Present Evidence Here II

[Moloth]

That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

[ApostateLois]

If God is not material, then what is it? What is God made of? Where does it live, what does it look like, what sounds does it make, how does it interact with humans and other objects in the material world, what is the process or method by which it imposes its will upon others (as so many claim that it can)? If God cannot be seen, heard, touched, spoken to, tested, evaluated,  or examined in any way because it is not a part of this material world, then how can anyone claim they are able to talk to God? They contradict themselves in these claims. They cannot even define what it is they believe in, let alone explain to us how it functions.

[Unbeliever]

Maybe God is made of Kaluza-Klein particles.

[Unbeliever]

They cannot even define what it is they believe in, let alone explain to us how it functions.

If a thing can't be defined, even in principle, can that thing ever be said to exist? If a term can mean anything at all, then it means nothing in particular.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Oh I love this thread. "Where the internet goes to die"

Kudos on bringing it back to life and letting me read through the responses.

[kilodelta]

Yeah. Too bad it hasn't gotten the theist attention that it used to get...

[DeathandGrim]

If god was defined as something material, then yes, science would apply. Thing is, god is not defined as something material.

How is something immaterial? I never understood that.

[Mike Cl]

How is something immaterial? I never understood that.

Yeah, think you are right.  Sort of like saying something is unnatural.  That is not possible.

[stromboli]

Something that can't be defined, quantified, described or proved to exist, yet humanity has thrown trillions of dollars at it for centuries. Neat trick.

[Givemeareason]

Something that can't be defined, quantified, described or proved to exist, yet humanity has thrown trillions of dollars at it for centuries. Neat trick.

I really don't even like that word god because it is so limited in its conceptual view.  And except for our disagreements with the theists I don't think it is conceptually sound.  From a more metaphysical perspective if there is no god, then what is there.  And we should certainly be giving it a name other than a silly god.  Our better question would be why do we exist, rather than whether some god exists.

[aitm]

Our better question would be why do we exist,

Why we exist has pretty much been answered quite effectively. The question perhaps more to the point you are trying to convey is, "why do we think we need to have a reason to exist outside that which has already been proven?"

[Givemeareason]

Why we exist has pretty much been answered quite effectively. The question perhaps more to the point you are trying to convey is, "why do we think we need to have a reason to exist outside that which has already been proven?"

Because we are human beings and that is our nature.  I don't think it is sufficient to relegate that we live for no purpose any more than it is to relegate that we live because of God.  My purpose is to understand.  I  am not here though just to understand there is no God.  I feel that as Athiests we need to ultimately become more than athiests.  There is no purpose in hating religion nor in arguing over whether there is a god.  Doing so only makes religion look more attractive.  So if we want to eliminate religion which I don't agree with then we should be making ourselves look more attractive.

[kilodelta]

I feel that as Athiests we need to ultimately become more than athiests. 

I already am more than an atheist. 

[Givemeareason]

I already am more than an atheist.

Are you interested in helping others become more than atheists?.

[kilodelta]

Are you interested in helping others become more than atheists?.

I can't imagine anyone who is no more than an atheist.