Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Atheists view on Spinoza's God

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 8:38:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you think Spinoza's conception of God is plausible?

Spinoza's philosophy is that anthropomorphism is not rational when dealing with the idea of a being as powerful as God, and it is wrong to think of God as having human attributes like intelligence and will for example. He argued that God was an entirely impersonal power and cannot adhere to human prayer, needs, request, and demands. He argued that God does not act according to reasons or purposes, and is a mechanism that is nothing like anything humans could relate to, but we could see evidence of in nature.

Now, I believe this God to be actually plausible...What do other Atheists think?
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 8:53:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 8:38:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think Spinoza's conception of God is plausible?

Spinoza's philosophy is that anthropomorphism is not rational when dealing with the idea of a being as powerful as God, and it is wrong to think of God as having human attributes like intelligence and will for example. He argued that God was an entirely impersonal power and cannot adhere to human prayer, needs, request, and demands. He argued that God does not act according to reasons or purposes, and is a mechanism that is nothing like anything humans could relate to, but we could see evidence of in nature.

Now, I believe this God to be actually plausible...What do other Atheists think?

If we can see evidence of something then we are relating to it (in the broad sense of the term).
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 8:58:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 8:53:16 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/20/2012 8:38:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think Spinoza's conception of God is plausible?

Spinoza's philosophy is that anthropomorphism is not rational when dealing with the idea of a being as powerful as God, and it is wrong to think of God as having human attributes like intelligence and will for example. He argued that God was an entirely impersonal power and cannot adhere to human prayer, needs, request, and demands. He argued that God does not act according to reasons or purposes, and is a mechanism that is nothing like anything humans could relate to, but we could see evidence of in nature.

Now, I believe this God to be actually plausible...What do other Atheists think?

If we can see evidence of something then we are relating to it (in the broad sense of the term).

In the broad sense of the term, yes.

I meant relate like if I did something, and somebody else who also did that same something as well said "I've done X too, I can relate"...Basically, we can't personally relate to the hypothetical mechanism is what I was trying to get at.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 9:00:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 8:38:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think Spinoza's conception of God is plausible?

Spinoza's philosophy is that anthropomorphism is not rational when dealing with the idea of a being as powerful as God, and it is wrong to think of God as having human attributes like intelligence and will for example. He argued that God was an entirely impersonal power and cannot adhere to human prayer, needs, request, and demands. He argued that God does not act according to reasons or purposes, and is a mechanism that is nothing like anything humans could relate to, but we could see evidence of in nature.

Now, I believe this God to be actually plausible...What do other Atheists think?

Yeah, it's called the ultimate laws of physics. In which case we already have a term for that: the ultimate laws of physics.

Spinoza's god, and other pantheistic interpretations of god, are merely a hair's breadth from being an atheist. I don't know, maybe there is some emotional satisfaction to be gained from calling something god.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 9:10:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 9:00:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/20/2012 8:38:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think Spinoza's conception of God is plausible?

Spinoza's philosophy is that anthropomorphism is not rational when dealing with the idea of a being as powerful as God, and it is wrong to think of God as having human attributes like intelligence and will for example. He argued that God was an entirely impersonal power and cannot adhere to human prayer, needs, request, and demands. He argued that God does not act according to reasons or purposes, and is a mechanism that is nothing like anything humans could relate to, but we could see evidence of in nature.

Now, I believe this God to be actually plausible...What do other Atheists think?

Yeah, it's called the ultimate laws of physics. In which case we already have a term for that: the ultimate laws of physics.

Spinoza's god, and other pantheistic interpretations of god, are merely a hair's breadth from being an atheist. I don't know, maybe there is some emotional satisfaction to be gained from calling something god.

I agree with you 100%. I personally believe that there is a higher power but it is non-sentient, non-intelligent, doesn't have the ability to care what humans want, and does what it does without a mindful purpose or will.

The Ultimate Laws of Physics fits this description perfectly.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 9:41:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 9:10:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/20/2012 9:00:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/20/2012 8:38:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think Spinoza's conception of God is plausible?

Spinoza's philosophy is that anthropomorphism is not rational when dealing with the idea of a being as powerful as God, and it is wrong to think of God as having human attributes like intelligence and will for example. He argued that God was an entirely impersonal power and cannot adhere to human prayer, needs, request, and demands. He argued that God does not act according to reasons or purposes, and is a mechanism that is nothing like anything humans could relate to, but we could see evidence of in nature.

Now, I believe this God to be actually plausible...What do other Atheists think?

Yeah, it's called the ultimate laws of physics. In which case we already have a term for that: the ultimate laws of physics.

Spinoza's god, and other pantheistic interpretations of god, are merely a hair's breadth from being an atheist. I don't know, maybe there is some emotional satisfaction to be gained from calling something god.

I agree with you 100%.

So it's a terminological preference?

I personally believe that there is a higher power

Higher than what? What type of power?

but it is non-sentient, non-intelligent, doesn't have the ability to care what humans want, and does what it does without a mindful purpose or will.

The Ultimate Laws of Physics fits this description perfectly.

So "The Ultimate Laws of Physics" > "ultimate laws of physics"?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 9:41:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 9:10:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/20/2012 9:00:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/20/2012 8:38:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think Spinoza's conception of God is plausible?

Spinoza's philosophy is that anthropomorphism is not rational when dealing with the idea of a being as powerful as God, and it is wrong to think of God as having human attributes like intelligence and will for example. He argued that God was an entirely impersonal power and cannot adhere to human prayer, needs, request, and demands. He argued that God does not act according to reasons or purposes, and is a mechanism that is nothing like anything humans could relate to, but we could see evidence of in nature.

Now, I believe this God to be actually plausible...What do other Atheists think?

Yeah, it's called the ultimate laws of physics. In which case we already have a term for that: the ultimate laws of physics.

Spinoza's god, and other pantheistic interpretations of god, are merely a hair's breadth from being an atheist. I don't know, maybe there is some emotional satisfaction to be gained from calling something god.

I agree with you 100%. I personally believe that there is a higher power but it is non-sentient, non-intelligent, doesn't have the ability to care what humans want, and does what it does without a mindful purpose or will.

The Ultimate Laws of Physics fits this description perfectly.

The Fool: All Spinoza does really is substitute UNIVERSE with word GOD.

Rational: : The Ultimate Laws of Physics fits this description perfectly.

The Fool: ITs not that simple. This is Niave Empiricism. You are forgeting to account for the fact that you have a mind. Rememeber science is evidence based but you never get Proofs(certainty) only probabilites. We may have a new quantum physics theory tommorow and our understanding will Change. But hopelly we are always progressing closer and closer.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 9:42:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 8:58:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/20/2012 8:53:16 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/20/2012 8:38:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think Spinoza's conception of God is plausible?

Spinoza's philosophy is that anthropomorphism is not rational when dealing with the idea of a being as powerful as God, and it is wrong to think of God as having human attributes like intelligence and will for example. He argued that God was an entirely impersonal power and cannot adhere to human prayer, needs, request, and demands. He argued that God does not act according to reasons or purposes, and is a mechanism that is nothing like anything humans could relate to, but we could see evidence of in nature.

Now, I believe this God to be actually plausible...What do other Atheists think?

If we can see evidence of something then we are relating to it (in the broad sense of the term).

In the broad sense of the term, yes.

I meant relate like if I did something, and somebody else who also did that same something as well said "I've done X too, I can relate"...Basically, we can't personally relate to the hypothetical mechanism is what I was trying to get at.

What do you mean by "hypothetical mechanism"?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 9:53:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I like to call Pantheism the "God is an apple" position.

I see a red apple. I point it out to my friend and say "that's god." My friend says "really? Can the apple do miracles?"

"No, God is not anthormorphic or a creator. He's that apple. They're identical."

"Wait, how would I be able to figure out whether that apple is God?"

"You can't. God's traits are not distinguishable from the apples. Because God as we conceive him is red, juicy, and full of proteins, when we see an apple, we must conclude it is god."

Our assumptions of "god" as omnipotent/omniscient/etc are no more warranted than the assumption that "god"s ideal form is red and juicy.

I say, leave pantheists to their apples.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 10:46:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it is the only thing worth being referenced as "the one god".

It also most closely matches the earliest understandings of what God is.

It is not the same thing as pointing at an apple and calling it God. The universe is eternal, it is the ultimate authority, and it is mysterious in so many ways to our puny minds. It is obviously a higher power. It perfectly fits the ascribed attributes of God. An apple is a little beotch.

It also isn't just for people who are attached to the concept of God. It is the God of those who have solved the God riddle. A If you believe in Spinoza's God, you ARE technically an atheist. Atheists can claim that pantheists are just attached to the concept of God, but by doing so they expose their own aversion to the word.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:11:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 9:53:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
I like to call Pantheism the "God is an apple" position.

I see a red apple. I point it out to my friend and say "that's god." My friend says "really? Can the apple do miracles?"

"No, God is not anthormorphic or a creator. He's that apple. They're identical."

"Wait, how would I be able to figure out whether that apple is God?"

"You can't. God's traits are not distinguishable from the apples. Because God as we conceive him is red, juicy, and full of proteins, when we see an apple, we must conclude it is god."

Our assumptions of "god" as omnipotent/omniscient/etc are no more warranted than the assumption that "god"s ideal form is red and juicy.

I say, leave pantheists to their apples.

That made no sense....
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:13:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 10:46:08 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I think it is the only thing worth being referenced as "the one god".

It also most closely matches the earliest understandings of what God is.

It is not the same thing as pointing at an apple and calling it God. The universe is eternal, it is the ultimate authority, and it is mysterious in so many ways to our puny minds. It is obviously a higher power. It perfectly fits the ascribed attributes of God. An apple is a little beotch.

It also isn't just for people who are attached to the concept of God. It is the God of those who have solved the God riddle. A If you believe in Spinoza's God, you ARE technically an atheist. Atheists can claim that pantheists are just attached to the concept of God, but by doing so they expose their own aversion to the word.

I just thought it was interesting that there was a concept of God that fits perfectly with what I believe. The problem is, I define God as a sentient cause of the universe, which means even by adhering to Spinoza's beliefs I'm still an Atheist.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:51:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:13:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/21/2012 10:46:08 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I think it is the only thing worth being referenced as "the one god".

It also most closely matches the earliest understandings of what God is.

It is not the same thing as pointing at an apple and calling it God. The universe is eternal, it is the ultimate authority, and it is mysterious in so many ways to our puny minds. It is obviously a higher power. It perfectly fits the ascribed attributes of God. An apple is a little beotch.

It also isn't just for people who are attached to the concept of God. It is the God of those who have solved the God riddle. A If you believe in Spinoza's God, you ARE technically an atheist. Atheists can claim that pantheists are just attached to the concept of God, but by doing so they expose their own aversion to the word.

I just thought it was interesting that there was a concept of God that fits perfectly with what I believe. The problem is, I define God as a sentient cause of the universe, which means even by adhering to Spinoza's beliefs I'm still an Atheist.

Then you don't believe in Spinoza's God. Spinoza's God is impersonal and holds that the natural world is infinite. This conflicts with your belief that God is a sentient cause of the Universe.

Sentient =/= Impersonal

Finite universe with beginning(cause) =/= Infinite nature

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 1:58:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:13:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/21/2012 10:46:08 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I think it is the only thing worth being referenced as "the one god".

It also most closely matches the earliest understandings of what God is.

It is not the same thing as pointing at an apple and calling it God. The universe is eternal, it is the ultimate authority, and it is mysterious in so many ways to our puny minds. It is obviously a higher power. It perfectly fits the ascribed attributes of God. An apple is a little beotch.

It also isn't just for people who are attached to the concept of God. It is the God of those who have solved the God riddle. A If you believe in Spinoza's God, you ARE technically an atheist. Atheists can claim that pantheists are just attached to the concept of God, but by doing so they expose their own aversion to the word.

I just thought it was interesting that there was a concept of God that fits perfectly with what I believe. The problem is, I define God as a sentient cause of the universe, which means even by adhering to Spinoza's beliefs I'm still an Atheist.

The Fool: yeah I had found it the most rational example too. when I first learned about it. But the context it was writin in says alot.

I think he was really an atheist. You have to think that his family had just fled from Spain to avoid the Spanish Inquisition,who burned anybody on the stake for even questioning the possibility of their not being a God. This were like detectives who would go undercover in the population to see who thinks differently from the bible and then get them burned at the stake in front of people to keep them believing out of fear. As his family move to the Netherlands which at the time was more liberal about beliefs, he again got banned from his Jewish community about having such pantheistic ideas. And he then wrote his book in isolation. Like many of the enlightenment philosophers. They claimed to belief in god. But you could see in their philosophy that they had big doubt but they never say that or they could get murdered for it as so many people had been.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 2:26:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:51:39 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:13:23 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/21/2012 10:46:08 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I think it is the only thing worth being referenced as "the one god".

It also most closely matches the earliest understandings of what God is.

It is not the same thing as pointing at an apple and calling it God. The universe is eternal, it is the ultimate authority, and it is mysterious in so many ways to our puny minds. It is obviously a higher power. It perfectly fits the ascribed attributes of God. An apple is a little beotch.

It also isn't just for people who are attached to the concept of God. It is the God of those who have solved the God riddle. A If you believe in Spinoza's God, you ARE technically an atheist. Atheists can claim that pantheists are just attached to the concept of God, but by doing so they expose their own aversion to the word.

I just thought it was interesting that there was a concept of God that fits perfectly with what I believe. The problem is, I define God as a sentient cause of the universe, which means even by adhering to Spinoza's beliefs I'm still an Atheist.

Then you don't believe in Spinoza's God. Spinoza's God is impersonal and holds that the natural world is infinite. This conflicts with your belief that God is a sentient cause of the Universe.

Sentient =/= Impersonal

Finite universe with beginning(cause) =/= Infinite nature

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...




.
.
.

Your post didn't make any sense. If you read my post, I was claiming that I found Spinoza's God interesting because it doesn't conflict with what I believe, however, it doesn't fit with what I call a God (a sentient being). Therefore, I'm still an Atheist because I don't believe Spinoza's God fits the definition of what is commonly referred to as God.

"Sentient =/= Impersonal"

Agreed. Hence, why I don't like calling Spiniza's God, God. I just found it interesting that there was a concept of God with didn't conflict with Atheism which I found ironic.

"Finite universe with beginning(cause) =/= Infinite nature"

Spinoza said that nature is eternal, he never said that this known universe was infinite. Regardless, nobody said the universe is all that exists, it could be part of some Eternal Ultimate Nature that are limited finite minds couldn't comprehend. We have no idea...However, out of all the possibilities, a sentient, intelligent, loving, just, and moral God seems the least plausible based off how the universe is and based off probability. The idea of a human-like God just reeks of petty anthropomorphism.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 7:58:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Universe was always meant to mean all things that exist. The word didn't come into ciruclation till the 1600;s. There was never any Universe in the bible. It was just earth and sun. They just changed the wordng. God and heavem were really in the clouds and hell was really underground. As we learn over time that he not there and nore are these places. They keep pushing back further and furhter, to the point he just is always very conveintly hidden where no body could check. lol. If thre was actually and out side outside the universe and we got there. They were just say "well its he's even more outside" in the outiside, outside universe. ANd if we go there. He is on the outside, outside of the outside. Yet some how at the very same time/ He reveals himself to every and we purposely reject them. The actuall make claims that they know are minds. As if they have supernatural powers too!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:06:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 1:11:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/20/2012 9:53:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
I like to call Pantheism the "God is an apple" position.

I see a red apple. I point it out to my friend and say "that's god." My friend says "really? Can the apple do miracles?"

"No, God is not anthormorphic or a creator. He's that apple. They're identical."

"Wait, how would I be able to figure out whether that apple is God?"

"You can't. God's traits are not distinguishable from the apples. Because God as we conceive him is red, juicy, and full of proteins, when we see an apple, we must conclude it is god."

Our assumptions of "god" as omnipotent/omniscient/etc are no more warranted than the assumption that "god"s ideal form is red and juicy.

I say, leave pantheists to their apples.

That made no sense....

Apple= universe
Red, juicy = omnipotent/omniscient
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:08:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 2:06:22 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:11:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/20/2012 9:53:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
I like to call Pantheism the "God is an apple" position.

I see a red apple. I point it out to my friend and say "that's god." My friend says "really? Can the apple do miracles?"

"No, God is not anthormorphic or a creator. He's that apple. They're identical."

"Wait, how would I be able to figure out whether that apple is God?"

"You can't. God's traits are not distinguishable from the apples. Because God as we conceive him is red, juicy, and full of proteins, when we see an apple, we must conclude it is god."

Our assumptions of "god" as omnipotent/omniscient/etc are no more warranted than the assumption that "god"s ideal form is red and juicy.

I say, leave pantheists to their apples.

That made no sense....

Apple= universe
Red, juicy = omnipotent/omniscient

Except you're wrong. You didn't address CosmicAlfonzo's refutation:

"It is not the same thing as pointing at an apple and calling it God. The universe is eternal, it is the ultimate authority, and it is mysterious in so many ways to our puny minds. It is obviously a higher power. It perfectly fits the ascribed attributes of God. An apple is a little beotch."
-- CosmicAlfonzo
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:45:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 8:38:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think Spinoza's conception of God is plausible?

Spinoza's philosophy is that anthropomorphism is not rational when dealing with the idea of a being as powerful as God, and it is wrong to think of God as having human attributes like intelligence and will for example. He argued that God was an entirely impersonal power and cannot adhere to human prayer, needs, request, and demands. He argued that God does not act according to reasons or purposes, and is a mechanism that is nothing like anything humans could relate to, but we could see evidence of in nature.

Now, I believe this God to be actually plausible...What do other Atheists think?

Sounds like pantheism to me.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 3:03:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 8:38:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think Spinoza's conception of God is plausible?

Spinoza's philosophy is that anthropomorphism is not rational when dealing with the idea of a being as powerful as God, and it is wrong to think of God as having human attributes like intelligence and will for example. He argued that God was an entirely impersonal power and cannot adhere to human prayer, needs, request, and demands. He argued that God does not act according to reasons or purposes, and is a mechanism that is nothing like anything humans could relate to, but we could see evidence of in nature.

Now, I believe this God to be actually plausible...What do other Atheists think?

Arguments that a being is unknowable and imperceivable except for evidence in nature (which has never been found) I cannot see improving the probability of the existence of a deity by the slightest iota.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 8:52:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 2:08:55 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 2:06:22 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/21/2012 1:11:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/20/2012 9:53:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
I like to call Pantheism the "God is an apple" position.

I see a red apple. I point it out to my friend and say "that's god." My friend says "really? Can the apple do miracles?"

"No, God is not anthormorphic or a creator. He's that apple. They're identical."

"Wait, how would I be able to figure out whether that apple is God?"

"You can't. God's traits are not distinguishable from the apples. Because God as we conceive him is red, juicy, and full of proteins, when we see an apple, we must conclude it is god."

Our assumptions of "god" as omnipotent/omniscient/etc are no more warranted than the assumption that "god"s ideal form is red and juicy.

I say, leave pantheists to their apples.

That made no sense....

Apple= universe
Red, juicy = omnipotent/omniscient

Except you're wrong. You didn't address CosmicAlfonzo's refutation:

"It is not the same thing as pointing at an apple and calling it God. The universe is eternal, it is the ultimate authority, and it is mysterious in so many ways to our puny minds. It is obviously a higher power. It perfectly fits the ascribed attributes of God. An apple is a little beotch."
-- CosmicAlfonzo

So CosmicAlfonso defines "God" as something with attributes like "being eternal" and "being mysterious" (I'm not sure what you mean by "authority").

The apple god doesn't happen to have those traits. Just like greek gods weren't always eternal or mysterious.