Definition of God

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Definition of God

Post #1

Post by 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 .
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Definition of God

Post #111

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:37 am [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #107Okay, I think I finally got your ergotism reference. A seemingly desperate stretch, but I could use powdered sugar instead.
Have you seen the footprints of this "cosmic consciousness" in the powdered sugar?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Definition of God

Post #112

Post by Bradskii »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:59 amSomething proceeding from absolute nothingness is a logical absurdity.
I missed the post where it was agreed we started with nothing...

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Definition of God

Post #113

Post by William »

Bradskii wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:26 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:59 amSomething proceeding from absolute nothingness is a logical absurdity.
I missed the post where it was agreed we started with nothing...
The idea of 'something from nothing' is simply based upon a 'first you don't see it and then you do' and since it was first unseen, it is assumed by that, that "what once wasn't and then was, therefore came from nothing"

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Definition of God

Post #114

Post by Bradskii »

William wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:07 pm "what once wasn't and then was, therefore came from nothing"
Time is like a tunnel. We can keep going back down it until we can't go any further. It's physically impossible. There's a wall there which we can't breach. Who says that there's nothing behind that wall?

Good win against Argentina by the way.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Definition of God

Post #115

Post by William »

Bradskii wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:27 pm
William wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:07 pm "what once wasn't and then was, therefore came from nothing"
Who says that there's nothing behind that wall?
Those who say everything came from nothing, far as I can tell.

I suppose the notion comes from the subjective experience of having no memory of ever having existed, prior to existing in this mysterious circumstance we are finding our way within...

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Definition of God

Post #116

Post by Bradskii »

William wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:37 pm
Bradskii wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:27 pm
William wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:07 pm "what once wasn't and then was, therefore came from nothing"
Who says that there's nothing behind that wall?
Those who say everything came from nothing, far as I can tell.
I just wish they'd preface their comments with 'On the assumption that everything came from nothing...'. They wouldn't have to repeat that in every post. Once would do it. But we'd then have an agreement that everything that followed on from that would likewise be an assumption.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Definition of God

Post #117

Post by William »

[Replying to Bradskii in post #116]
I just wish...
Doesn't matter...

It is presumption either way...

Speak from that premise...

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Definition of God

Post #118

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Athetotheist wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:10 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #105
JoeyKnothead wrote:As one proposes a "meta consciousness" as a creative force for the universe coming into existence, it merely pushes the question back another step - what caused the causer.
As opposed to what? A cause not having a causer?
JoeyKnothead wrote:Of course then the proponent'll declare it always existed, or came into existence spontaneously. Both're arguments we can place on the universe, without any need for the problems induced by proposing some intelligent creator at the helm.
But that brings us back to an earlier point: if you're going to apply causality to a cosmic creative force, you can't get out of applying it to the universe as well.

Assuming for the sake of argument that nothingness can produce something, let's look at it another way using an analogy popular among atheists:

Suppose that my neighbor says there's an invisible dragon living in his basement. I ask him how he knows it's there if it's invisible, and he assures me that it is without producing any evidence. To settle the issue, I go down to his basement with a big sack of flour and spread it all over so the invisible dragon will leave tracks as it walks around. If no tracks appear, I tell him, there will really be no reason to believe in the invisible dragon.

As soon as I finish, dragon tracks start appearing in the flour. With no conventional way to account for this, how do I continue to argue to my neighbor that there's no invisible dragon?

Something produced by nothing, which is to say existence produced by nonexistence, would be like those dragon tracks. The speculation I'm positing here is that the aforementioned "meta consciousness" might exist metaphysically, as the invisible dragon that makes something "from nothing".
Athetotheist wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:59 am [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #107
JoeyKnothead wrote:Assuming is a poor way to get at the truth.
Since I was talking about the assumption that you and Transponder have been defending, you have three fingers pointing back at yourself.
JoeyKnothead wrote:Ergotism is caused by the Claviceps purpurea fungus.
And that relates to this discussion.......how?
JoeyKnothead wrote:Metaphysics or not, your "meta consciousness" proposal suffers from a lack of confirmatory evidence. You might as well propose Mother Goose laid her a golden egg, and the Giant climbed down the beanstalk and smooshed it, and how bout that, out popped the universe.
A cosmic consciousness is an unproven hypothesis. Something proceeding from absolute nothingness is a logical absurdity. I'm favoring a nonrational idea over an irrational one.
The fingers actually point at the Theist side. Cosmic consciousness is not just an unproven hypothesis but an intelligent entity that has no origin according to you. Whereas a nothing that acts as something coming from a nothing posits less logical entities than a nothing that becomes something and then an intelligence. Finger points at you.

The dragon analogy fails on two counts -
(1) appeal to unknowns. This is actually very common and is based on assuming the claim as a give. You start with the belief there is a dragon there. Thus just because you didn't see the tracks in the flour or whatever, doesn't mean they didn't appear later.

But logic says that you don't credit the dragon until the evidence is seen. To batter the analogy to a paste, one could check every day or set up cctv. No footprints means there is no dragon. How far can you excuse the lack of evidence for a god?

2nd finger points at you.

(2) Third is anecdotal evidence. Neighbour swears there is a dragon. Fails to produce evidence. Claims of personal experience, Faith or hoping the evidence will turn up is not good evidence nor logical. Sorry, we cannot take his word for it. Third finger points at you.

It comes down to the only argument that is valid - actual evidence for a god. Not appeal to unknowns, not trying to fiddle logical probailities (because Godfaith skews the odds to start with) but evidence the believer has to provide to satisfy the people out there (not the unbelievers here) but hose who are willing to believe -with evidence - but not without the evidence.

Over to you; so far you have as near to nothing as would be perfect for a universe to pop out of.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Definition of God

Post #119

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #118
The fingers actually point at the Theist side. Cosmic consciousness is not just an unproven hypothesis but an intelligent entity that has no origin according to you. Whereas a nothing that acts as something coming from a nothing posits less logical entities than a nothing that becomes something and then an intelligence. Finger points at you.
Let me see if I understand this. You seem to be arguing that something can come from nothing because nothing doesn't have to posit anything for something to come from.

That finger is so irrational, it points at itself.

I'm not positing a cosmic consciousness as "a nothing that becomes something"; I'm positing it as a something which has always been.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Definition of God

Post #120

Post by William »

Athetotheist wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 10:28 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #118
The fingers actually point at the Theist side. Cosmic consciousness is not just an unproven hypothesis but an intelligent entity that has no origin according to you. Whereas a nothing that acts as something coming from a nothing posits less logical entities than a nothing that becomes something and then an intelligence. Finger points at you.
Let me see if I understand this. You seem to be arguing that something can come from nothing because nothing doesn't have to posit anything for something to come from.

That finger is so irrational, it points at itself.

I'm not positing a cosmic consciousness as "a nothing that becomes something"; I'm positing it as a something which has always been.
The idea that everything came from nothing is an appeal to magic. It doesn't matter if it is theists or non-theists who claim that everything came from nothing, it is still appealing to magic.

Post Reply