It’s not clear that many of the Greek gods could do your first task. The god of the deist doesn’t fit the second part of the definition.
Kinda. While agree completely with the first part, I’d like to clarify the second part. I don’t think that we can say that we are necessarily the point of his creation. We may be, but that is a subsequent discussion in my opinion. I do believe there is a Creator, but what his intent was and what he cares about are, again, fodder for another discussion. For all I know we are as significant to his creation—we meaning man and this entire universe—as detritus on a beach.
That naturally goes to a discussion about this gods omnipotence, omniscience and perfection, which one might expect to see in ALL he creates, but that, once again, is a subsequent discussion. I’ve simply been arguin for a Creator as a Prime Mover. Nothing else.
My point being, if he doesn’t care, why should we?
One other thought. What if “god” created the universe and then just died? Why do we suppose he’s got (had) a neverending existence?
That assumes that non-physicality is a higher state than physicality. Simply because deductive claims look better than inductive claims on paper doesn’t make them so.*
What if god is merely the leftover detritus from the non-caused origin of the universe? A hanger on, if you will.
- I am not, nor have I ever played, a trained philosopher.
Well, that wouldn’t ba a very god-like thing to do, now would it? Seriously, your idea is 100% valid in the context of this discussion—with me, anyway. As I’ve said, I’ve been arguing for a Creator only. Nothing else.
I’m not saying you should. Certainly, if you knew he didn’t care, that would be liberating. But he might. And if he does care, probably not a good idea to piss off god. But, again, my only point has gone to the existence of a Creator. Whether he is now gone, un caring or even unaware of us is a differetn discussion.
I was trying to answer this, but “non-caused origin” strikes me as a self-contradiction. Is it not? If it was uncaused, it was eternal, in which case there would be no origin. Can you rephrase?
I wouldn’t have the slightest idea what would be pleasing or annoying to a god. We can only know what annoys other humans.
You are owned by no cats, I take it?
I’ll try, but beyond my sinful Ginist nature, I am also not a scientist.
As described earlier in this thread by better versed posters than I, there is room in the QM theory(ies) for the energy needed for the universe to “bang” to be borrowed without requiring existence… That would be what I mean by an uncaused origin. There was no causal agent involved, no first domino tipper, but still an origin of space-time via the “borrowing” of energy.
I hope that makes a little more sense.
<ralph wiggum>I like cats</ralph wiggum>
We’re talking about an entirely different level of superiority here! 
Yes, thanks. I don’t recall the post you are referring to, but I’ve asked several times for an example of an uncaused event in QM. I looked and could find none. Additionally, even if QM allows for adequate energy to POP a universe in existence, I see no reason to believe that that popping is an uncaused event. There’s a lot about QM that is not fully understood, but I see no claims of an uncaused event in its framework.
Also, using your universe popping into existence. Where did this energy come from? What set it in a particular motion to cause the popping?
You may have inadvertently pointed to an uncaused event. My cat could be perfectly content in one room one minute. Then for no reason whatsoever decide that this is entierly THE WORST room in the universe to be in and shoot into another.
This changes everything.
The post I was referring to wasVoyager’s #280
You’d have to give a mathematical definition of causality. I’m not sure how you’d do it, given the inherent stochastic nature of things like electrons, and given Heisenberg. If an electron can “be” in one of an infinite number of places depending on a probability wave (and be isn’t quite right here, since there is inherently no way of knowing where it is and where it’s going) can we really say its location is caused by something, exactly? If you throw a die, and the outcome is independent of how hard you threw it, etc., can you say you caused a six to appear, since if you repeat the experiment exactly you might get a 3 next time?
This cause stuff is more philosophy than physics, nowadays.
As for me, I have dogs, so I know what being a god feels like.
I’ve yet to see a convincing cosmological proof anywhere. If by “purely logical standpoint” you mean accepting the premises without proof, then yes, you can prove anything under the sun. But for any proof to be sound, the premises should be sound. And the premise that “everything has a cause” can be denied as it applies to creation. Our knowledge of causation in the universe merely shows changes in matter and energy, not its creation. So we have no experience to inform us of a creation.
The alternative explanation is that the “uncaused singularity” is eternal.
The act of being a creator (which I don’t buy) is totally disconnected from that other stuff. Nothing in the act of creation, even of a universe, necessarily implies moral perfection, omnipotence, and certainly not omniscience. As mentioned, it does not even imply continued physical existence. We might learn how to create a singularity - but we might not ever be able to control the natural constants within the singularity, and we will certainly never be able to look inside.
And just as a reminder - though you are not claiming this - the acceptance of a creator/prime mover does not in any endorse any human religion. Quite the contrary. Since all human religions get the creation story totally wrong inall particulars, we can only conclude that those who claimed contact with or inspiration by god while writing the story were smoking crack. If we ever find a civilization in the Galaxy where the inhabitants had an ancient holy book that got it right, I might think about believing. For us, atheism w.r.t. all human gods seems the only logical answer.
No. My God doesn’t. But I think I have more in common with atheists than theists.
God is love, serendipity, beauty, fate, luck, joy, color, music, the creative impulse (I suppose that’s something out of nothing), a direction for hope and gratitude, selflessness, generousity, a place to hang your hat, the recognition that the universe is bigger than you and you are a blip, simultanously - the uniqueness that is the individual.
No creation, no answers to prayers, and controls fate only in that fate is part of the definition.
(This doesn’t seem to be an uncommon definition among “alternate” spiritualities - i.e. I know Pagans, Buddhists and Unitarians with similar definitions - none of them consider themselves atheists.)
Can I ask you why you use the word “god” when you have all those other beautiful words to use already?