Is Believing In God...?

[Woodruff]

Great...prove that God exists.

Definition: God = Some thing that was at the beginning of the universe

To use that definition, you would have to prove that there has ever been a "beginning of the universe" first. Try again.

As to the rest of your statements...quite honestly, it seems to me that you're simply trying to avoid the point.

[natty dread]

It makes calling him "God" problematic. If "He" is nothing more than a force in nature then why even bother calling him God?

On the other hand, things are not defined by what their name is, things are defined by what they are. If you call a dog a pig it's still a dog.

[Hoofdschudder]

Great...prove that God exists.

Definition: God = Some thing that was at the beginning of the universe

To use that definition, you would have to prove that there has ever been a "beginning of the universe" first. Try again.

As to the rest of your statements...quite honestly, it seems to me that you're simply trying to avoid the point.

that's the big bang, I think you mean a beginning of everything.

[MeDeFe]

Great...prove that God exists.

Definition: God = Some thing that was at the beginning of the universe

To use that definition, you would have to prove that there has ever been a "beginning of the universe" first. Try again.
As to the rest of your statements...quite honestly, it seems to me that you're simply trying to avoid the point.

that's the big bang, I think you mean a beginning of everything.

Yeah, science tentatively points toward there having been a t0 "before" which there was no time as such and "after" which there was. That point would be the beginning, also sort of by definition. I'm using inverted commas because I know the terms are misleading but I have no better words to describe it.


And Woody, you ignored my other two tentative definitions of "god".

[Snorri1234]

It makes calling him "God" problematic. If "He" is nothing more than a force in nature then why even bother calling him God?

On the other hand, things are not defined by what their name is, things are defined by what they are. If you call a dog a pig it's still a dog.

But if it's actually a pig then it would be silly calling him a dog, no?

[BigBallinStalin]

It makes calling him "God" problematic. If "He" is nothing more than a force in nature then why even bother calling him God?

On the other hand, things are not defined by what their name is, things are defined by what they are. If you call a dog a pig it's still a dog.

But if it's actually a pig then it would be silly calling him a dog, no?

[natty dread]

It makes calling him "God" problematic. If "He" is nothing more than a force in nature then why even bother calling him God?

On the other hand, things are not defined by what their name is, things are defined by what they are. If you call a dog a pig it's still a dog.

But if it's actually a pig then it would be silly calling him a dog, no?

The point being that you don't know whether you have a dog or a pig so you keep calling it a penguin.

[Snorri1234]

It makes calling him "God" problematic. If "He" is nothing more than a force in nature then why even bother calling him God?

On the other hand, things are not defined by what their name is, things are defined by what they are. If you call a dog a pig it's still a dog.

But if it's actually a pig then it would be silly calling him a dog, no?

The point being that you don't know whether you have a dog or a pig so you keep calling it a penguin.

But I do know that it must be either a dog or a pig.

You either have a deity (or more), a supernatural supreme being, which has attributes like omnipotence and intelligence and such.

Or,

You have the esoteric notion of a God or whatever in which God is some sort of energy or force.


I'd say that you can really only call one of these options "God".(The dictionary agrees btw) Calling them both God is confusing since they are not the same thing. It's sort of a semantic point, but important nevertheless because it clears up the discussion.

I mean, that's sort of why I brought it up in the first place. In the context of the cosmological argument it's important to see that even if you agree with there being a first cause, you can't give it the attributes of a deity.

[natty dread]

If the thing known as "god" knows that it is "god" then it is "god". If it doesn't know it then it's just a natural force.

[Woodruff]

Great...prove that God exists.

Definition: God = Some thing that was at the beginning of the universe

To use that definition, you would have to prove that there has ever been a "beginning of the universe" first. Try again.

As to the rest of your statements...quite honestly, it seems to me that you're simply trying to avoid the point.

that's the big bang, I think you mean a beginning of everything.

The Big Bang MODEL has not been proven. Unless you're holding out on us.

And Woody, you ignored my other two tentative definitions of "god".

I ignored them because I didn't they you were serious - they were silly definitions in the context of religion, which I THOUGHT was what we were discussing.

[MeDeFe]

Great...prove that God exists.

Definition: God = Some thing that was at the beginning of the universe

To use that definition, you would have to prove that there has ever been a "beginning of the universe" first. Try again.

As to the rest of your statements...quite honestly, it seems to me that you're simply trying to avoid the point.

that's the big bang, I think you mean a beginning of everything.

The Big Bang MODEL has not been proven. Unless you're holding out on us.

And Woody, you ignored my other two tentative definitions of "god".

I ignored them because I didn't they you were serious - they were silly definitions in the context of religion, which I THOUGHT was what we were discussing.

In the context of religion almost nothing is weird enough to be silly. In any other context I would agree.

[Woodruff]

And Woody, you ignored my other two tentative definitions of "god".

I ignored them because I didn't they you were serious - they were silly definitions in the context of religion, which I THOUGHT was what we were discussing.

In the context of religion almost nothing is weird enough to be silly. In any other context I would agree.

Then I guess we can't continue this discussion at all, because you've put me into the opinion that you're not serious about it. It seems to me that you're not trying to have a discussion, you're trying to avoid one.

[Snorri1234]

And Woody, you ignored my other two tentative definitions of "god".

I ignored them because I didn't they you were serious - they were silly definitions in the context of religion, which I THOUGHT was what we were discussing.

In the context of religion almost nothing is weird enough to be silly. In any other context I would agree.

Then I guess we can't continue this discussion at all, because you've put me into the opinion that you're not serious about it. It seems to me that you're not trying to have a discussion, you're trying to avoid one.

Wait...why are his other definitions silly?

[Woodruff]

And Woody, you ignored my other two tentative definitions of "god".

I ignored them because I didn't they you were serious - they were silly definitions in the context of religion, which I THOUGHT was what we were discussing.

In the context of religion almost nothing is weird enough to be silly. In any other context I would agree.

Then I guess we can't continue this discussion at all, because you've put me into the opinion that you're not serious about it. It seems to me that you're not trying to have a discussion, you're trying to avoid one.

Wait...why are his other definitions silly?

For the very same reason that you responded to them as you did (in the context of attempting to hold a serious discussion on the subject).

[MeDeFe]

And Woody, you ignored my other two tentative definitions of "god".

I ignored them because I didn't they you were serious - they were silly definitions in the context of religion, which I THOUGHT was what we were discussing.

In the context of religion almost nothing is weird enough to be silly. In any other context I would agree.

Then I guess we can't continue this discussion at all, because you've put me into the opinion that you're not serious about it. It seems to me that you're not trying to have a discussion, you're trying to avoid one.

Compare gods like Thor and Odin to gods like Jehova or Allah and their respective mythologies. Some similarities, but also some differences. Then consider concepts like Aristotle's "unmoved mover" and maybe take a look at Theravada Buddhism that appears not to have much of a god at all but an underlying and quite clearly supernatural principle that fulfills a quite similar function as gods in other religions.

What sort of god are we talking about? There are a lot of different definitions, but the ball really is in your court. If you make the claim that faith is necessary to reach god you have to tell me what kind of god you're referring to.

[Woodruff]

And Woody, you ignored my other two tentative definitions of "god".

I ignored them because I didn't they you were serious - they were silly definitions in the context of religion, which I THOUGHT was what we were discussing.

In the context of religion almost nothing is weird enough to be silly. In any other context I would agree.

Then I guess we can't continue this discussion at all, because you've put me into the opinion that you're not serious about it. It seems to me that you're not trying to have a discussion, you're trying to avoid one.

Compare gods like Thor and Odin to gods like Jehova or Allah and their respective mythologies. Some similarities, but also some differences. Then consider concepts like Aristotle's "unmoved mover" and maybe take a look at Theravada Buddhism that appears not to have much of a god at all but an underlying and quite clearly supernatural principle that fulfills a quite similar function as gods in other religions.

What sort of god are we talking about? There are a lot of different definitions, but the ball really is in your court. If you make the claim that faith is necessary to reach god you have to tell me what kind of god you're referring to.

I am referring to any of them and all of them. There is not a single one that doesn't require faith to reach them, because there is no proven method for reaching them. I'm not sure how you gather that the ball is in my court, given that all I've stated is the painfully, blatantly obvious...which you have yet to counter in any way.

[Snorri1234]

I am referring to any of them and all of them. There is not a single one that doesn't require faith to reach them, because there is no proven method for reaching them. I'm not sure how you gather that the ball is in my court, given that all I've stated is the painfully, blatantly obvious...which you have yet to counter in any way.

His distinction is actually quite important. Gods like Odin and Zeus can be disproven by observations in a way, since they have locations and such. And even if they didn't, it's not hard to prove that a God which has contradicting characteristics does not exist. And that's not even going into the mess of the gods which could be considered to be mere forces.


Furthermore, it's important to note that not every God can be found in the same way. MeDeFe's point is that he needs a startingpoint on which god he is trying to disprove. He's not saying that he can neccesarily disprove them, but that he needs to know what he's trying to disprove.


Honestly, it's not that hard for you to bring up a specific God for him.

[MeDeFe]

The big bang model may not have been proven, but the big bang theory explains enough to deserve being taken seriously. Following that line of reasoning it appears we can say that it is reasonably likely that there is a "something that existed at the beginning of the universe".

Please explain what I am taking on faith here. Preferably without resorting to general skepticism of everything except your own existence.


edit: Also: What Snorri said.

[Woodruff]

The big bang model may not have been proven, but the big bang theory explains enough to deserve being taken seriously.

I do take it seriously. And yet, we still have no way of knowing that there ever was a "beginning of the universe".

Following that line of reasoning it appears we can say that it is reasonably likely that there is a "something that existed at the beginning of the universe".

Which isn't the same as a cause for the beginning of the universe nor a sentience involved.

I am referring to any of them and all of them. There is not a single one that doesn't require faith to reach them, because there is no proven method for reaching them. I'm not sure how you gather that the ball is in my court, given that all I've stated is the painfully, blatantly obvious...which you have yet to counter in any way.

His distinction is actually quite important. Gods like Odin and Zeus can be disproven by observations in a way, since they have locations and such. And even if they didn't, it's not hard to prove that a God which has contradicting characteristics does not exist. And that's not even going into the mess of the gods which could be considered to be mere forces.

Furthermore, it's important to note that not every God can be found in the same way. MeDeFe's point is that he needs a startingpoint on which god he is trying to disprove. He's not saying that he can neccesarily disprove them, but that he needs to know what he's trying to disprove.

Honestly, it's not that hard for you to bring up a specific God for him.

Except I don't want him to disprove them, I want him to PROVE them - a far different thing. If he cannot, then faith obviously must be involved, which was my original contention. Since he has so far not even attempted to prove ANY of them, it becomes readily apparent that he cannot - and yet, he continues to avoid that point. I'm still waiting.

But that's ok, since he's managed to get the discussion to devolve into meaningless dialogue, and you've enabled that. Well done on not having to face it, MeDeFe - well done! So just get back to me if you do want to get into a serious discussion on the subject, ok? Thanks.

[john9blue]

Maybe you could start by taking the traits common to most monotheistic religions. A generalized God is probably more accurate than a specific one.

[Snorri1234]

Maybe you could start by taking the traits common to most monotheistic religions. A generalized God is probably more accurate than a specific one.

"But I was a devout protestant!"
"And I was a devout Catholic!"
"yeah sorry, turns out that the mormons were right. Yup, the mormons."

[MeDeFe]

The big bang model may not have been proven, but the big bang theory explains enough to deserve being taken seriously.

I do take it seriously. And yet, we still have no way of knowing that there ever was a "beginning of the universe".

I have no way of knowing whether you are a human being or a highly sophisticated chatbot. Even if I met you in person you could be a fake who's paid by some programmer to fool me.

Following that line of reasoning it appears we can say that it is reasonably likely that there is a "something that existed at the beginning of the universe".

Which isn't the same as a cause for the beginning of the universe nor a sentience involved.

Correct, but I never claimed either, so what's your point? That those things are necessary for it to be a god? Thor disagrees, he may be an awesome god with a cool hammer (and be sentient), but he doesn't claim to have created the universe or even to have existed since its beginning.


My point is that in order to determine whether it really is impossible to reach god through any other means than faith we need to know what constitutes a god (currently we don't), and if somewhere in that definition there's the requirement that god be unreachable by any other means than faith... well then we're back to my original question of "why should faith be necessary?", let's put in the addendum "other than by definition" to clarify the question.

[natty dread]

Circular logic rules!

God is only reachable by faith because faith is necessary to reach god because god is only reachable by faith because faith is necessary to reach god because god is only reachable by faith because faith is necessary to reach god because god is only reachable by faith because faith is necessary to reach god because god is only reachable by faith because faith is necessary to reach god because....

[BigBallinStalin]

My point is that in order to determine whether it really is impossible to reach god through any other means than faith we need to know what constitutes a god (currently we don't), and if somewhere in that definition there's the requirement that god be unreachable by any other means than faith... well then we're back to my original question of "why should faith be necessary?", let's put in the addendum "other than by definition" to clarify the question.

It doesn't matter why faith should be necessary or not because a large majority of the people will deem it as necessary--in a sense, they invent their own God and have faith in what they invented. They make the necessity, and the necessity supports them. It's a great relationship or depedence, and it helps a lot people.

[natty dread]

Lots of people eat LSD and talk to god, as well.