The presuposition that god is everywhere
Offline If god is every where, then we just need to probe any one particular thing. If you find god, then god exist, if not, then god does not exist. Hence, a person does not need to look everywhere or know everything in order to show that there is no god.
I know that this does not prove anything because gods are supposed to be undetectable, which is a claim someone just made up.
Of course, if part of the definition of god is not that it is undetectable unless, it wants you to detect it.
I just thought I bring this up if no one has thought about it yet because some people keep saying that you need to know everything in order to know that there is not god. They are going to have to show where in anything I would find this god.
If god is undetectable, does that mean it exists since there is nothing to detect? It is everywhre and yet undetectable in anything?
Can god be so undetectable that it cannot detect itself?
If what I wrote even made any sense.
- Login to post comments
Yeah it made sense. It seems to add to the idea that if god doesn't do anything why call him god. Although the whole idea of god having a sex is even more odd if you think about it.
Btw a lot of people will just keep re-defining god till you get to a point where they aren't talking about god anymore or they basically just say you have to have faith.
yea, god is just some alpha male with superpowers that is on your side of things. People just won't admit this.
At least the argument from the theist that I need to be everywhere to know that god does not exist does not hold since god is assumed to be everywhere.
Now that I think about it, god would have to be in my line of site since god is everywhere. Since god is not in my field of vision, then god does not exist, otherwise god is not everywhere. LOL
i.e. I do not see god, hence it does not exist
Now that I think about it, I also don't need to know everything to know something is not true since god is just one entity. This is of course if god is not assumed to be everywhere. This is like saying that I cannot know anything is science is not true since I do not know everything, but of course, science is falsifiable.
If God is everywhere then we are a part of God. God is EVERYWHERE. Everything is God. Hehe. If we are a part of God then why can't some people sense God existence? We are supposed to be spirit and so is God. It doesn't make sense.
:: Plays angels advocate ::
But couldn't we lack that spiritual sense people keep bitching about.
In your first statement, you assumed that everything is god.
Well, I do not know if everything is god, god just has to be intrinsic to everything. It needs to be in a place. In this case, all places, and even in all detectible places, so people should be able to sense it.
I think the argument that god is everywhere is reputed since examples of places god is not in are given.
well, god would have to be everything if god is everywhere, but I would think that this would be redefining god.
The argument that brings up the spiritual sense is irrelevant since we are dealing with location. In this case all locations and hence in a detectable location.
I'm just make the point a theist would make. That is some think the atheist is blind to seeing god somehow. Although if god isn't let us see him then he shouldn't get pissed if we don't worship him...
Maybe if you find a quote where it says god is everywhere and another that says everyone should be able to see god. Then you claim could work against those who follow that holy book.
You just need to get into a theist's head and ask yourself how they would respond to something. Because if we say some people can't see something then it would make sense that some people aren't seeing it. You could argue that all day, but as long as they think they see something you can't change their opinion on it.
yes, but they would have to redefine god because god being everywhere is false. People redefine god when their argument is reputed.
It all rides on their definition.
new tactic(at least its new to me): have them define god and then ask them to write it down. They can't change their definition and not get caught that way. Plus it would make it clear what you are up against from the get go.
yea, this is how it is so easy for me to repute the existance of god, except that I don't have people write it down. I will probably do that if I get a booth like I said in my other topic.
The thing is that I cannot let people define god to be something in nature. If someone says that "The Sun = God" then they got me because the Sun is there. I guess I have to have them define nonpatheist gods.
You could have something about how objects can't be god or define god without dogma.
I never could come up with a good definition. I felt God and so I tried to find other reasons...through inference of scripture.
God is not everywhere as it is written in Ecclesiastes.
I had a multiple of words, yet was very skimpy with scripture...hehe.
Yes, we can twist, or ignore other scripture. I would have frustated you hehe.
If you do not like the bible, then maybe Voiderest have a point. Besides not every theist is a Christian.
I had an argument with one of my friends yesterday. You really can't argue something so vauge on least it is desided that god will be well defined. I bud is pretty bright. I told him about this and he ended up telling me that got is the powerset of reality. I told him that that model does not correspond to reality since it is meaningless and I also told him that you can take the power set of that and that that would not make any sense. It showed that it was meaningless although it could be interpreted with the same priciblem since it is still a collection of a collection of any supset of the set of all things in reality. I also told him that it should be in my sight, but they jokigly he pointed at his shirt, telling me that I am seeing it. It still does not make any sense, but I still told him that I could not see it and that he can't get out of the fact that it is not in my vision since I would be seeing it otherwise.
In my conversation I did get him to say that he does not believe in the Noah's arc story since I told him that this god is an asshole for killing all of these people. I don't think he truly believes in any of this stuff, but what someone bright like him does is just not think about it at all. He just completely blocks it from his mind.
God Slayer, I think there is a bit of confusion going on here. First, any theist that claims that God is omnipresent must also acknowledge that if it can be demonstrated that God is absent from somewhere, then he doesn't exist. However, there are some qualifications to that. First, God is not, nor do most theists claim Him to be, spacially located. Forgive me if I am speaking beneath your level of understanding, but I'm going to spell everything out since I don't know where you are at philosophically. Spacial location is being located somewhere within space and time. Desks, cars, cats, trees, atoms etc. are all spacially located. That is, they are in one location and are extended through space. When something is spacially located somewhere, nothing else can be located there at the same time. However, God is not spacially located. God is omnipresent, which is distinct from spacially located. God is not made up of physical matter (except, perhaps, when God took the form of Jesus or specific theophanies) and thus does not extend through space. Thus, the talk of proving that God does not exist by proving that he isn't located somewhere isn't coherent. Second, there is no way for us to prove that God is not in a specific space anyway. God, being spirit, isn't physical. And since science deals with measuring, investigating, and interacting with the physical, science has no way of measuring for God. In a sense, it would be like using a metal detector to search for plastic. If the tools aren't designed to search for that substance, then one cannot be rational in claiming that the substance doesn't exist.
Brandon