Is a Hidden God the Same as No God?

bilby said:

If you had not explicitly told me that you made it up, there would be no way to tell whether it was a story or a real account of a commonplace event - because there is inadequate detail to test it against any evidence.

Click to expand...

What difference does it make? Are you familiar with parables?

RIS said:

bilby said:

Might is for bullies. It's not worthy of worship, or even of tolerance. The mighty are tyrants all, and are to be despised by anyone with an ounce of self respect.

Click to expand...

I feel like I'm talking to a family of children who have really serious abandonment issues. Are you trying to insult me by insulting my God or some vague insubstantial God concept. Because that's just silly.

So, you're out, correct? Let me see if I got this right.

1. You, I mean you bilby, don't believe in my God? You don't have any gods? Don't want anything to do with them?

If that's the case, I'm cool with that. Now how do you and I interact? Are you not cool with the fact that I do believe in specifically my God, and not in others? I don't know how to interact with you. I don't see the problem. If you don't like tyrants, they are not worthy of your worship, and in your opinion no one with an ounce of self-respect where do we go from there? Just agree to disagree? Because I don't see any point in arguing with someone's opinion.

You don't want a god. Okay. I'm not trying to force my belief down your throat and I assume you aren't trying to do the same with me. What now?

Click to expand...

But you are trying to force your belief down our throats. Very forcefully. You wrote a lot of verbiage about how important is was for gods to be mighty. There has been little discussion about your god. About your concept of God, yes, that has come up a lot, but not your god specifically. We gather that you believe in a Biblical God, but that has not been much discussed on this thread in recent posts.

RIS said:

bilby said:

If you had not explicitly told me that you made it up, there would be no way to tell whether it was a story or a real account of a commonplace event - because there is inadequate detail to test it against any evidence.

Click to expand...

What difference does it make? Are you familiar with parables?

Click to expand...

He was trying to help you understand what "real" means to him.

Most people think an entity should exist apart from human imaginings to be real and to exist. Imaginings and concepts exist but they represent purported entities outside the imagination. The question then becomes "but is the thing in your imagination also in the world apart from the imagination?"

If the answer's No then most people say the entity doesn't really exist. Instead of being an existent entity, it's a fiction. (And as such you don't get to say the fiction does things like create universes or cause floods).

You don't bother with an answer. I'm thinking it's because it'll be very hard to show the idea/image of God corresponds with a God that creates universes and caused a global flood. It's much easier for you to pretend that atheists: 1) believe in gods because gods are anything that's worshipful and everyone worships something. Or 2) atheists would believe in God if they didn't dogmatically reject him.

bilby said:

"IF it doesn't exist, it is not mighty" is a completely logical and true claim about anything.

Click to expand...

It also doesn’t diminish the power of the story of god.

RIS said:

I'm not trying to force my belief down your throat and I assume you aren't trying to do the same with me. What now?

Click to expand...

Then why are you even here?
You didn't come here to be deprogramed.
It seems like you think debating atheists will strengthen your faith?
I for one, don't want any part of that. Goodbye.

RIS said:

bilby said:

Might is for bullies. It's not worthy of worship, or even of tolerance. The mighty are tyrants all, and are to be despised by anyone with an ounce of self respect.

Click to expand...

I feel like I'm talking to a family of children who have really serious abandonment issues.

Click to expand...

Your feelings are your own problem and your own responsibility.

RIS said:

Are you trying to insult me

Click to expand...

No.

RIS said:

by insulting my God or some vague insubstantial God concept.

Click to expand...

If I wanted to insult you, you wouldn't be left in any doubt of my intent.

I certainly wouldn't waste time insulting any gods, or any vague insubstantial god concepts. There's nothing there to insult.

I am not in the business of insulting Superman, for the exact same reason - I am not pretending to treat gods as occupying the exact same category of entities as Superman; It's not rhetorical or allegorical or metaphorical for me - they are indistinguishable members of the class "powerful fictional beings". I won't insult Gandalf or Darth Vader either.

To even imagine that such a thing would be possible is a gross error.

RIS said:

Because that's just silly.

Click to expand...

We agree. It is silly.

RIS said:

So, you're out, correct?

Click to expand...

I don't know to what you are referring. Out of what?

RIS said:

Let me see if I got this right.

1. You, I mean you bilby, don't believe in my God?

Click to expand...

Yes.

RIS said:

You don't have any gods?

Click to expand...

No, I don't.

RIS said:

Don't want anything to do with them?

Click to expand...

Where do you get that idea? I am right here having just as much "to do with them" as anyone.

Nobody is forcing me to be here.

RIS said:

If that's the case, I'm cool with that.

Click to expand...

Well, it's not the case. But I don't see any reason why you should lose your cool either way.

RIS said:

Now how do you and I interact?

Click to expand...

By posting text on a message board, I expect.

RIS said:

Are you not cool with the fact that I do believe in specifically my God, and not in others?

Click to expand...

I couldn't care less what you believe.

I am not cool with you expressing your beliefs without challenge; I wouldn't expect you to be cool with me saying my piece without you being able to respond, either.

RIS said:

I don't know how to interact with you.

Click to expand...

You are already doing it

RIS said:

I don't see the problem. If you don't like tyrants, they are not worthy of your worship, and in your opinion no one with an ounce of self-respect where do we go from there?

Click to expand...

That's up to you. Perhaps you could explain why I should like tyrants, or worship them, or why I should respect others for their sycophancy?

Or perhaps you can explain why you don't feel that the weilding of might is tyrannical?

Perhaps, if you really cannot come up with a rebuttal of what I say, you could consider the possibility that I am right, and that you are wrong?

RIS said:

Just agree to disagree? Because I don't see any point in arguing with someone's opinion.

Click to expand...

Given that that's all you have done in this thread, that's a bit rich. Arguing with people's opinions is what discussion boards are for.

RIS said:

You don't want a god.

Click to expand...

What you or I or anyone else wants is not relevant in the slightest to the question of whether or not a god exists outside of fiction.

RIS said:

Okay. I'm not trying to force my belief down your throat and I assume you aren't trying to do the same with me. What now?

Click to expand...

We could stop wasting time with belief, and start examining reality, and testing hypotheses against it?

As far as I am aware, that's the only reliable way to find out about reality.

RIS said:

bilby said:

If you had not explicitly told me that you made it up, there would be no way to tell whether it was a story or a real account of a commonplace event - because there is inadequate detail to test it against any evidence.

Click to expand...

What difference does it make? Are you familiar with parables?

Click to expand...

The difference is the minor but crucial distinction between "reality" and "made up stories".

I am familiar with parables. They are useful for illustrating social rules and behaviours and their consequences; They are not useful for determining what does or does not exist as non-fiction. Nor are they supposed to be.

bilby said:

I am familiar with parables. They are useful for illustrating social rules and behaviours and their consequences; They are not useful for determining what does or does not exist as non-fiction. Nor are they supposed to be.

Click to expand...

They instruct in a way which allows you to see things from another perspective.

Is someone offering gods?
I hear it’s a bull market in the SE United States. Kind of a hard sell around here though; we already have several times an eternity’s supply.

RIS said:

bilby said:

I am familiar with parables. They are useful for illustrating social rules and behaviours and their consequences; They are not useful for determining what does or does not exist as non-fiction. Nor are they supposed to be.

Click to expand...

They instruct in a way which allows you to see things from another perspective.

Click to expand...

Yes. Which is great for matters in which perspective is important - typically social rules, wherein the subjective opinions of all of the different actors are shaped by their individual point of view.

There are no other perspectives from which to view objective facts about reality. The speed of light in a vacuum (for example) is the same for all observers.

Objective reality is not well suited to being examined through parables. Social behaviours are ideally suited to being examined through parables.

Stories are useful. There's nothing wrong with stories. All humans love stories.

Stories are, however, not reality. And reality is not subject to our storytelling efforts. If I wrote a sci-fi story that included the use of "faster than light radios", that doesn't, wouldn't and couldn't imply that such radios are, or ever could be, real things in the real universe we really inhabit.

bilby said:

Objective reality is not well suited to being examined through parables.

Click to expand...

Parables are descriptive, not objective.
To be usefully objective, observations (examinations) must be repeatable. As you point out, parables, at best, reflect social dynamics and stuff like that, which cannot be reliably re-observed. This divide is where much woo resides.

One point I forgot mention:

RIS said:

(If god) ...hadn't created any sentient being of spirit or flesh to worship him he wouldn't be God or a god.

Click to expand...

So your concept of god is like an internet 'influencer': Without 'likes' and 'subscribers' he is nothing.

unapologetic said:

So your concept of god is like an internet 'influencer': Without 'likes' and 'subscribers' he is nothing.

Click to expand...

Sort of, but not quite. Without likes and subscriptions he isn't an 'influencer.' That doesn't mean he is nothing. But he only needs one. If my god is the FSM's second cousin from Israel but I'm the only one who deifies him then he would be my god and therefore a god. Just not known or venerated by anyone else.

RIS said:

I'm the only one who deifies him then he would be my god and therefore a god. Just not known or venerated by anyone else.

Click to expand...

Just like my career as an influencer.
There is no authority who defines how many likes it takes. I would guess most self-described 'influencers' have no followers except Mom.