3 ms·
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 ac
by 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 agoMight help not to capitalise the G. I think that implies something more than it doesn't.
- mmalone 12y agoNot implying anything other than that it's a proper name. Meh.
- nitrogen 12y agoI'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.