Vinterland

USA, have you been anywhere in the states?

I was referring to your statement about God's Will. Science only becomes meanignless if the literal presentation of the Abrahamic gods are correct. These are the anthropomorphic gods that have wills.
Be honest, does the concept of the Deistic God as stupid as the FSM? I think there's a level of intellectual respectability to be acknowledged. I know it has no bearing on truth, but they cannot be said to be equally ridiculous, imo.

I'm just getting into the question of whether an objective reality exists, lots of people doubt reality.

But you're making a scientific declaration on something that isn't even known to science; it is something that is not/cannot be understood by humans, so why pretend like you're special and you know something we don't? The agnostic atheist or agnostic theist recognizes there is no validity to making a claimn either way, so they don't. Why don't you join us?

Hi Romansh,
This idea might be along the lines of Pandeism, the belief that God is responsible for the origin of all matter like any theistic belief with the addition of God committing the ultimate act as a testament to its omnipotence: to will itself to not exist. In it's place is the universe where all matter is a part of God and we are communicating and builindg up to a point in where the universe will become God again. It's a neat idea.
Yeah, maybe he'll le us know. It makes sense to me, thanks for sharing your own interpretation.
At least this site doesnt get that much posting traffic; on one's that do I'm used to see nearly identical topics and discussions taking place literall yevery other day between diff people. It's simply a process of learning.

What has more significance to you, agnosticism or atheism?
I don't see why anyone would not care unless it's an informal discussion. Take my reference to guitars for instance, I could convery useful information if the receiving person understands that by "guitar" I mean lute, but it's still incorrect usage.
What method is easier to communicate your beliefs than a proper label? I'm an agnostic weak-theist. It can't be stated more concisely, can it?
They are, at least to me in formal discussions and debates. I do ask that you use them correctly when we are in a discussion if you like. Thanks .

__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.”

renderator

Hi romansh.
It's not analogic to God. You can see life here on earth. So that life is somewhere on another planet, - is the most possible assumption.
It's just like when a car disappears behind a building, you expect it to reappear from the other side of the building. It's most obvious assumption. You don't expect that it could be taken away with extraterristrial aliens, for example.
The idea of God is just the same as the idea that the Moon is made of cheese. It's the same ridiculous and highly unlikely.

renderator

No, I haven't.

Deistic God is just the same ridiculous, because you can also tell that it was FSM that has created the Universe. It's absurd, because time is the property of the Universe and creation is a process in time.

It can be understood by humans if they speak about God. How then could people invent the word 'God'?

Because God is like FSM, not like a possible life on other planet.
I don't want to say that God is absolutely impossible. But who said that knowledge was Absolute Truth? So you can know that smth does not exist as well as you can know that the Moon is not made of cheese.

marmalade

Neither.

I'm a weak atheist because I don't actively believe God doesn't exist, but by the same measure I'm a weak theist because I don't actively believe God does exist. So, rather, I'm maybe a non-theist(and a non-atheist?). A part of me does highly suspect that something like a God exists, but not any of the traditional Christian views. I am attracted to ideas such as panentheism, but I don't worship a panentheistic God. I have no clear beliefs about a God, and the idea of believing in God doesn't seem very meaningful to me.

I'm agnostic in the sense that I don't believe its possible to rationally know whether God exists or not. But I'm gnostic in the sense that I have had experiences of a deeper sense of knowing. If God does exist he can't be known. Instead, he would be this very sense of knowing. The term 'God' isn't necessarily useful, but I sometimes use it to refer to my experience simply for a lack of a better term. I don't use the term 'God' to refer to my views much on this forum. However, if I were on a religious/spiritual forum, then I would probably use the term more often because in that context it would be more useful.

I tend to see life from multiple perspectives and I've never been one to entirely identify with a single perspective. I consider myself a seeker. Maybe that is the best label for me.

As you can see from my response above, these terms don't clearly describe any experience I'm familiar with. They're just abstract categories, but I'm not arguing against them having some use.

If I'm having a philosophical debate, then they're indispensable. If I'm speaking about my personal experiences, then I tend to use them in a less distinct way. Discussions such as this one(which feel mostly informal to me) tend to fall somewhere in the middle. The atheists/agnostics bring out my desire for philosophical preciseness, and the theists bring out my spiritual sense of reality.

I try to accept both sides of my personality, but they're far from happily balanced. Sometimes this causes me to be critical of both sides of a discussion.

In my experience, much about life especially in relating to others(whether a rational discussion or not) defies proper labels. For one, there is a difference between the complexity of lived experience that is the reality of a belief and one's stated beliefs. Sometimes a person's stated beliefs only slightly correspond to what they actually believe. In particular, religious matters are difficult to describe and communicate. On top of that, the human psyche itself can only be superficially understood by the conscious ego-mind.

When someone states a belief(even if precisely), it can mean an infinite number of things as they experience it. Nonetheless, I do find intellectual discussions enjoyable even if they rarely lead to any further understanding by all parties involved.

That is probably as concise as you could state your beliefs, but conciseness isn't always desirable. Concise labels can cause nuances of personal meaning to be lost or left unclear. Also, it can create a false sense of similarity between things or people that are very different. For instance, I could also label myself an agnostic weak-atheist and it would largely be accurate, but I'm sure you would interpret that label in a way that I wouldn't.

Even so, a clear label does create a useful context in which to then discuss those further distinctions.

romansh

Hi renderator
Your arguments are persuasive.... and I am having trouble.
I suppose it comes down to the quality of the evidence .... there is life on earth, so at least we have one definite point from which we can extrapolate whether there is life anywhere else in the universe.

With the evidence for god, this is much more Quixotic.
The evidence, should it exist, is much more debatable. To those with faith it is obvious, to agnostics it is far from certain, and for atheists there is certainly none (or close to none).

I suppose my Quixotic evidence is the "stuff" I do not understand and can't explain. I think it could boil down to the question, is there a difference between something living and a lump of rock, for both are stardust, so to speak? If the answer is no, then I should be an atheist; if yes, I must remain an agnostic. I'm not terribly proud of this argument...but there it is.

It's obviously a magic dwarf again and a Lada

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Vinterland

Thanks for the response Marmalade; thought I should say I'll respond to you soon.
I agree on this, life on another planet does not qualify for what is considered metaphysical like God.

No, I specified this isn't about validity. I'm talking about which is more respectable; the Deist God, or another God that cares what humans think, offers salvation, golbins, etc. Anyways it's not an important.
Logic is used to an extent to describe God, however that does not mean God is bound by it. Is that what you mean?

You admitted that you don't know as an agnostic would. So you're no longer making the claim that God doesn't exist?

__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.”

romansh

I am far from comfortable with this analogy aswell.
Nevertheless, the logic we use to approach this is relevant, or at least not totally irrelevant. End of the day we are asking a question, that is unlikely to be settled any time soon and regardless of the conclusion reached, many will disagree.

If reasoning also has to be metaphysical to deal with a metaphysical being, then I'm in trouble...... renderator, should of course be arguing that the argument should be 'physical' in that he believes there is no god..

I suppose I can't win ...

I'm open to other models to debate.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

romansh

Everton 1 Zenit 0

renderator
just watched the second half on tv. ....good game
Zenit played well for a man down
I gather the foul did not justify a red card

Just wondering if this is evidence for the absence of god?

all the best

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

renderator

Hi, romansh.

Yes, none or close to none.
Theological God is more interesting than Christians' God, but is completely spectacular. "The universe has been created by Great Pinocchio, knobody knows how, because mysterious are the ways of Pinocchio" is non-contradictional theory, with which you can explain absolutely everything, but it's the same meaningless.

I don't like football very much, though Zenit is from my city.

No, because there's no evidence for the existance of god. Just nothing to disprove. No reason for any creator of the universe to exist.

renderator

I mean, that those people who had created the word 'God', just didn't know themselves what this word meant. It was obvious for ancient people to find an invisible purpose for anything, even if it doesn't has any purpose. If there is lightning in the sky then there is somebody who needs the lighning to be.

Knowledge mustn't be absolute. So it's possible to say that God doesn't exist as much as FSM doesn't is knowledge like any other knowledge.