because if the universe came to be by accident, you enter a series of infinite regression to finding what component actually manifests itself in and out of existence. that doesn't mean in and out like changing from energy to physical.
No, I don't blame them, to be honest. However, many atheists I have crossed paths with in real life (as well as here) have a hairpin trigger: you mention G-d and they automatically assume you are speaking of the Christian Creator. Assumptions get us nowhere, so it is always nice for each side to ask probing questions before they begin firing off at the mouth. It is as simple as asking "well, what do you mean by G-d?" After that, let the firing begin. And you are absolutely right, many creationists do have a stigma about calling G-d the "universe" or anything remotely tangible or effable. It's kind of a stupid position to take, IMO, because the Old Testament does it constantly, and many other religious texts express His essence through the visible artifacts of the universe. In fact, I would say this is not so much a "creationist" problem as it is a Christian problem.
Yes, that is exactly right. The essence of G-d (called "Ein Sof" in Jewish thought) is found within everything. There is no duality. There is only G-d.
But what constitutes "everything"? Everything that we know exists? We don't "know" that god exists, nor do we have anything testable or tangible to suggest as such.
I honestly don't know what you were trying to say in most of your posts, but it doesn't matter how far you can stretch definitions and terms to satisfy your argument. What matters is that we are all referring to the SAME EXACT THING. For the sake of being clear, referring to the universe as god is a horrible idea.
Because if you want to talk to an atheist about anything theological, mentioning God is automatically going to take on that context. Atheists that I know don't really bandy with alternative meanings to words that, 99% of the time, are referring to one certain thing. Getting into a discussion with an atheist should come with the caveat that you explain exactly what it is you mean by the word god first, or not refer to it as such in the first place. That would be conducive to better dialogue between the two sides, don't you think? I don't agree that it's really limited to Christianity because I feel if we had some chattier hindus or muslims about, they may feel the same stigma referring to their creator as just the universe (well, maybe not Hindu's. From what I understand of the religion, the pantheon is mostly a story-telling device much like I feel any religious text is). Rather my real point to bringing up it being a stigma for creationists was just to directly oppose the "atheists have a stigma for saying god". It goes equally both ways and personally I feel people who don't think that "god" is a conscious being need to be more forward about the fact whenever they get into a discussion.
All that is a thing...all that is...or simply All... no mater what.. whether known or not known... If by know you mean to understand 100% or be 100% certain of ...then I would say we probably "know" nothing.
Yes, perhaps. I always make it a point to do so. It still does not change the fact that many atheists cannot simply wrap their minds around any conception of G-d outside of the mainstream Judeo-Islamo-Christian Creator, or at the very least have not taken the time to educate themselves concerning various other conceptions of Deity. Whenever I have spoken face to face with an atheist, who knows full well that I am a Hasidic Jew, they still continually appeal to the Christian conception of G-d. I am not a Christian. Our conceptions differ radically. Both sides would do well to gain a bit of education outside of the mainstream spectrum. This is why I said that any debate should begin with probing questions, so that all assumptions can be moved out of the way. I would say that any religion which is, at its core, dualistic, is going to have a problem with referring to an Ineffable Being through an appeal to the natural world. Non-dualists, like Hindus, don't seem to have this issue.
The Hindu dieties are controlled by natural laws...many of them..might be a few that are not... In order for a god to exist it must be governed by the law that says that which does exists is something that exists...in other words that something must be that which it is...as trivial as that seems it shows that anything that exists must be governed by some law... even if that law is one saying that it is not governed by laws...which is a rather odd proposal when you think about it...
They are simply more personified in stories than most other pantheons. There are no natural laws that govern Vishnu or Shiva. Not to mention, they are all widely considered to be the same entity. You can't really be a bunch of deities at once if you're governed by nature. So, if something must be governed by a law to exist, and the current idea of a deity is that of one which exists outside natural laws...
How much of hinduism have you studied... because while they are not necessarily of the same nature as we are for example they are immortal they are still governed by laws that are natural... but it may depend on which hidnu you ask... for example one story goes that shiva cut off the head of gaesha and as a result he had to have his head replaced with one of an elephant... so he is governed by the law that says contact with a blade to skin will result in cutting... and the lack of ability for endless self healing apparently... The problem is that you are trying to sugest that the main idea is that thinggs exist outside of natural laws or dieties do...this is patently in correct... many religious again, including Hinduism have gods that are subject to natural laws... though the laws they are subject to may not necessarily be the same one's we are in some cases...
Which didn't actually happen.. just like rivers can't turn to wine. Hindu's don't treat the Gita like a book of documented historical events. No, what I am suggesting is that the current idea of a deity is one that does exist outside natural laws. I reject that idea completely as I do not bandy with unfalsifiable claims.
that seems beyond the point...the intesrst here is establishing what we think the common definition of God is... I believe that is what i just said you are saying...or at least meant...or was implying You are still wrong as the idea that God is supernatural, or deities are, is primarily a christian idea and not one shared amongst all Christians either... and most that do have that idea think rather that god has supernatural aspects but not that in his entirity he is supernatural in the sense of being beyond nature... Not to mention that most people especially the uneducated which account for many Christians who use the word supernatural pretty much just mean magical...or beyond their understanding or what can be understood at least by humans... it seems you are over generalizing the common conception of a word or rather two words. that of what God means to people, and supernatural as well... While your argument is reasonable regarding the fact that that which is beyond nature likely is simply non-existent. Your argument as a whole would be meaningless to people who do not share your concepts of what these words mean...
So are you asserting that the Hindu view of a singular multi-faceted deity, that for purposes of prayer and stories separates into different people is the common definition? It's not primarily Christian. Christianity is a new religion that, at it's core, can be pieced together from old religions. So you're asserting that many Christians don't understand what they believe in? I believe that can easily go the other way. the christian deity is a supernatural one. So if my argument, as a whole, is meaningless to someone (you) that doesn't share the concept that I am laying out in a clear, concise manner, then why do you continue to respond and argue? Clearly what I'm saying is not meant for you at this point.