Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?

[Belinda]

Reflex wrote:

Premise 3: If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.

But God is, by definition,all possible worlds.

God is not some space traveller who can alight on any possible world and then flit off somewhere else. Neither is God some space amoeba who can shape-change, shrink, and expand so to exist upon all possible worlds.

[-1-]

But God is, by definition,all possible worlds.

God is not some space traveller who can alight on any possible world and then flit off somewhere else. Neither is God some space amoeba who can shape-change, shrink, and expand so to exist upon all possible worlds.

By whose definition?

Language is a culturally defined means of communication. Its rules and other components are accepted by consensus. Language is not a personally defined realm of concepts.

If indeed, as you say, god is defined the same way as "all possible worlds", then the two would be equivalent, and in everyday conversation people could use either "all possible worlds" and "god" completely interchangeably.

But people do not do that. For instance, you'd never hear anyone say, "an optimist believes we live in the best of god."

So please do not try to bend the language to your idiosyncratic definitions.

That's A.

B. is that to say "god is all possible worlds" is not a definition by some ultimately irrefutably wise or knowledgeable entity. It can be false. You can't assume that everyone accepts your definition. For instance, I don't accept your definition.

However, you CAN say "In my own personal weltanschauung, ... etc." Nobody can argue with that. Your personal world view is exactly that, and there is nothing and nobody who can challenge that.

But to say that god and all possible worlds are the same by definition, is a wrong proposition since putting it in the way you did, you imply it is true for everyone.

[-1-]

What Reflex really wanted to say:

1. You have free will, always and ever, until God gives you the strength to do and say and thing the things you do.

2. Evolution is a horribly defeatist concept, except when it comes to man's continual improvement of understanding god.

3. Science has no wisdom, it is a cold, calculated, clinical intellectual hotbed to raise cynical people, and to convince them to lose their love for their only god. Except when science is quoted in religious literature as proof of god's infinite wisdom.

4. Scientific endeavours are bordering on the evil, they try to defy and besmirch God's name. Except of course, when you use your scientific knowledge to realize how all the components of this beautiful world work in such gorgeous harmony, proving God's existence.



It's either 'yes' or 'no'. The logical consequences of 'no' are severe so god-believers stick their heads in the sand and refuse to discuss them in a meaningful way.

Arguments ive seen used in this form by theists:

The law of causality is not certain . . . except for the fact that god causes everything to happen.

Only immaterial things exist . . . for instance, a poster on these boards, by the name of "Reflex".

Nothing has a physical cause . . . except my own thoughts and theories about theism.

The universe can’t be eternal since everything needs a cause . . . except god, which can be eternal without a cause.

We don’t believe in anything we can see, hear, touch, smell, or taste . . . because we are delusional, paranoid schizophrenics.

Intentionality exists . . . except god implants all intentionality inside of us.

Nature is goal-directed . . . only exception is formed by the Toronto Maple Leafs, which are not goal-oriented. (The TMLs are a hockey team that hasn't won any championships or cups since 1967.)

Everyone has free will . . . except god knows what I will decide with my free will.

Consciousness is the only real thing in this world . . . that's why I don't feel bad being a drunkard and beating my wife and kids if they don't behave very Christianly.

There are absolutes. and there is an objective morality . . . except they don't apply to the Big Guy.

There is evil . . . God created it, as it is clearly written in KJV Isaiah 45:7

God is not evil . . . he just allows all evil things to happen in the world.

Religion is a sweet-smelling rose . . . except that religion has murdered millions.

All truth comes from the bible . . . except that it does not tell us anything practical, like how to build cold fusion machines.

Intelligent design is believable and a fact. Except I don't understand the meaning of "fact".

When you stop at a cause, you stop science . . . except when you stop at evolution. This proves that I, Reflex, am a devolutionary.

The complex can’t give rise to the simplex . . . except for god, who in his infinite wisdom created herpesvirus hominis simplex.

There is lots of evidence for God . . . except all that evidence is also explicable without god.

Philosophy isn’t important to religion . . . except the philosophy I’m using to rig religion to always provide theistic answers. Case in point: religionists, particularly we, Christians, built and are proud of having built, our faith on roots like teachings of Socrates, yet we, the same Christians, object with hand and foot if someone uses logic to show the impossibility of our faith's tenets.

Unlike science, religion is objective and built on god's own words . . . except it seems to be ineffective when viewed by a person who does not believe the scriptures are god's own words. But it says that, right in there, in the scriptures, that it's god's own words! Are you atheists nuts? Can't you read? You don't believe facts that are right in front of your eyes!!!

[-1-]

The true delusion is with the schizophrenics...
...
"Being a monster is like tripping on acid/LSD!"

"It's dangerous to be an (immoral) Atheist in a group with other (immoral) Atheists because some of us are monsters!"
(Immoral Atheist because they choose to be Atheists and not (Secular/Atheist) Humanists!)

Monsters are not known to be atheists at all. In fact, monsters, in mythology, are all religious. Or else their weltanschauung is not alluded to in the same literature.

[-1-]

Ah, come on uwot! What would a definition of 'God' be that remains plausible?

Any definition is plausible, as long as you declare and understand that the definition covers your and only your concept. You can't expect and enforce that anyone else accept your definition, although it may happen.

I am not uwot, but I felt compelled to answer your question.

[attofishpi]

Ah, come on uwot! What would a definition of 'God' be that remains plausible?

Any definition is plausible, as long as you declare and understand that the definition covers your and only your concept.

It can also include the concept of others and still remain plausible. You don't do logic very well do you?

You can't expect and enforce that anyone else accept your definition, although it may happen.

So I didn't need to point out your contradiction above?

I am not uwot, but I felt compelled to answer your question.

Why did you feel compelled to answer rather poorly, when uwot has already provided a perfectly satisfactory answer?

[Belinda]

-1- wrote:

By whose definition?

Pantheists' definition of God is a better definition because it is rational and less complicated than the theists' definition.

Pantheists' definition of God fits with science.

I can also tell how pantheism is more ethical than theism .

[Necromancer]

Any concept of God has to fit with science in order to be credible. I think.

[-1-]

Ah, come on uwot! What would a definition of 'God' be that remains plausible?

Any definition is plausible, as long as you declare and understand that the definition covers your and only your concept.

It can also include the concept of others and still remain plausible. You don't do logic very well do you? No, I understand logic. If you read my post to the end you'd see how stupid this "logic" of yours is. I said the same thing later, and you just can't see the forest for the trees.

There are more than ONE concepts linked together in posts. You are incapable of seeing them in an interconnected way. The disability or lack of oversight is with you, not with my logic.

You can't expect and enforce that anyone else accept your definition, although it may happen.

So I didn't need to point out your contradiction above?
Bingoo, that's that. But since you had to question it, clearly you are not in the level of awarness that's required to read and comprehend a post.

I am not uwot, but I felt compelled to answer your question.

Why did you feel compelled to answer rather poorly, when uwot has already provided a perfectly satisfactory answer?
To make you realize what a hugely incapable person you are, Attofishpi. You tell me that uwot gave you a perfectly good answer, YET you asked immediately after, "Ah, come on uwot! What would a definition of 'God' be that remains plausible?" THIS is what I answered. You asked, and though I repeated it for you, you still can't comprehend a simple conversational exchange: You ask, I answer. (In this instance.)

[-1-]

-1- wrote:

By whose definition?

Pantheists' definition of God is a better definition because it is rational and less complicated than the theists' definition.

Yeah, that's a good question. Do we, theists, have a definition for god? I don't, and many don't, maybe each of us has some concept, but we don't fight over what we don't believe in.

So you're right, any definition of god is better than an atheist's definition, Belinda. But I am still hung up on yours. You totally equate the universe with god, and you give the concept a name, pantheism. But why have three names for ONE thing? It's like my moniker on this site is -1-, -1-, -1-. If there were only some differences between the two! Like functionality, or function, or decision making power, or something. But to worship the entire universe, because you think it's god is, for me, pardon me, but for me that's weird.

But I guess each to his own.

[Reflex]

Any concept of God has to fit with science in order to be credible. I think.

I tend to agree, but given the present state of affairs, just about anything goes. It's just a matter of interpretation.

[Belinda]

-1- wrote:

But why have three names for ONE thing? It's like my moniker on this site is -1-, -1-, -1-. If there were only some differences between the two! Like functionality, or function, or decision making power, or something. But to worship the entire universe, because you think it's god is, for me, pardon me, but for me that's weird.

Three names for God ? There must be many more than just three.

I'm a pantheist and I don't worship the entire universe. I tend to worship that's to say,'worthship', the ethics I learned long ago as a Christian and a socialist and which are still all right for me.

A pantheist doesn't think that "the entire universe" is God. A pantheist thinks that God and nature are the same,"nature" as in natural reality. A pantheist believes that natural reality is cause of itself, like a theist believes that the transcendent God is cause of himself.

[Greta]

-1- wrote:

But why have three names for ONE thing? It's like my moniker on this site is -1-, -1-, -1-. If there were only some differences between the two! Like functionality, or function, or decision making power, or something. But to worship the entire universe, because you think it's god is, for me, pardon me, but for me that's weird.

Three names for God ? There must be many more than just three.

I'm a pantheist and I don't worship the entire universe. I tend to worship that's to say,'worthship', the ethics I learned long ago as a Christian and a socialist and which are still all right for me.

A pantheist doesn't think that "the entire universe" is God. A pantheist thinks that God and nature are the same,"nature" as in natural reality. A pantheist believes that natural reality is cause of itself, like a theist believes that the transcendent God is cause of himself.

I like the basic ideas of indigenous people who worshipped of the Sun, Earth, Moon and their ancestors. Worship was an act of appreciation for making their lives possible, noting that shows of appreciation to humans tend to yield better results than ingratitude.

Early societies did not believe that they owned the land, but that the land owned them. The idea of humans being subject to larger natural systems is more satisfying and logical to me than the notion of human divinity and control. Realistically, humans are far from divine, have diddly-squat control on a global scale, although there is much potential for when/if humanity grows up.

Perhaps one day people will worship the most godlike entity in our cosmic neighbourhood - the supermassive black hole at the centre of the galaxy, Sagittarius A*, which makes our solar system and, consequently, our lives possible?

Sag A* is not only our creator, it transcends space and time, is not made from matter and its nature is shrouded in seemingly impenetrable mysteries because most if it is completely locked away from the rest of the universe.

[-1-]

-1- wrote:

But why have three names for ONE thing? It's like my moniker on this site is -1-, -1-, -1-. If there were only some differences between the two! Like functionality, or function, or decision making power, or something. But to worship the entire universe, because you think it's god is, for me, pardon me, but for me that's weird.

Three names for God ? There must be many more than just three.

I'm a pantheist and I don't worship the entire universe. I tend to worship that's to say,'worthship', the ethics I learned long ago as a Christian and a socialist and which are still all right for me.

A pantheist doesn't think that "the entire universe" is God. A pantheist thinks that God and nature are the same,"nature" as in natural reality. A pantheist believes that natural reality is cause of itself, like a theist believes that the transcendent God is cause of himself.

The more than three names of god are due to language differences among people and due to god differences. Please don't confuse the issue.

So the entire universe is not part of nature.

"A pantheist believes that natural reality is cause of itself, like a theist believes that the transcendent God is cause of himself." -- it's time to hang up my hat. I can't possibly understand why you want to pull in a god image into nature. This is probably my shortcoming, not yours. God is a supernatural element. Nature is not supernatural. You superimpose the two for no apparent reason. I don't understand this. At all.

[Belinda]

-1- wrote:

But why have three names for ONE thing? It's like my moniker on this site is -1-, -1-, -1-. If there were only some differences between the two! Like functionality, or function, or decision making power, or something. But to worship the entire universe, because you think it's god is, for me, pardon me, but for me that's weird.

Three names for God ? There must be many more than just three.

I'm a pantheist and I don't worship the entire universe. I tend to worship that's to say,'worthship', the ethics I learned long ago as a Christian and a socialist and which are still all right for me.

A pantheist doesn't think that "the entire universe" is God. A pantheist thinks that God and nature are the same,"nature" as in natural reality. A pantheist believes that natural reality is cause of itself, like a theist believes that the transcendent God is cause of himself.

The more than three names of god are due to language differences among people and due to god differences. Please don't confuse the issue.

So the entire universe is not part of nature.

"A pantheist believes that natural reality is cause of itself, like a theist believes that the transcendent God is cause of himself." -- it's time to hang up my hat. I can't possibly understand why you want to pull in a god image into nature. This is probably my shortcoming, not yours. God is a supernatural element. Nature is not supernatural. You superimpose the two for no apparent reason. I don't understand this. At all.

"Nature is not supernatural" is true, for a pantheist.

"God is a supernatural element" is true for theists but not for pantheists.

The reason to "superimpose"*** as you word it, God and nature is that reason explains the basis of ethics without any supernatural deity. Many object that without a supernatural law giver we cannot be good. The rebuttal to this objection is that reason shows us how to be good.

***"superimpose" is an intriguing image which for me is one of 2 transparent acrylic sheets each with a name and a concept on it. Are you a designer , or engineer perhaps?