It is so much in the nature of our imagination and language that we can talk about the non-existent. If billions of people choose to believe in something that does not constitute a proof of existence of whatever is the object of belief. It is more an indication of the power of belief over the minds of many people.

@hankster In that case, I prefer to imagine Goddess.

Hail Eris! All hail Discordia! All Hail, Her what Done It All!

I have not said “that, because Einstein and Spinoza thought "A", then "A" must be true.”

I have mentioned them only as an illustration of the fact that there are scholarly understandings of the concept of God, as well as common, ill-informed ones.

But my argument stands on its own merits, regardless of who may have made it before me.

No argument can be made without axioms. They are the base upon which all else is built.

The description is not the substance behind the the concept. The Universe is.
I don’t need to prove the Universe exists. It is self-evident (axiomatic).

@skado

Why not quote Aquinas instead? Were his ideas ill-informed? Every concept of God is eqully valid, because none are true. You've picked one you like, that's all.

The Universe exists? Many brilliant philosophers (Plato first among them) have argued convincingly that the Universe is just a shadow of reality, with no true substance. Atomic physics tells us the same; everything we hold objectively real is just empty space, held together by magnetic fields and with a tiny scattering of neutrons, protons, and electrons. What happens to axioms then?

All the logic you suggest is based on a premise. If that premise is false, so must be the concusion. If there is no objective reality, then no Universe.

Humor is always welcome.

The sobering point is that the evidence also includes famines, earthquakes, and politicians.

Why would there need to be a universe in existence? No one knows. But most of us seem to think it exists. We call it by many names, but we think it exists.

@skado The need for a god existing is a need in humans to create a god. We have no proof of anything about our universe but I'm sure we have one. Maybe it always existed. IDK.

I don't really disagree with any of that, but I'm not sure what it has to do with this post. I think false beliefs should be argued against, and I think that it is really strange that nearly every atheist I have ever met (certainly a majority of them) carries the belief that the common uneducated person should be relied upon to determine God's nature, instead of relying on the most esteemed scientists and philosophers who ever lived. That just seems backwards to me, especially in light of the fact that atheists claim to side with science instead of with folklore. Strange.

@skado Not entirely sure you understood my point. Given the rigidity of religious belief, I do not see how it would be possible to convince the masses to agree with Einstein & Spinoza. Yes, there are closed minds on both sides…we definitely agree on that.

@MsKathleen
I haven’t said it would be possible to convince the masses.
If I have misunderstood, try me again. I’m very capable of misunderstanding.

@skado My point was that the consensus of believers rejects the opinion of science, in this case specifically Einstein and Spinoza. Atheists reject believers definition of “god”. In GENERAL, each is so steadfast in their belief, ne’er the twain shall they meet. I personally agree with your original post, because I can accept the term “god” to not literally mean what religionists literally mean. But when we discuss the WORD, we MUST accept the common usage, or believers will misinterpret what we say, regardless of the fact that we mean what Einstein (or Spinoza) meant, just as they misinterpreted Einstein. Communication is difficult when we do not speak the same language. In THIS case, unless we specifically state in every instance what we mean by “god”, our intent will always be misinterpreted. So, again, while I agree in principle, I do not believe we can communicate our meaning by using the WORD “god” in any way to describe our belief. It just will not be understood by the believing masses.

@MsKathleen
Thanks. I don’t disagree with any of that in principle. In any conversation, if we want to make sure we are understood, it’s best to discuss some definitions of words. From my personal perspective, the value of being able to see God as the universe is in situations where it is more important to build trust than to argue over worldview differences, which is probably most of our daily human interactions. Most of my daily interactions with people don’t lapse into deep philosophical discussions, and it’s probably best for all concerned that they don’t.

And even when they do a bit, it would be a pretty rare situation in which I would be troubled by the person thinking my understanding of God was more similar to theirs than it actually was. In my experience living in the deep South, it’s usually to one’s favor to be seen as such. Rarely would it be necessary to correct such an impression. Usually people aren’t really interested.

@skado But I enjoy conversations with you so much…and am not in the Deep South.

@MsKathleen
Thank God for Agnostic.

@skado

Well, that's one way of looking at it, but others interpret "nature as God" in the opposite way. You may not be able to ultimately violate or hurt God but you dishonor and disrespect God whenever you dishonor and disrespect Nature...for which there are (divine) consequences. This gives great fuel to the environmental crowd.

Yes, I think a lot of people have done that.

Yes, it is called religion.

@David1955
Thanks for acknowledging that I’m “genuine”, I regard you the same, but you haven’t understood my point yet, for which I take full responsibility. It’s not an easy one to put into words, and I clearly haven’t found the right words yet.
The way I know I haven’t gotten my point across yet is when you speak about it, you describe it in ways I don’t, and wouldn’t. Until you can steelman my point… to my satisfaction… I will remain convinced that you haven’t understood what I’m trying (unsuccessfully so far) to get across. You see the similarities between my words and new age garble and assume they are coming from the same place and heading to the same place. They are not.

Imagine such an argument used in another sphere of life, say a court of law.

" I put it to the court. that the police and the prosecution have repeatedly stated that my client, shot the victim with a revolver. But my client tells me that he does not own a revolver, the device he owns is called a gun. I therefore put it to the court that my client is clearly innocent."

I have very little respect for language, its rules or the view that language itself is a source of truth. But I do have more respect for it than to abuse it this much. Redefining words is commonplace and even respected among theists and apologists, more than anywhere else. Generally if you keep bad company, you acquire bad habits.

@skado Garble is as garble does. No matter how you slice it, it's still baloney.

It's logically fallacious, can't be tested, and chopped up into a word salad which no amount of ranch dressing will cover.

@TheMiddleWay

You sound like a nincompoop.

@TheMiddleWay Not a compliment.

Good points.
Works for me.

Metaphorically speaking, I would rather call them saints and prophets, ( Sometimes angels. ) since theology is the worship of other peoples second hand errors, and is anti-progressive, while saints and prophets are innovative.

I would caution though, that we know extremely little, relative to what likely exists, about the nature of nature. Yes, we have defined the nature of God by comparing it to another abstraction, about which we know very little.

In the earlier days of organized religion most science was funded by the church, and performed by monks, so it would be in keeping with the deepest history to consider modern day scientists as an extension of that tradition. I consider science to be an offspring of religion. An adolescent offspring, with all the confidence, energy and arrogance of adolescence. But also with the refreshed vision and cognitive agility of adolescence.

I see the conflating of that which exists with that which is postulated as being fallacious.

That's the problem that science has had at every turn isn't it? That the majority doesn't want to let go of their comfortable worldviews, even when they are dead wrong. So the question becomes... are we to let the underinformed majority set the standards of what is real, or must the science-minded accept the burden of forever being the minority who stand by the evidence?

@skado As science is dedicated to actual truth, the second choice is mandated: "...the science-minded accept the burden of forever being the minority who stand by the evidence." The stupidity of the rest is, necessarily the default to being dedicated to actual truth.

@skado - I believe language and words are only a means to convey ideas and concepts. They are not absolute and no one owns them. This is why I did not favor calling the legal relationship between same sex couples something other than marriage - calling it something different implies it is something different and opens the door for making them different.

I found early on in my reinvestigation of religion that the terms used concerning religious topics don't always mean the same thing to all people. Often, terms like God and spiritual are used as they understand them or how their chosen religion interprets them. I once observed a conversation concerning religion between two coworkers many years ago. It was interesting because they seemed to be in complete agreement until each revealed which church they belonged to and the mood and connection between them turned icy. For these reasons, I found the use of many religious terms including the word "God" to be problematic without first defining the terms beforehand. More specifically, I just tend to not use the terms and assume a generally accepted understanding of the terms when they are used by others. It's why I said, "I prefer to refer to all that exists as everything". In my thinking, it is a clearer communication.

@RussRAB
My point exactly. The religious don’t own the terms they use. They belong to human culture at large.

As you say, people have different understandings of religious terms as well as any other terms. And if they want to understand each other deeply, they will always have to share their respective definitions, whether they’re talking about religion or modern art, or quantum mechanics.

But most of our daily interactions don’t require deep mutual understanding. I don’t need to fight with my coworker who says “Thank God it’s Friday” because I can relate to the feeling I know he is expressing, without getting into a religious debate. Sometimes the clearest communication isn’t the most appropriate one.

To me, having grown up in the Bible Belt, it is often handy to be bi-lingual. I know what they mean, and I can convey my meaning to them, without getting into an argument about semantics or deep personal beliefs. I’m looking for ways to make peace instead of reasons to fight. If they insist on fighting, I can do that too.

@skado - I can certainly live with a more peaceful world. That others see the world in a different way doesn't bother me so long as they aren't expecting me to be a lower life form for seeing it different from them.

That is the point - that God, by some very well established standards, is equivalent to the Universe. Other views exist also. My argument is that the "God of religion" was, and is, the mostly unconscious personification of the combined forces of the universe... which clearly does have "agency" (the ability to act) and surely does modify all kinds of things, all the time.

@skado In order for the universe to be God, it must have more than the ability to act. it must have the ability to REACT. As noted, the claims of reaction, again, modifying what goes on, has never been documented. The essence of atheism is that agency on the part of God is not apparent.

@racocn8

“ In order for the universe to be God, it must have more than the ability to act. it must have the ability to REACT.”

According to what authority? Deists certainly don’t think that way.

@skado That would be the authority of logic. If God is the universe, but cannot react, then God has no agency, and said God is indistinguishable from a Godless universe.

@racocn8
But I’m not claiming that said God is distinguishable from a Godless universe. I’m saying it isn’t. That’s my point.

By what “logical” process do you arrive at the conclusion that gods must be defined by their ability to react? If you arrive at that conclusion through logic, you can tell me the logical steps. I think it is just an assumption you make about the definition of the word God, which is not, in fact, a universally accepted assumption.

@skado If a universe that has a god is indistinguishable from a universe that doesn't, what definition of God is left? If God doesn't, or can't or won't intervene, that would be a god that has no power nor agency. To what end does one suggest that such a god exists? For that sort of God, why claim there is only one? Why not billions? Such claims lack meaning and function. What meaning or function do you propose for God, if its existence is indistinguishable from non-existence?

@racocn8
My point is that the universe does have massive power and it is constantly "intervening" in our human plans. It does have agency (the ability to act) and uses it all the time. If it didn't, the idea of God would have been forgotten a long time ago. Shit happens. Some people attribute conscious intention to what is actually just natural forces, because that is just how the human mind works. But that conscious intention need not exist for the universe to continue doing all the stuff it does (according to the best, IMHO, scientific thinking today).

My point is one about linguistics rather than one about ontology. The thing that humans have anciently, and still today, called God, does exist, and does act upon us, but is really (most likely) just the universe doing what the universe does... but without the often assumed self awareness or capacity for intention.

The definition of God that is left standing is that of supreme being. Being is something that exists, and supreme means the greatest. The universe is, just as God has been described, the greatest single entity humans can conceive of, is indeed all-powerful, and did indeed create us and all living creatures, and whose laws we must indeed obey or suffer the consequences. So whether we call it God or universe makes no difference in how it behaves toward us. It's not hard to see how pre-science civilizations would anthropomorphize such an all-powerful entity. Why people still do it today is a little less easy to see, but people are perennially resistant to science.

@Skado Your first and third paragraphs contain wholly unfounded claims and assertions. "...whose laws we must indeed obey or suffer the consequences." Where does that come from, other than rank superstition? Certainly the universe has power, but no apparent agency, zero. What are the consequences, and what are these rules you speak of? Do you mean like stepping off a cliff? Is it God, or gravity? Ultimately, the God concept has no real demonstrable meaning nor utility, and what's really going on is rationalization against letting go in the face of disambiguation.

@racocn8

No superstition involved.

Yes, like gravity. We don't get to violate the laws of physics. The only way we can bend them is to lean on higher laws of physics. It's not a question whether it's God or gravity. Those are just names humans use to refer to those laws. The laws exist.

So let's take one point at a time. Here's a link to the definition I have in mind for "agency". Definition number nine.
[dictionary.com]
Please send me a link to the definition you're thinking of. Thanks.

@skado Definition number nine works in the context I was using it. Gravity may well seem like God, but I'm pretty sure they're different, even in your universe (maybe not?). But again, when you say: "...whose laws we must indeed obey or suffer the consequences." - - In reference to God, such a statement usually refers to scriptural injunctions. What did that statement mean for you? Examples?

@racocn8
Many of the qualities people have attributed to God could equally describe the universe. That’s all I’m saying. Not that the universe is literally a god, as people usually envision gods, but that all the qualities the universe possesses would have been described by first century (and earlier) humans in godlike language, because that was the extent of their understanding at the time.

@racocn8
So, on the agency issue… the definition doesn’t specify anything a universe couldn’t do. Agency is just the capacity to act. The universe is in constant action.

@skado The definition of agency includes this example: "We may have our free agency, but we are responsible for our choices." The critical part of this definition of agency is the capacity for choice, and I would venture to add, conscious choice. Nothing about the universe suggests the existence of conscious choice being enacted. The absence of evidence for agency as part of the natural, inanimate universe argues forcefully against the conventional understanding of God overlapping the universe. The natural environment does not make choices. Christians are not rewarded with wealth for believing. Their lives are not spared in disasters. No agency means no God. If God has no choice, that's a notion of God that has no use or meaning, so far as Humanity is concerned.

@racocn8
The usage suggestion is in no way a part of the definition. There are no elements of choice in any of the several applicable definitions. Choice is not only not a critical part of the definition, it’s no part at all.

And yes, it is you who are arbitrarily adding consciousness. There is absolutely no hint of any description of consciousness in the definition.

Regardless of definitions, I am certainly not suggesting the universe is conscious.
You are as free as any of us to choose how you define any word, but you don’t have the ability to decide what might or might not be meaningful to others.

Everything you are rejecting presumably about my post is material you brought to it. None of it has been claimed by me.

American Heritage mentions nothing about choice or consciousness.

[ahdictionary.com]

@skado OK. I admit that I have been using the term 'agency' according to my understanding of its meaning, but that understanding is correct. Choice is a critical part of the definition, even if your reference only mentions it in the example. Otherwise, I wouldn't have concurred with that definition. When people discuss whether teenagers should or shouldn't have agency regarding critical decisions made affecting their lives, agency is often used. And, it is used in regards to their capacity to make competent choices. Being able to make a choice necessarily implies consciousness, so that is not merely my add-on.

Here are some relevant extracts from Google's Free Will page: " “Free Will” means you have the power to make choices. “Agency” means that you have the power to act on those choices. “Moral Agency” means that you can make moral judgments and act according to them." and: ""...agency" refers to the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices, based on their will,...", and "What does it mean for a person to have agency?
In social science, agency is defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. ... One's agency is one's independent capability or ability to act on one's will."

These clarifications emphasize my point that nothing in the inanimate universe expresses agency. Again, without agency, the capacity to act on free will and make choices, no God is apparent in the way that the majority of people consider God to be an active agent with free will, making choices that affect that universe. Declaring the universe to be God does nothing to change the definition or meaning of the term universe. It does imply the universe has some unseen supernatural quality; unseen and unseeable, undetectable and irrelevant to any conventional notion of the universe.

@racocn8
Which ever definitions you like has no effect on my intentions. So let me clarify. I have not and do not claim the universe has choice or consciousness. If I used a word that means something different to you than to me then that says nothing about my intentions. The universe has the ability to act, and that is all I’m claiming. You are arguing with elements you have added to my intentions.

@skado You claim God exists by redefining God as the universe, without evidence. Can you show any value to that claim? Do you feel better being able to say you believe in God? What are your intentions? (from OP) "the issue remaining is the question of God’s nature, not of God’s existence." What does redefining God as the universe tell you about that nature? That because the universe acts, that God acts? Are you trying to use this reasoning for when you respond to believers?

@racocn8
In this entire exchange I’ve not been able to get any of my points across such that you understood them as I intended. I wish I understood why, so I could correct my method of communicating, but I don’t.
If we were making any progress at all, at understanding each other, I would hang in with you, but we’re not.

Take care -

Not all pantheisms, but a particular pantheism, yes. The pantheism that simply regards the word “God” to be another word for “Universe”. A solution to the question of God’s existence, but not ANY kind of solution to the question of God’s nature.

@skado In your pantheism is the Universe conscious? Self-conscious?

@skado What type of pantheisms do you reject?

@Heraclitus

I don't need any kind of pantheism that attempts to describe God's nature beyond what is observable and/or verifiable by scientific methods. I'm not aware of any evidence that demonstrates consciousness in the Universe.

@skado /I'm not aware of any evidence that demonstrates consciousness in the Universe/
Not sure I get that. All of life in the universe is conscious by definition.

@Heraclitus
I assumed when you asked if the Universe was conscious you meant ‘does the entirety of the Universe have a unified consciousness?’
Obviously some creatures (not sure about all) possess individual consciousness, but I’m not aware of evidence suggesting that the Universe as a whole has its own unified consciousness or self-awareness.

Your argument is why I am an Ignostic.

I know those effects are very convincing, to some folks, that there must be something “beyond” everyday natural existence, but I take them to be the fully natural responses of the human brain when dosed with various chemicals. The fact that we even have receptors in our brain for those chemicals suggests that we co-evolved with those various plants and mushrooms, etc. And I had hallucinogenic experiences long before I started experimenting with drugs. It’s just something the human brain evolved to do. But it’s easy to see how people might interpret those experiences in a religious context. They can be powerful.

racocn8:

What you're describing is the natural, psychoactive properties of shrooms, not any supposedly metaphysical or supernatural properties.

@Toonman Perhaps so. However, the quality of what is perceived SEEMS to be beyond what one's own brain is capable of generating on its own. The spontaneous and continuous generation of elaborate designs far exceeds one's imagination. The emotional components double or triple down on the impression that it is mere psychoactivity.

@racocn8 Far exceeds YOUR imagination, maybe.

@Toonman Apparently not...

@racocn8 Appatently so. When you use "one" you are generally including all people in general.

@Toonman It may be problematic to generalize a subjective experience. Still, I suspect that others perceive some or all of the same effects/"hallucinations".

@racocn8 But that doesn't mean, as you said, that the "designs exceed one's imagination".

Speak for yourself.

I can imagine quite a bit, and without help.

@Toonman I see...

Except in this case, the object is already found. Most of us accept the existence of the universe as axiomatic.

@skado With the exception of yourself, of course.

@anglophone
No exception here.

@skado You now deny your own words. Sigh.

@skado

Somewhere there's an attic with a portrait of you getting smarter.

@anglophone
Could you be more specific?
Thanks.

@skado I refer you to your own words.

@anglophone
Well there’s a lot of them out there. Could you help me out and specify which ones? Thanks.

@skado No, as I have no inclination to pander to your tendency for prevarication.

@anglophone

I know a hit-and-run when I see one.

Best wishes..

@skado Byeee!

@anglophone

bye now

What part of "supreme" don't you understand?

@skado What part of "Which god?" do you not understand?

@anglophone
No part. The supreme being. There is only one. But it has many names.

@skado Please demonstrate the existence of this "supreme being" of which you speak.

@anglophone
I don't know what you mean by "demonstrate". Please help me understand your meaning by demonstrating the existence of the universe.

@skado The existence of the universe does not amount to a demonstration of the existence of any "supreme being". And I'll have French dressing with your word salad, please.

@anglophone
OK, I understand that is your personal belief - thanks for sharing. But what, for illustration purposes, amounts to a demonstration of the existence of the universe? I'll just have oil and vinegar with that please.

@skado I believe you have beliefs. You have my deepest sympathy.

@anglophone
Thanks for sharing your beliefs. Will you be able to demonstrate the existence of the universe, or was that just a bluff?

@skado I have no inclination to demonstrate the existence of the universe to any Philadelphus virginalis. I decline your request.

@anglophone
As I suspected.

@skado And your failure to demonstrate the existence of this "supreme being" of yours was wholly predictable.

@anglophone
A supreme being is philosophically unavoidable.
A being is something that exists.
Supreme is the greatest, utmost, or extreme.
The greatest thing conceivable by humans is reality, the universe, or nature, otherwise known as God.

If anything exists, and we take it as self-evident that it does, then the entirety of what exists is an unavoidable concept.
There. I’ve tossed your salad for you. Enjoy.

@skado Your verbal verbiage amuses me.

Yes, it was their opinion, and mine. And those opinions are about the nature of God, not about the existence of God. Atheists are fond of saying they don't believe in the existence of a God of ANY description, but for reasons I have yet to understand, they don't seem to have considered Einstein's God, because I'm pretty sure they do believe in the existence of the universe.

We have pictures of the parts of the universe that we can see, and that are not faked.

...as do the gods they refer to.

@skado Evidence?

The nonsense you posited in your original post isn't evidence.

It isn't logic.

It isnt even a compelling idea

If it wasn't a tightly coiled pile on the front lawn of your mind it'd be just another baseless claim.

Nothing you've written so far makes anybody here want to take it or you seriously.

@Toonman

Skado’s extended debates are adding to his points

@yvilletom No, they're not. They cannot be demonstrated by evidence.

You're full of shit, too.

@Toonman Ho, ho, ho. I’m laughing.

@yvilletom Because you're full of shit.

Are you often mistaken for a chemical toilet?

@Toonman

Hey, you’re doing it with style.

@yvilletom

Coming from you that's a compliment.