Atheists, define 'God'

[Davian]

No, I'm not completely sure, though I have heard something to the effect that it has something to do with etymology.

So if it's "God" we are stuck on, we'll call Him Abba.

No, it is not the label, it is all about the definition. Or lack of, in this case.

 

[Davian]

I lead the young adults sunday school class at my church. Ironically, the lesson this week is entitled Choosing God.

Were other deites were discussed? Was "none of the above" provided as an option?

 

[Davian]

I'm wondering something. With all respect, why would an atheist join a forum called Christian Forums? Is it because they are interested in hearing what "the other side" has to say?

Definitely.

Or is it to try to convince someone to renounce God or their faith?

Definitely not.

Or is it just to entertain themselves by ridiculing someones belief?

No, but that is not to say that there are no moments where others' arguments have invited ridicule, or the absurdity of their assertions have not been entertaining. YMMV.

 

[Non sequitur]

I'm wondering something. With all respect, why would an atheist join a forum called Christian Forums? Is it because they are interested in hearing what "the other side" has to say? Or is it to try to convince someone to renounce God or their faith? Or is it just to entertain themselves by ridiculing someones belief? I don't ask this in the spirit of anger, I just want to know so that I can better understand the mindset of those I may be conversing with.

Like to hear what the majority of the population believes, dispel any untruths or misrepresentations about atheism and enjoy intellectual debate/conversation.

I have no issue with someone renouncing gods, much like other religions have no issue with me accepting them, but I don't actively try and do anything about it.

 

[mark kennedy]

It is remarkable that in a philosophy forum with a rather zealous host of atheistic evolutionists a coherent definition for 'god', is not readily forthcoming. I happen to know why, it's the same reason that the Bible really never defines God.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20}​

There is no definition for God for the same reason Plato couldn't define the 'Good' in Plato's Republic. For me to define 'God' would be to define something less then God and 'God' is both self-existing and self-evident. Even Immanuel Kant when discussing examples of a priori (without prior) reason used 'God' and 'time' as explicit examples of a priori reason in action.

What is far more important, God is not defined by the people who believe in God the least because people already, 'clearly seen' God's, 'eternal power and divine nature'. Otherwise, one would expect them to be driven by undiluted curiosity, if nothing else, to understand the concept. I have yet to see an atheist demand a definition or even offer one, but of course, there is no need for one. God has already shown it to them.

I'll continue to monitor the thread in as much as I'm able, in the hopes that a more substantive approach to the subject is forthcoming. I'll tell you what, let's try a different approach. Consider this question. If a person was born devoid of sensory input from 'sight, sound...etc.' yet remained conscious despite the detachment from outside sensory data. Would this person have a single thought in their head? Kant would have said yes, what do you think?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Davian]

It is remarkable that in a philosophy forum with a rather zealous host of atheistic evolutionists a coherent definition for 'god', is not readily forthcoming.

I did. Perhaps you missed it.

I happen to know why, it's the same reason that the Bible really never defines God.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20}​

Clearly seen, yet described as invisible. How does that work?

There is no definition for God for the same reason Plato couldn't define the 'Good' in Plato's Republic. For me to define 'God' would be to define something less then God and 'God' is both self-existing and self-evident. Even Immanuel Kant when discussing examples of a priori (without prior) reason used 'God' and 'time' as explicit examples of a priori reason in action.

What is far more important, God is not defined by the people who believe in God the least because people already, 'clearly seen' God's, 'eternal power and divine nature'. Otherwise, one would expect them to be driven by undiluted curiosity, if nothing else, to understand the concept. I have yet to see an atheist demand a definition or even offer one, but of course, there is no need for one. God has already shown it to them.

If you are unable to define your god as something more than a character in a book, then we will leave it at that.

I'll continue to monitor the thread in as much as I'm able, in the hopes that a more substantive approach to the subject is forthcoming. I'll tell you what, let's try a different approach. Consider this question. If a person was born devoid of sensory input from 'sight, sound...etc.' yet remained conscious despite the detachment from outside sensory data. Would this person have a single thought in their head? Kant would have said yes, what do you think?

It is my understanding that the growth and development of the brain to the point where the process of what we call 'conciousness' can begin would require complex sensory data. I see no reason why a disconnected brain would reach that point. What did Kant know of 21st century neuroscience? What do you think?

 

[mark kennedy]

I did. Perhaps you missed it.

No I didn't miss it, nor the other attempts. I'm just a little puzzled why not believing in God doesn't make you intensely curious as to what a prevailing belief system like that includes. Not one of you asked what God would be like. It's the absence of the question that I think speaks volumns.

Clearly seen, yet described as invisible. How does that work?

It's two things, the asiety (utter independence) of God and think about it. Divine attributes sounds like character qualities to me, are they visible or just manifest? Again, the question of what those 'divine attributes' would be never emerges.

If you are unable to define your god as something more than a character in a book, then we will leave it at that.

What part of 'self existing' and 'self evidence' is alluding you? This is sounding more and more like skepticism.

It is my understanding that the growth and development of the brain to the point where the process of what we call 'conciousness' can begin would require complex sensory data. I see no reason why a disconnected brain would reach that point. What did Kant know of 21st century neuroscience? What do you think?

Kant was not a biologist, Kant's philosophy was metaphysics, the substantive element that transcends all reality. It's a unified theory and by far one of the most difficult philosophical studies in academics. To date, physics has not been able to produce one despite a continuous effort for at least a hundred years. Einstein on his death bed was working on it and Stephen Hawkins said that the biggest disappointment for him as a scientist was the failure of science to produce a unified theory for physics.

What do I think? You dismiss Kant and then ask me what I think. Do you read Philosophy, ancient modern or otherwise? It works like this, thesis - antithesis - synthesis. In epistemology it's how do you know? Not how do you know something but how do you know anything?

Neurons huh? A man born without sense data still has neurons, synaptic nerves and every physical element necessary for form a thought. What that mind would be forming is an a priori thought, pure reason without prior sense data. The neurons process sense data, before the sense of something arises in the conscious mind it must emerge as a thought.

That's philosophy dude, science itself is actually pure epistemology. Theology on the other hand is almost pure metaphysics.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes, I did choose to believe what I read, but I do remain critical when I find something that doesn't add up. That's when I pray for more understanding. I believe the Bible is a collection of books that was "given" through inspiration from God to various people throughout history. The contradictions you mentioned can be explained if you consider the fact that the Bible was written by fallible man. Were there things interpreted differently by different people? Sure. Has their been numerous translations over the years? Of course. The inconsistencies, are of little importance. The "message" of the Bible is what is central, what is important.
The fact is, I read the Old Testament as sort of a "required reading" to gain an understanding of history as it applies to the here and now. And yes there are some great stories in there about how man has been delivered and also great stories of warning about the wages of unrepentant sin. But I spend most of my time in the New Testament since it applies more directly to our current age.

If you feel the need to pray for more understanding, then you have demonstrated you are not approaching it from an unbiased perspective. You have already accepted the bible as true, before you have even read, or understood it.

How do we know this? Because the very act of praying means you are appealing to God. If you were approaching this from a neutral position, prayer is not an option.

A neutral position would have you start with the assumption there is no known evidence for, or against the bible, and you research, learn and follow the evidence from there.

Accepting the book is true off the bat, then praying to the mythical being described in the book to explain it to you will not lead you to truth. It will only lead you to what you want to believe, no matter if it's true or not.

 

[Skavau]

It is remarkable that in a philosophy forum with a rather zealous host of atheistic evolutionists a coherent definition for 'god', is not readily forthcoming. I happen to know why, it's the same reason that the Bible really never defines God.

Uh, no. It is as I said to you many pages back: It is not an atheist claim.

Why exactly do you think an atheist should put down a blanket overarching definition of God? That said, many of us have actually been willing to try and give you what you wanted and for the sake of argument provided some vague definitions to generally describe all concepts of God.

I'm still really not sure at all what on earth your point is here.

There is no definition for God for the same reason Plato couldn't define the 'Good' in Plato's Republic.

No. There are many different definitions for God, actually. There's so many different variables and slight attributes loaded into each one that it is almost absurd to insist anyone who doesn't hold true to any specific God concept come up with one.

What is far more important, God is not defined by the people who believe in God the least because people already, 'clearly seen' God's, 'eternal power and divine nature'. Otherwise, one would expect them to be driven by undiluted curiosity, if nothing else, to understand the concept. I have yet to see an atheist demand a definition or even offer one, but of course, there is no need for one. God has already shown it to them.

No. God has shown me nothing. I have not seen God's "eternal power and divine nature."

Sorry. Next time ask me what I think rather than tell me. It helps, I promise.

 

[WonderBeat]

God esoterically realized is Oneness... Absolute wholeness/togetherness and Perfect Love....

God is morality....

 

[Dave Ellis]

God esoterically realized is Oneness... Absolute wholeness/togetherness and Perfect Love....

God is morality....

And how do you know this?

 

[WonderBeat]

And how do you know this?

My preferred question is: how do you not?

 

[Dave Ellis]

My preferred question is: how do you not?

I don't, but just because I don't know, doesn't mean I have to accept your claim as true.

So, how do you know?

 

[WonderBeat]

I don't, but just because I don't know, doesn't mean I have to accept your claim as true.

So, how do you know?

For the same reason that you know. Because WE are identical with it. How can you deny that you exist, that you are? "I AM." - there is nothing more incontrovertible than this.

We never forgot Who we are: Perfect Love, Oneness, Truth....

Due to our projection of this world as real, by taking the "tiny mad idea" of separation seriously, we currently think we don't know. And that is our problem.

 

[Dave Ellis]

For the same reason that you know. Because WE are identical with it. How can you deny that you exist, that you are? "I AM." - there is nothing more incontrovertible than this.

We never forgot Who we are: Perfect Love, Oneness, Truth....

Due to our projection of this world as real, by taking the "tiny mad idea" of separation seriously, we currently think we don't know. And that is our problem.

What are you talking about? This post is nonsensical....

I said I don't know, I never made a claim that I do know. I also never claimed that I didn't exist... I'm not even sure where that came from at all?

Your last post is simply bizarre.... the problem is we think we don't know? I think it's quite obvious that we don't know. However, I believe we will progressively know more and more as time progresses.

 

[WonderBeat]

What are you talking about? This post is nonsensical....

I said I don't know, I never made a claim that I do know. I also never claimed that I didn't exist... I'm not even sure where that came from at all?

Your last post is simply bizarre.... the problem is we think we don't know? I think it's quite obvious that we don't know. However, I believe we will progressively know more and more as time progresses.

The problem is you are too trapped in your own mind to grasp the fact that you DO KNOW.

Just embrace this basic truth: Perfect Love cannot be broken. Perfect Oneness cannot be separated from. It follows that we are experiencing now (separation) is an illusion foisted by the mind.

Truth is infinitely simple. Delusion is infinitely complex. I have given you the truth, you may embrace it or deny it. Eventually we will all embrace it, though.

"All will be well" - Julian

 

[quatona]

No I didn't miss it, nor the other attempts. I'm just a little puzzled why not believing in God doesn't make you intensely curious as to what a prevailing belief system like that includes. Not one of you asked what God would be like. It's the absence of the question that I think speaks volumns.

You are assuming that we are not familiar with the various god concepts out there?

 

[EddyMabo]

The problem is you are too trapped in your own mind to grasp the fact that you DO KNOW.

Just embrace this basic truth: Perfect Love cannot be broken. Perfect Oneness cannot be separated from. It follows that we are experiencing now (separation) is an illusion foisted by the mind.

Truth is infinitely simple. Delusion is infinitely complex. I have given you the truth, you may embrace it or deny it. Eventually we will all embrace it, though.

"All will be well" - Julian

Sounds like cultspeak. lol.

 

[WonderBeat]

Sounds like cultspeak. lol.

LOL.

Nope, just the Truth.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The problem is you are too trapped in your own mind to grasp the fact that you DO KNOW.

Just embrace this basic truth: Perfect Love cannot be broken. Perfect Oneness cannot be separated from. It follows that we are experiencing now (separation) is an illusion foisted by the mind.

Truth is infinitely simple. Delusion is infinitely complex. I have given you the truth, you may embrace it or deny it. Eventually we will all embrace it, though.

"All will be well" - Julian

Ok.... so how is it you know what you know?