Definition of God

[JoeyKnothead]

I won't name the source, cause it was offered in the spirit of explanation moreso than outright fact, but let's fuss on it all the same:

...
For a general definition of God, "the underlying source of all else which exists"...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm God is the underlying source of all else which exists.

Remember, the bible ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site .

[TRANSPONDER]

it is organised religion that is really the target of atheist polemic, and a possible irreligious -theist - creator is one we goddless can be cool with.

If so, then why have you framed your comments in this thread entirely in terms of atheists versus theists?

because theists used the cosmic origins (or origins of Life) arguments to try to make a case for Theism and intended to debunk atheism. Atheism has to defuse this apologetic on the grounds that Goddunnit is Not a more persuasive or compelling hypothesis than a natural and unplanned origin, cause or creation.

While a proven Mind behind it all would indeed debunk atheism (we goddless would then default to irreligious theists) it would not actually change us much because it is organised religion that gets us posting on places like this, not a possible Deist -god -mind, about which we don't care one way of the other.

It isn't a Cosmic mind we are concerned with but organised religion, which is what the debate is really about; and a Creator is only a way for theist apologists to get a god of some sort on the table as credible. Since it really isn't, we of course have to put the counter - argument.

[TRANSPONDER]

Please offer some means to confirm God is the underlying source of all else which exists.

Historically, the way people have "investigated" God has been through either logical deduction and conjecture or by contemplative or spiritual experiences.

Conjecture is just that and 'spiritual experiences' are really not evidence of anything. Logical deduction and indeed historical and archaeological research are all very well but bitter experience has taught me that (like logic) the method will be fiddled by the faithful and even misrepresented to support what result is desired on the basis of religious Faith.

... inanimate materials are assembled and become active and living.

Please give one example?

All seeds of life in the reproductive cycle. You can choose from flowerseeds, acorns, fish eggs or mammal Ovum. All made from inanimate biochemicals and assembled, not like a jumbo -jet from a scrapyard in a whirlwind, but in a natural assembly - pattern dictated by the on -off - switches of DNA.

Think of a million monkeys at typewriters. Could they type the Bible? They could, if there was a functional assembly - mechanism (like chemical evolution) that combined random letters and words into (linguistically) functioning units. These would grow while the random typing that meant nothing would go in the bin (become extinct from the physical universe) and eventually you'd get the Bible, the works of Shakespeare, Moby Dick and Ethel the Aardvark goes Quantity - surveying. Given a global biosphere and a billion years.

[Athetotheist]

The experiments suggest that it is there, inherent in what we call 'nothing'.

There's the rub. What we call "nothing" isn't nothing. When cornered, physicists eventually admit that the closest they can get to "nothing" is the zero-point energy field, which isn't a true zero.

I know it doesn't suit those who insist on some creative act, but the evidence is there.

I'm not talking about a "creative act" per se. Remember: it's not about "regression" back to a starting point; it's about reduction down to the most basic of basics, and then.....what underlies that?

Your insistence about what the characteristics of nothingness is, suggests that you claim to know everything about physics, including stuff that our top physicists don't claim to know.

I'm not claiming to know everything about physics, but I do know something about language. Physicists throw the word "nothing" around pretty loosely, but the word has a precise definition. I know it doesn't suit those who insist on using the word to mean something else, but the definition is there.

I am sure you are more humble and rational than that and will admit that it seems counter - intuitive to you, but that doesn't mean that you Know it's not possible.

It does feel counter -intuitive to me too, but then an earth with an underneath where people lived and walked once seemed against reason, once, as well as Black holes, Relativity and quantum. You must surely see that that you cannot dismiss possibilities just because you want to rule out everything but Something that a god has to do.

Nor can you dismiss possibilities just because you want to rule out everything but that which is (mis)defined by physicists.

[TRANSPONDER]

The experiments suggest that it is there, inherent in what we call 'nothing'.

There's the rub. What we call "nothing" isn't nothing. When cornered, physicists eventually admit that the closest they can get to "nothing" is the zero-point energy field, which isn't a true zero.

I know it doesn't suit those who insist on some creative act, but the evidence is there.

I'm not talking about a "creative act" per se. Remember: it's not about "regression" back to a starting point; it's about reduction down to the most basic of basics, and then.....what underlies that?

Your insistence about what the characteristics of nothingness is, suggests that you claim to know everything about physics, including stuff that our top physicists don't claim to know.

I'm not claiming to know everything about physics, but I do know something about language. Physicists throw the word "nothing" around pretty loosely, but the word has a precise definition. I know it doesn't suit those who insist on using the word to mean something else, but the definition is there.

I am sure you are more humble and rational than that and will admit that it seems counter - intuitive to you, but that doesn't mean that you Know it's not possible.

It does feel counter -intuitive to me too, but then an earth with an underneath where people lived and walked once seemed against reason, once, as well as Black holes, Relativity and quantum. You must surely see that that you cannot dismiss possibilities just because you want to rule out everything but Something that a god has to do.

Nor can you dismiss possibilities just because you want to rule out everything but that which is (mis)defined by physicists.

That's a darn good effort.

However:
The point about 'nothing' and whether - if it can have a potential to become something - is 'true nothing' or not isn't really the point, is it? It is more whether it needs to be created. If a fully formed intelligent invisible being that can do anything didn't need to be created, then a nothing that has the potential to act like Something doesn't.

And, yes, of course, being an unbeliever will drive me to propose or at least espouse alternatives to a creative being. Just as a believer will try to find arguments that will rule out anything but a Creative being. It's going to be the way it is and finger - pointing isn't going to help you or me.

The only thing that matters is what seems to answer most questions. And Reduction as you say is what it comes down to. Being forced by scientific explanations from evolution - denial back through abiogenesis - denial through Big Bang denial, we 'reduce' to Original Cosmic Stuff and where it came from.

I understand and share your doubts about an uncreated nothing with a potential that doesn't need anything to create it. But I have far more doubts about a postulated creator that didn't need to be created.

I'd say that the theist argument has lost ground while the naturalist/Materialist standpoint on Cosmic origins has gained. Which is all atheism needs as an apologetic. It doesn't matter if the theist says 'I am not persuaded'. It is at least as good or better an argument (hardly 'explanation') as Theism can muster and thus atheism can hold its' ground and the theist has not made a case for opting for a creator as the more probable explanation (never mind the known -to -be - true' Faith - claim that we often get).

So the atheiist has nothing much to lose here but the theist has everything to lose. Validating a Creator only leads to 'Which god?' And that, I can tell you, allows the goddless to stroll away, saying: 'When you noble souls have agreed which is the religion with the God that is the creator, get back to us. Till them, We don't believe any of them'.

But of course, I know how it works. IF the theist is the kind that espouses a particular religion (almost always Abrahamic) and can wangle a creator into credibility through the cosmic origins or Life or Consciousness arguments, they will do the leap of Faith to their particular Holy book and claim that tells us which god it is.

The other way it's done is to argue for the Bible (say) and when the non -believer dismisses it as unbelievable, then the Leap of Faith is the other way to 'Who made everything, then?' as though that somehow validated a particular religion.

It doesn't. Though a Christian (for instance) will assume that making a case for a Creator automatically validates their particular religion, all the others being dismissed out of hand.

Theists have it all to do. The fact that they think that God is the default theory unless Atheism can explain everything naturalistically doesn't help them. Atheists know that is a fallacy - assuming a - priori what they are trying to prove. Life, Consciousness and Cosmic Origins (the Big 3 gaps for God) do not make a case for a god, only a case for 'Nobody knows'. But in fact there is evidence, mechanisms and/or logical probability that makes the naturalistic explanation for those tings look more probable than an invisible being just doing magic.

You may not accept that the atheists hold all the cards on this one, but we do.

[1213]

... inanimate materials are assembled and become active and living.

Please give one example?

The man called Adam was created when God “formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7).
Assuming dust from the ground is inanimate material.
But I'm sure there will be some word contorting with something like 'God's breath means it wasn't inanimate' or some such excuse.
Or maybe, the bible isn't appropriate to use an example - this time?

Sorry, I thought you meant that such things would happen without God’s influence. I was asking is there any example of such thing happening without God.

[JoeyKnothead]

because theists used the cosmic origins (or origins of Life) arguments to try to make a case for Theism and intended to debunk atheism. Atheism has to defuse this apologetic on the grounds that Goddunnit is Not a more persuasive or compelling hypothesis than a natural and unplanned origin, cause or creation.

While a proven Mind behind it all would indeed debunk atheism (we goddless would then default to irreligious theists) it would not actually change us much because it is organised religion that gets us posting on places like this, not a possible Deist -god -mind, about which we don't care one way of the other.

It isn't a Cosmic mind we are concerned with but organised religion, which is what the debate is really about; and a Creator is only a way for theist apologists to get a god of some sort on the table as credible. Since it really isn't, we of course have to put the counter - argument.

Seconded.

And skewing the topic a bit...
Foremost among the reasons I debate here and elsewhere is in specific response to those who'd restrict the rights and freedoms of others based on their opinion of a god they can't show exists to have him an opinion they can't show he does.

Those Christians who promote a loving god, who speak for the rights of the oppressed, are not my enemy. Indeed, I've come to love me a good bunch of em.

[JoeyKnothead]

There's the rub. What we call "nothing" isn't nothing. When cornered, physicists eventually admit that the closest they can get to "nothing" is the zero-point energy field, which isn't a true zero.
...
I'm not claiming to know everything about physics, but I do know something about language. Physicists throw the word "nothing" around pretty loosely, but the word has a precise definition. I know it doesn't suit those who insist on using the word to mean something else, but the definition is there.

The concurrer concurs on a very good point. It's problematic when a scientific or other "formal" group 'borrows' a common word as a useful term, with it's unique, yet rarer definition. In the mind of the unaware, its specific meaning can become distorted. (Though I don't so much see the term thrown around loosely, as so useful to the language of the physicist.)

Nor can you dismiss possibilities just because you want to rule out everything but that which is (mis)defined by physicists.

Agreed to a point. Once we realize the god concept is purely a fiction, with maybe evolutionary advantages, we can dismiss the possibility of anyone ever showing a god to exist.

[Athetotheist]

The point about 'nothing' and whether - if it can have a potential to become something - is 'true nothing' or not isn't really the point, is it? It is more whether it needs to be created.

It's really not about whether it needs to be created; it's about what it needs to exist, even if it has existed forever.

If a fully formed intelligent invisible being that can do anything didn't need to be created, then a nothing that has the potential to act like Something doesn't.

On the other hand....

If we ask, "Where did God come from?" or "What made God?", that question itself supposes---at least for the sake of argument----that God exists. So if we're going to apply causality to God if God exists, then to be intellectually honest we have to apply causality to the Universe since the Universe undeniably exists.

If you throw over a fully formed intelligent invisible being that can do anything for a nothing that has the potential to act like Something, you're just trading one miraculous phenomenon for another, which is hardly much of a promotion for materialism.

Validating a Creator only leads to 'Which god?'

It's not as simple as that. I don't typically refer to Christian sources, but have you ever read "The Blind Men and the Elephant"?

The assumption that validating a Creator automatically collapses the range of theological thought down into a small, rigid handful of God-concepts fails to explain how each Deist has a unique, personal take on a Creator.

You may not accept that the atheists hold all the cards on this one, but we do.

You may not hold as many cards as you think you do. You've attributed existence to physics, but physics is merely a description of the ways in which physical forces interact. Thus "physics" is contingent upon the physical and not the other way around. Logically, the ultimate source of material existence cannot lie within the material itself because that leaves us with an explanation which is part of what has to be explained, and circular thinking gets nowhere.

[Tcg]

Logically, the ultimate source of material existence cannot lie within the material itself...

Why not? Of course the term "ultimate source" would need to be defined before one could answer my question. What have you got?


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

Logically, the ultimate source of material existence cannot lie within the material itself...

Why not?

I explained why not.

Of course the term "ultimate source" would need to be defined before one could answer my question. What have you got?

I'd say that "ultimate source" is fairly self-explanatory.

What have you got?