Does God make sense?

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
You say that like it’s a good thing…

or am I misreading?
[/QUOTE]

I tend to be a bit cynical, so, yes, it can be a good thing. In the same way that being talented at weaving in and out of traffic and cutting off anyone who is in the way to get where you’re going can be a good thing.

We may sneer at those who do it unto us, but when we practice the same behavior we feel justified and usually quite satisfied with our accomplishments.

Did I mention that I tend to be cynical?

22

[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
I tend to be a bit cynical, so, yes, it can be a good thing. In the same way that being talented at weaving in and out of traffic and cutting off anyone who is in the way to get where you’re going can be a good thing.

We may sneer at those who do it unto us, but when we practice the same behavior we feel justified and usually quite satisfied with our accomplishments.

Did I mention that I tend to be cynical?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t want to hijack, but I think his style of argument does no service to anyone. And makes making strawmen and caricatures of atheists easier.

Honesty is honesty. Less is less. If winning means more than staying true to principles - then you have no high ground to stand on and snicker. He seems to think he gets both.

And he won’t respond to the pit.

I’m cynical too, but I still think there are standards. And I’m tired of him setting a low standard for others to be slandered with.

But I digress.

I DO think a soft god could make a ton of sense. We, as humans, have a need to “look up.” We need to aspire. We need to feel hope. We need to find peace. Religion often purports to offer those things. And those who do it well, I think, represent religion well. And I have no quibbles with them.

If they aren’t going to force their beliefs on me, I’m not going to do the same to them. There is a sensible and sane middle, imo.

23

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
If he won’t, can I? Sounds cool.

[/quote]

Yes, you can. So long as you do this as a means of addressing the issue of ASN.

I notice that you imply that God could or should be revealed experimentation. Does that mean that God, in your religion, would be Pantheistic? (i.e. The universe as revealed through science?)

FWIW, I pasted your request into a search engine and the first hit was this. (SFW)

24

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
They’d live to the age of reproduction.
[/QUOTE]
I have my doubts. I can’t see such creatures showing much concern for their children.

[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
You are talented with the Red Herrings!
[/quote]
Hardly a red herring; you asked what the difference was between God and the universe; I mentioned the most important one.

[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
Are you saying that you would create a new religion, sans God, and simply define morality in terms of a nebulously delineated Universe and that what is ‘good’ for that Universe is what you say is good; ironicly casting yourself as God?
[/QUOTE]
No, I wouldn’t do anything but show the world the disproof of God, and let the chips fall where they may. Given the race of monsters you describe, if I did manufacture a religion, it would be one designed to lead them to annihilation.

25

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

Hardly a red herring; you asked what the difference was between God and the universe; I mentioned the most important one.
[/QUOTE]

It is a refulgent Red Herring.
The non-existence of God was stipulated in Premise Two. Restating it is a mediocre distraction.

How do you mean soft? I’m not trying to be obtuse, but I’m almost sure that my definition of a soft God would be different than almost anyone else’s.

26

[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
Yes, you can. So long as you do this as a means of addressing the issue of ASN.
[/quote]

As far as I can tell, that first appearance of “ASN” in this thread. What’s it mean?

Sure, why not? I’d dispense with all anthropomorphic portrayals of God. “Big guy with white beard floating in clouds” would be viewed as childish and ridiculous; fodder for cartoons, not cathedral paintings.

27

I’ll play, with the proviso that I think these style of debates with completely unrealistic premises are stupid…

[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]

Given the solipsistic, immoral, anarchic nihilism endemic to a world (universe?) without God, does it (would it) make sense to invent a God?
[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that I’m the only one who knows what this window-cleaner-maker discovered? Basically, that I actually have an option to hide the truth from everyone? Or that once out, this evidence might not convince the majority of people?

I personally believe that most people aren’t ready to handle atheism. But if it’s just the moral framework they need, there are atheistic religions that would work just fine as an alternative to theism, like Buddhism. I’d try and go with those as a first step.

[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]

What if the negative consequences implied by mswas OP were not endemic, but still influenced a majority of people?

[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that really changes the scenario.
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]

Would it make any difference if you were a President, Prime Minister or State leader?

[/QUOTE]
Not really - the whole thing is resting on premise 3. Does my being any of those things change my powers under this premise? If not, then it doesn’t matter.
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]

What if you had been a religious leader until your conversion to atheism or realization that God’s existence had been disproved?

[/QUOTE]
Same as above.
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]

Would you be able to fabricate a God that you yourself did not believe in or knew did not exist?
[/QUOTE]

If an atheistic religion was off the cards (but I don’t see why - Buddhism fills the same role as Christianity for its followers and it can be atheistic), then yes, I could fabricate a God I didn’t believe in. Past experience says I’m a pretty glib liar if I want to be. But I wouldn’t. Mostly because of my religious beliefs. If these people can’t handle the truth, tough. I’m with Der Trihs here - tell the truth as broadly as possible, and let the chips fall where they may.

And may I point out a logical flaw? If premise 1) holds, then I, upon discovering the truth of premise 2) and with the power of premise 3) , would be a sociopath myself, and in a position to fuck with people like no-one since L. Ron Hubbard. So you can’t trust anything I say about what I’d do - I might resurrect the Aztec religion just to fuck with people. Or reveal the truth just to watch civilization break down.

28

[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
It is a refulgent Red Herring.
The non-existence of God was stipulated in Premise Two. Restating it is a mediocre distraction.
[/quote]
Not when you ASK the difference. You brought it up, not I. If you don’t want an answer, don’t ask a question.

29

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
As far as I can tell, that first appearance of “ASN” in this thread. What’s it mean?

[/QUOTE]

Atheigenic Sociopathic Nihilism

30

In all these debates about God or no God there are untrue assumptions made by the majority of posters who are atheists.

One is “there is no proof of God.”

Another: “Man thought up God.”

Another: “the world would be a better place without God.”

No matter how much research is provided to prove the benefits of believing in God, they will be ignored, explained away, etc. These debates go no where and change the views of no one.

I think it is OK to be an atheist if you wish, but you don’t need to bash theists in the process.

31

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Not when you ASK the difference. You brought it up, not I. If you don’t want an answer, don’t ask a question.
[/QUOTE]

You are a slippery one aren’t you.
Step back to post #4. That is the post I was referring to and the one I quoted when I asked, NOT, what is the difference between God and the Universe, but:

from post #6

In short, I did not ask you the difference and you may drag as many distractions in as you like, you are not answering any question nor do I believe you to be capable of same.

I’d also like to point out that the subject of Astrology has come up on these boards a number of times and it is frequently noted that a major flaw in the concept of Astrology is that the stars and, to a lesser extent, the planets are so far away that any influence they might have on us is utterly negligible. The eradication of even the entirety of humanity could not have even a neutrino’s impact on Betelgeuse or any other star, much less the entire Universe! It is a simple substitution: “the Good of the Universe” in place of “God.”

You better get a lot of paint if your cathedrals are going to sport paintings of π.

32

[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
You are a slippery one aren’t you.
Step back to post #4. That is the post I was referring to and the one I quoted when I asked, NOT, what is the difference between God and the Universe, but:

from post #6

In short, I did not ask you the difference and you may drag as many distractions in as you like, you are not answering any question nor do I believe you to be capable of same.
[/quote]
Of course i can answer - when you clairfy your problem with my answer instead of making comments about red herrings. Still, there’s not much difference in the answer; morality/good is a semi-arbitrary human assertion of what is desirable. God is a lie/delusion; a false claim about objective reality. Again, not the same.

[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
I’d also like to point out that the subject of Astrology has come up on these boards a number of times and it is frequently noted that a major flaw in the concept of Astrology is that the stars and, to a lesser extent, the planets are so far away that any influence they might have on us is utterly negligible. The eradication of even the entirety of humanity could not have even a neutrino’s impact on Betelgeuse or any other star, much less the entire Universe! It is a simple substitution: “the Good of the Universe” in place of “God.”
[/quote]
I wasn’t quite clear; I was speaking of the problems for the universe if I’m wrong and your demon-humans didn’t destroy themselves. If they lasted long enough to expand into the universe, they would become a plague, a wave of malice and greed slowly eating the galaxy and anything unfortunate enough to live there and to not be strong enough to exterminate the demon-humans before the demon-humans killed them ( or worse ) instead.

33

So, are you only playing with DT, or are you going to get around to answering my questions about the OP?

34

[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
How do you mean soft? I’m not trying to be obtuse, but I’m almost sure that my definition of a soft God would be different than almost anyone else’s.
[/QUOTE]
More or less as I described in post 15. A god so specific yet vague that the influence in the daily world would be null. No miracles. No supernatural. No demons. No angels. A god that kicked it all off, wants us happy, has no omni-traits, and gave us just enough good that we can get the rest of the way to happiness - if we listen to our own happier instincts.

It would be a god consistent with naturalism, science, the whole nine yards. There would need to be some soft, non-dogmatic way to ensure that this “god” didn’t end up the omni-super-de-duper god of the primary three religions today.

35

You never know what you’ll learn from a thought experiment until you run through it. And opinions on outcomes will differ as this isn’t really science. Too many and it feels like omphaloskepsis, too few and you don’t get to entertain ideas you wouldn’t encounter in daily life. We all have a balance - and a real world adding and detracting to what’s seen online…

I agree that the premises are impossible in the extreme. I find the idea moderately interesting so I’m contributing - for now.

36

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
More or less as I described in post 15. A god so specific yet vague that the influence in the daily world would be null. No miracles. No supernatural. No demons. No angels. A god that kicked it all off, wants us happy, has no omni-traits, and gave us just enough good that we can get the rest of the way to happiness - if we listen to our own happier instincts.
[/QUOTE]
Does this god exist in physical space?

Why the “primary three?” Why can’t the real god be described by some tiny fringe religion, or even a religion yet to be actualized?

37

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Why the “primary three?” Why can’t the real god be described by some tiny fringe religion, or even a religion yet to be actualized?
[/QUOTE]
I believe he/she isn’t claiming anything about what God, if any, is real. I think that they are arguing against creating something like the God of the Abrahamic religions.

38

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Does this god exist in physical space?
[/QUOTE]
Nope. Nor in supernatural space. An amorphous non-entity. A ummm… transdimensional non-entity. :slight_smile: Work with me here… I need help. Anybody got anything to get me outta this corner??

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Why the “primary three?” Why can’t the real god be described by some tiny fringe religion, or even a religion yet to be actualized?
[/QUOTE]
Ok… I never said they get to define god. I was supposing we could. What I said is I wanted to sidestep this god ever becoming a GOD.

I’m picturing something slightly more akin to Buddhism than other things.

Does this help?

39

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I believe he/she isn’t claiming anything about what God, if any, is real. I think that they are arguing against creating something like the God of the Abrahamic religions.
[/QUOTE]
'zactly. And thank you DT.

Oh! I’m a he. I’m still figuring out everyone’s gender myself… and I know I’m effectively a newbie.

40

[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
You better get a lot of paint if your cathedrals are going to sport paintings of π.
[/QUOTE]

Why the hell would anyone do that? It’s completely irrational.