Isn’t No-God position an unreasonable position?

Argue for and against religions and philosophies which are not Christian

Moderator: Moderators

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Isn’t No-God position an unreasonable position?

Post #1

Post by paarsurrey1 »

God is attributive, neither physical nor a spirit, His attributes are found reflected everywhere in the Universe as positive verities in absolutes. Science deals in things that are physical and material. Therefore, the No-God position is unreasonable if not the most unreasonable position. Neither religion nor science supports the No-God position, please.

Regards

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Isn’t No-God position an unreasonable position?

Post #2

Post by McCulloch »

paarsurrey1 wrote:God is attributive, neither physical nor a spirit, His attributes are found reflected everywhere in the Universe as positive verities in absolutes. Science deals in things that are physical and material. Therefore, the No-God position is unreasonable if not the most unreasonable position. Neither religion nor science supports the No-God position, please.
This description of what God is does not agree with the descriptions found in Tanakh (aka Old Testament), New Testament, Qu'ran, Book of Mormon, Urantia Book or Guru Granth Sahib.
I do find it odd that someone who identifies as ignostic would claim to know the meaning of the word God and castigate atheism on the basis of that definition.
However, I do agree with you that religion does not support the No-God position.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Isn’t No-God position an unreasonable position?

Post #3

Post by paarsurrey1 »

McCulloch wrote:
paarsurrey1 wrote:God is attributive, neither physical nor a spirit, His attributes are found reflected everywhere in the Universe as positive verities in absolutes. Science deals in things that are physical and material. Therefore, the No-God position is unreasonable if not the most unreasonable position. Neither religion nor science supports the No-God position, please.
This description of what God is does not agree with the descriptions found in Tanakh (aka Old Testament), New Testament, Qu'ran, Book of Mormon, Urantia Book or Guru Granth Sahib.
I do find it odd that someone who identifies as ignostic would claim to know the meaning of the word God and castigate atheism on the basis of that definition.
However, I do agree with you that religion does not support the No-God position.
I do find it odd that someone who identifies as ignostic
I have unsubscribed from the Ignostic group. Please note.
Regards

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Isn’t No-God position an unreasonable position?

Post #4

Post by paarsurrey1 »

[Replying to post 2 by McCulloch]
Neither religion nor science supports the No-God position.
Please give one's evidences from science supporting No-God position. Is there any?
Regards

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Isn’t No-God position an unreasonable position?

Post #5

Post by paarsurrey1 »

McCulloch wrote:
paarsurrey1 wrote:God is attributive, neither physical nor a spirit, His attributes are found reflected everywhere in the Universe as positive verities in absolutes. Science deals in things that are physical and material. Therefore, the No-God position is unreasonable if not the most unreasonable position. Neither religion nor science supports the No-God position, please.
This description of what God is does not agree with the descriptions found in Tanakh (aka Old Testament), New Testament, Qu'ran, Book of Mormon, Urantia Book or Guru Granth Sahib.
I do find it odd that someone who identifies as ignostic would claim to know the meaning of the word God and castigate atheism on the basis of that definition.
However, I do agree with you that religion does not support the No-God position.
This description of what God is does not agree with the descriptions found in Tanakh (aka Old Testament)
How does one know that? Please quote the definition from Tanakh (aka Old Testament) in support of one's viewpoint. Right, please?
Regards

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Isn’t No-God position an unreasonable position?

Post #6

Post by paarsurrey1 »

McCulloch wrote:
paarsurrey1 wrote:God is attributive, neither physical nor a spirit, His attributes are found reflected everywhere in the Universe as positive verities in absolutes. Science deals in things that are physical and material. Therefore, the No-God position is unreasonable if not the most unreasonable position. Neither religion nor science supports the No-God position, please.
This description of what God is does not agree with the descriptions found in Tanakh (aka Old Testament), New Testament, Qu'ran, Book of Mormon, Urantia Book or Guru Granth Sahib.
I do find it odd that someone who identifies as ignostic would claim to know the meaning of the word God and castigate atheism on the basis of that definition.
However, I do agree with you that religion does not support the No-God position.
This description of what God is does not agree with the descriptions found in ........, Qu'ran
How does one know that? Please quote the definition from Quran in support of one's viewpoint. Right, please?

Regards

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: Isn’t No-God position an unreasonable position?

Post #7

Post by Divine Insight »

paarsurrey1 wrote: [Replying to post 2 by McCulloch]
Neither religion nor science supports the No-God position.
Please give one's evidences from science supporting No-God position. Is there any?
Regards
Science doesn't need evidence to support a position for which there is no evidence. The simple lack of evidence is sufficient from a scientific perspective to consider a position to have no rational merit until evidence can be produced.

Far more importantly than this there is actually overwhelming evidence that the God of the Abrahamic religions cannot exist as described in any of the Abrahamic literature. (i.e. the Tanakh, Bible and Qur'an.) All of those mythological texts can be shown to contain serious self-contradictions concerning the description of their mythological Gods.

Where some other more abstract concept of "God" might exist would be an entirely different question. However, even these other abstract concepts of a generic idea of a "God" would need to define their God in a way that makes the concept comprehensible. Without a comprehensible definition for the "God" in question it would not be possible to ask scientific questions of whether or not it could even exist.

From my own personal experience I have seen abstract concepts of "God" that cannot be refuted by science, reason, or logical contradiction. These are typically Eastern Mystical ideas of "God" far removed from the personal "Zeus-like" anthropomorphic God of the Abrahamic religions.

While these more abstract concept of "God" cannot be refuted by science, reason, or logical contradictions, they cannot be demonstrated to exist either. So once again, in terms of science there is no "evidence" to support those hypotheses.

But the God's of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can be demonstrated to be false mythologies based on their own self-contradictory scriptures. No science is even required to see that they are clearly false religions.

So science doesn't even need to come into the picture. We can easily see that those religions are clearly false based solely on their own self-contradictory scriptures.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Isn’t No-God position an unreasonable position?

Post #8

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Divine Insight wrote:
paarsurrey1 wrote: [Replying to post 2 by McCulloch]
Neither religion nor science supports the No-God position.
Please give one's evidences from science supporting No-God position. Is there any?
Regards
Science doesn't need evidence to support a position for which there is no evidence. The simple lack of evidence is sufficient from a scientific perspective to consider a position to have no rational merit until evidence can be produced.

Far more importantly than this there is actually overwhelming evidence that the God of the Abrahamic religions cannot exist as described in any of the Abrahamic literature. (i.e. the Tanakh, Bible and Qur'an.) All of those mythological texts can be shown to contain serious self-contradictions concerning the description of their mythological Gods.

Where some other more abstract concept of "God" might exist would be an entirely different question. However, even these other abstract concepts of a generic idea of a "God" would need to define their God in a way that makes the concept comprehensible. Without a comprehensible definition for the "God" in question it would not be possible to ask scientific questions of whether or not it could even exist.

From my own personal experience I have seen abstract concepts of "God" that cannot be refuted by science, reason, or logical contradiction. These are typically Eastern Mystical ideas of "God" far removed from the personal "Zeus-like" anthropomorphic God of the Abrahamic religions.

While these more abstract concept of "God" cannot be refuted by science, reason, or logical contradictions, they cannot be demonstrated to exist either. So once again, in terms of science there is no "evidence" to support those hypotheses.

But the God's of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can be demonstrated to be false mythologies based on their own self-contradictory scriptures. No science is even required to see that they are clearly false religions.

So science doesn't even need to come into the picture. We can easily see that those religions are clearly false based solely on their own self-contradictory scriptures.
Science doesn't need evidence to support a position
Sorry, I didn't say that science needs evidence. I said that No-God position is unreasonable and is not supported by science. Is it, please?
Regards

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Isn’t No-God position an unreasonable position?

Post #9

Post by paarsurrey1 »

McCulloch wrote:
paarsurrey1 wrote:God is attributive, neither physical nor a spirit, His attributes are found reflected everywhere in the Universe as positive verities in absolutes. Science deals in things that are physical and material. Therefore, the No-God position is unreasonable if not the most unreasonable position. Neither religion nor science supports the No-God position, please.
This description of what God is does not agree with the descriptions found in Tanakh (aka Old Testament), New Testament, Qu'ran, Book of Mormon, Urantia Book or Guru Granth Sahib.
I do find it odd that someone who identifies as ignostic would claim to know the meaning of the word God and castigate atheism on the basis of that definition.
However, I do agree with you that religion does not support the No-God position.
This description of what God is does not agree with the descriptions found in Tanakh (aka Old Testament), New Testament, Qu'ran, Book of Mormon, Urantia Book or Guru Granth Sahib.
Please feel free to support one's viewpoint about the description of God from Guru Granth Sahib. Right, please?
Regards

paarsurrey1
Sage
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm

Re: Isn’t No-God position an unreasonable position?

Post #10

Post by paarsurrey1 »

Divine Insight wrote:
paarsurrey1 wrote: [Replying to post 2 by McCulloch]
Neither religion nor science supports the No-God position.
Please give one's evidences from science supporting No-God position. Is there any?
Regards
Science doesn't need evidence to support a position for which there is no evidence. The simple lack of evidence is sufficient from a scientific perspective to consider a position to have no rational merit until evidence can be produced.

Far more importantly than this there is actually overwhelming evidence that the God of the Abrahamic religions cannot exist as described in any of the Abrahamic literature. (i.e. the Tanakh, Bible and Qur'an.) All of those mythological texts can be shown to contain serious self-contradictions concerning the description of their mythological Gods.

Where some other more abstract concept of "God" might exist would be an entirely different question. However, even these other abstract concepts of a generic idea of a "God" would need to define their God in a way that makes the concept comprehensible. Without a comprehensible definition for the "God" in question it would not be possible to ask scientific questions of whether or not it could even exist.

From my own personal experience I have seen abstract concepts of "God" that cannot be refuted by science, reason, or logical contradiction. These are typically Eastern Mystical ideas of "God" far removed from the personal "Zeus-like" anthropomorphic God of the Abrahamic religions.

While these more abstract concept of "God" cannot be refuted by science, reason, or logical contradictions, they cannot be demonstrated to exist either. So once again, in terms of science there is no "evidence" to support those hypotheses.

But the God's of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can be demonstrated to be false mythologies based on their own self-contradictory scriptures. No science is even required to see that they are clearly false religions.

So science doesn't even need to come into the picture. We can easily see that those religions are clearly false based solely on their own self-contradictory scriptures.
Science doesn't need evidence to support a position for which there is no evidence. The simple lack of evidence is sufficient from a scientific perspective to consider a position to have no rational merit until evidence can be produced.


Is it acknowledgement that the "no-God" position- the position taken by Atheism, is not supported by Science? Nonetheless, the Truthful Religion also obviously rejects it with reasonable arguments.
Right, please?

Rejects

Post Reply