Definition of God

[JoeyKnothead]

I won't name the source, cause it was offered in the spirit of explanation moreso than outright fact, but let's fuss on it all the same:

...
For a general definition of God, "the underlying source of all else which exists"...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm God is the underlying source of all else which exists.

Remember, the bible ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site .

[TRANSPONDER]

What fun. Defining God, 'God' or god is always endless hours of amusement. Even without the Theists demanding that the atheists define God before they start debating.

I is rather the Believers should define what they mean by God otherwise atheists won't know whether they agree with it or not.

'The underlying source of all else which exists..' well, allright. Physics, we might say. Whatever and however it started the stuff that the Big Bang event was made from, since Theists themselves seem divided about whether or not to accept the BB as the Act of Creation or deny it as a 'scientific alternative theory to God'.

There's a thread on 'Infinite Regression' which (broadly) covers the topic of cosmic origins. So I won't go into it here. I'll just say that Infinite regression only makes that idea seems absurd and not a credible explanation. So something else has to serve as a theory. The two resolve as God and Something from Nothing' and I can say that the latter these days looks a lot more likely than an uncreated complex being.

So that is debatable, but isn't even a particularly useful debate because even if you make a Creative being a credible theory (hypothesis) which one? Which god is God? The 'Religion' debate is a can just kicked down the road.

[Miles]

What fun. Defining God, 'God' or god is always endless hours of amusement. Even without the Theists demanding that the atheists define God before they start debating.

I[t] is rather the Believers should define what they mean by God otherwise atheists won't know whether they agree with it or not.

What definition of "god" do you think would be agreeable to atheists? I ask because because I've yet to see it matter. Because god is first and foremost a supernatural being, a characteristic atheist would first have to be convinced is true, which I have never seen happen, all other defining characteristics would have to wait their turn.


.

[Athetotheist]

'The underlying source of all else which exists..' well, allright. Physics, we might say.

What's the underlying source of physics?

There's a thread on 'Infinite Regression' which (broadly) covers the topic of cosmic origins.

This isn't about regression; it's about reduction.

[TRANSPONDER]

What fun. Defining God, 'God' or god is always endless hours of amusement. Even without the Theists demanding that the atheists define God before they start debating.

I[t] is rather the Believers should define what they mean by God otherwise atheists won't know whether they agree with it or not.

What definition of "god" do you think would be agreeable to atheists? I ask because because I've yet to see it matter. Because god is first and foremost a supernatural being, a characteristic atheist would first have to be convinced is true, which I have never seen happen, all other defining characteristics would have to wait their turn.


.

I agree that it probably doesn't matter what concept of God (or a god of some kind) would be agreeable to atheists. What matters is what the evidence points to as the best hypothesis, whether atheist (or theists) like it or not.

[1213]

...
Please offer some means to confirm God is the underlying source of all else which exists.
...

I would say, one reason to think God is the source is that nature itself has no ability to form life from death material on itself. If nature would have that ability, we could test and observe it in nature.

[TRANSPONDER]

'The underlying source of all else which exists..' well, allright. Physics, we might say.

What's the underlying source of physics?

There's a thread on 'Infinite Regression' which (broadly) covers the topic of cosmic origins.

This isn't about regression; it's about reduction.

If I get your drift correctly, yes, perhaps; reducing the term 'God' to specific (and often different) ideas of what that means. As I say, if the person proposing God says what they mean by it when they make their claim that it exists, the others will know the claim they are being asked to assess. This avoids a lot of debate before the propose of the claim says: 'That isn't what i meant by 'God'.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Please offer some means to confirm God is the underlying source of all else which exists.
...

I would say, one reason to think God is the source is that nature itself has no ability to form life from death material on itself. If nature would have that ability, we could test and observe it in nature.

When you think about it, perhaps it does. In the process of reproducing bioforms, inanimate materials are assembled and become active and living.

[Athetotheist]

'The underlying source of all else which exists..' well, allright. Physics, we might say.

What's the underlying source of physics?

There's a thread on 'Infinite Regression' which (broadly) covers the topic of cosmic origins.

This isn't about regression; it's about reduction.

If I get your drift correctly, yes, perhaps; reducing the term 'God' to specific (and often different) ideas of what that means. As I say, if the person proposing God says what they mean by it when they make their claim that it exists, the others will know the claim they are being asked to assess. This avoids a lot of debate before the propose of the claim says: 'That isn't what i meant by 'God'.

So, what's the underlying source of physics?

[TRANSPONDER]

'The underlying source of all else which exists..' well, allright. Physics, we might say.

What's the underlying source of physics?

There's a thread on 'Infinite Regression' which (broadly) covers the topic of cosmic origins.

This isn't about regression; it's about reduction.

If I get your drift correctly, yes, perhaps; reducing the term 'God' to specific (and often different) ideas of what that means. As I say, if the person proposing God says what they mean by it when they make their claim that it exists, the others will know the claim they are being asked to assess. This avoids a lot of debate before the propose of the claim says: 'That isn't what i meant by 'God'.

So, what's the underlying source of physics?

Now you're asking I am not a physicist nor am I assiduously following the latest thought in physics, cosmology or quantum study, and the matter is still speculative anyway. This is bound up with the alternative to an eternal God - a pre -universal 'stuff' that dd not need to be created.

Now the experiments I heard of seemed to hint an a potential inherent energy in nothingness that does not require creation. It is inherent. (I believe Hawking and Krauss and others called it 'potential') And matter, so physicists seem to e saying now, is energy doing stuff, or the way I described it on my previous board was 'energy reacting to other packets of energy in taking up position relative to the other packet and acting like there was something there. In other words, matter emerges from energy (that does not need creation) doing things.

And the doing of it works according to laws of physics, which are also inherent. Which is to say, what works, works and what doesn't vanishes. A kind of Chemical evolution, one might say.

So the way it seems to be is: Physics is based on the innate potential of potential matter. It is there without needing to be created.Something from nothing, in fact.

If I am quite wrong in that and letting my imagination run away with me, I can only say 'We don't know', but 'Don't know' does NOT mean that 'God' is the default hypothesis. And even if it was, Which god are we talking about?

As I say, Cosmic origins do not help religious claims, though Theists think they do.