the only god that can be known to exist

Posted in the Atheism Forum

havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1 May 24, 2013
I think that there is only one definition of a god that is of a god that can be known to exist. and that is that god is all that exists. anything less than all would be smaller, lesser than what we generally think a god is.

of course, we cannot know very much about what exists, proportionately to the all that exists. and it would only be from our perspective, which would also be limited. so it would be sensible to not make many claims relating to our knowledge OF such a god, or about such a god.

such a definition of god has the merit of heading off inferior definitions of a god or Gods, by establishing first of all that it exists (by definition), and claiming that it is that most that exists (though one might want to exist all that has or will exist, or could possibly exist, so the claim should be that God is defined as all that exists now, I suppose!)

having such a God, and not being able to do much with it, would be a nice alternative to all the Gods that people claim exist and misuse.

one thing one could do with such a definition, is claim that we humans are a part of God, and that if we want a good God, we should be good ourselves. That would be nice.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#2 May 28, 2013
I want to put this up again to focus one this one point. The long threads get too mixed up with several points. This is the argument for a very extreme form of pantheism as a definition which makes this God exist by definition. It also includes a little side ethic that tells us why we need to be good. Both of these differ greatly from conventional religion and religious ethics.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#3 May 30, 2013
I think no one on either side of the usual arguments dares to take this on, because it requires intelligence and is not a place for typical venting of hostility.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#4 Jun 2, 2013
Why call it god? Why not just stick with "the universe" or "everything"?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#6 Jun 29, 2013
Yiago wrote:
Why call it god? Why not just stick with "the universe" or "everything"?
because it makes a better god than any other I have ever heard of - better in the sense that it is more comprehensive, and also something that does exist. it does not have all the ridiculous consequences that other gods drag along with them. I do not imply any need to worship it or praise it or thank it, or to kill anyone or persecute anyone in its name.
There is no implied apology for the pain in it - I do not give it attributes such as goodness or power. all other gods are worse.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#7 Jun 30, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> because it makes a better god than any other I have ever heard of - better in the sense that it is more comprehensive, and also something that does exist. it does not have all the ridiculous consequences that other gods drag along with them. I do not imply any need to worship it or praise it or thank it, or to kill anyone or persecute anyone in its name.
There is no implied apology for the pain in it - I do not give it attributes such as goodness or power. all other gods are worse.
I replied to this idea in another thread, but basically I'm OK with using poetic language. However, it does seem a little silly to me. It's just nature. Giving it a different label just seems like an additional bit of baggage that you then have to explain to people. Because the moment you use the "g" word everyone will assume you are talking about the one from the Bible.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#8 Jul 30, 2013
so you are basically saying that reality is "god" because it is experience by everyone and no one can deny it?
Also, that reality is what we make it, so if we want a good god, we ourselves have to be good?

Just trying to summarize what you are saying.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#9 Jul 30, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
I think that there is only one definition of a god that is of a god that can be known to exist. and that is that god is all that exists. anything less than all would be smaller, lesser than what we generally think a god is.
of course, we cannot know very much about what exists, proportionately to the all that exists. and it would only be from our perspective, which would also be limited. so it would be sensible to not make many claims relating to our knowledge OF such a god, or about such a god.
such a definition of god has the merit of heading off inferior definitions of a god or Gods, by establishing first of all that it exists (by definition), and claiming that it is that most that exists (though one might want to exist all that has or will exist, or could possibly exist, so the claim should be that God is defined as all that exists now, I suppose!)
having such a God, and not being able to do much with it, would be a nice alternative to all the Gods that people claim exist and misuse.
one thing one could do with such a definition, is claim that we humans are a part of God, and that if we want a good God, we should be good ourselves. That would be nice.
Rah, amen Rah! We know the sun goddess doth exist. Our planet and ourselves, live only because the sun is there.

Oops, forgot about thunder, thunder exists and we all know it. Sorry Thor.

Gods abound.

Since: Dec 11

Perth, Western Australia

#10 Jul 31, 2013
Here is imperical evidence of a man they called God.



:)
Amused

Princeton, MA

#11 Aug 1, 2013
Luke1981 wrote:
Here is imperical evidence of a man they called God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =n4gC5bsOei4XX
:)


I thought Eric Clapton was god.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#12 Aug 1, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
I want to put this up again to focus one this one point. The long threads get too mixed up with several points. This is the argument for a very extreme form of pantheism as a definition which makes this God exist by definition. It also includes a little side ethic that tells us why we need to be good. Both of these differ greatly from conventional religion and religious ethics.
The question is whether this is a reasonable use of the word 'god'. In favor, you have the existence and that 'all existence' is certainly greater than any one thing that exists. In opposition is the issue of whether 'all existence' has an intelligence, whether it provides moral direction, and whether is makes sense to say 'all existence' created the universe.

So, while this is one way to get an existent god, it seems to be changing the definition of the term 'god' enough that the word is being misused. And, as was pointed out, there is already a word for 'all existence': the universe. Why we would want to complicate things by using the word 'god' for the universe when the two have very different connotations is unclear.

Since: Dec 11

Perth, Western Australia

#13 Aug 1, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought Eric Clapton was god.
Perhaps he is?
Maybe they both are?
Perhaps they are a deistic duopoly?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 21 min ChristineM 234,628
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 34 min ChristineM 14,592
Why Evil Disproves Atheism 2 hr Luke1981 5
why? 3 hr Luke1981 35
Christianity Created Hitler 11 hr The_Box 188
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 11 hr thetruth 298
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 13 hr polymath257 1,239
More from around the web