What are people talking about or expecting when they say "knowable creator of the universe"?A knowable creator of the universe does not exist. However, the subconscious mind is capable of creating a fictional God if you really need one.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What are people talking about or expecting when they say "knowable creator of the universe"?A knowable creator of the universe does not exist. However, the subconscious mind is capable of creating a fictional God if you really need one.
What type of atheist are you?
Which of these 3 alternatives better describes your view?
1) God is like Santa Clause: there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause, Analogous to there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of God
2) God is like Aliens: There are no good and conclusive arguments for or against the existence of Aliens. Let’s simply avoid/hold belief in Aliens until good evidence is presented….. Analogous to there is no strong evidence for nor against God I will hold my belif in good until someone presents evidence…
3) God is like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs: there are good arguments for the asteroid theory and good arguments against the asteroid theory … you simply belive that the argumetns against are stronger…… Analogous to there are good arguments for and against God, the arguments against are better.
Ah okay thank you. Most creator conceptions I've seen are 4. Like the invisible fairies in my pocket. Their existence is unfalsifiable and thus we have no reliable way to assess the claim.
I think many see him as a stern, judgemental father figure.
I hear people referring to God as a "loving Father" a lot too, makes me cringe.
Yes if 2 explanations are equal in terms of explanatory power, explanatory scope, predictive power, etc.... You shoukd take the simplest explanation.Have you heard of Ockham's Razor?
Yes if 2 explanations are equal in terms of explanatory power, explanatory scope, predictive power, etc.... You shoukd take the simplest explanation.
So can you provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe that is equally good than "God" but simpler?
And then followed by utterly pathetic (but logical in response to such kinds of false views) questions such as "if God is so loving then why is there suffering?"
That's pathetic only in relation to some beliefs. It's a complete fair challenge against others.
Nope, nothing to do with "two being equal" and nothing to do with simplicity.Yes if 2 explanations are equal in terms of explanatory power, explanatory scope, predictive power, etc.... You shoukd take the simplest explanation.
So can you provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe that is equally good than "God" but simpler?
So can you provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe that is equally good than "God" but simpler?
A man with a costume.
Your parents, or some other adult who lives in your house…
The point is that there are good reasons to reject the existence of Santaclause (we both agree)……….do you have good reasons to reject the existence of God?
Well , we know (with high degree of certainty) that Santa Clause is not the cause of gifts in the Christmas tree… parents are……
So unless you can provide an explanation for the origin of the universe and show that this explanation is better than God…….. you shouldn’t compare God with Santa Clause.
Because you said you wanted a one word answer; you got a one word answer. I can't even remember the question...??why?
I will look at them later.well reed the complete article
Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event - Wikipedia
All words have many meanings..... But nobody makes a big deal out of that.... If you have any doubt all you have to do is ask for clarification"God" has no well defined meaning (there are endless different and contradictory versions) and no explanatory power, you might as well just say "it's magic".
Nope, nothing to do with "two being equal" and nothing to do with simplicity.
Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate. Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.
That means, do not add more hypotheses than are necessary to account for a phenomenon.
As there is no objective evidence for the existence of God, there is no need to invoke God as a hypothesis. God is an unnecessary entity, in purely scientific terms.
Those of us who think - or hope - there may be a God do so for subjective, aesthetic or cultural reasons. The physicalist will, quite understandably and rationally, reject such notions.
You may not like my "We don't know" answer, but at least I'm being honest. You are making answers up without evidence to do so.
..... the type of 'non-theist' Deist that atheists won't let in to their club.What type of atheist are you?
Which of these 3 alternatives better describes your view?
That possition requires a burden proof...... How do you know that God is not the cause of the universe?