How can you deny the possibility of God's existence until..

[shawn001]

I apologize, but what the $#@% is a "standard" definition of the gods?

Wait! Don't tell me!

*drum roll*

CLAAAAASICAL MONOTHEISM!



Someone bring me a fan... the ethnocentric aroma is stinking up the place something awful. I need to clear the air. While we're at it, can someone bring me a smudge stick or some incense too?

CLAAAAASICAL MONOTHEISM! That evolved from humans.

We can thank Zoroaster for it.




"“If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss bank.”
Woody Allen

 

[Breathe]

A God who is not magical and/or supernatural doesn't really fit the standard definition of God though, does it?

Yeah, it does.

Yeah, that tells me nothing.

I'm sorry for your loss.

Then, my television fits the definition of a god. If you disagree, could you explain how my television could not possibly fit the definition of a god?

It's limited.

Technobabble. To declare something as "transcendent" when that thing has not even been demonstrated to exist is meaningless.

What else in transcendent?

Besides, didn't you just say that thinking of god as "some kind of wholly transcendent force" is a mistake? You certainly said it was a mistake when I said it, and yet now you are claiming that many religions believe this about God as a way to support your point?

Wholly transcendent ≠ immanent and transcendent

And why should I consider mythology as a valid source of information about the real world?

Then you clearly do not understand what mythology actually is. I'm sorry for your loss.

And the joy I get from watching TV similarly makes it a God. Makes it divine.

 

[Breathe]

Where you able to find the name of the road?
Or perhaps you give it your own name?

I don't really care about road names unless I need to explain to someone else about where I am on this road, even though I would like to walk with others. Ultimately, I care about the destination and if I'm behaving myself on the journey.

 

[technomage]

OK, I make a clam that how can you deny the possibility of God's existence until you/science may search each tiny part of this universe ?

Science is the wrong tool for that job. Science, by definition, can only tell us about natural (non-supernatural) things. To search for God, if there is one, using science is to listen with your eyes.

 

[chinu]

Science is the wrong tool for that job. Science, by definition, can only tell us about natural (non-supernatural) things. To search for God, if there is one, using science is to listen with your eyes.

Ok than you tell, What is there to search God ?

 

[technomage]

Ok than you tell, What is there to search God ?

I have yet to discover one. I am told that there is a way ... but when I try to do as I am told, I discover nothing.

If looking for God with science is (as I noted above) attempting to listen with the eyes, perhaps I am "deaf." Or perhaps there is no God. I do not know.

 

[chinu]

I don't need to search each tiny part of this universe to understand that all human-imagined concepts of "god" are sufficiently and reasonably explained as a result of the vagaries of human psychology and sociology.

If I leave a 3-year old in a room with a bucket of ice cream, and come back 10 minutes later to find his face covered in ice cream, this is sufficiently explained by the rational assumption that the 3-year old got into the ice cream while you were away.

I may claim that aliens appeared in the room while you were gone, opened the ice cream, and spread it on the 3 year old's face. Do you think you'd need to search each tiny part of the universe to ensure that said aliens do not exist before accepting the explanation that the 3 year old got into the ice cream himself?

Of course very easily one can imagine that 3 year old got into the ice cream while you were away. OR either way you claim that aliens appeared and did. Ok for instance I agree with both of these possibilities.

But, If there are aliens, than who made these aliens ? still there's a question
One can never imagine that this whole universe is created by an alien.
And if this whole is created by any alien, than that alien can be named as God.

 

[McBell]

I don't really care about road names unless I need to explain to someone else about where I am on this road, even though I would like to walk with others. Ultimately, I care about the destination and if I'm behaving myself on the journey.

Nice bait and switch.

 

[Breathe]

Nice bait and switch.

No bait or switch there.
Unless you count answering you as baiting and switching.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Of course very easily one can imagine that 3 year old got into the ice cream while you were away. OR either way you claim that aliens appeared and did. Ok for instance I agree with both of these possibilities.

Yes, that's the problem: that you see aliens appearing and rubbing ice cream on a 3 year old's face as a possibility.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Chinu you ignored my question a few pages back.

 

[Tiberius]

I apologize, but what the $#@% is a "standard" definition of the gods?

Wait! Don't tell me!

*drum roll*

CLAAAAASICAL MONOTHEISM!



Someone bring me a fan... the ethnocentric aroma is stinking up the place something awful. I need to clear the air. While we're at it, can someone bring me a smudge stick or some incense too?

Not always. What about the Greeks or Romans? They weren't monotheistic.

I would describe a God as a supernatural being, often credited with the creation of the world, who is vastly powerful and knowing. I'm unaware of a god that does not fit this definition, although I could well be wrong. Living in a Christian-dominated society as I do, most of my debate has been from that point of view.

However, if you'd like to show me some being considered a god who is not supremely powerful or good, or a religion in which gods did not create the world, I'll be happy to learn.

 

[technomage]

However, if you'd like to show me some being considered a god who is not supremely powerful or good, or a religion in which gods did not create the world, I'll be happy to learn.

Actually, both the Greek and the Roman gods fail the "all powerful and good" part of the definition. So do the Norse and Egyptian gods.

Creating the earth ... depends on whether you mean "creation ex nihlo" or "creation from pre-existing materials."

 

[Tiberius]

Yeah, it does.

And what definition would that be?

I'm sorry for your loss.

So you can't even respond to my question in English and it's my loss? I ask for an answer and you give me something that is unintelligible and then you blame me? That's rich.

It's limited.

So anything called a God must be WITHOUT limits?

What else in transcendent?

This is suspiciously circular. You'll have to do better. Maybe a well-reasoned response instead of a soundbite.

Wholly transcendent ≠ immanent and transcendent

Again, something more than a soundbite. You're just using more technobabble to support your original technobabble. I might as well say that being splarffy means to have the property of shnookelness. It's all still meaningless, isn't it?

Then you clearly do not understand what mythology actually is. I'm sorry for your loss.

Enough with the patronizing. Mythology tells us nothing verifiably true about the real world. It can tell us ideas, yes, but it does not provide explanations for concrete things. When it tells us how the leopard got his spots, for example, it is not describing the actual reason why leopards are spotted. Science does that. Mythology can only deal in metaphors and simile. It does not deal in actual events, actual causes and effects.

Oh please. Didn't you say, "God is not something that can be defined. It is something that can be experienced, but when one puts it to words, then they have made it something it is not"?

That's exactly how I feel when I watch TV. Don't blame me for your inability to explain something.

 

[Tiberius]

Science is the wrong tool for that job. Science, by definition, can only tell us about natural (non-supernatural) things. To search for God, if there is one, using science is to listen with your eyes.

Science is a tool that allows us to find out about things that are real. If God is real, then science will tell us.

 

[Tiberius]

Actually, both the Greek and the Roman gods fail the "all powerful and good" part of the definition. So do the Norse and Egyptian gods.

Creating the earth ... depends on whether you mean "creation ex nihlo" or "creation from pre-existing materials."

Actually, I said "vastly powerful and knowing", "supremely powerful" and "good." I never said "all good" or "All powerful."

 

[technomage]

Science is a tool that allows us to find out about things that are real. If God is real, then science will tell us.

Incorrect. Science tells us about a specific subset of what can be real. Unless, for instance, you consider beauty, morality, or worth to be "not real."

Science is extremely good at telling us about physical phenomena. But let us suppose for a moment that a miracle occurs. What, precisely, could science tell us about this miracle? It could only tell us "This event occurred that was not in accord with the normal physical phenomena that can be discussed scientifically."

Of course, I have severe doubts that miracles have ever occurred. But let us acknowledge that science is, by definition, limited.

 

[technomage]

Actually, I said "vastly powerful and knowing", "supremely powerful" and "good." I never said "all good" or "All powerful."

Eh, good point. I should have been more precise, but it's getting late, and my brain is getting lazy.

 

[psychoslice]

How can you deny the possibility of God's existence until you/science may search each tiny part of this universe ?

This question can be asked the other way around......how can you except the possibility of a God until you have searched every inch of the universe., how much of the universe has religion searched to make this claim ?.

 

[technomage]

How can you deny the possibility of God's existence until you/science may search each tiny part of this universe ?

This question can be asked the other way around......how can you except the possibility of a God until you have searched every inch of the universe., how much of the universe has religion searched to make this claim ?.

Slight quibble: the word is spelled "accept."

More important issue: how much of the universe would you have to search (assuming you start from Earth) to discover our Sun? Many theists claim that the existence of God is as obvious as the existence of the Sun is. While I disagree with their assertion, I do have to accept that _if_ their assertion is true, one would not have to search very far.