples, where immoral actions (on my view) have led to what you deem favorable states of affairs. How would you object to Bin Laden claiming that the deaths of American citizens in the 9/11 attacks were actually a better state of affairs. You and he both believe in doing things that would "advance" humanity and that the person dying is what makes killing good or bad.

In the end you are left with the useful fiction that the people you think should die or be divorced will lead to a better world (or state of affairs) according to you. The people you permit these evils to be committed against believe the same things: that their actions will lead to a better state of affairs and are therefore justified, if not good.

Intrinsic morality decries murder as evil regardless of intention. It may be necessary at times, but is still wrong and we aim to minimize it as such. I cannot say the same for your view.

Endtimer:
This is all quite good. You explained that the concept of God differs depending on one's faith. I agree, to an extent. However, I'm asking, not for you to deny faith in any god, but to affirm your atheist stance. I'm talking about positive proof.

You've enumerated some ways god is understood in different philosophies. You do not believe in the existence of any such god. You do not believe that god exists in any form whatsoever. I'm asking why. I'm pointing out to you that your unbelief is unwarranted as you have the burden of disproving the existence of every god ever, or simply invalidating every form of the concept.

I'm quite happy you've understood the point I was trying to make, at least to a large extent. Now it makes it easier to clarify my stance on "God".

It is not to say that I don't believe "God" exists in any form whatsoever. Far from it actually. It's just that I currently lack any evidence to favor one concept of "God" above the other.

Like I said in my previous quoted response, I'm not trying to deny that "God" could be one of these things. I simply don't know enough to say it is A instead of B. I don't know if the creator is a single deity or a pantheon, if it has another creator, if it is the universe itself, or separate from it, and so on.

it's not that I reject all of these. It's just that I lack any sufficient data to prove one above the other, or to disprove them all as you've requested.

I cannot disprove the idea of a God who is one with the universe, any more than I can disprove the idea of a God who is separate from it, or one with another creator, or a situation with multiple creators, and so on. it becomes a case of "Russel's teapot".

In case you're not familiar with it, it's a thought experiment, where someone is asked to disprove that there's an invisible/very tiny floating cup somewhere between earth and mars.

I'm sure you've already spotted the problem here. Russel's teapot experiment, makes a claim that's essentially untestable, and unfalsifiable. Similar to disproving one concept of "God" above the other, especially with our current knowledge. Which is why I've been eager to see proofs from people who claim "God" is one way, instead of the other.

My lack of belief is not from actively rejecting all concepts of God. It's simply saying "I don't know which is/could be right".

I hope this clears things up. If not, I'd be more than happy to answer more questions.

Wilgrea7:


Yes. Finally. We agree. Although I'm a bit cautious of the wording “proving Christianity is true".

Mainly because to me, proving “the God of the bible" as the creator, and therefore arbiter of moral laws, and “proving Christianity to be true" are 2 somewhat related, but still different things.

But either ways, I'll be happy to engage with any sort of “proof"

When I eventually get around to this I will be proving Christianity to be true. Doing so would include proving that the God of the Bible exists, and that He became flesh 2,000 years ago, in order to save humanity. I will likely create a list of what I believe any Christian would agree to be articles of the faith and prove them to the best of my ability.

If I were God, I will be laughing at these ones making meaning out of foolish premises are philosophy not fully understood in concluding the existence of a creator.

Just look at them. Confusionists creating more confusions for themselves and for others just like a blind leading a blind at night

Endtimer:


When I eventually get around to this I will be proving Christianity to be true. Doing so would include proving that the God of the Bible exists, and that He became flesh 2,000 years ago, in order to save humanity. I will likely create a list of what I believe any Christian would agree to be articles of the faith and prove them to the best of my ability.

I think there are a number of steps that would need to be put in place.

For example,

1) Proving that "God" is a single creator deity in general
2) Proving that the bible/Christian God is the same as the "God" who is indeed the creator of the universe
3) Proving the story of the fall, as well as other biblical stories to be true, which would then validate the need for any form of "salvation"
4) Proving that said God indeed came down in the flesh (as you've said)
5) Proving that the death and alleged resurrection does provide the aforementioned "salvation"

Either ways, I'd be more than happy to engage with whatever proofs you have to offer.

Aemmyjah:
If I were God, I will be laughing at these ones making meaning out of foolish premises are philosophy not fully understood in concluding the existence of a creator.

Just look at them. Confusionists creating more confusions for themselves and for others just like a blind leading a blind at night

Apologies. I didn't know we had a master of philosophy here.

So do you mind sharing your own premises that are not “foolish", or do you just prefer to go around making empty statements about things you have no rebuttal to

Wilgrea7:


Apologies. I didn't know we had a master of philosophy here.

So do you mind sharing your own premises that are not “foolish", or do you just prefer to go around making empty statements about things you have no rebuttal to

Lol, as if we have not conversed before. When you find my earlier comment and reply, we can talk about it.
You already have a problem with the word 'believe' and it's affecting how you see the whole issue. Sorry

Aemmyjah:


Lol, as if we have not conversed before. When you find my earlier comment and reply, we can talk about it.
You already have a problem with the word 'believe' and it's affecting how you see the whole issue. Sorry

I'm not aware of any of your comments on this thread which I failed to respond to.

If you could kindly repeat or requote them, I'd be happy to engage.

Wilgrea7:


That's an interesting way to look at it.

Although one particular pantheist I've spoken to, believes even humans, are part of “God".

Just as our individual cells are still part of us, and have their functions, some pantheists may subscribe to the idea that even without knowing it, we have a function, just like the cell in our body, which we are carrying out as part of the universe (A.K.A God)

Indeed this is the christian belief. That the church is one body, and christ is the head. therefore individual christians are like different cells in the body.

Romans 12:5 (ESV)
5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.


1 Corinthians 12:27 (ESV)
27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

PastorAIO:


Indeed this is the christian belief. That the church is one body, and christ is the head. therefore individual christians are like different cells in the body.

Romans 12:5 (ESV)
5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.


1 Corinthians 12:27 (ESV)
27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

I understand that, but that's more of a figurative view than a literal one.

A pantheist doesn't believe the universe is figuratively God. They believe it literally to be God, and humans, literally, to be a part of God, just as our cells are literally a part of us

Endtimer:


When I eventually get around to this I will be proving Christianity to be true. Doing so would include proving that the God of the Bible exists, and that He became flesh 2,000 years ago, in order to save humanity. I will likely create a list of what I believe any Christian would agree to be articles of the faith and prove them to the best of my ability.

Lol. You’re going to prove that the character called Lord God from the book of Genesis is real. Lmao.

What will you do for your final trick? Make the sun stand still?

Wilgrea7:



4) Proving that said God indeed came down in the flesh (as you've said)

Did God “come down” on an elevator, stair case, or escalator? Did he drive or ride when he “came down”?

God “coming down” further exposes the farcical nature of religious beliefs. The people who created this system of gods and their wondrous abodes based it on a geocentric flat earth system, which any educated person knows is wrong.

Wiegraf at the North Pole, Knownunknown at the South Pole. God “comes down”. Who sees it first?

Or maybe it is just a figure of speech. Lol

God is in Heaven and so Judgement is in heaven.

Wilgrea7:


I understand that, but that's more of a figurative view than a literal one.

A pantheist doesn't believe the universe is figuratively God. They believe it literally to be God, and humans, literally, to be a part of God, just as our cells are literally a part of us

I suppose that depends on how each person subjectively decides to interpret it.

KnownUnknown:


Did God “come down” on an elevator, stair case, or escalator? Did he drive or ride when he “came down”?

God “coming down” further exposes the farcical nature of religious beliefs. The people who created this system of gods and their wondrous abodes based it on a geocentric flat earth system, which any educated person knows is wrong.

Wiegraf at the North Pole, Knownunknown at the South Pole. God “comes down”. Who sees it first?

Or maybe it is just a figure of speech. Lol

Most likely a figure of speech.

The idea that God/Gods are somewhere up above and hell/satan/devils are somewhere below is still an idea that exists in religion today, both literally and figuratively.

Although I'd be very much interested in how someone would eventually prove that a human being, was indeed a God incarnate.

MaxInDHouse:


The highlighted is enough to help us have what i called "PRACTICAL SENSE"

GOD is the SUPREME BEING who has ordered His worshipers to kill those who are not His worshipers over the region He picked to have His name proclaimed.

So if the same God now promised that all His worshipers must have LOVE among themselves do you think anyone claiming he or she is a worshiper of this same God should raise up weapons against his or her fellow worshipers for any reason whatsoever?

Remember that the true worshipers of this God in ancient times always rely on His power for victory against their enemies so who do these people rely on when they pick up weapons to kill their own fellow worshipers today?

Do you still think they BELIEVE (TRUST) as in see their God as TRUE?

Before I respond, can you mention these Christians or the Christian sects that actually pick up weapons to kill their fellow worshippers? Don't just make generalizing statements, be specific man.

AuthenticKing:

Before I respond, can you mention these Christians or the Christian sects that actually pick up weapons to kill their fellow worshippers? Don't just make generalizing statements, be specific man.

Do you know any religion claiming Christians and zealously preaching against nationalism?

As long as they're ready to pick up weapons in fighting for their country they will surely kill their FELLOW WORSHIPERS in other countries!

If there is no God, why do we have morals in the first place?
For example, we condemn murder. Why is it condemned.? Why condemn injustices but appreciate love. Before you answer these questions, those things we condemn are in comparison to what

Aemmyjah:
If there is no God, why do we have morals in the first place?
For example, we condemn murder. Why is it condemned.? Why condemn injustices but appreciate love. Before you answer these questions, those things we condemn are in comparison to what

You're raising up an issue that has been addressed multiple times in this thread, especially in the beginning.

You're trying to imply that our morals, come from a God.

This argument falls flat on its face for several reasons mentioned in the OP. I suggest you read through the initial posts to understand why your argument is flawed.

The existence of a God doesn't solve the questions you raised above.

What if a God said murder was right? Would you go around doing it? What if a God said it was okay to hate people with a different religion or skin color. Would you go around doing these?

Bringing a God into this hardly solves anything

Aemmyjah:
If there is no God, why do we have morals in the first place?
For example, we condemn murder. Why is it condemned.? Why condemn injustices but appreciate love. Before you answer these questions, those things we condemn are in comparison to what

Even if morals come from a god what makes you think they came from one of the psychotic murderous gods in Hebrew mythology?
The god in genesis is busy murdering people or promising other people’s homes to his favorite despicable people( Abram,Sarai, lot, Jacob etc)

The god in exodus is nothing more than a kleptomaniacal warlord.

KnownUnknown:


Even if morals come from a god what makes you think they came from one of the psychotic murderous gods in Hebrew mythology?
The god in genesis is busy murdering people or promising other people’s homes to his favorite despicable people( Abram,Sarai, lot, Jacob etc)

The god in exodus is nothing more than a kleptomaniacal warlord.

Morals came from who? You
From apes?

Wilgrea7:


You're raising up an issue that has been addressed multiple times in this thread, especially in the beginning.

You're trying to imply that our morals, come from a God.

This argument falls flat on its face for several reasons mentioned in the OP. I suggest you read through the initial posts to understand why your argument is flawed.

The existence of a God doesn't solve the questions you raised above.

What if a God said murder was right? Would you go around doing it? What if a God said it was okay to hate people with a different religion or skin color. Would you go around doing these?

Bringing a God into this hardly solves anything

Lol, you're not making sense
Remember that the question was about morals and God's existence
So you should consider how these morals affect us in general and not your silly assumptions of 'ifs'
That's what atheists do, they'll encounter us and began to ask 'what ifs'
Before you ask your questions, consider how the community feels and how the conscience accept them
We're not animals
We're humans

Even those who claim to be religious show hatred, racism, bigotry and egotism
Many have killed and killing in the name of God.
Since you don't want to be decisive, I'll make you keep driving in a roundabout

Aemmyjah:


Morals came from who? You
From apes?

It came from GIGO Beyond the Moon.

Wilgrea7:


You're raising up an issue that has been addressed multiple times in this thread, especially in the beginning.

You're trying to imply that our morals, come from a God.

This argument falls flat on its face for several reasons mentioned in the OP. I suggest you read through the initial posts to understand why your argument is flawed.

The existence of a God doesn't solve the questions you raised above.

What if a God said murder was right? Would you go around doing it? What if a God said it was okay to hate people with a different religion or skin color. Would you go around doing these?

Bringing a God into this hardly solves anything

Morals is something inherent in man
We were born with it
It is not something we adopt but based on community and conscience, we develop them
The only explanation is that it is part of our makeup

Aesthetic values and moral values are not essential for survival, where do they come from and why do we have them?

Aemmyjah:

Morals came from who? You
From apes?

You now understand why i keep dribbling the other guy passionate about pedophilia and rape. Why so bitter after all humans came from APES according to ATHEISTS?

Wilgrea7:


That's an interesting way to look at it.

Although one particular pantheist I've spoken to, believes even humans, are part of “God".

Just as our individual cells are still part of us, and have their functions, some pantheists may subscribe to the idea that even without knowing it, we have a function, just like the cell in our body, which we are carrying out as part of the universe (A.K.A God)

You and the pantheist are pitiable

If the universe is God, where does intelligence comes from?
Would you say the universe gave us something it does not have?
Shame
You claim to be atheist but you claim to don't dispute the existence of God and you are listening to a pantheist