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 .

[brunumb]

...
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.

We can't say that life could not arise spontaneously from inanimate material through natural processes without knowing what conditions might be necessary or what mechanism would be involved. If we don't see it happening in nature now it probably just means that the conducive conditions no longer exist. It is only necessary as a one-off thing because once living things formed life propagated through a reproductive process.

If God is hypothesised as the agent involved, what observations and tests can we use to verify that claim? God appears to be just an invented solution to problems that in reality doesn't answer any questions at all.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. We are getting the cunning and indeed clever apologetic that we do not see abiogenesis happenning before our very eyes and so it could not have happened in the past, therefore God mustha dunnit.

As I remarked and you said above, life from non -life happens all the time. We call it a reproductive cycle. The theist apologist will then trace that back along the evolutionary line that non -goddists believe in until we get to the single cell - the earliest thing attested by early fossils. Who made that, then?

Rather like 'who made the universe...no the Cosmos, because many God -believers accept the BB as the 'act of creation' ...then?' Theists will try to argue that life from non -life is impossible.

That is saying a darn sight too much because experiments and hypothetical mechanisms show that the (chemical) evolution of Amino -acids, RNA and thus DNA leading to the act of self replication (which is the moment we had 'Life') would give us chromosomes as the basis for the nucleus of the Cell, the rest as they says, being Palaeontology.

So at least there is a hypothetical mechanism against which Theism has nothing but a god doing some magic. Since there is no hard fossil evidence (not that it couldn't be denied if there were), the origins of life are still open to a Belief - choice. But to say Life from non - life is 'Impossible' is just dismissive and logically unsound. Abiogenesis is actually more feasible these days as a theory (hypothesis) than Goddunnit creation, just as Something from Nothing is looking more credible than a complex god that didn't need to come from anywhere.

And, of course, even if one credited a god -creation of Life, the Universe and everything, it only gets us to 'Which god?'

I am constantly diverted by Believers thinking that Cosmic and Life origins is their best card, when it is actually a busted flush.

[Athetotheist]

Now the experiments I heard of seemed to hint an a potential inherent energy in nothingness that does not require creation.

A fancy way of saying, "It's just there," sidestepping the question of causality.

It is inherent.

Inherent from what? Nothingness? Nothingness would have nothing to pass on.

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?

"A name that can be named is not the eternal name."
--Tao Te Ching, v. 1

[TRANSPONDER]

Now the experiments I heard of seemed to hint an a potential inherent energy in nothingness that does not require creation.

A fancy way of saying, "It's just there," sidestepping the question of causality.

It is inherent.

Inherent from what? Nothingness? Nothingness would have nothing to pass on.

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?

"A name that can be named is not the eternal name."
--Tao Te Ching, v. 1

The experiments suggest that it is there, inherent in what we call 'nothing'. I know it doesn't suit those who insist on some creative act, but the evidence is there. And really from producing an entire creation in 6 days like a bunch of flowers from a magician's hat to God popping in a energy potential into 'nothing' because it's the only thing the theists think they can say 'science can't explain this' is a bit of a come - down, don't you think?

Your insistence about what the characteristics of nothingness is, suggests that you claim to know everything about physics, including stuff that our top physicists don't claim to know.

I am sure you are more humble and rational than that and will admit that it seems counter - intuitive to you, but that doesn't mean that you Know it's not possible.

It does feel counter -intuitive to me too, but then an earth with an underneath where people lived and walked once seemed against reason, once, as well as Black holes, Relativity and quantum. You must surely see that that you cannot dismiss possibilities just because you want to rule out everything but Something that a god has to do.

And of course, that only leaves you with 'Which god'.

[TRANSPONDER]

Re: Definition of God

Transponder 'Which god?'

Post #13
Post by Athetotheist » Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:56 pm

TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 4:58 am
...
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?
"A name that can be named is not the eternal name."
--Tao Te Ching, v. 1

Yes. I get that. A non - specific cosmic creator. A Mind behind it, ordering, purposing and effecting.

I get that and I don't mind. I don't think any atheist minds and - while we are not convinced there is such a thing (the efforts to find gaps for a god in Cosmic origins, life and consciousness do not compel or even persuade, and the concept of an ordering cosmic mind - a 'God of Einstein' is really academic) it is organised religion that is really the target of atheist polemic, and a possible irreligious -theist - creator is one we goddless can be cool with.

[historia]

it is organised religion that is really the target of atheist polemic, and a possible irreligious -theist - creator is one we goddless can be cool with.

If so, then why have you framed your comments in this thread entirely in terms of atheists versus theists?

[historia]

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

Historically, the way people have "investigated" God has been through either logical deduction and conjecture or by contemplative or spiritual experiences.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

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

Outside of the bible and because one believes it so, there are none. Intangible things like gods and God can be pretty much anything, can be the source of pretty much anything, can be pretty much anywhere, et al. It's all a matter of individual opinion based on one's chosen lifestyle agenda.

[1213]

... inanimate materials are assembled and become active and living.

Please give one example?

[nobspeople]

... inanimate materials are assembled and become active and living.

Please give one example?

The man called Adam was created when God “formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7).
Assuming dust from the ground is inanimate material.
But I'm sure there will be some word contorting with something like 'God's breath means it wasn't inanimate' or some such excuse.
Or maybe, the bible isn't appropriate to use an example - this time?