> > A good start. I like #1, but I don't like the word "being" since being
> > implies existance, and H. Richard could never agree to that.
>
> ***Why would you need my agreement for your definition? It concerns me not.***
>

I was hoping we could agree on a concept. That does not mean you have to believe it exists. Re-examine your argument: do you really think that if something is not there it does not have to be defined? Then what is it that is not there? What are you saying does not exist? I don't understand what you don't believe in because you don't define the concept.

---

> I agree with your editting preferences
> I would add 'unknowable' -it agrees with my understanding of theology
>

How about this:

God: "Some undefinable state, conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator of the universe, and unknowable by physical means of proof".

There have been many who believe that they spiritually know God.

And I hate to keep repeating myself, but is this close to the concept we have been discussing in this thread? Is this what atheists believe does not exist? Is this a general, pantheistic working definition?

---

>There have been many who believe that they spiritually know God

And threin lies the big-ass rub

Charlie knows 'em
Pete Knows 'em a little
Betsy- she's sure she knows em'

But when they get together for a cold one at the corner after work you'ld think to hear all that yelling they weren't talking about the same guy...cc

> > Re-examine your argument: do you really think that if
> > something is not there it does not have to be defined?
>
> ***Yes.***
>
> > Then what is it that is not there?
>
> ***Nothing.***
>
But an atheist is defined as "One that disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods", so you deny the existance of . . . nothing? Then you are not saying anything. If you are an atheist, then what you do not believe in is: nothing. Either your philosophy is beyond me, or you do not understand it yourself, or you are playing word games. In any case, you do not have to respond (unless you want to get the last word).

Are there any others out there who may think a definition may be useful to the discussion? Any additions or corrections to the general concept put forth so far? I'm shooting for some common understanding (despite your personal beliefs on way or another) so that this discussion can move ahead.

---

> > > Re-examine your argument: do you really think that if
> > > something is not there it does not have to be defined?
> >
> > ***Yes.***
> >
> > > Then what is it that is not there?
> >
> > ***Nothing.***
> >
> But an atheist is defined as "One that disbelieves or denies the existence of
> God or gods", so you deny the existance of . . . nothing? Then you are not
> saying anyting. If you are an atheist, then what you do not believe in
> is: nothing. Either your philosophy is beyond me, or you do not understand it
> yourself, or you are playing word games. In any case, you do not have to
> respond (unless you want to get the last word).
>
> Are there any others out there who may think a definition may be useful to the
> discussion? Any additions or corrections to the general concept put forth so
> far? I'm shooting for some common understanding (despite your personal
> beliefs on way or another) so that this discussion can move ahead.
>
IMHO an atheist is someone who does not require a god or godhead to explain the what is, or what, was the inexplicable. Nor does he require the use of myths or legends to fill in any gaps of knowledge or socialization skills.

---

Account frozen...

> IMHO an atheist is someone who does not require a god or godhead to explain
> the what is, or what, was the inexplicable. Nor does he require the use of
> myths or legends to fill in any gaps of knowledge or socialization skills.
>
[Edit for understandability]
That's a very good point. Do you think that's what H. Richard is trying to say? If so, it still doesn't define what a "God or godhead" is, which as you say, is not required to "explain the what is, or what, was the inexplicable."

---

Wordweaver

You have stated that the New Testament was written by eye witnesses to the events of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. Will you pleasr identify the writers you believe to have been eye witnesses?

I believe J of N to be a fictional character invented decades after the supposed crucifixion by the anonymous authors of the gospels.

I have never seen one iota of contemporary evidence for the existence of J of N and I believe that none exists.

---

Dave Nelson

Good to see you here Admiral. Have you followed the recent posts that are discussing the definition of God? Would you like to weigh in? I think that this definition process and other discussions can go on simultaneously. I would like to hear what WordWeaver has to say on the subject also, as long as the definition is not specific to one understanding of religion (since the goal is to define a common understanding).

---

Congradulations everyone. This thread has finally turned into a philosophical discussion without being hijacked by redundant christoroboto's and their fellow travelers. It would become even more interesting if persons of other faiths and beliefs would join us and share their views.

Let us hope that this will now remain a NO PREACHING ZONE.

---

Account frozen...

>Proof of God is not needed, if god is there then “he” is if not then “he” is not
There is no need to try to prove or disprove his existence

There you go!

> The big bang theory describes the state before it as the universe being full
> of highly energetic particles
> According to there state that is so hot they would not form matter the motion
> of these would be travelling faster than light and because of that there was
> no light
> Because of there speed time would be irrelevant and immeasurable as
> They are travelling so fast that time is distorted to the point it is not
> measurable
> As all objects are travelling at this speed then time in the sense we know it
> would equate to the following
> The .1 second prior to the point of the big bang as we measure it would be
> longer than the time the whole of the universe is calculated to of existed
> after it
>
> As to if a god existed the fact that the universe was full of something prior
> to the big bang would make the “none” explanation of “God” wrong and more like
> the inverse of it
> But still dose not prove that a God exists
>

Dave,

You have come very close to my own personal proof of the existence of God. But my proof depends on a definition of God that I have worked out for myself, based on various religious teachings (not all Christian). I don’t hold this proof to apply to anyone else, nor do I expect anyone else to understand or believe in it. It is my attempt at a logical path to understanding of my own spiritual nature.

The role of science is to explain why things act as they do. In theorizing about the beginning of the universe science has worked backwards from the present to a point about 15 billion years ago. Much discussion has gone into what happened in the first few nanoseconds, and before that, and before that, . . . If the point of science is to find the cause, at some point going back in time, there will be no other provable physical cause. This, to me, is where God comes in.

What is God? My definition is different from the one Carl Cuseo and I have been working on, but that one will do. God can be defined as: "Some undefinable state, conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator of the universe, and unknowable by physical means of proof".

That definition fits what I have just described as the precursor to the physical creation of the universe, a universe that we now see and experience and know to exist by our very being. But what I have described is omnipotent, in that it was the cause of all physical reality, and assuming sentience (this is where you may find a flaw in my discussion), it seems that the mere fact that it intended to create everything gives it a kind of omnisciency. To me, since we are limited to the physical world to determine what happened at the beginning, it would be a logical impossibility for physical beings to determine what happened before physical existence existed, at least not by physical evidence or experiments.

This is where spirituality comes in. The purpose of religion is not to tell us how the universe was created, but to tell us how to live our lives in such a way that we benefit ourselves and each other. This is in contradiction to the self-preservation instinct, which has us live our lives in a way which only benefits ourselves. I do not have to believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible, because it is there to teach me something about myself, not about the physical world. And while we’re at it, I don’t think that Jesus had a monopoly on spiritual truth and moral values. But that discussion is for another time.

---

> Okay, so give me a better suggestion for the term of my non belief. I am an
> ætheist, because the term was thrust upon me by the religious. I, frankly,
> could care less what the term is called. In German, the term I use is nicht
> Gottgläubig - not a believer in God. It's just semantics isn't it?
>

Not a believer in what now? Tell me what you do not believe in.

God.

What is God?

Nothing.

Who's on first?

---

Hi Tom

When I was a kid, a long time ago , there was a comic strip based on a bunch of school kids. I can't remember the name of the strip, but one of the charactors was always saying to a couple of the others "why don't you and him fight? I'll hold your coats". I think I'll just let you guys continue to duke it out while I, figuratively ,hold your coats. When you have mutually exhausted each other I'll step in, pick up the pieces, state my case and declare victory.

---

Dave Nelson

>
> Hi Tom
>
> When I was a kid, a long time ago , there was a comic strip based on a bunch
> of school kids. I can't remember the name of the strip, but one of the
> charactors was always saying to a couple of the others "why don't you and him
> fight? I'll hold your coats". I think I'll just let you guys continue to duke
> it out while I, figuratively ,hold your coats. When you have mutually
> exhausted each other I'll step in, pick up the pieces, state my case and
> declare victory.
>
>
You're smarter than I, sir. But your input would be appreciated.

---

No Tom, I'm not smarter than you, I'm just older than you.

---

Dave Nelson

> No Tom, I'm not smarter than you, I'm just older than you.
>
Sometimes that helps.

---