If I give a vague description of some beastie on some planet somewhere, what is your opinion of its existence? At the least you will probably not believe in it, which is exactly what we think about your god. Most of the responses in this thread are that your god is not well defined enough to know anything about, so we simply adopt the default position of lacking any belief in it - just as we do for Oz, for concepts we haven’t encountered yet, and for any number of things.
Some people believe five impossible things before breakfast - but even so, your vague god is not one of them.
So is is fair to say that all of science is blasphemy, right? Below are your words. If you have a shred of intellectual integrity you must admit that in your belief all of science is blasphemy.
It has been answered in this thread. The answer is "You don’t.’ But as has been pointed out, as stated, it is a singularly meaningless question, as it’s opposite provides the same answer.
But why shouldn’t we withhold belief from any sort of undefined god?
Consider the deistic god. Even in principle, you cannot know if this god does or does not exist, since the universe is the same if this god exists or not. I prefer to withhold belief, since I don’t see any reason to believe in it.
I disagree! I can know that something exists, even if I don’t know what exactly it is. To borrow a famous analogy: Say I’m sitting in a room and facing the wall, and the only lamp is behind me, and something walks behind me and in front of the lamp so as to cast a shadow on the wall. I won’t be able to see what walked behind me, so I won’t know exactly what it is; however, I do know that something had to have cast that shadow. And if that “thing” walks behind me frequently enough, I’ll be able to recognize its shadow. So, even though I won’t know what “it” is, I know that “it” exists.
This seems to mesh really well Tillich’s “God as the foundation of being” : existence itself is the shadow.
What if God is a necessary part of the Universe? Then what you state doesn’t make sense: It’s like saying that Sacramento is the same regardless of whether California exists.
I agree with that. Even if a full definition of god is impossible, we must be able to know something about him, or else we wouldn’t even be aware of his existence. In this thread, however, mswas doesn’t want to give us even this much.
We can idly speculate all we want about god, but how can we distinguish a necessary god from no god at all given that the universe does exist? If you claim the universe could not be created without a god, and I claim it can, we are at an impasse since the universe is here, and especially if I refer to some plausible explanations for the universe’s existence from science. If we never found any plausible creation mechanisms, then god might be the best answer - though which god is another matter entirely.
Why should you care if it’s blasphemy or not ? Go for it !
Except there is no evidence that a god is necessary for the universe, or that the universe is a shadow of one.
Without evidence, Occam’s razor says we should assume God does not exist, and parsimony has a history of actually being useful in understanding the world, unlike religion.
To the OP :
Because there is no evidence for any of the versions of God I’ve heard of, and religion has a record of being factually wrong. Unless hard evidence is involved, I consider it safe to assume any religious claim is incorrect, because they almost always are.
Considering the complexity of the universe and the enormous number of possible brain states in a single brain and the fact that no two brains are alike - I’d say yes.
You appear to assume that anyone who considers themselves atheist knows that God doesn’t exist. This assumption is incorrect. I can’t speak for anyone else, but to me the facts are that a) there is next to nothing in the way of objective evidence for an entity called “God”, and b) there is next to no objective evidence that this entity takes any particular actions that have a measurable effect on the universe. Given these facts, while I may not know for certain whether or not something called “God” exists, its apparent influence on the physical universe is so negligible that its existence or non-existence simply doesn’t matter.
That’s pretty much as far as I can go with that discussion, unless, as many have already asked, you clearly define what you mean by “God”.
I believe Revenent Threshold has answered this one adequately. I will only add that it is equally possible for one person to believe they have had an experience that another person has never had.
We can’t distinguish (i.e., identify that which is distinctly God and that which is distinctly the universe); however, if God is a necessary part of the universe then the distinction is meaningless because the existence of the universe itself implies God, even if we don’t know what, exactly, God is.
But science doesn’t explain the universe’s existence in a “why”-sense; only the “how”-sense. It can try and tell us how the universe came to be, but not why it came to be, or what its existence means. Science says that the question “What was before the big bang?” is meaningless, because to science, time didn’t exist before the big bang. Likewise, it says that the question “Why did the big bang happen?” (and the proceeding question “Why am I?”) isn’t meaningless. But, although I understand science (as best I can) those questions are very meaningful to me, and I have to use paths to knowledge other then science to find them.
So, I’m thinking that my God is the “why” answers to those questions. Or, as Paul Tillich (sorry, he’s the only theologian I’ve tried reading yet) more eloquently put it, “God is the answer to the question implied in being.”
First, saying “God did it” isn’t much of an explanation; not only is there no evidence for God, but it just pushes the questions off on God. After all, where did he come from ?
Second, what “paths of knowledge” are you talking about ? With no evidence to examine, no chunks of God to study or any other way to see if an assertion is true - what “path of knowledge” is there ? One that works, that is.
I personally don’t think there is a why, but I understand that many people feel the need for a why. That’s why I’m rather partial to deism. Deism can give an answer to “why” without the nasty baggage of many other religions. An atheist and deist can happily live together (my wife is a weak deist exactly because she is uncomfortable without a why) without argument. A rational deist (is there any other kind?) does not claim to prove his or her god exists, while a rational atheist does not claim to be able to prove the deist god does not exist.
Sometimes there is no “why” sense in terms of intention. Why did that rock over there fall off the mountain? We can explain why, but we can’t explain what the intention of the rock was, because it didn’t have one.
Unfortunately, “means” is a subjective judgement, not an objective quality. Even if ther eis a God.
You misunderstand. It doesn’t say that the question is meaningless because time didn’t exist or any of that. It says it’s meaningless because we have no evidence and nothing we can test beyond that point. Science only functions in the prescence of evidence and facts to explain.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t work either. God isn’t the answer to the meaning problem. Even if there is a God, and the universe means something to it, that still doesn’t explain you or whether or not your life is meaningful to you.
Actually, the definition of atheism is denial of the existence of gods. It is the doctrine that there are no gods. While sometimes dilineated into different forms (strong as opposed to weak atheism, negative as opposed to positive) a definition of atheism which differs from the above is more aptly described as agnosticism.
As to the original questions, if one does not know what the word god means, can it not simply be construed as “everything which I perceive to be true”?
I was on acid once, when I was younger, and had an experience which could only be described as ineffable. Does this mean I found god? No. It means my brain was under the influence of chemical disturbance. I found drugs. Experience and testimony are not proofs.
Although I really would have enjoyed being able to keep those little ferret angels; they were so cute with their wings and halos.
I’m going to guess you’re in your 20s (maybe early 30s) now. People in their 20s talk about things they did when they were “younger”. People in their 40s talk about things they did when they were “young”.
Otherwise, your point is well taken. The OP cannot explain the difference between his sense of having experienced God, and some people’s sense of actually BEING God. Or, in your case just tripping.
I’m not convinced that it can, at least for me. By isolating God to a single act and a single period of time (creation), deism denies God a transcendental nature. But If God (as I can understand it) is a meaning, a foundation for existence, some other kind of ontological answer, it’s timeless and a necessary part of everything.
But I can’t articulate that position. Yet. Give me a few years.
Too bad! You’re good at it, and you don’t come off as condescending or insulting.
How many times do we have to go over this. No, that doesn’t work, because agnosticism concerns the subject of knowledge, not belief. Belief is a binary question, not a multiple choice.
