Why God? Why?

The problem is, you can't prove a negative. We still don't have proof that Saddam never had WMD, but only a fool would believe he did.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
eh hem.
There are no gods.
Is that an absolutely positively 100% statement? I'd say that the existence of gods is as likely as the existence of Pegasus, the flying horse. I'd say that Pegasus is so unlikely it's not unreasonable to say there is no Pegasus. The same goes for gods.
Click to expand...

Haha - OK, then. Maybe one.

I tend to agree with you up to a point but I can't rule out the possibility of some sort of "supernatural" being.
Whilst I cannot conceive what form this being would be able to take in order for it to merit the title "God," that doesn't rule it out as a possibility.

Where I'd agree with your statement is that there no Gods as have been so far described to me.
Not because I find them unlikely, rather because they are generally incoherent concepts and logically impossible.
 
I align with Robert. IF there are any gods the different organized religions ideas of theirs have failed at coherence and logical truths.
 
Robert said:
I tend to agree with you up to a point but I can't rule out the possibility of some sort of "supernatural" being.
Click to expand...

I can't go along the "supernatural" route. In my way of thinking, nature is equivalent to "all that exists", therefore supernatural means "beyond existing" - in other words, doesn't exist. Nothing can be supernatural - supernatural is imaginary. If there is a god-like being it must be natural. If there is a god-like being that interacts with the natural world then its effects should be detectable by natural means.

If there is a god-like being somewhere it doesn't appear to be interacting with our part of the universe and therefore it certainly isn't the Christian god or the god of any other set of religionists and has nothing to do with us, and if there is a god-like being of any sort it certainly isn't like any of the gods proposed by various religions as they describe gods and therefore how can we really justify calling such a being god-like when it isn't like any gods?

Many people have reported "experiences" but as far as we can tell, the effect that some god or gods have on the physical world are equivalent to the effects that hallucinations have on the physical world.

Bottom line, there are no gods as described by any of the worlds religions because they should be detectable but aren't and they are not logically self consistent so couldn't exist as described anyway. If these gods don't exist it has no immediate bearing on the existence of some immensely powerful beings somewhere in the universe but if they exist, whatever they are, they aren't "God" nor any of the other gods either. These hypothetical super beings are irrelevant to our world and to the argument.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Many people have reported "experiences" but as far as we can tell, the effect that some god or gods have on the physical world are equivalent to the effects that hallucinations have on the physical world.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you've seen it but want to mention that not only drug introduced "religious experiences" are possible but so are audio and visual stimulation, or lack of stimulation. As well as using a mild electric current to specific regions of the brain. It appears chemical and electrical changes to that bag of chemistry and electricity, aka brain, induce a feeling of 'god'.

A good brief page on this... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I can't go along the "supernatural" route. In my way of thinking, nature is equivalent to "all that exists", therefore supernatural means "beyond existing" - in other words, doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Yes and I agree, that's why I put it in quotes. All I meant by "supernatural" was something beyond our current ken.

If there is a god-like being that interacts with the natural world then its effects should be detectable by natural means.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

If there is a god-like being somewhere it doesn't appear to be interacting with our part of the universe and therefore it certainly isn't the Christian god or the god of any other set of religionists
Click to expand...

Again, agreed.

and has nothing to do with us,
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that part but it's of minor importance to the point.

and if there is a god-like being of any sort it certainly isn't like any of the gods proposed by various religions as they describe gods and therefore how can we really justify calling such a being god-like when it isn't like any gods?
Click to expand...

Well, that's an interesting question and is part of the reason I say it can't be ruled out.
What constitutes a God? As I said above, I've never heard a coherent explanation.

If - and it's a big if - anyone can ever give me a coherent definition, I'll be better placed to rule it out and am sure I'd do so in short order.

Many people have reported "experiences" but as far as we can tell, the effect that some god or gods have on the physical world are equivalent to the effects that hallucinations have on the physical world.
Click to expand...

And, once more, agreed.
I remain completely sceptical of "experiences," in so far as I don't believe any of them to be anything other than hallucinations or coincidences.
The backing singer in our band recently had what sounded to me like an amazing experience, combined with a series of weird coincidences, and so on.
She is convinced this somehow proves there is a 'God' of some sort.
Of course, I disagree.
My best guess is that there was a combination of lucid dreaming and coincidence.
Either way, appeals to personal experience are worthless anyway.

Bottom line, there are no gods as described by any of the worlds religions
because they should be detectable but aren't and they are not logically self consistent so couldn't exist as described anyway.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I already said as much.

If these gods don't exist it has no immediate bearing on the existence of some immensely powerful beings somewhere in the universe but if they exist, whatever they are, they aren't "God" nor any of the other gods either. These hypothetical super beings are irrelevant to our world and to the argument.
Click to expand...

This is the only real point where I disagree. In an argument about the existence (or not) of a hypothetical God, they are not only relevant but the subject of the argument.
 
Robert said:
He quite clearly states that he is not an atheist.

This is to misrepresent atheism. You still seem to think atheism means a conviction that there can be no God. (Despite countless explanations on here.)
It *can* mean that but I've never met anyone who feels that way.
Click to expand...
when asked, I explain that because NO ONE in the millions of human history has ever proven the existence of ANY god(s), I am, therefore under no obligation to believe they exist.
That doesn't mean I am claiming for sure they don't...just that I don't have to buy into the fairy tales.
Being an atheist does NOT mean being close minded. It just means being rational. And, if anything that means skeptical.
And that is a good thing.
 
Robert said:
This is the only real point where I disagree. In an argument about the existence (or not) of a hypothetical God, they are not only relevant but the subject of the argument.
Click to expand...
Except that they can't be "God" because they are nothing like "God" because nothing can be since "God" isn't a defined entity but a collection of wishes. If something amazing being existed somewhere it still wouldn't be "God" - it would be that amazing being that we heretofore had not known about.

It would be similar to (though very differently from, of course) declaring that we cannot rule out the fact that there is a race of four headed people covered in dense red fur inhabiting the forests of Africa whiling away the days playing fiddle music and dancing reels - and they are called "Gorillas". One day you may discover the heretofore unknown animal and declare that we have found the "Gorilla". Certainly is shares some gross morphology with humans, and it is densely furred, but it can't play fiddle, doesn't dance a reel, isn't a person and the fur is black not red. You have not found the "Gorilla" of theory, you have found something completely different but called it "Gorilla" because you had the name lying around not being properly attached to anything.

This would be the same as the case in which we found an amazing being of some description - it may remind us in some ways of the attributes ascribed to "God" or gods but the concept of god is incoherent so whatever this thing you found is, the thing that it isn't is "God" no matter how much you try to nail the label onto it.

Now - if you want to look at some candidate gods how about we imagine some 6000 year old sheep and goat herders transported to the current day. Fly over them with your jet aircraft, drop a nuke on some city then bail out and parachute down right next to them, drop off some antibiotics at the leper colony and then show them some youtube videos on your iPhone. You'll be a god.

If we find some being that can out do us on some feat of manipulation of energy and matter even on a grand scale will it be "God"?
 
Now - if you want to look at some candidate gods how about we imagine some 6000 year old sheep and goat herders transported to the current day. Fly over them with your jet aircraft, drop a nuke on some city then bail out and parachute down right next to them, drop off some antibiotics at the leper colony and then show them some youtube videos on your iPhone. You'll be a god.
Click to expand...
I think showing them your iPhone would be enough. At least until they catch a glimpse of iTunes, then it's back to mere mortality... :eek:
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Except that they can't be "God" because they are nothing like "God" because nothing can be since "God" isn't a defined entity but a collection of wishes.
Click to expand...

I'm a wee bit lost here. Haven't you just defined God?

If something amazing being existed somewhere it still wouldn't be "God" - it would be that amazing being that we heretofore had not known about.
Click to expand...

Almost certainly.

It would be similar to (though very differently from, of course) declaring that we cannot rule out the fact that there is a race of four headed people covered in dense red fur inhabiting the forests of Africa whiling away the days playing fiddle music and dancing reels - and they are called "Gorillas". One day you may discover the heretofore unknown animal and declare that we have found the "Gorilla". Certainly is shares some gross morphology with humans, and it is densely furred, but it can't play fiddle, doesn't dance a reel, isn't a person and the fur is black not red. You have not found the "Gorilla" of theory, you have found something completely different but called it "Gorilla" because you had the name lying around not being properly attached to anything.
Click to expand...

This analogy doesn't really work for me. A Gorilla is a clearly defined being.

This would be the same as the case in which we found an amazing being of some description - it may remind us in some ways of the attributes ascribed to "God" or gods but the concept of god is incoherent so whatever this thing you found is, the thing that it isn't is "God" no matter how much you try to nail the label onto it.
Click to expand...

Different Gods have been ascribed myriad different attributes over the centuries. I agree they've all been incoherent but I can't say that rules out the possibility of there ever being a coherent one.

If we find some being that can out do us on some feat of manipulation of energy and matter even on a grand scale will it be "God"?
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... how about this: by some amazing feat of science we manage to ascertain that at the point of the big bang, the universe was farted into existence by something, say the Flying Spaghetti Monster for want of a better name. It cares not a jot for, and indeed is incapable of even observing the day to day trials of humans but has the power to create (and perhaps destroy) universes.

Would such a being be considered a God?

Of course, there is absolutely no point in worshipping or praying to such an entity but, if one were to be discovered, would it not still qualify for the title?
 
Robert said:
This analogy doesn't really work for me. A Gorilla is a clearly defined being.
Click to expand...

Only AFTER it is found. However, it is only called a Gorilla after the fictional beast described which is NOT the same thing at all.

Let me try to make my analogy a little clearer by shortening and simplifying.

If you claim that a nerkle is a perfect sphere larger than an orange that simultaneously reflects 100% of incident light AND absorbs 100% of incident light. This is clearly defined and clearly impossible, so it is obvious that no nerkle exists even if you then find a bowling ball and declare it to be a nerkle because it is quite round and glossy while black. It's not just the 3 holes that make it fail the test and no amount of yelling "I've found a nerkle" will stop it being a bowling ball.
 
Robert said:
Hmmm.... how about this: by some amazing feat of science we manage to ascertain that at the point of the big bang, the universe was farted into existence by something, say the Flying Spaghetti Monster for want of a better name. It cares not a jot for, and indeed is incapable of even observing the day to day trials of humans but has the power to create (and perhaps destroy) universes.

Would such a being be considered a God?
Click to expand...

I don't you'd get a lot of votes for calling it a God. What if it wasn't a "being" per se and was merely some statistically improbable but not impossible event in some kind of energy field? Would you call it God then?
 
Robert said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Then why not call the Big Bang God? Neither a farting spaghetti monster nor the Big Bang are anything like what people think of when they say "God" in just the same way that the mythical "Gorilla" is nothing like the gorilla and neither is the bowling ball anything like the nerkle. You're taking two very different things and trying to call them a match.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Then why not call the Big Bang God?
Click to expand...

Well, that's an event. I'm suggesting a being capable of creating and destroying universes.

-EDIT-

I'm not saying that I would necessarily label it a God, just wondering aloud, so to speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top