Atheistic Hypothetical Theism.

[punkbass2000]

Well, I'm glad someone recognizes!

The implications are may, though they seem clear to me.

First and foremost, let's ensure those of us who are not fluent English speakers are parsing properly:

To say "God alone is" is to say that there is nothing which is not God. Nothing else exists. You are God, I am God, your computer is god, etc. We are all components of that greater whole of which there can be nothing else and from which we can not be separate, even if we can create that delusion. In a nutshell:

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

As Gothmog once explained, I am you under different circumstances. Had grown in conditions identical to yours, I would be you in every meaningful sense.

EDIT: x-posted with BC!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Actually, that works for me. But I think you should explain it.

It's a pretty powerful first principle! And the logical extrapolations from this principle have caused some pretty impressive acts of goodness

Can someone explain it to stupid over here?

edit; some x-post, thanks!

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

Well, I'm glad someone recognizes!

The implications are may, though they seem clear to me.

First and foremost, let's ensure those of us who are not fluent English speakers are parsing properly:

To say "God alone is" is to say that there is nothing which is not God. Nothing else exists. You are God, I am God, your computer is god, etc. We are all components of that greater whole of which there can be nothing else and from which we can not be separate, even if we can create that delusion. In a nutshell:



As Gothmog once explained, I am you under different circumstances. Had grown in conditions identical to yours, I would be you in every meaningful sense.

EDIT: x-posted with BC!

Of course, I do not agree with all the implications of this, but it works for me because of:
Exodus 3:13-14
"Then Moses said to God, "Behold I am going to the sons of Israel, and I shall say to them 'The God of our fathers has sent me to you'. Now they shall say to me 'What is he name?' What shall I say to them?
And God said to Moses "I AM WHO I AM", and He said "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel "I AM has sent me".

Also: John 8:58-59 Jesus said unto them "Truly before Abraham was born I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple"

So, while I am not going to say God is in everything, and everyone, I will be very agreeable to say He is the origin of all life, and intelligence, and since He is the Creator, and since He is the most high and powerful presence in all the universe, and since there are no other gods, but Him, this works for me.

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

Well, yeah. But to do so, you'd have to define God's characteristics first. Some descriptions of God would be scientifically provable as non-existent. Some descriptions include the non-existence being unprovable.

In fact, the statement "it's impossible to prove that God exists" is only necessarily true if God does not exist (you cannot prove a negative). Additionally, if there is no God, it remains impossible to prove that it does NOT exist (you cannot disprove a negative). There's no logical argument stating that "it's impossible to prove God exists" if there IS a god. It's merely a turn-of-phrase that people rely on to ignore the question. It's a quip that gets people to stop thinking.

In other words:
If God does not exist
- it's impossible to prove that He does exist (duh)
- it's impossible to prove that He does not exist (unless we look for characteristics that, themselves, are disprovable)

However:
If God exists
- it's impossible to prove that He does not exist (duh)
- the possibility of proving His existence is unknown, but it's not impossible

If it were logically impossible to prove that God exists, then God himself would not know if he exists. While it might be true, it doesn't resonate. So, now that we know that it would be provable, it's just a question of how hard it is to prove and the cognitive faculty of those being shown the proofs.

Finally, if the faithful honestly believed that there is no way to scientifically prove God's existence, they'd stop trying to. But they don't stop. They continue to try to prove God's existence, using references to evidence. This implicitly shows that they believe that there is actually evidence to prove God. The story of Elijah and the wet altars is an example of 'proof' being theologically viable. As well as Doubting Thomas. Or, in the Quran, people try to point out interpretations that could only have been created by an all-father. etc.

It's not like the Abrahamics are full of stories where the protagonist says "Oh, there's no way to show that God exists! But, you're totally gonna get yours if you don't behave!".

Maybe I should not have brought that up in this thread, because I do not want to get away from the OP. My intention was to hopefully set some ground rules and definitions. My point is that many on these forums make blanket statements of so called fact about atheism. And then discount if not outright mock or insult any religious person for making statements using the same type of proof. I am not referring to anyone on this thread, BTW. And that is one reason I made mention of it here.

Yes, I know I was asking to prove the negative, and in debating and academic circles that is bad form. But I am not trained in those things, and it was the best I could come up with.

Finally, if the faithful honestly believed that there is no way to scientifically prove God's existence, they'd stop trying to. But they don't stop. They continue to try to prove God's existence, using references to evidence. This implicitly shows that they believe that there is actually evidence to prove God.

I do believe that there is evidence that can lead to the conclusion of God's existance. Not necessairly scientific, mid you, but logical at least. And it is this type of belief that I think Ziggy is looking for discussion about.
Now, you and I have had some conversations on the other thread, particularly about love, that show people can look at the exact same thing and draw two totally different conclusions. I enjoy your thoughts, and explainations. But sometimes it is like we are at the old Polo Grounds in NYC. And one of us is at home plate, and the other in coming out of the doors in deep center field. Nothing wrong in that, it is just the way we each see things.
Good stuff though.

 

[El_Machinae]

"Scientific evidence" is evidence that can be shared It's instead of "Personal experience", which can only ever be described. The Bible is scientific evidence that ancient people thought that there was a Global Flood. The HS telling you that 'it really happened' is personal experience.

Elijah and the wet altars would be scientific evidence to people who were there. It would be hearsay of scientific evidence for people they told (though likely very convincing!). With weird thinking we could still call it hearsay of scientific evidence for today, but the chain-of-custody of the testimony has been diluted to uselessness.

But people who insist "God cannot be proved" are making a statement that is only necessarily true if He does not. Remember, the story of Elijah is an attempt to provide proof. Ostensibly, Elijah didn't think that "God cannot be proved". And neither did the people who passed on those stories. The authors who wrote that Jesus appeared to Doubting Thomas certainly didn't think that "God cannot be proven scientifically", either.

"Scientific evidence" isn't a very onerous hurdle. It's merely a definition of a type of evidence, which is sharable evidence.

Can someone explain it to stupid over here?

edit; some x-post, thanks!

It's a statement derived from Hinduist thinking. It's kind of a catchphrase. It indicates the thinking that there's a universe that we're part of, that we're indivisible from it, and that our experience is part of what the universe experiences.

"God" then becomes the sum total, envisioned in a way that doesn't change (if you're thinking of a God that does change, then you're probably one (or more) dimensions too shallowly. By analogy, a falling ball changing, but the laws that include 'balls falling' don't change. There's nothing the ball does that changes those laws. All of the ball's states are a perfect representation of the underlying laws.

(All IIRC)

 

[punkbass2000]

How can one thing be separate from another?

EDIT: Doube x-post! Directed at Mike's first in this series.

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

How can one thing be separate from another?

EDIT: Doube x-post! Directed at Mike's first in this series.

I am not exactly sure I get the question, but I'll give it a try, and forgive me if I get it wrong.

I think it all comes down to; what is the very nature, and characteristics of God?

As far as I know, with all the religions that have one God, over everything, there is the personal element between the believer and God. It varies in degree from religion to religion, but it is still there.

In the religions where there are multiple gods, or several with equal characteristics, that personal communion, and interaction is largely missing. It usually manifests itself as people in a community, or group doing different things in the hope that God will be pleased with them, and they will be blessed in some way.
A very simplified explaination, I know, but, but I am no expert on the different religions, and do not want to mispeak about something.

For instance your quote from Gothmog sounds nice, but in reality puts the speaker and listener into the same box, and says that the enviroment has total control of who a person is, and what he/she becomes. To a Christian, Jew, Moslem, and perhaps others, that is simply not true. People can raise themselves above their surroundings, and can make their own choices about how to live their lives. Timtofly has a wonderful post that I have yet to respond to (but I will) where he gives us a glimpse inside of his life. It is very fascinating, and , it is plain that he overcame some nasty circumstances, and made his life better.

Gothmog would seem to tell us that this type of thing is either impossible, or not possible to such a complete changing of one's life. And that takes away God, as a personal God, who is involved with each of us, as individuals. Life becomes essentially a reaction to anything that might happen to us. Instead of us being able to determine our own destinies.

I hope I answered what you are asking.

 

[Birdjaguar]

"God alone is."

How's that for a first principle?

Almost as awesome as the poster who posted it. Hello old friend.

Well, I'm glad someone recognizes!

The implications are may, though they seem clear to me.

First and foremost, let's ensure those of us who are not fluent English speakers are parsing properly:

To say "God alone is" is to say that there is nothing which is not God. Nothing else exists. You are God, I am God, your computer is god, etc. We are all components of that greater whole of which there can be nothing else and from which we can not be separate, even if we can create that delusion. In a nutshell:

As Gothmog once explained, I am you under different circumstances. Had grown in conditions identical to yours, I would be you in every meaningful sense.

EDIT: x-posted with BC!

And a Gothmog quote to boot. It's time to party likes it's 2005!

The notion that "god alone is." is a game changer in religious thinking. Creation is no longer has a separate existence from god (however defined). the idea is found in both Islam and Christianity as well as most eastern religions. It is a Sufi principle within Islam and is clearly expressed in 1 Cor 15: 20-28.

As a first principle it redefines our relationships with other people and all things, and with god however we define him. It embraces atheism and science. It is "inclusive of all" rather than "exclusive of most".

 

[punkbass2000]

For instance your quote from Gothmog sounds nice, but in reality puts the speaker and listener into the same box, and says that the enviroment has total control of who a person is, and what he/she becomes. To a Christian, Jew, Moslem, and perhaps others, that is simply not true. People can raise themselves above their surroundings, and can make their own choices about how to live their lives.

There's nothing in that maxim that limits free will, it simply says we all come of the same oneness, known as God.

 

[punkbass2000]

Hello old friend.

Hey! What is a super mod, anyway, and how close is it to super-god?

 

[Gustave5436]

The brain is a physical object. If God interacts with a human, that human's brain is altered in the process, which means that God has not merely initiated a unique, personal experience for a person, but that he has caused a physical event in the universe. In a deterministic universe, it is theoretically possible for that event, or its effects, to be observed and studied scientifically.

Therefore, there is no such thing as a merely personal religious experience, and no such thing as a religion which is true for one person and false for another. If God interferes in any way with the workings of the cosmos, then it becomes possible for science to study her/him/it. In that event, the nature of God's existence ceases to be a matter of faith at all, instead becoming another mundane fact of the multiverse.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The brain is a physical object. If God interacts with a human, that human's brain is altered in the process, which means that God has not merely initiated a unique, personal experience for a person, but that he has caused a physical event in the universe. In a deterministic universe, it is theoretically possible for that event, or its effects, to be observed and studied scientifically.

Therefore, there is no such thing as a merely personal religious experience, and no such thing as a religion which is true for one person and false for another. If God interferes in any way with the workings of the cosmos, then it becomes possible for science to study her/him/it. In that event, the nature of God's existence ceases to be a matter of faith at all, instead becoming another mundane fact of the multiverse.

You seem to want god to be separate from the universe. Why? What if god is inseparable from the physical universe?

What if god is the song, the music, the words, the instruments, the vibrations, the musicians, the audience and the stage? Does that make the performance any less?

 

[Perfection]

Hey! What is a super mod, anyway, and how close is it to super-god?

Super-Gods super-alone super-are.

 

[punkbass2000]

Super!

 

[Perfection]

Also, math alone is.

 

[punkbass2000]

How did the math kill Pythagoras' student?

 

[Perfection]

The math says the student lived and then died.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Let's not spam this into oblivion please.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Been thinking about "God alone is".

For one, it explains why it's near impossible to get scientific evidence for it. You get scientific evidence by observing the way something interacts with other things and measure it repeat it predict it, this becomes rather impossible when that thing has nothing to interact with besides itself since it's everything. It does all this without the need to be outside space and time.

On the other hand, trying to imagine an entity which alone is interacting with us, or in effect itself is a little weirder. It's like trying to interact with your sentient pinky finger. Trying to imagine sentience in something that alone is, is even weirder.

If I take the scale into consideration it all turns bonkers pretty fast. If God alone is, God is the universe. In this universe a planet, or us on it, are minuscule parts of the complete picture. Forget the pinky finger, this is getting closer to an atom in the pinky finger. An atom that sometimes even believes it's the most important part of the body.

Hard to wrap my mind around the concept. I like it.

 

[BasketCase]

You get scientific evidence by observing the way something interacts with other things and measure it repeat it predict it, this becomes rather impossible when that thing has nothing to interact with besides itself since it's everything.

Then, if "It" is the only thing in the universe, simply observe how different parts of "It" interact with other parts of "It".

Yeah, I know, you said something about you not talking to me any more. I'm fine with it. Don't reply--just read.