Just to respond to the last comment, "Why does what you like define a word?"
The definition Sagan and Einstein gave of the word, God, matches my definition, the creative force permeating and animating the cosmos.
It also, coincidentally, describes the God Particle and the Tao.

Even within your definition of the word there are strong philosophical problems.

To say the universe and its laws is God is to say that God is hostile at worst and indifferent at best to us.

The vast majority of this God is vacuum which kills us.

The interesting clumps of matter are also largely hostile. Crushing gravities, intolerable temperatures of hot and cold, toxic atmospheres and so on.

Even on the planet Earth 75% of it is in uninhabitable from just being water. Again there are extremes of hot and cold that make large swaths of the planetary land uninhabitable. This universe as God is rather hostile to humanity.

Further if the universe is God, his earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, tornadoes, pestilence, disease, the reproductive Lottery of genetic disorders, makes God's practice towards humanity evil.

The theodicy of pantheism fails.

If, on balance, the laws of the universe were hostile towards life on Earth, we wouldn't exist.
On balance, matter outweighs anti-matter, therefore, we matter.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If, on balance, the laws of the universe were
> hostile towards life on Earth, we wouldn't exist.

First, they're not really "laws" -- they're just the consistent properties of matter and energy.
And they're neither "hostile" nor "not-hostile." Hostility is a human trait. They don't have human traits. They don't think.

> On balance, matter outweighs anti-matter,
> therefore, we matter.

"outnumbers" would be more correct than "outweighs."
And if it didn't, you wouldn't be here to anthropomorphize stuff...

No we would tend to not exist. The likelihood is reduced, not eliminated.

You're misconstruing the anthropic principle.

Which is the skip the thrust of my post that the Universe if it is God is also evil.

Since we exist, the balance of forces in the universe tends towards life, and has for billions of years, which is the opposite of evil in my book.
Maybe I just don't understand what you mean by your use of the word, 'evil'?

Not supported we could be on the decline and arguably are.

Humans suffer because of the behavior of the universe, therefore the universe causes human suffering and the universe is evil.

The physicists you revere express awe at the math of the universe. However, an outcome of that math is human suffering. Anything worthy of the name God cannot be the source of suffering. You cannot ascribe all suffering to the acts of other humans. And even if you could ascribe all that suffering to human action those humans are still outcomes of those equations.

Mere beauty does not equate to divinity.

The math of the universe generates evil outcomes. It is therefore not God unless God is also evil. Are you comfortable revering evil.

When you look at the size of the solar system, and the amount of the solar system that has life, it is clear that the vast majority of solar system is not balanced for life. Extrapolate that through out the universe, accounting for the space between stars and galaxies, and live is almost non-existent.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The definition Sagan and Einstein gave of the
> word, God, matches my definition, the creative
> force permeating and animating the cosmos.

Except that's *not* how they defined it.
And their definitions differed.

> It also, coincidentally, describes the God
> Particle and the Tao.

The original name was "the goddamn particle," and no actually, that doesn't describe it at all.

You can call "Tao" whatever you want -- it's not a "god."

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The definition Sagan and Einstein gave of the
> > word, God, matches my definition, the creative
> > force permeating and animating the cosmos.
>
> Except that's *not* how they defined it.
> And their definitions differed.
>
That's how the Stoics defined Logos, which is synonymous with Sagan's definition,

"The immutable laws that govern the universe"

and Einstein's

"Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. [...] This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza)

> > It also, coincidentally, describes the God
> > Particle and the Tao.
>
> The original name was "the goddamn particle," and
> no actually, that doesn't describe it at all.

If you'd read the book, "The God Particle" you'd understand why Leon M. Lederman coined the term and why it stuck. It's a universal force that's everywhere, permeates and animates the universe and creates everything in it. That meets the definition of 'god' or creator in my book.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's how the Stoics defined Logos, which is
> synonymous with Sagan's definition,

What do the Stoics have to do with anything?
You said that's how Einstein and Sagan defined it.
Which was incorrect.
Why bring in an ancient mystery sect that neither Einstein nor Sagan had anything to do with?

(I cut out the quote)

Notice that Einstein doesn't refer to any "creative force."
Which is what you claimed he said.
But he didn't.
Oops.

> If you'd read the book, "The God Particle" you'd
> understand why Leon M. Lederman coined the term
> and why it stuck.

I've read it.

> It's a universal force that's
> everywhere, permeates and animates the universe
> and creates everything in it.

It is a "universal force."
It doesn't/didn't "create" anything.
Keep reading. You don't understand the particle or its field yet.

> That meets the
> definition of 'god' or creator in my book.

Only if you're making an outrageous stretch, or don't understand.

Look, we get your pantheistic beliefs. You're certainly free to have them.

But this constant barrage of dubious and often dishonest attempts to "prove" that "smart people" have the same beliefs as you is not only fallacious*, it's "preaching." Seriously.


*even if "smart" people believe(d) the same as you, that doesn't make your belief true. It doesn't even make it more likely to be true. What can show it true/false is *evidence* showing it true/false. That other people do/don't believe it is irrelevant to its truth/falsity. Even if they're smart people.

Two more points of a strong philosophy are it's moral insight and authority.

The second is it's explanatory power.

Pantheism offers no improvement in morality and is weaker than many- the problem of evil for one. And it does not advance explanatory function beyond what systems with fewer unsubstantiated assumptions can offer.

There is no reason to pursue pantheism that I can see. It just seems to tick certain check boxes in your psyche that are not universal to the human condition.

You really thing Segan agreed with that list? You posted this quote from Segan "Yes I believe in God, if by the word, 'God' you mean the embodiment of the immutable laws that govern the Cosmos."

Note, he makes it clear that he is talking about the "immutable laws that govern the Cosmos" Which means he is not actually talking about the cosmos as a whole, only the "laws that govern". He is saying that is God was defined as the "laws that govern", he could believe it. He is NOT saying that the cosmos as a whole would be God.

Einstein said he believed in Spinoza's God. "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind..."

*** Segan states God IS the laws, Spinoza beliefs (what Einstein says he beliefs) says God is REVILED through the laws, thus is not the laws in and of themselves (as Segan states). Spinoza's God also inculpates more than just the "laws that govern the universe.

Taoism also speaks of more than just the laws of the universe, thus not the same as what Seagan was talking about.

Oh, yeah, the "God Particle" is GOVERNED by the laws that govern the cosmos, so again, not the same thing as what Segan said. The God particle is not a law that governs, it interacts according to the "laws".

In all of this back and forth has anyone asked why we should give a fuck? Should I give one single fuck about whether NdGT is an Atheist or not? I'm really asking how does this affect anything?

This is a good point. I respect Tyson, Sagan, Einstein, Darwin, etc. But as ificouldhietokolob noted, whether they believe in a god or not doesn't really have much effect on whether anyone else should. I think the idea that there is an intelligent creator has merit, but I don't see sufficient evidence to compel acceptance of such a proposition. And even if we all agree that there is some sort of creator -- intelligent and designing or merely an undirected process -- it doesn't resolve the questions of what is that creator like, does he/she/it care about or even notice us, and does the existence of this creator have any meaning in our day-to-day lives.

I think "hie" is probably right that these references to smart people believing (or not disbelieving) in God are attempts to advance koriwhore's views on the subject. I don't understand the need to have other people agree. Our beliefs are our own, regardless of how others feel about them. I wish I knew if there was a god who cares about me individually. Sometimes I think there is, and other times it seems like there isn't. And I find that not knowing -- although a little uncomfortable -- kind of exciting and mentally stimulating. But that's just me.

It seems to me that there is one person trying to validate their personal belief by linking them to famous scientists, as if that makes it true.

I am atheist, and I do not justify my belief by citing others. I have no need for such validation.

I agree with Sagan, Einstein, Bill Nye and NdGT, 'agnostic' is the most reasonable religious identity, since we have no way of knowing whether or not any kind of a 'god' exists.

Like Sagan said, "An atheist would have to know a lot more than me about the cosmos." said the guy who literally wrote the book on the subject.

If you don't know more about the Cosmos than Sagan, why presume you know enough to rule out any kind of a 'god'?

95% of the universe is 'Dark Matter/Energy' according to scientific consensus, yet we really have no idea WTF 'Dark Matter/Energy' is, we just can't see it, so we call it 'Dark'.
If 'Dark Matter/Energy' is what it takes to balance out the universe so that it matters, then isn't that kind of the same thing as the Tao?

That's what I think of when I think of the word, "god".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2017 06:18PM by koriwhore.

Agnostic is about not knowing
Atheist is about no belief.

Guess what, a person can be BOTH agnostic and atheist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism


Sorry, but you argument from the middle is just another logical fallacy from you.

And your "point' about dark matter is an argument from ignorance logical fallacy.

What you "think" does not define the word God.

My point is the same as Sagan's, "An Atheist would have to know a lot more than me about the Cosmos."
So I guess Sagan was making an argument from ignorance logical falacy, as was Einstein when he said,
"Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."

So I guess I'm in good company.

Honestly I think the word, "God" is just short for 'Good' as in, "Thank Goodness" = "Thank God"

Argument from ignorance logical fallacy rejected.

If you want to claim "God is short for good", The burden of proof is on you. Show evidence that supports that claim that can amount to proof, or it is rejected as unfounded claim.

Oh, if God is "Good" then tao can not be god, in that tao is nether good or bad, it is impersonal and does not impart a morality.

You are contradicting yourself.

Tao is NOT GOD.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/beliefs/gods.shtml

"But the Tao itself is not God, nor is it a god, nor is it worshipped by Taoists."

Carl Sagan:

“Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul hypothesis are by no means all atheists. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of god and to be certain of the nonexistence of god seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertain as to inspire very little confidence indeed. A wide range of intermediate positions seems admissible. Considering the enormous emotional energies with which the subject it invested, a questioning, courageous, and open mind is, I think, the essential tool of narrowing the range of our collective ignorance on the subject of the existence of God."


You have always and probably will continue to misunderstand this quote. If you'll note what Sagan is saying has nothing to do with what he believes but with what he can prove. I read this quote and I come away with the distinct impression that Sagan is showing a high level of enmity towards this unprovable god.

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist" Yes, even Sagan can get something wrong.

Sagan is describing a "strong" atheist, A "weak" atheist is someone that lacks a belief in God. https://www.thoughtco.com/strong-atheism-vs-weak-atheism-248406

Since strong atheist also lack a belief in God they are also "weak" atheists. The definition that covers all atheists is that of the "weak" atheist. Since it covers all atheist, it is the one I chose to use.

I am not a strong atheist, because I can not prove that there is no god, yet I am still an atheist because I lack a belief in God.

Sagan, as with anyone else, can be wrong. Trying to validate one's beliefs by point at an idea where someone else was wrong does not validate the belief, it just means both are wrong.

All I know is that life is high maintenance.