Oh, I certainly agree there’s an issue of conflating the concepts of “creator” and “God” here, but Snag’s post specifically referred to the former, without indicating scope. I’m also not convinced of your traditional definition of God; in a specifically Judaeo-Christian/Islamic context, maybe, but it certainly doesn’t describe (for example) the Greek/Roman pantheon, or the Hindus’. Not being much for dictionary debates I’ll refrain from quoting the OED, but it seems from a cursory glance that the lowest common denominator for godhood is personification and superhuman powers (now I’ve given myself an image of God in spandex fighting crime). Of course, once you start qualifying levels of power you get into a ludicrously opaque problem of classification, so perhaps I’d be better off leaving this slight tangent alone.
I do agree that within the context you describe, omnipotence is a given for any such being; I just don’t think it’s the only context that needs consideration. It’s certainly the most concretely definable, though.
The Hindu Brahman is not personified. The incarnations (devas) and the Trimurti are also just aspects of the single Godhead.
It may not be the only, but it’s there. In any case, if Snag intended the definition you claim, then he certainly wasn’t clear about it. The best way would have been that “the creator need not be omnipotent” instead of what he did write.
[bold]Mace & others[/bold], can I get by with just one?
Things that science cannot currently explain:*
how the universe was created (I may be incorrect, but I’m pretty sure that the Big Bang is still a theory).
Again, this is not to say that conventional science may never explain it, nor does the inability of science to explain it imply that there is a God/Goddess/gods/etc.
There’s been some interesting debate here and I enjoyed reading it (damn, I wish my argumentative skillz were better so I could step it, but I’m finding that most points I’d have poorly made on both sides are beaten down fairly well).
Evidence 1: Hollywood blockbuster miracle, as mention by many posters here.
Evidence 2:
Assume all existing religions have an imperfect understanding of the Supreme Deity, who happens to exist.
If the mystery of consciousness yielded to the scientific method and it was shown that consciousness is a general property of matter or social organization (as opposed to being a purely neural phenomenon), then a research agenda that hypothesized the existence of God might be plausible.
Alternatively, I could also imagine a situation where further research would shift me into the atheist camp. Presently, I remain agnostic.
I was not referring to the God any specific religion. Since most religions believe in a creator that is at least aware of our existence I simply mentioned some possible conditions ( a being existing in higher dimensions) that could make God physically feasible, and perhaps extremely alien as well. The main thrust of my argument is that it’s unlikely in my opinion that any definition of God falls far short of what the reality would be. So I am certainly not advocating any particular brand of creator. Perhaps It would not be a creator at all but a by-product of creation, a living multiverse that has gained sentience, or something else. What proof would we have that a God doesn’t simply pop in once in a while and then is gone again?
I’d guess we haven’t yet begun to define properties of God, if we ever can.
II Gyan II, you are correct that I meant to say that God need not be omnipotent. I mistakenly assumed that omnipotence could mean being present and knowledgeable everywhere at once without also having all power over all things as well. Thanks for the clarification. Indeed, just because a being might be able to create a universe – and theoretically it’s been suggested that new universes could be created with artificial black holes or vacuum fluctuations — there are no guarantees that such a being has complete control over it once it was created.
Yet even if God can do anything, It may not. For instance, it’s possible that this is one grand experiment made to be observed but not interfered with by the creator. Or ‘free will’ on a multiversal level requires a hands-off stance by God.
I suggest that we might be more likely to find subtle signs as there certainly do not seem to be any overt proof of such a being. So the only other likelihood would be that it would be something not so obvious, but probably needing to be wide-spread to be considered possible scientific proof.
It’s likely that we might only find such proof indirectly because trying to find something that may encompass multiverses may at best have indirect effects on our universe. Many scientists think that anything outside of our universe cannot have any effect on it. But others are looking at possibilities such that gravity may be leaking in and out of our universe. For instance ‘shared gravity’ might explain some of the missing dark matter that is supposed make up the vast majority of our universe.
Likewise finding something like a multi-dimensional being may take ages before having any idea how to test in order to confirm the existence of such higher dimensions, much less an occupant thereof.
Easy. God need only change my brain to the configuration “belief in God”. Indeed, such a change might arguably come about naturally, like developing a rash.
Without such change, my cognitive output will be that of nonbelief since the computer in my skull calculates that no supernatural explanation is necessary for any phenomenon, not even the universe. (That calculation might be wrong, of course.)
Indeed, even if a heavenly host literally appeared before my very eyes, I would still output nonbelief since another alternative would still be calculated as being more likely.
Damn, SentientMeat beat me to it, but I’ll give my version anyway.
I am amazed by how many posters bring up “evidence” as a criterion for believing in God. No amount of evidence would make me believe in God. What if He/She/It parted the waters of the Red Sea again? What if He/She/It wrote a flaming message in the sky? Well, we would then just incorporate that into the next version of String Theory. Or, we would build a space probe to bring back a piece of flaming message and see if we could use it for electricity generation.
But the question is easy. “I” am nothing but the physical and chemical processes occurring in my brain and body. It should be rather easy to modify those processes in such a way as to make “me” believe in God. Some a kind of pill might do the trick. Or, that failing, how about a quick lobotomy.
I’ve seen this before and have a hard time understanding how this is any more believable than God. Of course, “any sufficiently advanced technology…” and all that.
Since you bring up this pet peeve of mine (that is, your Arthur C. Clarke quote) I’d like to note that I have always considered this quote the height of stupidity, really unworthy of a person of Clarke’s stature. In truth, any technology, no matter how advanced, is always clearly distinguishable from magic.
I characterise “belief” in terms of the needle of a Belief-O-Meter[sup]TM[/sup]. A needle position of infinitessimally greater than 50% is “belief”, infinitessimally lesser is “non-belief”. A needle position of literally 100% or 0% is not “belief” but certainty or knowledge one way or the other.
I suggest that an agnostic is anyone whose needle is located at neither 0% or 100%.
I suggest that an atheist is anyone whose needle is located at <50%.
Thus, there is a large intersection of agnostic atheists, of which I am one.
You know that God does not exist? You admit no possibility that you might be wrong? Yes, I would call such a “0%”-er a “non-agnostic atheist”. To be honest, I didn’t think any such people existed, but there you go.
Yep I know that there is no God. I have incontrovertible evidence. What evidence? All of it! Every observation of the universe that comes in, exactly confirms, cross-confirms and reinforces my knowledge that there is no God. My observations are exactly consistent with that I would expect them to be if there were no God. ::checks Belief-O-Meter again:: Test… Test… Is this thing on? ::tap tap tap::
Hmmm… technically I did (do) admit that. Plus, it seems I am confused about the distinction between “knowledge” and “belief”. Must be another malfunction in my poorly instrumented brain…
Oops, that came out confusing… I meant I certainly do admit that I could be wrong. About anything and everything whatsoever. For the reason alone that my brain is nopthing more than the result of random evolution of lifeless stardust, instead of having been carefully designed to rigorous specifications by any form of intelligent agent.
Well then, FM, I’d suggest that your needle, like mine, hovers only arbitrarily close to 0% without actually settling there.
“Knowledge” is (under a common definition) belief which is both true and justified. In this case, there is no such thing as perfect justification and we cannot tell whether our belief is true. We might be wrong.
Technically, agnosticism is the belief that it is not possible to know whether God exists. It is not an direct opinion on the existence of God, but a position about what it’s possible to know. Strictly speaking, one can be agnostic and still be atheistic ot theistic. In popular usage, agnosticism gets used to indicate that a person is undecided or does not have a strong opinion one way or the other- a position that is probably more accurately defined as weak atheism.
A “non-agnostic atheist” would be a person who believes that it is possible to know that God does not exist. That would be a tough position to defend, to say the least.
Frankenstein seems to be describing a position of strong atheism. He is confident in his belief that there is no God, yet acknowledges the fact that he can’t technically KNOW it or prove it by empirical method.
