Except that, you are pre-defining 'God.' It's kind of like, some people literally define the universe as god, see pantheism. So you can't tell a pantheist their God doesn't exist, unless you're saying the Universe doesn't exist. My point is, 'God' can have many different meanings. So if someone's beliefs about God are dogmatic such that they would deny certain findings, absolutely regardless of the evidence, then yes that person's God is contrary to science. Yet with certain conceptions of God, including pantheistic and deistic conceptions, you can't say that it is incompatible with science...basically, you can only make such a claim if you already have defined what God means, and you can only claim it is universally true if you are the final authority on what 'God' means.
Proof of the "God" aspect, proof please not avoidance of the question. Where's the proof that the entire universe is God, is that so hard for you to understand? I know that pantheism is, I need proof that its something a thinking and rational person should believe in.
Wow do you have difficulty understanding semantics. 'God doesn't just have one absolute meaning, it can have different meanings, even including the Universe.' 'Prove the Universe is God' 'I just said the Universe can be defined as God.' 'So prove the Universe is God.' 'According to some conceptions, God = Universe. So the Universe is proof of God's existence, according to that conception, because the Universe is God, according to that conception.' 'So prove the Universe is God.' ..................'God' does not have one absolute meaning...it can have different meanings...some meanings are not supernatural, such as pantheism. Then you ask me to prove the Universe is God? My whole point is that the Universe CAN BE DEFINED AS God. You ask me to prove the Universe is God. Your whole point rests on God being pre-defined. 'Prove the Universe is god.' OK, so what do you mean by 'God.' It has to be pre-defined to prove something is it. My whole point is that there is no one pre-definition. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
You're still not getting it, I want proof. Do you understand the definition of proof? I'm not interested in semantics only proof. Your shifting meaning avoids proving anything, so by your slippery definition anything or anyone can claim to be God. But what the fuck is that supposed to mean? If God is so undefined why use the title at all? And if anything can be God, that's utterly meaningless and proves my point actually that there is no such thing, be it a universe or a being. It's answers like the one you just gave, that gives me assurance that anything other than atheism is moronic.
I can define Santa Claus for you but I can offer you no proof as to his existence. I'm not looking for definitions, again, ahem, I'm looking for proof. Looking for my definition is meaningless, since I don't believe in a God regardless of if it's red, white, blue or green. I do not believe in a god or Gods regardless of shape or form. I'm an atheist looking for proof of what others contend is real, get it? proof proÍžof/ <div>noun \t\t<div>1. \t\t<div>evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. \t"you will be asked to give proof of your identity" \tsynonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation,certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiationMore \t \t</div>\t </div></div>
Oh ok. So some people contend that God is the Universe. So, try to run into a wall. If you bump into it, you can conclude the universe is real. This will be sufficient proof that what some others contend to be God is real.
I bump into wall and call it a wall, while others call it God? This makes no sense to me. It's not unreasonable to ask someone contending that there is a God to offer some evidence as to why they believe the way they do, not quaint anecdotes but something that can be seen and analyzed. Science is about facts, testing, and learning. But God on the other had seems to be about feelings and dreams but zero actual proof.
I'm contending absolutely nothing about God, just stating the existence of something called 'pantheism' which states that God is the Universe. This can be proved by typing in 'pantheism' on google. This whole conversation started because you said it was impossible to have god and science/evolution at the same time. My whole response has been aimed at showing that this is not necessarily true. This is only true if the conception is dogmatic such that there are certain things it could never accept, regardless of the evidence. When it comes down to it, it IS largely semantics, in some or many cases. One person studies natural law, and this pursuit of truth is out of the objectivity of the universe. Another person studies natural law, and calls it Divine law. The inspiration and satisfaction he gets is likely of a different nature, but the natural law is the same. Most of the great thinkers throughout all time spoke of God. This doesn't mean that they meant 'God' in the anthropomorphic, dogmatic sense. It's very easy to show all these great thinkers throughout time talking of God. The response will be, 'Well they didn't mean God in THAT sense. What they meant was...' yea, this is very true. But that's the whole point. People have different ideas in mind when they say God, and it's not inherently opposed to objectivity and science, though it can be. It depends on the viewpoint of the individual.
That's all well and good, but again I'm looking for proof of God not feelings or a point of view or semantics. if someone is going to contend something they should understand that it is entirely reasonable to scrutinize them. Luckily for us, we have history to learn from and although many great thinkers had many ideas, time and science has show there is no such thing as a God. If a person or persons says "I believe all things are God." My response is can you prove that objectively, can you show me something that appeals to my intellect? We live in an age where we're learning more about the nature of existence and God is simply an antiquated idea held by the un-inquisitive or uninformed. ​I'm against any contention of God no matter how seemingly benign it may be if it's unaccompanied by proof. This is why science is superior because it constantly challenges what it knows and will revise but believers in unseen and un-provable phenomena try to come up with more and more elaborate ways to not answers basic questions about their beliefs, which is why I'm an atheist. God has no place next to science, none whatsoever because we can't see or be directed toward evidence. I don't believe its possible to correctly use science as a tool for understanding and investigating the universe while contending something (God) that can't be proven, that's my point.
Lol I don't think you understand. Pantheism is the idea that tge universe itself is an entity which is xobsidered to be god. Nothing more. Science does not touch the domain of the metaphysical. It's below it and is unable to ever delve into it as the very phenomena of physical existence is it's domain and the metaphysical is defined as that which is beyond the physical. You don't seem to Comprehend that science has it's limits and is based upon a method which itself is potentially flawed as it relies upon a fundamentally materialistic basis. The scientific method and it's flaws have been adequately described by boats and hoes before. The concept of God is philosophical at it's core.
I don't think you get it, simply because science has "limitations" doesn't mean that its proof of anything you believe. An absence of evidence is not evidence. I operate with facts, so although there may be a Santa Claus with elves at the North Pole, there is zero evidence of this, hence I don't believe in Santa Claus or the metaphysical, get it?
I actually meant to quote what you said not like it. Be that as it may, it's not confidence you're getting from me, just a reliance on facts, nothing more. I was raised in religious traditions, steeped in them in fact and its taken me many years to let go of someone else's wild imaginings and accept what was right in front of me. Religion is a disease to human progress imho and the sooner its dismissed as lunacy the better off humans will be.
Lol and you don't seem to understand this simple thing, whatever you believe to be fact is based upon a flawed understanding. Facts are not ultimate. The very limitation is you cant rely on those facya upon which you so heavily rely. Lol and it seems you don't understand what metaphysical means. A lot of people don't so you're not alone in that.
You're still not getting it, I have no choice but to believe you're being willfully obtuse, a common trait in people that can't substantiate their claims. Of course facts are limited, my point is I don't believe in what can't be proven, and because it can't be proven I don't take that as evidence that someone's beliefs or contentions are true. Simply put, seeing is believing for me. So if one can prove what they contend I will probably listen to that but if all they have in lieu of facts is bs, well I tend not to take someone like that seriously.