5 ms·

How are you defining God? Have we looked for God in all of the places that people believe God lives / controls? The universe either came from somewhere or has

by mmalone 12y ago

How are you defining God? Have we looked for God in all of the places that people believe God lives / controls? The universe either came from somewhere or has always existed... If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe" how would you prove or disprove God's existence?

nitrogen 12y ago
If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe"... ...then you would have to justify that definition before expecting anyone to accept, prove, or disprove it. FWIW I was once a believer and frequently associate with believers, so I have some experience in the matter and have given it considerable thought.
- mmalone 12y ago
  I have to justify that that's what I mean when I say "god," or I have to justify that God created the universe? It is a common definition, so I figured you'd accept it. The point is I'm not talking about a specific God or assuming anything about the nature of God like many religions do. Once you remove all that baggage God is just a term that means "the thing that created the universe." So to deny the existence of God you must deny that the universe was created by something. I don't see how you can make such a claim without any evidence. Last I checked there was no scientific explanation for the creation of the universe.
  - prawn 12y ago
    Might help not to capitalise the G. I think that implies something more than it doesn't.
    - mmalone 12y ago
      Not implying anything other than that it's a proper name. Meh.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    I'm afraid I don't see the benefit of believing in a tautologically defined creator of the universe, nor do I see why such a thing should be called "god" or "God" when that term/name has so much additional meaning associated with it. It's an unnecessary complication; if calling the Big Bang or whatever might have preceded it "god" provides useful explanatory and predictive power, then such a definition might gain some traction. But as it is, the universe appears indistinguishable from a naturalistic physical process.

by mmalone 12y ago

nitrogen 12y ago

If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe"... ...then you would have to justify that definition before expecting anyone to accept, prove, or disprove it. FWIW I was once a believer and frequently associate with believers, so I have some experience in the matter and have given it considerable thought.

mmalone 12y ago
I have to justify that that's what I mean when I say "god," or I have to justify that God created the universe? It is a common definition, so I figured you'd accept it. The point is I'm not talking about a specific God or assuming anything about the nature of God like many religions do. Once you remove all that baggage God is just a term that means "the thing that created the universe." So to deny the existence of God you must deny that the universe was created by something. I don't see how you can make such a claim without any evidence. Last I checked there was no scientific explanation for the creation of the universe.
- prawn 12y ago
  Might help not to capitalise the G. I think that implies something more than it doesn't.
  - mmalone 12y ago
    Not implying anything other than that it's a proper name. Meh.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  I'm afraid I don't see the benefit of believing in a tautologically defined creator of the universe, nor do I see why such a thing should be called "god" or "God" when that term/name has so much additional meaning associated with it. It's an unnecessary complication; if calling the Big Bang or whatever might have preceded it "god" provides useful explanatory and predictive power, then such a definition might gain some traction. But as it is, the universe appears indistinguishable from a naturalistic physical process.