Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I think its true, Lil.I'm certain in my convictions that the god or gods as portrayed by any religion I've encountered isn't real.
Naturally I cannot speak for anything i've not encountered/heard of yet.
I feel this is merely reasonable....nothing more.
How are you so sure?
As I've said before the specific qualities of God and certain gods can make them unlikely to exist but I think that science does support the existance of godlike beings.
Also I do have a problem with scientists believing in infinity and different universes and then saying unicorns can't exist. I don't give a shit wether unicorns exist but that is a contradiction.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I hope that is true and that I have merely been unlucky with the type of Atheists I met.Most I meet are not only anti-religious, but certain in their convictions that God isn't real.
The closest one I've met is actually a theist, but she is truly and utterly non-religious. As in, absolutely has no religion - but she believes in God. She doesn't know what it is, but she believes it's there.
Her belief is based on the fact that she wants to do something with herself, she wants to help people and be a better person and use all her talents, so that, as she says, when she stands in front of whatever God is, she can say that she has used everything she/it gave her.Her god has no eating issues, has no sex issues, has no morality issues - her God just is. And that was by far the most fascinating theist I have ever met in my entire life.
I have similar views, I do feel there is something greater than us, what is is exactly, I do not know; I doubt I will ever know. But the way the universe and life works seems unlikely that it's all just completely random.
I do completely reject religions boxing in of God though, eg God speaking to one man here and there and wanting me to behave exactly this way, what I should or shouldn't eat, how I should or should not pray, heaven/hell etc. To me, that's all man-made and the concept of God is used as a device for controling the masses, nothing more.
Though religion does have its positive merits that I can get down with, eg do not murder, do not steal etc. But we don't need the fear of God to abide by those, imo.
Originally posted by menokokoro
I'm glad you feel this way. I hate when people just automatically write people off as idiots because they believe in God.
How many people like this have you encountered? I know I have, but I could probably count them all on one hand and still have enough fingers to flip you off and pick my nose.
I find the 'believing in God means you're an idiot' crowd to be focused more on specific religious beliefs relating to God. eg Creation, talking burning bushes, The Flood, magical gardens, people flying into heaven on winged horses etc.
Originally posted by RobtardActually a lot...but I must admit, I kinda seek them out. I'm addicted to arguing online lol.
How many people like this have you encountered? I know I have, but I could probably count them all on one hand and still have enough fingers to flip you off and pick my nose.I find the 'believing in God means you're an idiot' crowd to be focused more on specific religious beliefs relating to God. eg Creation, talking burning bushes, The Flood, magical gardens, people flying into heaven on winged horses etc.
Originally posted by menokokoro
Actually a lot...but I must admit, I kinda seek them out. I'm addicted to arguing online lol.
I have that same problem... I don't know why. Even after it gets infuriating talking with someone and I claim I will never debate again... I somehow stumble back on this forum for another round... 😬
Originally posted by Bardock42
There's nothing, the God most Christians believe in is so immensely powerful it is impossible to comprehend him with our measely knowledge. I believe that with our scientific knowledge at the level we are, to fake that you are omnipotent is probably not too far off in the future even for us.Even if he made everyone believe he is God (including me) with the snap of his finger, does that prove he is "The omnipotent, omniscient God"? No, it just proves he can influence and change people's mind easily. We are too limited to ever know whether something like that God exists, at least in this universe. And as far as I know your belief even agrees to a degree and says that some "veil" needs to be lifted (although apparently that may work within the universe, how you'd tell that it's not just fanatism though, I'm not sure).
So, yes, there is no conceivable way the God, incredibly powerful creator God (leaving the paradox of omnipotence aside, as I agree it's not important) can prove himself to me, I am just too limited.
All that aside, I disagree, completely. Unless you have an issue of separating reality from fantasy, it should be incredibly easy for God to prove his existence.
You're putting God on some sort of unreachable pedestal. Sure, He is on pedestal, alright, but he's not too far away that he is completely un-understandable. He created the universe/multiverse so he's understandable on at least some levels.
Originally posted by dadudemon
All that aside, I disagree, completely. Unless you have an issue of separating reality from fantasy, it should be incredibly easy for God to prove his existence.You're putting God on some sort of unreachable pedestal. Sure, He is on pedestal, alright, but he's not too far away that he is completely un-understandable. He created the universe/multiverse so he's understandable on at least some levels.
I'm very curious about your 8 ways of proving one's self to be God?
My thought on the issue is that Clarke's Third Law suggests that a finite being, sufficiently advanced beyond the viewer, cannot be differentiated from an infinite being.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm very curious about your 8 ways of proving one's self to be God?
Really?
You first: I think it's a trap. Tell me one way that you think God could prove his existence.
If you think he's some unreachable being, pretend he's just a very very powerful immortal that can create universes, but is not some sort of unreachable, unknowable, entity...because that's what I think of Him as.
Edit - Picture someone like Q, from Star Trek, except much more intelligent and much more powerful...but still comparable and knowable.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My thought on the issue is that Clarke's Third Law suggests that a finite being, sufficiently advanced beyond the viewer, cannot be differentiated from an infinite being.
But that doesn't mean no sort of observation cannot be made. (Triple negative, bitches.) Lemme rephrase: actually, I can't. That's the only way I can adequately get my point across.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Really?You first: I think it's a trap. Tell me one way that you think God could prove his existence.
I can't think of any. That's why I asked.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you think he's some unreachable being, pretend he's just a very very powerful immortal that can create universes, but is not some sort of unreachable, unknowable, entity...because that's what I think of Him as.Edit - Picture someone like Q, from Star Trek, except much more intelligent and much more powerful...but still comparable and knowable.
But how would we differentiate God from Q? That's part of the problem.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But that doesn't mean no sort of observation cannot be made. (Triple negative, bitches.) Lemme rephrase: actually, I can't. That's the only way I can adequately get my point across.
ie: That doesn't mean observation is impossible.
Yes?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can't think of any. That's why I asked.But how would we differentiate God from Q? That's part of the problem.
Who's to say that someone like Q is not God? The Creator very well could be a person similar to Q....but much less immature.
I think that, in this instance, Occam's Razor actually works really well. Why complicate this Being beyond what needs to be done? Why does He have to be some sort of multi-dimensional (greater than 7), intangible, cloud...that is not observable even if our consciousness was expanded to comprehend a 7+ dimensional entity?
It could be a personage that is tangible but far beyond our intelligence...while still being able to be superifically comprehended.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
ie: That doesn't mean observation is impossible.Yes?
Yeah, that's it. We could still observe certain aspects of that Being...while still preserving the idea that it would be impossible to fully comprehend.
What I don't like is the illogical agnostic comparison to ants and humans. An agnostic says that Creator would be to us what we are to ants. That's not true, at all. We possess intellectual abilities that are of a significantly different flavor than an ant. There is a point in cognitive progression that the human to ant comparison fails. Sure, a being can be ultimately intelligence, comprehending multiple realities simultaneously...and I would not be able to do the same or even remotely compare to that ability...but that does not even come close to being something I cannot comprehend. I can understand that state without actually having to be able to do that. This is why the human to ant comparison fails. Sure, we may still seem rather petty and insignificant to such a being...but that doesn't mean we cannot understand or at least think about certain aspects of a Creator.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Who's to say that someone like Q is not God? The Creator very well could be a person similar to Q....but much less immature.I think that, in this instance, Occam's Razor actually works really well. Why complicate this Being beyond what needs to be done? Why does He have to be some sort of multi-dimensional (greater than 7), intangible, cloud...that is not observable even if our consciousness was expanded to comprehend a 7+ dimensional entity?
It could be a personage that is tangible but far beyond our intelligence...while still being able to be superifically comprehended.
This requires a fairly loose definition of God in which nearly anything that is more powerful than the observer counts. If Q showed up would you worship him as God?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, that's it. We could still observe certain aspects of that Being...while still preserving the idea that it would be impossible to fully comprehend.
The blind men and the elephant comes to mind.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What I don't like is the illogical agnostic comparison to ants and humans. An agnostic says that Creator would be to us what we are to ants. That's not true, at all. We possess intellectual abilities that are of a significantly different flavor than an ant.
But if we extend the metaphor God could have a significantly different flavor of intellectual abilities from a human. This is an idea that shows up with some regularity in transhumanist fiction.
Originally posted by dadudemon
There is a point in cognitive progression that the human to ant comparison fails. Sure, a being can be ultimately intelligence, comprehending multiple realities simultaneously...and I would not be able to do the same or even remotely compare to that ability...but that does not even come close to being something I cannot comprehend.
Hrm, I wrote a bunch of responses to this. I suspect we have different ideas of what counts as "comprehending". Like take calculus, I have no idea how to do that but I do understand the basic concept. A person who does known calculus would be the only kind of person that can comprehend it.
Humans can barely listen to two sounds at once. The idea that your imagination is enough to meaningfully comprehend living multiple lives at the same instant strikes me as silly. Slightly... arrogant, to use LilB's characterization 😛
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This requires a fairly loose definition of God in which nearly anything that is more powerful than the observer counts. If Q showed up would you worship him as God?
I wouldn't call it a loose definition, at all. It requires a gigantic leap in power and intelligence over humans in order to fit the definition.
Also, no, Q did not show the ability to create a large universe (it looks like they can create small ones, but not large ones), so he doesn't fit the bill of being a creater.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos But if we extend the metaphor God could have a significantly different flavor of intellectual abilities from a human. This is an idea that shows up with some regularity in transhumanist fiction.
...but it still doesn't account for us being able to observe and think about God in ways that are impossible for an ant. Sure, that God may be able to do the same...but it's just a much larger growth over humans...but still not something we could not comprehend.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hrm, I wrote a bunch of responses to this. I suspect we have different ideas of what counts as "comprehending". Like take calculus, I have no idea how to do that but I do understand the basic concept. A person who does known calculus would be the only kind of person that can comprehend it.Humans can barely listen to two sounds at once. The idea that your imagination is enough to meaningfully comprehend living multiple lives at the same instant strikes me as silly. Slightly... arrogant, to use LilB's characterization 😛
Yeah, we have differnet definitions of comprehend. Here's how we differ. You can comprehend that Calculus can be used to help calculate out changes in systems (physics) in relation to time. Sure, you may not be able to work it out, yourself, but you understand the concept quite well. I call that comprehending differential calculus. What you're talking about is applying that comprehension in a usable way. That's where we differ: we can understand thinking in multiple dimensions, but we certainly cannot do it.
The fact that you can put into words in a way that both you and I understand exactly what you mean by living in multiple times at the same time clearly indicates you comprehend that idea...you just thoroughly lack the ability to actually DO it. Nothing we have could do something like that and I cannot think of any machine we could build that would do that...but I certainly understand that concept and do not think it's arrogant to understand that God could do something like that.
dadudemon: If a being claiming to be God showed you how he can create, say, whole universes with the snap of a finger, how would you know this simply wasn't a being just powerful enough to create utterly realistic, impenetrable illusions? Or a being just powerful enough to encase you in a bubble universe, so you could never test your perceptions with others? Essentially, how would you know this simply wasn't some entity capable of isolating you in a 'dream' for the rest of your life?
Originally posted by TacDavey
How are you so sure?
Because of the total fallacy of half of it, given what we know about it, and the vast improbability....that and that if it was meant to be the word of God, then why did it need constantly editing/revising by his primates that seem to think they have some authority to do so...?
Not all religions can be right, but all can be wrong.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You see, that is exactly what I'm talking about. You feel reasonable. Saying that you're implying that those who don't believe the same thing as you are not reasonable.I am yet to meet an atheist who doesn't have superiority issues. Not saying you have, but in general. Haven't met nor spoken to one as of yet.
I feel reasonable in my disbelief....this in no ways implies that anyone else is not.
You might feel it reasonable, given your perchance for a particular flavour to go with one bag of crisps at the vending machine.
I might, given my tastes, go for another: Which is reasonable.
This won't see me burning you at the stake, for your enjoyment of Chicken flavoured crisps or whatever.
But to automatically demand that I like Chicken crisps, or feel right in chastizing me if my tastebuds cant ride with your flavour is not reasonable. For you to say that I couldn't have my Salt n' Vinegar because of your love of chicken, would be unreasonable..
Well given that you have now, Im delighted to set a precedent. 🙂
I've never met a non-atheist or even talked to one.
(Pretty much everyone is atheistic towards everyone else's gods....)
Originally posted by Mindship
dadudemon: If a being claiming to be God showed you how he can create, say, whole universes with the snap of a finger, how would you know this simply wasn't a being just powerful enough to create utterly realistic, impenetrable illusions? Or a being just powerful enough to encase you in a bubble universe, so you could never test your perceptions with others? Essentially, how would you know this simply wasn't some entity capable of isolating you in a 'dream' for the rest of your life?
or someone with the technology to modify the activation in your perceptual systems
its basically the brain in the vat problem. no truth can be proven absolutly outside of a specific individual's perspective. The closest thing is science, and it, by definition, presents no absolute truths