I never said anything about worshipping she/he/it. This said hypothetical god would also know why that just isn’t going to happen.
This is simply The Problem of Induction. How can we conclusively make ANY general claim based on limited evidence? If I’ve seen a million white swans, how can I know that the million-and-oneth swan won’t be black? The answer is, I can’t.
So does that mean I can’t say things like “Swans are white”? Can I not make ANY general claims about the universe?
No, it just means that all such claims are provisional. “Swans are white” should be understood to mean “Swans are white (according to all evidence so far)”.
If I were to observe a being that always acted in ways that implied omnipotence, then it would not be unreasonable to conclude “That being is omnipotent (according to all evidence so far)”. The fact that I might be five seconds away from discovering otherwise doesn’t matter. I can only act on the information I have at hand.
I am not an atheist now, but I was for a number of years.
Now, as when I was an atheist, I was never bothered by what you believed in, God-wise. Your own personal beliefs are none of my business. But some motherfuckers seem to want to MAKE it my business, either by trying to convince me to believe as they do, or trying to make me a 2nd class citizen because I do not, or by advocating legislation based on their beliefs (which is usually hypocritical, as they would HATE legislation based on OTHER religious beliefs).
I keep trying to propose a truce. You believe what you do, and I will believe what I do and we will both shut the fuck up about it unless we’re asked for our opinions*. Obviously, knocking at my door or putting leaflets on my car would violate the peace!
[sub]* = asking for an opinion as a pretext for proselytism is verboten!!![/sub]
It’s perfectly falsifiable. Prove that a god exists and you’ve falsified the atheistic theory.
This being true proves that it wants nothing to do with you.
Of course atheism is not scientific. Nor is it unscientific.
Science is a process. It is a systematic method for evaluating claims.
Atheism is a conclusion. A particular atheist might have relied on science to arrive at that conclusion, or may not have. The use of science isn’t a necessary element of atheism.
By the way, there is no reason one cannot scientifically study love. We do it all the time for dysphoric mood, fear, anger, mania…
Took you long enough, Drunky. Now that your barely on-topic snark is over, it’s time to crawl back into your hole and wait for the next opportunity to savage me with your basketball-sharp wit.
No, the problem is more particular than that. I’m not casting doubt on the legitimacy of inductive conclusions, I’m saying that induction, a legitimate way of reasoning, doesn’t license the conclusion that this being is omnipotent. This is exactly because the way induction works (or is supposed to work anyway) requires that more plausible hypotheses be accepted and less plausible ones be rejected (all with the proviso that no new information comes in of course). Well, omnipotence is always less plausible than “very powerful but not omnipotent,” no matter how powerful an entity has demonstrated itself to be. Hence, induction never licenses us to conclude the being is omnipotent. Instead it licenses us to conclude that it’s very powerful.
The argument I’m making relies on the legitimacy of induction, far from questioning it.
That’s just it. There is no way to act that implies omnipotence, neither strictly nor probabilistically.
You’ve convinced me.
Just a little add-on I threw in there.
Nicely observed.
I’d also like to point out that for a long time people assumed that you COULD scientifically study God. God clearly acted in the world and you should be able to study His acts, form hypotheses, and draw conclusions. It is only recently that “God lies beyond the purview of science” has appeared as a concept, largely because all attempts to study God empirically have come up empty.
I…
Is this…
Are you…
I can’t tell if you’re serious! :eek:
Waitaminnit, is “benevolent” even a logically necessary element of the definition of God? It is in some religious traditions, I know, but here we are discussing what amounts to natural theology, which is supposed to stand on pure logic and/or experience, without reference to tradition or revelation.
It’s like the ontological argument (in a nutshell, God is the Perfect Being by definition, therefore exists because nonexistence would be an imperfection) – that depends on the assumption that God is the Perfect Being. But, there is no logically necessary reason why the Supreme Being should be perfect, that notion comes out of religious tradition.
Totally serious. I agree with your point.
I’m not sure even that is a logically necessary element of the definition of God; the Supreme Being need not be omnipotent, only more powerful than any other being.
I didn’t mean to be talking about what’s logically necessary to any definition of God (I don’t think anything is–you can define anything however you like…) Rather, I was just trying to express what I take to be a very common conception of God.
If someone conceives of God as very powerful but not omnipotent, the barrier to rational acceptance that I’ve been harping on no longer applies. (There may well be other barriers of course!)
The principles of Fight Club are true!!!
I wouldn’t order soup in a restaurant anymore if I were you.
We have the perfect stock answer, yet nobody uses it. It’s a ‘golden’ stock answer. Yet so many are all caught in the xkcd comic and can’t let it go.
Silence is the answer. When one makes the mistake of actually reading posts like the OP (I made it about a paragraph and a half before moving on to the inevitable but useless mocking), just shake one’s head and hit the back button/close the tab and move on to the next RO pit thread.
What we encounter is the dubious “omnibenevolent”, which is a pretty specious idea. Not to mention, the biblical Yowee allegedly did quite a number of things that inured to his chosen folk but dreadfully inconvenienced the not-chosen. If the deity is selectively benevolent, I am not sure how that adds up to a truly universal or even just exapotent superbeing.
That makes no sense. Existence by definition is imperfection. Perfection is a state of completion, beyond which there is naught – in a very real way, if god is perfect, it is dead, for there is no path it can undertake but one that leads toward imperfection. Therefore, a putative perfect entity has not motivation to do anything, because why would it sacrifice its own completeness?
Semantically, though, one cannot argue that any god does not exist. Arthur Pendragon exists, as do Guildenstern, Candide, Queequeg, Gandalf and Yoda. Literal physical form is not a requirement for existence. Or even, in fact, potence. Zatoichi, Scrooge, and Heracles have almost certainly informed some individuals’ decisions, as have Jesus, Elisha and Yowee.
If your canon calls for walking around with a lightsaber, so be it, please, just leave me out of it.
Well, I see that SDMB never changes. Didn’t we have this discussion in 2000, then again in 2002, then again in…?