I think we can make the positive claim that nothing like 'gods' exist

[abaddon]

this type of god is a trivial redefinition of something that already exists

The Daoists call the creative activity of the universe "the Dao", and the display of phenomena "the ten thousand things". They're one process but you'll miss an important aspect if, when talking about it, you don't find a way to make a distinction.



It's similar in western pantheistic thought. The holism (God) that's "more than the sum of the parts", and the phenomenal display of it in its parts (universe), are one. The dilemma for pantheists when talking about the distinction is 1) it's necessary because they don't mean "the parts and pieces taken together as a clump" and they want to get that across. But 2) too much emphasis on the distinction sounds too much like what traditional theists say, about there being nature AND a God as well. That's a dualism. Pantheists are trying for a monism, so sometimes they say "they are one" -- but how nonpantheists hear that is "they're the same thing".


It's a bit loaded if the God must be isolate-able or else there's 'already a name for it that we prefer'.

So if it's not a redefinition, but an effort to distinguish different aspects of one thing, then it's not equivalent to a non-existent god.

 

[Jarhyn]

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

Better than watching the fireworks

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

Yeah, I am ok with stating it like that. When we are talking about beliefs to determine if beliefs are reliable, yes, go outside and "look at the trees". And think.

What determines why we gave it the classification of "tree". What is happening over time with the trees. How do the tress differ and why. Can I say anything about the environment when I don't see trees. For example, when looking at the trunk of a tree, only about the outer inch is "alive". The inner part is not alive and is only structure and pathways for water and nutrients. Ask yourself, how the heck does something that big get the water up to the top without a pump.

To me, thats not a bad start to unpacking how "things" interact and relate to the "things" around them when we are determining if a belief matches what we see and experience.

You understand that "look at the trees" is a metaphor for design arguments and pantheism

But the claim in the OP is that this type of god is a trivial redefinition of something that already exists, therefor outside of this definition game, the god doesn't exist

"Look at the trees" here is being taken as just the text. Is an argument that it's entirely valid to want to know more for the sake of seeing more.

Why go outside?

"To look at the trees and enjoy the view" is as good an answer as any.

Even if the trees exist on a landscape alien to our very universe that exists across different rules of dimensionality.

 

[bilby]

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

Better than watching the fireworks

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

Yeah, I am ok with stating it like that. When we are talking about beliefs to determine if beliefs are reliable, yes, go outside and "look at the trees". And think.

What determines why we gave it the classification of "tree". What is happening over time with the trees. How do the tress differ and why. Can I say anything about the environment when I don't see trees. For example, when looking at the trunk of a tree, only about the outer inch is "alive". The inner part is not alive and is only structure and pathways for water and nutrients. Ask yourself, how the heck does something that big get the water up to the top without a pump.

To me, thats not a bad start to unpacking how "things" interact and relate to the "things" around them when we are determining if a belief matches what we see and experience.

You understand that "look at the trees" is a metaphor for design arguments and pantheism

But the claim in the OP is that this type of god is a trivial redefinition of something that already exists, therefor outside of this definition game, the god doesn't exist

"Look at the trees" here is being taken as just the text. Is an argument that it's entirely valid to want to know more for the sake of seeing more.

Why go outside?

"To look at the trees and enjoy the view" is as good an answer as any.

Even if the trees exist on a landscape alien to our very universe that exists across different rules of dimensionality.

But the question isn’t “Why go outside?”; It’s “Why go outside to find the pantheist god?”

If that god can be found by examining a minuscule subset of the universe, then you can find it anywhere. If not, going outside really doesn’t add much to the fraction of the universe that you can observe, so it’s probably not going to help.

 

[Jarhyn]

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

Better than watching the fireworks

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

Yeah, I am ok with stating it like that. When we are talking about beliefs to determine if beliefs are reliable, yes, go outside and "look at the trees". And think.

What determines why we gave it the classification of "tree". What is happening over time with the trees. How do the tress differ and why. Can I say anything about the environment when I don't see trees. For example, when looking at the trunk of a tree, only about the outer inch is "alive". The inner part is not alive and is only structure and pathways for water and nutrients. Ask yourself, how the heck does something that big get the water up to the top without a pump.

To me, thats not a bad start to unpacking how "things" interact and relate to the "things" around them when we are determining if a belief matches what we see and experience.

You understand that "look at the trees" is a metaphor for design arguments and pantheism

But the claim in the OP is that this type of god is a trivial redefinition of something that already exists, therefor outside of this definition game, the god doesn't exist

"Look at the trees" here is being taken as just the text. Is an argument that it's entirely valid to want to know more for the sake of seeing more.

Why go outside?

"To look at the trees and enjoy the view" is as good an answer as any.

Even if the trees exist on a landscape alien to our very universe that exists across different rules of dimensionality.

But the question isn’t “Why go outside?”; It’s “Why go outside to find the pantheist god?”

If that god can be found by examining a minuscule subset of the universe, then you can find it anywhere. If not, going outside really doesn’t add much to the fraction of the universe that you can observe, so it’s probably not going to help.

No, it's "why go outside to find whatever is outside?" To which the answer is "why not? Have you no curiousity?"

You can take your memes and masturbate over them, but it is a dreadful incuriousity that drives people to not want to continue exploring.

I'm going to continue trying to find an outside to reach just so I can explore.

I recommend the same to anyone.

Better to go outside to look at the trees than to sit inside pretending that there's never going to be anything to see.

 

[SIB]

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

Better than watching the fireworks

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

Yeah, I am ok with stating it like that. When we are talking about beliefs to determine if beliefs are reliable, yes, go outside and "look at the trees". And think.

What determines why we gave it the classification of "tree". What is happening over time with the trees. How do the tress differ and why. Can I say anything about the environment when I don't see trees. For example, when looking at the trunk of a tree, only about the outer inch is "alive". The inner part is not alive and is only structure and pathways for water and nutrients. Ask yourself, how the heck does something that big get the water up to the top without a pump.

To me, thats not a bad start to unpacking how "things" interact and relate to the "things" around them when we are determining if a belief matches what we see and experience.

You understand that "look at the trees" is a metaphor for design arguments and pantheism

But the claim in the OP is that this type of god is a trivial redefinition of something that already exists, therefor outside of this definition game, the god doesn't exist

"Look at the trees" here is being taken as just the text. Is an argument that it's entirely valid to want to know more for the sake of seeing more.

Why go outside?

"To look at the trees and enjoy the view" is as good an answer as any.

Even if the trees exist on a landscape alien to our very universe that exists across different rules of dimensionality.

For some that would do nicely.

I am not that sort. I hate the fact that I always have to ask "How does the universe work?" Or in this case "How is that tree working?"

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

Yeah, I am ok with stating it like that. When we are talking about beliefs to determine if beliefs are reliable, yes, go outside and "look at the trees". And think.

What determines why we gave it the classification of "tree". What is happening over time with the trees. How do the tress differ and why. Can I say anything about the environment when I don't see trees. For example, when looking at the trunk of a tree, only about the outer inch is "alive". The inner part is not alive and is only structure and pathways for water and nutrients. Ask yourself, how the heck does something that big get the water up to the top without a pump.

To me, thats not a bad start to unpacking how "things" interact and relate to the "things" around them when we are determining if a belief matches what we see and experience.

You understand that "look at the trees" is a metaphor for design arguments and pantheism

But the claim in the OP is that this type of god is a trivial redefinition of something that already exists, therefor outside of this definition game, the god doesn't exist

What religious people do isn't really my concern. My bigger concern is looking at beliefs and seeing if they match what we see and experience. How do we teach to "our belief" or answer question from others. If we get right down to it, the "arbiter" if you will, is to see if the claim has an explanation, a mechanism, and makes repeatable predictions. If a claim has them, it is more reliable than those that don't. That ends it.

I disagree with a trivial redefinition. The claim the person is saying "The god I believe in is the same as the universe." That is the claim. We then move to traits of the god in question. If the traits of the god line up to what we see and experience, that is it. I call it a "door knob", "they" pray to a door knob". But it exists.

"semantics", that is definitely applies also in proper context. But that's where we can say things like "All I did is tell you why I think "this/that", you can make your own choice". Red flags for me are things like "You are "wrong/right" because of semantics". Semantics doesn't prove anything. What shows beliefs are reliable is the two of us going out side and writing down what we see the tree doing. We then compare notes. If they line up, it probably means the belief is reliable.

Then we add more people to try and reduce error and bias. We go and look at the lists from all people across the planet and what they listed "the" tree doing. The over laps are probably going to more inline with what a tree is. Like: they are usually tallest living things in the area.

 

[SIB]

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

Better than watching the fireworks

It was nice out ...

I don't want to misinterpret your beliefs... but is your argument actually "look at the trees"?

Yeah, I am ok with stating it like that. When we are talking about beliefs to determine if beliefs are reliable, yes, go outside and "look at the trees". And think.

What determines why we gave it the classification of "tree". What is happening over time with the trees. How do the tress differ and why. Can I say anything about the environment when I don't see trees. For example, when looking at the trunk of a tree, only about the outer inch is "alive". The inner part is not alive and is only structure and pathways for water and nutrients. Ask yourself, how the heck does something that big get the water up to the top without a pump.

To me, thats not a bad start to unpacking how "things" interact and relate to the "things" around them when we are determining if a belief matches what we see and experience.

You understand that "look at the trees" is a metaphor for design arguments and pantheism

But the claim in the OP is that this type of god is a trivial redefinition of something that already exists, therefor outside of this definition game, the god doesn't exist

"Look at the trees" here is being taken as just the text. Is an argument that it's entirely valid to want to know more for the sake of seeing more.

Why go outside?

"To look at the trees and enjoy the view" is as good an answer as any.

Even if the trees exist on a landscape alien to our very universe that exists across different rules of dimensionality.

But the question isn’t “Why go outside?”; It’s “Why go outside to find the pantheist god?”

If that god can be found by examining a minuscule subset of the universe, then you can find it anywhere. If not, going outside really doesn’t add much to the fraction of the universe that you can observe, so it’s probably not going to help.

Yes, you are correct. I don't "Have" to go outside. The more the person knows about the system, the less need to go outside.

However. Two broad classification for objects around us are "alive" and "Not alive". Going outside and looking at what a tree is, in detail, and asking how does it relate to us, becomes important in terms of a discussion on belief in a belief site.

Your last line is intriguing.

I am going to apply it to "you". Lets assume we are small enough inside of you that we don't know we are in you. lol, that sentence made me laugh. I take you apart to examine a minuscule subset of you. I find no "you".

Do you exists?

What do we have to do for you to shown me that the "belief" you do exist is more reliable than me saying you do not exists?

 

[SIB]

this type of god is a trivial redefinition of something that already exists

The Daoists call the creative activity of the universe "the Dao", and the display of phenomena "the ten thousand things". They're one process but you'll miss an important aspect if, when talking about it, you don't find a way to make a distinction.



It's similar in western pantheistic thought. The holism (God) that's "more than the sum of the parts", and the phenomenal display of it in its parts (universe), are one. The dilemma for pantheists when talking about the distinction is 1) it's necessary because they don't mean "the parts and pieces taken together as a clump" and they want to get that across. But 2) too much emphasis on the distinction sounds too much like what traditional theists say, about there being nature AND a God as well. That's a dualism. Pantheists are trying for a monism, so sometimes they say "they are one" -- but how nonpantheists hear that is "they're the same thing".


It's a bit loaded if the God must be isolate-able or else there's 'already a name for it that we prefer'.

So if it's not a redefinition, but an effort to distinguish different aspects of one thing, then it's not equivalent to a non-existent god.

I tend to agree with this. They call it this, I call it that. If we describe the object doing exactly the same thing, the words are secondary to the claim "It doesn't exist". It does exist and "you guys" are just using different words. That's all I can say.

But then again, I have no real estate in a god claim. I just don't care if there is one or not, past learning more about how the universe works. Again, its like pets or a garden to me. I am just not into gardening/pets and there is no special connection to them for me. But I get that some people do have a "connection" to their garden and pets.

But if we both list the traits of a "garden" ... the overlaps are probably reliable for people to use as a base for a "belief". I say it takes to much time weeding and tending, I have better things to do. The other person says they love tending and caring for the garden.

Ok, whatever. Both match what we see.

 

[Jarhyn]

But then again, I have no real estate in a god claim. I just don't care if there is one or not, past learning more about how the universe works.

I think this is probably the most important part to recognize.

I have have no real estate in it either except for the fact that given my goals of creating strong AI using simulation, I have to consider the game theory of being an AI in a simulation.

The result was a reevaluation of pascal's wager, and a curious understanding of the metaphysics of simulation, and thus theistic creationism and Divine Command Theory in general.

Of course, the evaluation led me to throw out divine command theory ethics altogether yet again.

As is I don't do it because I wish to have a garden or pets. Really I do it because I wish to have children my own way, from my madness rather than my loins.

 

[AdamWho]

this type of god is a trivial redefinition of something that already exists

The Daoists call the creative activity of the universe "the Dao", and the display of phenomena "the ten thousand things". They're one process but you'll miss an important aspect if, when talking about it, you don't find a way to make a distinction.



It's similar in western pantheistic thought. The holism (God) that's "more than the sum of the parts", and the phenomenal display of it in its parts (universe), are one. The dilemma for pantheists when talking about the distinction is 1) it's necessary because they don't mean "the parts and pieces taken together as a clump" and they want to get that across. But 2) too much emphasis on the distinction sounds too much like what traditional theists say, about there being nature AND a God as well. That's a dualism. Pantheists are trying for a monism, so sometimes they say "they are one" -- but how nonpantheists hear that is "they're the same thing".


It's a bit loaded if the God must be isolate-able or else there's 'already a name for it that we prefer'.

So if it's not a redefinition, but an effort to distinguish different aspects of one thing, then it's not equivalent to a non-existent god.

But that is not defining god into existence. The 'Tao' is a distinct idea that isn't supernatural at all.

Your example is like claiming "Chocolate chip mint ice cream is just the renaming of 'mint ice cream' and 'chocolate chips'..... therefor a renaming like "the universe is god' is justified.... therefor god exists?

 

[abaddon]

The 'Tao' is a distinct idea that isn't supernatural at all.

Yeah, natural... exactly like the pantheist god. Utterly natural, utterly immanent, utterly present in (or as) all the phenomena around us (and including us) but not synonymous with any one thing but rather the totality of all.

I mentioned Daoism in order to get the "but gods are supernatural entities separable from everything else!" out of the way. Daoism IS a pantheism... but their cultural traditions led them to say "Dao" instead of "God".

I think folk in a society with a christian heritage have a hard time with it (including those atheists that claim to be pantheists because they like trees and pretty sunsets) because they're looking through a christocentric lens. So they say "ok I see nature... but where's the God?!" They have a habit of mind that makes them look for things and beings. And they tend to want to 'drill down and in', so to speak, to find what's the most real. Pantheists are those folk who suggest "let's look up and out to counteract this excess of reductionism".

Your example is like claiming "Chocolate chip mint ice cream is just the renaming of 'mint ice cream' and 'chocolate chips'..... therefor a renaming like "the universe is god' is justified.... therefor god exists?

We can call a painting "art" to distinguish something about it that's not a "thing" in itself. If one's concern is that people think of "painting" as "brush strokes on a canvas in a frame on a wall", then they might want to add a word or two to convey "that's true but it's MORE". That's not a redefinition nor merely a synonym. It's an elaboration.

 

[bilby]

No, it's "why go outside to find whatever is outside?"

No, that really wasn’t the question being asked. I should know, I am the one who asked it.

You can misunderstand my question; You can misinterpret it; You can ask me to clarify what it was I was asking; You can even ask a totally different question all of your very own. But you are not qualified to tell me that I was asking something different, and you are not in any position to contradict me, when I clarify what I intended.

My intent is something that I, and I alone, am qualified to assert.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, it's "why go outside to find whatever is outside?"

No, that really wasn’t the question being asked. I should know, I am the one who asked it.

You can misunderstand my question; You can misinterpret it; You can ask me to clarify what it was I was asking; You can even ask a totally different question all of your very own. But you are not qualified to tell me that I was asking something different, and you are not in any position to contradict me, when I clarify what I intended.

My intent is something that I, and I alone, am qualified to assert.

So, if you want to ask questions with more than the text with stupid in-memes, then spell it out.

You asked "why go outside" when the context of "outside" was not specifically pantheism but "what dreams may come"

I answered the syntax asked, not some stupid false question about some other unstated shit.

 

[AdamWho]

The 'Tao' is a distinct idea that isn't supernatural at all.

Yeah, natural... exactly like the pantheist god. Utterly natural, utterly immanent, utterly present in (or as) all the phenomena around us (and including us) but not synonymous with any one thing but rather the totality of all.

Are you actually going to deny that the word "god" isn't a loaded term?

This thread isn't about theoretical philosophical gods.

It is about the fact that there are large classes of gods which we can say definitively, "Those gods do not exist", rather than the weak, "I don't believe those gods exist. Do you have another example of god which does not exist?

It is trivial to label some object/idea/feeling/whatever as "god". If you acknowledge that this "god" doesn't exist beyond your arbitrary labeling... then you who cares?

And you art example completely misses the point. I am talking about the claim that you can make a god-like thing exist solely through the process of pointing to something that actually exists.

Non-god example; "unicorns exist because my chair exists" "mermaids exist because love exists" "vampires exist because the ineffable human spirit exists" "magic is real because mathematics is reliable"

 

[Jarhyn]

The 'Tao' is a distinct idea that isn't supernatural at all.

Yeah, natural... exactly like the pantheist god. Utterly natural, utterly immanent, utterly present in (or as) all the phenomena around us (and including us) but not synonymous with any one thing but rather the totality of all.

Are you actually going to deny that the word "god" isn't a loaded term?

This thread isn't about theoretical philosophical gods.

It is about the fact that there are large classes of gods which we can say definitively, "Those gods do not exist", rather than the weak, "I don't believe those gods exist. Do you have another example of god which does not exist?

It is trivial to label some object/idea/feeling/whatever as "god". If you acknowledge that this "god" doesn't exist beyond your arbitrary labeling... then you who cares?

And you art example completely misses the point. I am talking about the claim that you can make a god-like thing exist solely through the process of pointing to something that actually exists.

Non-god example; "unicorns exist because my chair exists" "mermaids exist because love exists" "vampires exist because the ineffable human spirit exists" "magic is real because mathematics is reliable"

Once you used the term "like" in the OP title, it became about all the classes of 'god', because "like" implies extension to similar concepts.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think the distinction that AdamWho is making is the idea of gods as intelligences that give a shit about humans and/or actually manipulates reality in unpredictable ways as opposed to someone's awe and appreciation of the universe and the laws of physics.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think the distinction that AdamWho is making is the idea of gods as intelligences that give a shit about humans and actually manipulates reality in unpredictable ways as opposed to someone's awe and appreciation of the universe and the laws of physics.

To that end, I've argued that there's no grounds to make a positive claim claim that 'nothing like it' exists. At best you can make a positive claim that no evidence has been produced and that there is no reason to care, if it were.

I argue that there is no logical distinction between deistic creation and creation of simulation, and that these are the same things.

"Actually manipulates" is not entirely clear one way or the other. It would take a really heavy lift, as I've mentioned before, to do something like manipulating new matter into place. It's not "impossible", but if they aren't willing to do all that work, it would be obvious it was happening.

One can absolutely claim, without any intellectual dishonesty, that there are "zero or more" on the basis of both logic and observation. The second you step on one side of that or the other, you step off of that honesty to somewhere else, because logic does not support you out on those limbs.

Unless you actually bring evidence for a god, in which case I still don't give a shit, because Deistic Command Theory Ethics is shit. I will do what is right because it is well founded in logic and game theory, not because some fuckhead with a lot of power says so.

 

[bilby]

No, it's "why go outside to find whatever is outside?"

No, that really wasn’t the question being asked. I should know, I am the one who asked it.

You can misunderstand my question; You can misinterpret it; You can ask me to clarify what it was I was asking; You can even ask a totally different question all of your very own. But you are not qualified to tell me that I was asking something different, and you are not in any position to contradict me, when I clarify what I intended.

My intent is something that I, and I alone, am qualified to assert.

So, if you want to ask questions with more than the text with stupid in-memes, then spell it out.

You asked "why go outside" when the context of "outside" was not specifically pantheism but "what dreams may come"

I answered the syntax asked, not some stupid false question about some other unstated shit.

I accept your apology, and your assurances that you won’t, in future, pretend to be a higher authority on my meaning than I am myself.

I mean, that’s the only response I could imagine you making, so that is undeniably what you meant to say.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, it's "why go outside to find whatever is outside?"

No, that really wasn’t the question being asked. I should know, I am the one who asked it.

You can misunderstand my question; You can misinterpret it; You can ask me to clarify what it was I was asking; You can even ask a totally different question all of your very own. But you are not qualified to tell me that I was asking something different, and you are not in any position to contradict me, when I clarify what I intended.

My intent is something that I, and I alone, am qualified to assert.

So, if you want to ask questions with more than the text with stupid in-memes, then spell it out.

You asked "why go outside" when the context of "outside" was not specifically pantheism but "what dreams may come"

I answered the syntax asked, not some stupid false question about some other unstated shit.

I accept your apology, and your assurances that you won’t, in future, pretend to be a higher authority on my meaning than I am myself.

I mean, that’s the only response I could imagine you making, so that is undeniably what you meant to say.

There is a difference between taking words at face value, and taking words at not-face-value.

My point has been that it is unconscionably incurious to not want "to go outside".

 

[AdamWho]

The 'Tao' is a distinct idea that isn't supernatural at all.

Yeah, natural... exactly like the pantheist god. Utterly natural, utterly immanent, utterly present in (or as) all the phenomena around us (and including us) but not synonymous with any one thing but rather the totality of all.

Are you actually going to deny that the word "god" isn't a loaded term?

This thread isn't about theoretical philosophical gods.

It is about the fact that there are large classes of gods which we can say definitively, "Those gods do not exist", rather than the weak, "I don't believe those gods exist. Do you have another example of god which does not exist?

It is trivial to label some object/idea/feeling/whatever as "god". If you acknowledge that this "god" doesn't exist beyond your arbitrary labeling... then you who cares?

And you art example completely misses the point. I am talking about the claim that you can make a god-like thing exist solely through the process of pointing to something that actually exists.

Non-god example; "unicorns exist because my chair exists" "mermaids exist because love exists" "vampires exist because the ineffable human spirit exists" "magic is real because mathematics is reliable"

Once you used the term "like" in the OP title, it became about all the classes of 'god', because "like" implies extension to similar concepts.

It seems pretty clear to everyone else.

No one is arguing against and nobody actually worships these theoretical gods..... maybe why should call these irrelevant philosophical god p-gods. That should SURELY clear everything up.

 

[Jarhyn]

The 'Tao' is a distinct idea that isn't supernatural at all.

Yeah, natural... exactly like the pantheist god. Utterly natural, utterly immanent, utterly present in (or as) all the phenomena around us (and including us) but not synonymous with any one thing but rather the totality of all.

Are you actually going to deny that the word "god" isn't a loaded term?

This thread isn't about theoretical philosophical gods.

It is about the fact that there are large classes of gods which we can say definitively, "Those gods do not exist", rather than the weak, "I don't believe those gods exist. Do you have another example of god which does not exist?

It is trivial to label some object/idea/feeling/whatever as "god". If you acknowledge that this "god" doesn't exist beyond your arbitrary labeling... then you who cares?

And you art example completely misses the point. I am talking about the claim that you can make a god-like thing exist solely through the process of pointing to something that actually exists.

Non-god example; "unicorns exist because my chair exists" "mermaids exist because love exists" "vampires exist because the ineffable human spirit exists" "magic is real because mathematics is reliable"

Once you used the term "like" in the OP title, it became about all the classes of 'god', because "like" implies extension to similar concepts.

It seems pretty clear to everyone else.

No one is arguing against and nobody actually worships these theoretical gods..... maybe why should call these irrelevant philosophical god p-gods. That should SURELY clear everything up.

Except as pointed out, all Deistic creationism is simulationism. QED all theistic creationists worship a (nonexistent) simulation creating entity.

As it is you are also wrong about people arguing for or against them.

Just ask @No Robots about Tzimtzum or any of the Gnostics or @Politesse about the Demiurge.

Or maybe take the time to watch The Midnight Gospel, where exactly the concept I'm discussing is put on display by a knowing writer who is most certainly both educated in the concepts of Kabbalah and Gnosticism.

It's clear that you in your desire to be an "atheist" spent very little time actually understanding the concepts of 'god' that people actually do worship edit: believe in think about 'god' and what may or may not exist