I can easily prove that God does not exist, but...

[angelo]

some consider that the laws of our universe are improbably finely tuned to allow for the creation of life. But if our universe is just one facet of the " Multiverse", then there is nothing special about our Universe and there seems no need for God.

The God of the gaps has been squeezed into such a tiny portion of reality over the last few centuries that surely within sight of a foreseeable future that even that impossibly tiny gap God has been squeezed into, will surely vanish.

 

[Jobar]

Hypothetically, let's suppose next year the warp-drive is invented, in two years NASA sends a mission to Alpha Centauri, in three years Virgin Galactic actually goes literally galactic, in four years the fares drop down to your vacation price range, and in five years you take a cruise to Arcturus. There, you meet an ancient race of long-lived inorganic silicon-based life forms. One of the aliens explains to you that four billion years ago, their ancestors determined that our newly forming solar system would never become suitable for silicon-based life, and, abhorring the wastefulness of lifeless star systems, one of their scientists -- in point of fact, his own mother -- invented DNA, constructed a self-reproducing cell, and obtained authorization from the galactic environmental protection agency to set it free on the primordial Earth.

Hypothetically, how would you react to this knowledge? Would you say "Wow! Your mother was THE Creator of organic physical life-forms of a material universe. You are the Son of God! I shall worship you!"?

When you ask "how would you react to this knowledge" ? Are you asking about reacting to the knowledge of the existence of "inorganic silicon-based life-forms" and the mother-creator as being as one of them asking permission from the rest?

This resembles more imo of the biblical sons of God or maybe the "nephilim" the sons of the sons of God (a type-2 god, if you will, like Prof. Kaku's theory puts it: a type I or II civilization etc. , can't remember which civilization applies). My answer : I wouldn't worship the son of this "advanced being" of another civilization.


I would use the (atheist) question here in knowledge that she wasn't the only one : "Where did the mother-creator come from and before that and before that and..?"

I once asked a very similar question in a thread at Christian Forums about intelligent design. No one there even attempted an answer, so I appreciate that you give a frank response.

But the way you answer it makes me wonder- if you would only worship an uncreated creator of this universe, how would you ever be able to tell for sure that any being was truly the ultimate creator?

(Kardashev scale)

 

[atrib]

Okay, so you are apparently implying that wanting to be worshiped is not a necessary condition for something to be a god. No problem. Here's an easy modification of Bomb#20's definition and argument:

My take is ; If people were easily going to worship Baal for example then its better that they worship the Real-Deal instead if they're going to worship at all! (for lack of better wording)

How do people figure out what the real-deal god is? Does this god come with a HAZMAT sticker on it proclaiming "This is the Real-Deal God: May react violently to normal human behavior: Handle with extreme care". If it doesn't come with a sticker like this, how would one go about distinguishing the real-deal god from a universe potentially filled with intelligent beings which have the technology to create life and possibly even new universes? What makes your god worthy of worship but not other naturally occurring beings with powers that appear godlike to us?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Okay, so you are apparently implying that wanting to be worshiped is not a necessary condition for something to be a god. No problem. Here's an easy modification of Bomb#20's definition and argument:

My take is ; If people were easily going to worship Baal for example then its better that they worship the Real-Deal instead if they're going to worship at all! (for lack of better wording)

How do people figure out what the real-deal god is? Does this god come with a HAZMAT sticker on it proclaiming "This is the Real-Deal God: May react violently to normal human behavior: Handle with extreme care". If it doesn't come with a sticker like this, how would one go about distinguishing the real-deal god from a universe potentially filled with intelligent beings which have the technology to create life and possibly even new universes? What makes your god worthy of worship but not other naturally occurring beings with powers that appear godlike to us?

Ya, wasn't the entire rationale of worshipping Baal because they thought that Baal was the Real Deal God? I fail to see a second reason why anyone would ever worship a particular god.

 

[abaddon]

I think that's the idea behind the immorality of worship, if I have figured out the logic of that correctly. Worship is not just admiring a being, it's full devotion to it. And Christians say God makes the rules. So, if God were to say "make human sacrifices" then a worshiper should obey the Being whom he considers to be the Creator of all existence and Creator of all its rules about what's good and evil.

For Learner, Jehovah's the "real deal". Though his reasons for thinking so are no different than a Baal worshiper's reasons to worship Baal.

Reason's secondary, at best, when fully devoted to whatever worshipful being. Learner likes to 'relativize' logic. It's mere human knowing, sometimes used just for "tactical" purposes. You get whatever result, depending on what you input into the premises. So that's reason devalued in favor of revelation. The way out of the mess of opinions is a truth that's revealed by the worshipful eternal source of all truth Himself -- communicated through His holy book and within the worshiper's heart.

Any Baal worshiper could say the same.

 

[angelo]

Most probably the most intelligent genius of all time opinion, [at this time] on the matter. Interesting article.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-einstein-humiliates-professor/

 

[Learner]

I was asking about reacting to the knowledge of the existence of "inorganic silicon-based life-forms" and the mother-creator as being as one of them. The asking permission part isn't critical -- I assume it would make no philosophical difference to you if the scientist in question happened to also hold the office of Queen of the Galaxy.

I was seeing this in the view, that they as a group of many, they would be from a "parent" origin, (like the biblical "sons of God analogy").

(Unless ,interestingly enough : there is such a belief that many gods came into existence at the same time)

Didn't think so. But you would still worship the Christian God, yes? So it follows that the silicon Arcturus lady is not God. My point is, she nonetheless satisfies your stated criterion for being God:

I would say , if I didn't have the knowledge of the existence of the god-lady's bretheren (or some of the other things known today) then I probably would take the son as a demi-god of sorts , but more likely if I were living back then, centuries ago. You'd be right , I'd be just the same as those who woshipped all types.

' We can define God simply as THE Creator of life ', specifically, ' "organic" physical life-forms of a material universe. '​

Therefore your definition is wrong -- it does not adequately specify what you mean by "God". Are you up for taking another go at bilby's challenge?

"Theists cannot clearly define their gods, for to do so would render them rapidly and comprehensively unbelievable."​

Definition can be agreed upon, although it isn't ... unless (if atheists must) you have a creator(s) at a level , "leaving aside" the "universe creator" which can distract from some closer to earth issues for discussion, at least to further see / debate whether such entities can have some logical merit to the belief or not.

It'll be ongoing process unfortunately , while the little tiddly bits of new found data and info sloooowly comes in , that slightly influences argument(s). (Have to read the Bilby challenge btw)

Presumably she came from her inorganic silicon mother, and her grandmother before her, eventually from more and more primitive silicon life forms, and before that from some non-living chemical process, presumably some sort of crystal growth. As Dawkins said, Darwinian natural selection is the only theory anyone's ever come up with that's even in principle capable of explaining why reality contains complex functional processes. Doesn't stop her from satisfying your definition.

Differentiating from God with the example of knowledge mentioned above (in combination of scriptures discription of life etc.)

Regarding natural selection, Dawkins seem to be quite sure this is stemmed from an accidental process. The rules for natural selection ( what is expected with biology) having particular unique paths to turn out repeatedly by the textbook manner of speaking . Its a matter of POV i.e. the other theory as you know ; is Intelligent design.

But what has any of that to do with God-hood? I take it you're implying you'd react to meeting our creator by tracing the chain of causality back to some earlier creator. Why? Why would someone occupying some specified point in a creation chain be a reason to worship him?

Its not even that , the bible is clear about God , not of any actual origin from anyplace ... which isn't about the specific point unless... As its written HE is the creator of all living things ... ONE and no other.

Certainly; but that doesn't change the fact that according to the Bible humans modified God. Cause and effect goes on whether anyone is forcing anyone or not. I didn't force the grocer to give me a loaf of bread, but my offering to pay him was still what caused him to change his mind from inclined not to give it to me into inclined to give it to me. If God compromised because Jews worshiped a golden calf, that means the golden calf worshipers caused God to compromise. A compromise is a modification.

Compromise I mean HE made it easier for man to think about what he's doing otherwise its the consequences. The golden calf and the like , is still a big no no ... no compromises at all here.

 

[Lion IRC]

Most probably the most intelligent genius of all time opinion, [at this time] on the matter. Interesting article.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-einstein-humiliates-professor/

CLAIM
While a college student, Albert Einstein humiliated an atheist professor by using the "Evil is the absence of God" argument on him....For those looking for a quick answer to the question of whether the above narrative is literally true, we’ll state up front that it is not. Nothing remotely like the account related above appears in any biography or article about Albert Einstein, nor is the account congruent with that scientist’s expressed views on the subject of religion

Anther Snopes argument from silence. (Yawn)
The story isn't mentioned in a biography therefore it never happened?

And Einstein doesn't need to be a theist to correctly understand that thing called evil can can 'exist' ontologically as the opposite of a thing called good. And that doing good deeds doesn't 'create' the existence of evil (bad deeds)

The sneaky atheist professor was trying to gazzump his students with the linguistic equivalent of...

Nothing is better than eternal happiness
Something is better than nothing
A ham sandwich is something
Therefore a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

 

[atrib]

Most probably the most intelligent genius of all time opinion, [at this time] on the matter. Interesting article.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-einstein-humiliates-professor/

CLAIM
While a college student, Albert Einstein humiliated an atheist professor by using the "Evil is the absence of God" argument on him....For those looking for a quick answer to the question of whether the above narrative is literally true, we’ll state up front that it is not. Nothing remotely like the account related above appears in any biography or article about Albert Einstein, nor is the account congruent with that scientist’s expressed views on the subject of religion

Anther Snopes argument from silence. (Yawn)
The story isn't mentioned in a biography therefore it never happened?

Another non-claim from LIRC backed up by zero evidence. Prove me wrong: show me evidence that the incident actually happened. Name the witnesses to this alleged confrontation and show me where they wrote this down. You can't and you won't, and you know that just as well as I do.

And Einstein doesn't need to be a theist to correctly understand that thing called evil can can 'exist' ontologically as the opposite of a thing called good. And that doing good deeds doesn't 'create' the existence of evil (bad deeds)

What Einstein thought about good and evil is irrelevant. What is relevant to the discussion is the fact that you allegedly worship a god that you believe exterminated all life on Earth in an act of violence and horror that is unparalleled in human history. I don't think I should be taking lessons in good and evil from you.

The sneaky atheist professor was trying to gazzump his students with the linguistic equivalent of...

Nothing is better than eternal happiness
Something is better than nothing
A ham sandwich is something
Therefore a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

So you agree that the Christian who made up the story is an idiot. Good. I am glad we can agree that Christianity makes Christians say stupid things. Even fabricate wildly improbable stories involving really smart dead people to prop up their illogical beliefs because they can't find any actual evidence. We are making progress here.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem with tall tales like this about Einstein that seem to have no evidence for them or providence is that Christians are notable liars when it comes to things like this. For example the numerous fake stories that follow the death of noted religious skeptics, atheists or scientists who supposedly had a death bed conversion. Such lies have been a Christian cottage industry for hundreds of years.

Those of us atheists who have seen these sort of tales debunked again and again over decades know that any sort of tale like this that cannot be traced to trustworthy eyewitnesses, or found in writing from the supposed source, isn't worth anything at all.

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

In 1945 Guy Raner, Jr. wrote a letter to Einstein, asking him if it was true that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism. Einstein replied, "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it, and that is all.

Einstein was a secular humanist and a supporter of the Ethical Culture movement. He served on the advisory board of the First Humanist Society of New York.^[7] For the seventy-fifth anniversary of the New York Society for Ethical Culture, he stated that the idea of Ethical Culture embodied his personal conception of what is most valuable and enduring in religious idealism. He observed, "Without 'ethical culture' there is no salvation for humanity."^[8] He was an honorary associate of the British humanist organization the Rationalist Press Association and its journal was among the items present on his desk at his death.

---

Lies abound as Einstein noted.

 

[atrib]

Maybe atheists should start making up stories of famous Christians who renounced their faith and became atheists on their deathbed.

 

[Lion IRC]

[Dispentiere...]was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious.

A news report?
So we really can't believe what we read can we.

Einstein replied, "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life...

How would he know or we know if that was actually true?

 

[bilby]

[Dispentiere...]was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious.

A news report?
So we really can't believe what we read can we.

Says the person who finds the Bible convincing as a source of information.

Einstein replied, "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life...

How would he know or we know if that was actually true?

You cannot KNOW. But it's not reasonable to presume that it isn't, because it's consistent with all the other evidence, and contains no contradictions. It's literal truth value is, of course, at risk from the edge case that he may have passed a Jesuit priest in the street, and (unaware thst the man was a priest), said 'Good morning'; But the sense of the claim is independent of such edge cases. As anyone who has an adult grasp of language would know.

You know, you could really benefit a lot from learning some epistemology. Your grasp on how to assess the truthfulness and/or likelihood of claims is demonstrably woeful, and it renders you incapable of reasoning about literally everything else.

If you have two news reports, one of which says the earth is approximately spherical, and the other that it is a flat disk, it is NOT reasonable to claim that neither can be trusted because news reports are demonstrably sometimes untrue. Nor is it reasonable to say that the evidence is 50-50, or even that the question is undecided because it's controversial and not universally agreed.

You surely cannot fail to know this; So why do you feign belief in such a nonsensical bit of non-reasoning when it suits your agenda to do so? Can't you see that this makes you seem even LESS convincing?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Pretty sure you can not know what something is and not believe in it at the same time. There are plenty of gods people have believed in, which I don't know about and I don't know what they are. Still don't believe in them. Also, imagine a scenario where someone encounters something extraordinary for the first time. Would they believe in it? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[atrib]

[Dispentiere...]was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious.

A news report?
So we really can't believe what we read can we.

Einstein replied, "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life...

How would he know or we know if that was actually true?

Good point. In an ideal world, there would exist a website that devotes its resources to researching and verifying the truthfulness of various claims floating around the internet. It is such a pity such a website does not exist. But inspired by your brilliant reasoning, I plan to start a website just like that and call it .... how about "snopes.com"?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Snopes Scores Again

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stephen-hawking-pope-francis/

[h=1]Did Stephen Hawking Become a Christian After a Blessing From Pope Francis?
[/h] [h=2]A disreputable Facebook page engages in a time-honored ritual — the phony deathbed conversion of a prominent unbeliever. [/h]

 

[Grendel]

A non corporeal existence is possible in principle IMO.

In the quantum entanglement experiments two particles are created. Change the spin on one and the other changes at a distance with the linkage I believe is yet unexplained. It points to the possibility our understanding of reality and connectedness may be very shallow. It points to an undetected layer of reality that connects at the particle level..

Your premise (or your logical reasoning) on entanglement is wrong. Therefore a non corporeal existence is impossible.

This means of course, as we follow thru, that God does not exist.

 

[skepticalbip]

[Dispentiere...]was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious.

A news report?
So we really can't believe what we read can we.

Einstein replied, "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life...

How would he know or we know if that was actually true?

All the assertions about uncle Albert's faith or lack of it are a bit silly. He clearly stated what he thought several times.

But, just to wrap it up, I went to Princeton and made my way to the grounds of the Institute for Advanced Study where his ashes were scattered. I asked him if he believed in god or believed that there was nothing. His answer was nothing. That settled for me what he believed before he died. Then I thought it may be worth checking since I was there anyway so I asked him, that now he was dead, was there a god or nothing. Again, his answer was nothing.

In answer to both questions I heard nothing. So that should settle this silliness.

 

[Bomb#20]

I was seeing this in the view, that they as a group of many, they would be from a "parent" origin, (like the biblical "sons of God analogy").

Are you proposing that having a parent excludes someone from qualifying as a god?

(Unless ,interestingly enough : there is such a belief that many gods came into existence at the same time)

Well, when humans create something amazing it's rarely a solo operation. Most creation takes teamwork -- Edison's greatest invention was not the lightbulb but the industrial research laboratory. If you're defining "god" as the creator of organic life, then that would appear to mean that if many beings cooperated in the creation process, they all simultaneously became gods when the first organic cell went live. How big a contribution does each cooperating being have to have made to get to become a god? Just the scientists? The engineers too? The technicians? The janitorial staff?

I would say , if I didn't have the knowledge of the existence of the god-lady's bretheren (or some of the other things known today) then I probably would take the son as a demi-god of sorts , but more likely if I were living back then, centuries ago. You'd be right , I'd be just the same as those who woshipped all types.

From my point of view, you are just the same. You worship YHWH for the same reason Phoenicians worshiped Baal, and Greeks worshiped Zeus's various brothers and sisters and children, and Hindus worship their enormous pantheon -- because somebody told you to. You surely know those other people who worshiped all types use the same method as you to decide which is the right object of worship, yet you somehow imagine that method works right for you even though it doesn't work right for them. Regardless of whether the object of your worship is unique or is one of many, you're letting somebody else decide what's right and wrong for you, abdicating your responsibility to make your own independent judgment. Worship is morally equivalent to handing your car keys to a driver you have no grounds for thinking isn't drunk.

As Dawkins said, Darwinian natural selection is the only theory anyone's ever come up with that's even in principle capable of explaining why reality contains complex functional processes. Doesn't stop her from satisfying your definition.

Regarding natural selection, Dawkins seem to be quite sure this is stemmed from an accidental process. The rules for natural selection ( what is expected with biology) having particular unique paths to turn out repeatedly by the textbook manner of speaking . Its a matter of POV i.e. the other theory as you know ; is Intelligent design.

But "Intelligent design" isn't an alternative theory; it's just begging the question. An intelligent being capable of creating life is itself a complex functional process -- it has goals, and understanding, and the ability to analyze causal processes and sort them out into those that will accomplish its goals and those that will not. "Intelligent Design" is a proposal that says "The reason reality contains complex functional processes is that reality started out containing a complex functional process, which is what caused complex functional processes to exist." That's circular. It relies on its claimed output already existing as an input. That is not an explanation at all.

But what has any of that to do with God-hood? I take it you're implying you'd react to meeting our creator by tracing the chain of causality back to some earlier creator. Why? Why would someone occupying some specified point in a creation chain be a reason to worship him?

Its not even that , the bible is clear about God , not of any actual origin from anyplace ... which isn't about the specific point unless... As its written HE is the creator of all living things ... ONE and no other.

Yes, I got all that. That's what I'm talking about when I say "some specified point in a creation chain". You specify the beginning. Why? Why is occupying the beginning of a creation chain a reason to be worshiped?

If God compromised because Jews worshiped a golden calf, that means the golden calf worshipers caused God to compromise. A compromise is a modification.

Compromise I mean HE made it easier for man to think about what he's doing otherwise its the consequences. The golden calf and the like , is still a big no no ... no compromises at all here.

Sure, I understand that -- compromising on one point doesn't mean you compromise on another. What of it? He allegedly created Adam and for some reason expected Adam to know to obey Him even though he didn't tell Adam obedience was required. Then the Jews worshiped a golden calf; then God in effect said "Fine, if you can't remember to do what you're supposed to by yourselves I'll write down the rules for you". And He blasted some rules onto a couple rocks and had Charlton HestonMoses deliver them. That's a compromise. Your word, not mine. The Jews caused God to compromise on the matter of having a formal written law.

 

[angelo]

Many theists love to spread false rumors about deathbed conversions of well know atheists. One I recall not long after Chris Hitchens demise was about his converting to xtianity on his deathbed which was a complete fabrication of course.