Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm still waiting to hear 'how to defeat and atheist in two minutes.' As already mentioned, here we are, two months and 508 posts later - and still nothing.
I might be able to beat you at arm-wrestling. Maybe.
Calling the universe god, and declaring atheists to be wrong, as an incredibly stupid argument.
As an atheist, I can pull the same semantic stunt and define non-existence as god and declare victory as well.
Neither of us has advanced understanding or actually proven anything worthwhile. All we have done is show we can play with words.
If somebody wants to say that god is exactly synonymous with the universe, all they have done is render the term god pointless. On the other hand, if they say that god is almost entirely like the universe, with some major or minor difference, they still must define that difference and prove it. No theist has done so yet.
Not saying I agree with him, but pantheism is a well established belief system ( although I think Mystic is more panentheistic ) . People can define God as they wish . And when you define God as the Universe it's hard to argue against that . That doesn't make Mystic right, because his version isn't the one almost every other theist uses, which is the one atheists argue against . In a debate with pantheists that involved no argument for the traditional God, atheists would most likely just shrug and say " who cares?". But Mystic gets folks going by mixing his pantheistic version in with debates about the Jehovah or Allah God . It would be much simpler to simply point out that his version is pointless in a debate about traditional theism . But less fun, I guess
Lol, no. Mystic also makes assertions, begs the question, uses creationist argument but pretends he has come to those conclusion through his alleged superior intellect, dismisses any science he does not like, and wraps his nonsense in big words.
It was not my intention to posit Mystic as a superior debater , but to simply point out that when you choose to call the universe God, there is no rebuttal against that sort of god . The universe exists . If a person makes the universe his god, then his god exists . It's not the God others are debating, but you can't rebut his version, since obviously the universe does exist . All you can do is disregard his version on the basis of irrelevancy . Which is not the same thing .
Hinduism, the worlds oldest organized religion, has similar beliefs . Everything that exists is part of and comes from Brahman . It has other gods also, but these even have their source in Brahman .
It was not my intention to posit Mystic as a superior debater , but to simply point out that when you choose to call the universe God, there is no rebuttal against that sort of god . The universe exists . If a person makes the universe his god, then his god exists . It's not the God others are debating, but you can't rebut his version, since obviously the universe does exist . All you can do is disregard his version on the basis of irrelevancy . Which is not the same thing .
True, but the problem is when you argue the universe is conscious (or alive) by redefining words and asserting alleged facts.
Or as one user did, by using a dictionary definition and arguing that if you give something that is not a god the title of God, then that means the thing (that is not a god) is a god. Such as the universe. Or Babe Ruth. Or Justin Bieber. And then they claimed that somehow refuted atheism.
Such arguments make me less respectful of pantheism as Christian arguments do for Christianity.
True, but the problem is when you argue the universe is conscious (or alive) by redefining words and asserting alleged facts.
Or as one user did, by using a dictionary definition and arguing that if you give something that is not a god the title of God, then that means the thing (that is not a god) is a god. Such as the universe. Or Babe Ruth. Or Justin Bieber. And then they claimed that somehow refuted atheism.
Such arguments make me less respectful of pantheism as Christian arguments do for Christianity.
Technically one can define a word however one pleases and IF they can get others to agree on that definition at least for the sake of argument, then discussion can proceed. The problem I have with it is that this is almost always a Trojan Horse argument: the universe is god, therefore god exists, therefore my personal concept of god exists and/or you are wrong to think there's no basis to believe that god exists. It is a sort of Cheshire Cat gaslighting ... when I use a word it means what I say it means, no more and no less ... not just for me, mind you, but I feel free to impose that on YOU too.
God, even as normally posited (supernatural authority figure), is a surprisingly empty concept with no real utility; it has no expressive power and is not essential to either explain or predict experienced reality. To abstract it away even further, to make it equivalent to things we already have perfectly serviceable and agreed labels for, with all the attendant potential for confusion, strikes me as just digging an already beleaguered concept into a deeper hole.
Technically one can define a word however one pleases and IF they can get others to agree on that definition at least for the sake of argument, then discussion can proceed. The problem I have with it is that this is almost always a Trojan Horse argument: the universe is god, therefore god exists, therefore my personal concept of god exists and/or you are wrong to think there's no basis to believe that god exists. It is a sort of Cheshire Cat gaslighting ... when I use a word it means what I say it means, no more and no less ... not just for me, mind you, but I feel free to impose that on YOU too.
God, even as normally posited (supernatural authority figure), is a surprisingly empty concept with no real utility; it has no expressive power and is not essential to either explain or predict experienced reality. To abstract it away even further, to make it equivalent to things we already have perfectly serviceable and agreed labels for, with all the attendant potential for confusion, strikes me as just digging an already beleaguered concept into a deeper hole.
I suspect Gldn's semantic terpsichore with the Title God is more aimed at antagonizing than edifying, but God as the source of our reality is legitimate. It IS responsible for everything that exists because it exists. That is pretty undeniable and pretty Godlike with respect to us. To blame our very human propensities to ascribe myriad additional BELIEFS ABOUT God to that reality is a poor argument to deny the Title.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
