Yes, I would assume a normal loving father as what God would be.
The events that happen here on earth are neutral, people get born, grow up, and die. In the middle come a lot of events. These events are neutral also. We give the meaning to the events as to whether they are good or bad.
Hitler dies, that is good.
Kennedy dies, that is bad.
We assign good and bad to all events, they are nothing until we label them.
Everyone dies. That is natural. The deaths of those people are not what made them good or bad.
There are all kinds of fathers and all kinds of love. There is no “normal.” Which version does your god assume?
You are also projecting your feelings about Hitler and Kennedy that are certainly not universal emotions. Lots of people you consider bad are believers.
Even accepting the premise for the sake of argument, that sounds like classic petitio principii to me. P implies Q; Suppose P; therefore, Q. If gods existed, they could be measured by science. Suppose they don’t. Therefore, they can’t. Valid but unsound (and therefore useless). But if we discard the argument and rescue the premise, then the conclusion satisfies both atheists and theists, something like this — if gods are metaphysical, then science cannot measure them. Gods are indeed metaphysical; therefore, science cannot measure them. A simple modus ponens. Nearly all will agree that science is an empirical epistemology, except for the most ignorant. And there’s no point in arguing with them.
Oh, I don’t know. If you’d been around here for going on 10 years, you’d have heard a lot of definitions for atheism. It is certainly controversial in the popular literature.
I think threads wend and drift, much like streams of water. If you believe I am hijacking the thread, I won’t burden you further. But it seems to me that if people are claiming, as Der Trihs certainly does, that the non-existence of God is the only reasonable premise, then it’s only fair that people who disagree have an opportunity to express themselves, don’t you think?
I see. 
One cannot be too careful around these parts. We have a range of intellectual gravitas from people who think scientific experiments can prove that one plus one equals two all the way up to people who understand that God and math are analytical, not empirical, matters.
But that just moves the equivocation from one word to another. Now that we’re clear what you meant by show, we have to clear up what you mean by “god”. I’m not sure whether very many theories of deity are overturned by being unable to show you God’s penis. It sounds to me like you’re simply a logical positivist; i.e., you believe that any statement lacking empirical content is meaningless. And that’s fine. You’re entitled. What you’re not entitled to do is assert that your viewpoint is the only reasonable one. I have always allowed that atheists have a valid point of view (especially having been one myself), given their life experience. And some atheists here — a precious few — allow that my point of view is as valid as theirs. So long as our inferences are valid, then so are our conclusions. Whether they are logically sound depends entirely on whether our premises are true. And because they are premises, we cannot prove them to be true. Not me mine. And not you yours. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be premises at all.
That’s true, although mechanistically very different from what I described. But for the sake of argument, let’s take “people change the way they think all the time” as a true premise. That being the case, my challenge to you is to change the way you think now. Right now. Decide that you will believe in God.
If you find that, no matter how much you squint and grunt, belief in God is not emerging in your mind, what I hope is that you can understand why I, given my life experience, cannot simply squint and grunt and wipe my belief in Him away.
(Incidentally, the pronoun is merely a literary device of standard English and makes no implication with respect to actual genitalia. I am just as comfortable with It or She.)
Well, that is as it should be.
Liberal, do you acknowledge that any god experience you may have experienced could actually be a mental “trick” brought on either by suggestion, substance, or misinterpretation of a non-godly happening?
Also, do you believe there is more than one god?
Do you believe god thinks?
Another example of why I generally don’t post in these type of threads.
I think both believers and non-believers would accept the notion that IF there were a “god” or supreme being, that it would by definition be omniscient, omnipotent, incorporeal probably eternal and perhaps inscrutable. In other words, infinitely everything.
Arguing over what sort of proof we need to establish the existence of such an entity is like arguing over whether calipers or a micrometer is better for measuring the diameter of the galaxy. It’s simply too vast. You can’t use a tool to measure the infinite.
Arguing over why a supreme being doesn’t reveal itself in an undisputable way to everyone on Earth is just as fruitless. Believers argue that a god HAS revealed to them, and that non-believers simply refuse to accept it. Non-believers argue they they don’t believe because there has been no revelation, musch less proof.
And both sides end up getting really angry over the other’s refusal to see the truth of their arguments.
The bottom line is, if there is an all-everything being that created everything (whether or not that being continues to control everything or just set everything in motion and then stepped back and let it run), it seems to me that such a being would be beyond comprehension by science alone. Or, for that matter beyond comprehension by theology, metaphysics, philosophy or any other school of knowledge we can design.
In other words, you either believe it or you don’t, and that puts us right back at square one.
In other words, logically impossible.
And at any rate, plenty of people wouldn’t “accept” that.
I let the believer in a particular god define the characteristics of that god. Throughout history people believed in all sorts of gods who did not meet these criteria. In Genesis God looks for Adam. I know there are excuses for this today, but the text makes it sound like God is not omnipotent or omniscient. I believe there is one verse that says God couldn’t win the battle for the Israelites because the enemies had iron chariots.
This only works if the goal is to fully understand or measure God. We’re talking about measuring the projection of this God on our Earth, which is measurable.
By “them” do you mean believers or everyone? If the former, then he hasn’t revealed himself to everyone, if the latter, the revelation is hardly indisputable. I’ve heard this argument in two ways. First is “the sky and clouds are beautiful, so God exists” argument, the second is the “God is talking to you but you won’t listen” argument. Oh, and the argument beloved of kanicbird - the “if you’d just believe, then you’d believe” argument.
And both sides end up getting really angry over the other’s refusal to see the truth of their arguments.
I think it more accurate to say that there is no necessity of communication from God. Like in theistic evolution, God might sneak in using ways which are undetectable and unfalsifiable. I just got an urge for ice cream - does it come from blood sugar or from God. Given that, belief in God is really just a hobby, which might make some people feel good, might do some good (or evil) for the world, but isn’t really vitally important.
Wow. Talk about begging the question. 
We may need to agree to disagree. It may well be an environmental issue; I’m from Texas. God is REAL, son.
I’ve never agreed with changing the term “agnosticism” to “weak atheism.” It makes it sound like an argument from a weak position, something I don’t agree is the case. Agnosticism is a respectable and reasoned position. “I don’t know” is far more honest, IMO, than asserting proof on either side.
Sure, and I should have read the thread all the way through before simply popping in and asserting my opinion in response to the first post. From my perspective, it seems the most reasonable position based on the evidence at hand. While I understand your position, I don’t agree with it or find it a conclusion I can arrive at logically.
Ah. No, I could try to argue that, I suppose, but I’m more interested in understanding your points than winning.
My definition of “god” is essentially the definition with which I grew up. The entity that created the universe and everything in it then his greatest creation, man. Knows all, exists in all places, and was born as human in Yeshua of Nazareth then came back from the dead to prove who He was.
I don’t think that any statement lacking empirical content is meaningless. I think it’s unproven. People tend to find meaning in many places and many concepts that aren’t backed up by facts. Reason is a combination of logic and emotion. From that perspective your position is reasonable.
I have changed my way of thinking for many reasons. I can’t recall ever doing so simply by being told to do so. I certainly would never be so unreasonable as to tell you to stop believing. It would accomplish nothing.
A good enough brain scan and understanding of the brain should be able to answer that question. As long as it’s good enough, there just won’t be any room for that sort of manipulation - any “God-tweaks” big enough to have an effect would be big enough to notice.
No, not “logically impossible.” Just not identifiable or quantifiable by the tools we have at our disposal.
Perhaps, then you can provide the attributes of the “god” you don’t believe in.
I meant everyone. I agree that the revelation is disputed.
No, impossible. You get paradoxes when you start using all those “omnis”.
Not “infinitely everything”, which is your comment I was responding to.
I think you are misunderestimating the true believer. Someone helps a little old lady cross the street? You and I may say it’s upbringing, the believer will say goddidit. There will never be a space too small for some people to find god.
I agree. And lots of big stuff (cough) Darfur (cough)…that stuff never seems to be attributed to god. Nor does anyone ever expect to see a meaningful intervention.
I was talking about scientific evidence, not the delusions of believers. They are insane; evidence or the lack is irrelevant to them.
I acknowledge the epistemic possibility, keeping in mind that if I am psychotic, then I am chronically so and have been for many years. One thing that may escape the consideration of an atheist (and understandably so) is the fact that our “god experience” is ongoing. It is not the case, at least for me, that I had an epiphany and am now locked into a struggle to recreate it or find it again. You’ve likely heard my story, and can recall that my conversion was both unexpected and instantaneous. I looked down at my book with one worldview, and then looked up with another. It isn’t that something was added to my way of thinking; rather, it is that everything was replaced.
Yes, but probably not in the sense that I think you mean it, and so to keep from misleading you or causing unnecessary confusion among us all, I’ll answer “no”.
Not if by “think” you mean the same sort of synaptic farts that comprise our thinking. As I see it, the notion that we are created in God’s image does not anthropomorphize God; rather, it spiritualizes us. Our essence is not our brains, but our hearts (meaning, of course, heart in the sense of our innermost being and true nature).
I think that “I don’t know” is honest if one does not know. I think “God does not exist” is honest for the atheist whose life experience has never included an encounter with God. But for the faithful, “God exists” is the only honest tenet we can possibly hold.
As an aside, I’d like to point out that I do recognize the rather substantive difference between a person who is a cultural theist and a person who is a devout theist. Some people might believe in God only in an intellectual or emotional sense, or it might even be the case that people do not believe in God in any meaningful sense other than lip-service, but still associate themselves with theism and theists because of circumstances like the convenience of networking, or even for nefarious purposes like political or monetary gain. I needn’t tell you, I’m sure, how important it is to differentiate such people from people whose faith is rooted in devotion and in the confidence that God is with them in their daily lives.
We need you here. I say that even though you and I disagree, and you are obviously a formidable debating opponent. It is in coming to understand one another that we can better understand ourselves. I know that sounds like a cliche, but it is nevertheless true. There is a certain Socratic edification in fleshing out the views of others.
Okay, I got it. I realize you are an atheist, but many theists would instantly recognize what you’re talking about.
In my limited experience, people who identify themselves as Christian (the sort of god you describe) often define Him in a similar way. I call it “star struck” faith. For them, it’s like a fan describing the object of his admiration. “She is beautiful and smart, electrifies the crowds, and has the voice of an angel.” Contrast that sort of view with the view that her closest friends and family might have of her. “She is kind and vulnerable with a low self-esteem, and I worry about her being swept up by her rise to stardom.”
People of devout faith view God the second way. And by that, I don’t mean they have a morose or defeatist view of him, but a… well… more personal and intimate view than the star struck believer. The most important thing about God is not His power or His knowledge or His ubiquity. The most important thing about God is His love and grace.
If you want to understand me, that is probably the single most important thing to understand.
I’d like to clarify just a bit further, Syntropy, by saying that although I do believe God created the universe, it really doesn’t matter to me whether He did or not. The universe serves His purpose all the same.
Where do you see “love and grace”? Mankind is about as loveless and graceless as any barren wasteland of DNA could possibly be! This is a serious question. When you look around and see the state of things, do you really see an overlay of love or grace that overrides the shitstorm we’ve created for ourselves? Really? With all those believers out there pulling for the god answer to remove the bad from our lives, are you seeing something that actually resembles “love and grace?” What keeps you forging ahead with this idea?
The prevailing mood is greed and hate, with a smattering of “what can WE do to fix it, now that the superpower has abandoned us??” tossed in for shits and grins. I will continue to try to fix what’s wrong with us in any little way I can, but that is topped off with a hearty “thanks for nothin’!” to the all-powerful god concept.
God’s love is unconditional, I don’t consider other to be bad. I was using them as an example.