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

[AdamWho]

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

You seem to be posting in the wrong thread. The OP is about the types of gods that cannot exist.

* Logically impossible gods don't exist

* Gods which only exist as the relabeling of existing things as 'god' do not exist beyond the relabeling

* Gods which do not interact with the universe in anyway are equivalent to non-existent.

* Theoretical gods which only have the property that they cannot be proved to not exist.

Do you have any examples of gods which don't exist to add to the list.... we already understand it is possible to manufacture gods NOT on this list.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

You seem to be posting in the wrong thread. The OP is about the types of gods that cannot exist.

* Logically impossible gods don't exist

* Gods which only exist as the relabeling of existing things as 'god' do not exist beyond the relabeling

* Gods which do not interact with the universe in anyway are equivalent to non-existent.

* Theoretical gods which only have the property that they cannot be proved to not exist.

Do you have any examples of gods which don't exist to add to the list.... we already understand it is possible to manufacture gods NOT on this list.

No, it's about you wanting to "make the positive claim that nothing like gods exist". You don't get to control what a topic means, or where it goes within the context of the topic.

Within the context of the topic is the point: the demiurge, the simulation creator, the Tzimtzum, the lower god, these are things that we can make zero positive claims of, and they are undeniably like the Christian god, because in fact there is a long tradition within ex-christian groups of describing the Christian god thus.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Back in the initial days of IIDB there was at least one poster fond of stating that god is first and only an idea. If you wish to make the ocean or the moon a god you are simply projecting an idea onto something that is already and unmistakably real and objective. The Japanese venerated their emperor as a living god. They projected the idea of god onto their emperor. Some members of the christian religion project the god idea onto a character in their sacred writings. None of that passes the rationality test except in that these claims when widely held and enforced yield tribal cohesion and therefore may confer survival advantages.

 

[Jarhyn]

Back in the initial days of IIDB there was at least one poster fond of stating that god is first and only an idea. If you wish to make the ocean or the moon a god you are simply projecting an idea onto something that is already and unmistakably real and objective. The Japanese venerated their emperor as a living god. They projected the idea of god onto their emperor. Some members of the christian religion project the god idea onto a character in their sacred writings. None of that passes the rationality test except in that these claims when widely held and enforced yield tribal cohesion and therefore may confer survival advantages.

So, you're making a mistake insofar as you are conflating some things here.

First, you have to ask what the idea it is you are saying is being projected, if it's something you understand in the same way as... Whoever you are talking to about it understands it.

Maybe you should start by trying to explain this idea that you might feel is being projected, to understand it not merely as "Thing" or "Marklar" or "God" or "insert nonspecific noun here".

Usually "God" in any specific usage represents a massive conflation of a massive number of things.

Here it is no different.

What is a god?

Perhaps it is an idea projected upon things, but what, pray tell, is that idea?

Small text because it's unimportant. It is subtext. Literally so.

in some respects this idea of god reflects at least three things. It respects "the origins of the universe", the things within it that impact humans which are chaotic and out of our control, and the ways these might imply to us how we ought act.

Most people conflate these things together, answering them with the same answer. Rather I think that this is naive, Both for the person that conflates them, and the person trying to fight the ideas being conflated.

Religion is clearly a bad way to approach such topics, no argument from me on that point. But ignorant conflations are bad no matter who is doing the conflation.

Instead, we should separate these concepts when discussing them, and which are and are not being discussed. The most pressing thing to address is the relationship which attempts to answer "how we ought act" with either "whatever the priest says god wants" or "whatever I say god wants", which is Divine Command Theory Ethics.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Perhaps it is an idea projected upon things, but what, pray tell, is that idea?

Rhetorically posed or not, the best I can tell is that the "idea" begins with an actual observation, a tree, person, sound, some other experience, and is then dosed with the human ability to pretend. So essentially a god begins with something quite real before the limbic system turns it into something imaginary.

Considering the fact that our limbic systems were even more dominant in the past it makes the behavior understandable. The word "god" has an interesting etymology. It hasn't been around long and was invented out of human utterance, a kind of scream.

 

[skepticalbip]

Perhaps it is an idea projected upon things, but what, pray tell, is that idea?

It is a stand in for "I don't know". Give the "I don't know" or "I don't understand" a name like "god" and it satisfies the mind's need for an answer.

 

[Jarhyn]

the best I can tell is that the "idea" begins with an actual observation, a tree, person, sound, some other experience, and is then dosed with the human ability to pretend

Not rhetorically posed. Absolutely conversationally posed. Because this is one such thing that people throw into this massive conflation, which leads into bip's post ...

Perhaps it is an idea projected upon things, but what, pray tell, is that idea?

It is a stand in for "I don't know". Give the "I don't know" or "I don't understand" a name like "god" and it satisfies the mind's need for an answer.

It's certainly what SOME people mean by it SOMETIMES, and it is again often one of the things conflated into the others. This is not to say you are wrong in this but rather quite woefully incomplete.

Perhaps rather than focusing on the one element you both see as nonsensical, you could in fact shuck away that layer of the onion of conflation as unimportant for now. Address it as need be rather than letting it dominate your view; It's a distraction.

Instead, it's best to address what they think they do know about it, coaxing more words out of them than just the one that you think reduces to 'we don't know'.

It's more useful to find out what they think they know about what they say they don't know about, because it's their claims of what they do think they know about it that is generally problematic, like the idea that "we don't know why or what, but it hates gay people so we should kill them."

We can get at divine command theory, argument from nature, and argument from authority without denying the existence of the hypothetical simulation creator, and denying the hypothetical simulation creator will get doors shut upon your face, especially if you condescend to tell someone immediately that they tautologically don't know what they are talking about "that to call something god necessarily implies you don't understand what you are talking about", when you want them to be open to your words.

 

[skepticalbip]

Perhaps it is an idea projected upon things, but what, pray tell, is that idea?

It is a stand in for "I don't know". Give the "I don't know" or "I don't understand" a name like "god" and it satisfies the mind's need for an answer.

It's certainly what SOME people mean by it SOMETIMES, and it is again often one of the things conflated into the others. This is not to say you are wrong in this but rather quite woefully incomplete.

How so? Can you give examples of how god isn't used to "explain" something that the believer doesn't understand?

... Where did the world and humans come from? "God did it."
... Why does the Sun shine? "God made it."
... What happens after someone dies? "God will take care of them." followed by wish fulfillment fantasy of what god has in store.
... Why are there plagues? "Someone pissed off god."
... etc., etc.

Science has been filling in the answers to many of the questions that were once only answered by "goddidit". The more reasonable response to the remaining questions that are being worked on by science is "I don't know... yet." Scientists like that there are unanswered questions; it makes life challenging and interesting because it means there is more to learn. The religious don't like unanswered questions; they make them insecure so they invent an answer, "god", to give themselves a sense of security.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The more reasonable response to the remaining questions that are being worked on by science is "I don't know... yet."

If you wish to somewhat placate the god devotee maybe the answer should be "your god hasn't told us yet." Or maybe, "Your god is hiding the answer. What's its problem?"

 

[AdamWho]

A recap:

Claim: There are categories of gods who we can positively say do not exist.

1. Gods with contradictory descriptions.
Example: tri-omni-gods, incoherently defined gods, logically impossible gods, 4sided triangle gods.

2. Gods who are just a re-labeling of something which exists and doesn't exist beyond this relabeling
Example: God is [nature/love/justice/physical laws)

3. Gods who are equivalent to non-existent.
Example: Deist gods, philosophical-gods (gods whose only characteristic is to evade arguments against gods)

 

[Jarhyn]

A recap:

Claim: There are categories of gods who we can positively say do not exist.

1. Gods with contradictory descriptions.
Example: tri-omni-gods, incoherently defined gods, logically impossible gods, 4sided triangle gods.

2. Gods who are just a re-labeling of something which exists and doesn't exist beyond this relabeling
Example: God is [nature/love/justice/physical laws)

3. Gods who are equivalent to non-existent.
Example: Deist gods, philosophical-gods (gods whose only characteristic is to evade arguments against gods)

So, it's interesting. I had a conversation with a deist Uber driver today who left the conversation with a reconsideration of his deism towards "pro-atheistic agnosticism" specifically by using this kind of philosophical god that I reference, god-as-sim-admin.

It was a short trip so I couldn't explain it very well, but the reversal of Pascal's wager was what really did it, in understanding such a philosophical god he could actually carry true empathy for.

I keep trying to impart on you the value of accepting that such gods are possible though unnecessary. They are not equivalent to non-existent. Rather they are the nose under the camel's tent whose eminently possible existence allows you to erode the foundation of their own god of divine command, to actually get someone over the fence.

 

[excreationist]

A recap:

Claim: There are categories of gods who we can positively say do not exist.

.....

3. Gods who are equivalent to non-existent.
Example: Deist gods, philosophical-gods (gods whose only characteristic is to evade arguments against gods)

I talked about this in the start of this thread and I don't think you replied...

So I think in the future it will be possible to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality to those inside. If it is based on an ordinary physical universe then that means the simulation wouldn't involve obvious interactions with outside beings aka "gods".

An outside intelligent force that doesn't intervene with the simulation after its creation doesn't prove that that god-like being doesn't exist.

 

[SIB]

A recap:

Claim: There are categories of gods who we can positively say do not exist.

.....

3. Gods who are equivalent to non-existent.
Example: Deist gods, philosophical-gods (gods whose only characteristic is to evade arguments against gods)

I talked about this in the start of this thread and I don't think you replied...

So I think in the future it will be possible to create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality to those inside. If it is based on an ordinary physical universe then that means the simulation wouldn't involve obvious interactions with outside beings aka "gods".

An outside intelligent force that doesn't intervene with the simulation after its creation doesn't prove that that god-like being doesn't exist.

I always thought the "most reliable answer" will be between fundy think type atheist and fundy think type theist. "Alive" fits the bill.

And in fact, if we think its an outside thing but doesn't intervene means that the idea of "creator something" is more reliable than denying every single claim that comes down the pike. Well, objectively speaking.

 

[excreationist]

I always thought the "most reliable answer" will be between fundy think type atheist and fundy think type theist. "Alive" fits the bill.

Hi I don't understand what you mean by "alive". Are you talking about a plane crash movie?

 

[SIB]

I always thought the "most reliable answer" will be between fundy think type atheist and fundy think type theist. "Alive" fits the bill.

Hi I don't understand what you mean by "alive". Are you talking about a plane crash movie?

"Alive" is hard to define. When you classify an object as "alive", what does that mean to you I guess is where I would start.

For me, it can mean so many things. Like what would "life" look like if we could see space-time itself and did not know there are "atoms". What would we see the fields doing in an area that we classify as "alive" from "up here"? Or, from 100 light years away what would the earth look like? Could we tell that parts of it were alive? Is there a location, zooming in and out by powers of ten, that would give us a better understanding for why people are believing what they do?

I am talking about how the system around us is influencing people's beliefs. People's experiences are leading us to have certain beliefs. What possible classification(s) do we have that may match what people are experiencing. And of the different classification(s) we have have what ones seem to match better? and why. I call it a relative reliable list.

 

[AdamWho]

I keep trying to impart on you the value of accepting that such gods are possible though unnecessary. They are not equivalent to non-existent. Rather they are the nose under the camel's tent whose eminently possible existence allows you to erode the foundation of their own god of divine command, to actually get someone over the fence.

I didn't write this thread for theists, it is a argument for atheists to move past the passive "I don't have a god belief because of a lack of evidence".

"Deist philosophical gods" aren't really relevant to most theists. They are used by atheists to pretend they aren't atheists.

 

[Jarhyn]

I keep trying to impart on you the value of accepting that such gods are possible though unnecessary. They are not equivalent to non-existent. Rather they are the nose under the camel's tent whose eminently possible existence allows you to erode the foundation of their own god of divine command, to actually get someone over the fence.

I didn't write this thread for theists, it is a argument for atheists to move past the passive "I don't have a god belief because of a lack of evidence".

"Deist philosophical gods" aren't really relevant to most theists. They are used by atheists to pretend they aren't atheists.

And yet moving past "I don't believe because I lack evidence" to assuming a falsifiable proposition as true is exactly the thing preventing atheists from making inroads with any sort of acceptance or understanding from theists.

It's been pointedly shown, repeatedly, that philosophical gods are tools useful specifically for addressing problematic beliefs in God held by theists.

Personally, I don't even use deist philosophical gods; rather, I use precise, actual, extant philosophical gods-in-the-flesh. These are actual living people that are human and made of meat, and aren't "gods of US" but "gods of something smaller".

My interest is helping Atheists open lines of communication rather than closing them, and in an "Apology" of sorts.

In order to execute the apology, though, one must accept "there are zero or more" not just be planning a bait/switch, else you are exactly lying for not-jesus.

Usually that starts from easing them into acceptance that theistic creationism is simulationism, which as I explained isn't possible from a position of honesty without accepting that it is a valid -- even if absurd, unevidenced, and otherwise useless -- cosmology.

Then, this allows moving to the last bastion of the believer, Pascal's Wager, and pointing to the lack of wisdom in ANY such administrator in unbottling "the true believer".

 

[bilby]

I always thought the "most reliable answer" will be between fundy think type atheist and fundy think type theist. "Alive" fits the bill.

Hi I don't understand what you mean by "alive". Are you talking about a plane crash movie?

"Alive" is hard to define. When you classify an object as "alive", what does that mean to you I guess is where I would start.

For me, it can mean so many things. Like what would "life" look like if we could see space-time itself and did not know there are "atoms". What would we see the fields doing in an area that we classify as "alive" from "up here"? Or, from 100 light years away what would the earth look like? Could we tell that parts of it were alive? Is there a location, zooming in and out by powers of ten, that would give us a better understanding for why people are believing what they do?

I am talking about how the system around us is influencing people's beliefs. People's experiences are leading us to have certain beliefs. What possible classification(s) do we have that may match what people are experiencing. And of the different classification(s) we have have what ones seem to match better? and why. I call it a relative reliable list.

There’s no good definition of ‘alive’; All of them fail at edge cases (ie they include things like growing salt crystals, which we would like to not consider to be ‘alive’; or they exclude things like eunuchs, who we would like to consider to be ‘alive’; or both).

The closest I can get to a usable definition is “a system that exhibits complex cyclic chemistry”, but that just leaves us debating the meaning of “complex”, so it’s not a very good definition either.

The fact that it’s so difficult to give a simple definition that lets us categorise everything into exactly one of two classes (alive vs dead, with ‘dead’ defined simply as ‘not alive’) strongly suggests that “life” isn’t an attribute of reality at all.

Humans love to invent categories for reality to be hammered into, but where those categories are not attributes of reality, this just leads to stupid time wasting. Particularly if we then assign these non-attributes to the non-category “sacred”.

Life is not sacred, because the only well defined word in the phrase “life is sacred” is “is”, and even that is famously up for debate.

 

[DBT]

Bare bones: no evidence/no reason to be convinced.

 

[Kylie]

I always thought the "most reliable answer" will be between fundy think type atheist and fundy think type theist. "Alive" fits the bill.

Hi I don't understand what you mean by "alive". Are you talking about a plane crash movie?

"Alive" is hard to define. When you classify an object as "alive", what does that mean to you I guess is where I would start.

For me, it can mean so many things. Like what would "life" look like if we could see space-time itself and did not know there are "atoms". What would we see the fields doing in an area that we classify as "alive" from "up here"? Or, from 100 light years away what would the earth look like? Could we tell that parts of it were alive? Is there a location, zooming in and out by powers of ten, that would give us a better understanding for why people are believing what they do?

I am talking about how the system around us is influencing people's beliefs. People's experiences are leading us to have certain beliefs. What possible classification(s) do we have that may match what people are experiencing. And of the different classification(s) we have have what ones seem to match better? and why. I call it a relative reliable list.

There’s no good definition of ‘alive’; All of them fail at edge cases (ie they include things like growing salt crystals, which we would like to not consider to be ‘alive’; or they exclude things like eunuchs, who we would like to consider to be ‘alive’; or both).

The closest I can get to a usable definition is “a system that exhibits complex cyclic chemistry”, but that just leaves us debating the meaning of “complex”, so it’s not a very good definition either.

The fact that it’s so difficult to give a simple definition that lets us categorise everything into exactly one of two classes (alive vs dead, with ‘dead’ defined simply as ‘not alive’) strongly suggests that “life” isn’t an attribute of reality at all.

Humans love to invent categories for reality to be hammered into, but where those categories are not attributes of reality, this just leads to stupid time wasting. Particularly if we then assign these non-attributes to the non-category “sacred”.

Life is not sacred, because the only well defined word in the phrase “life is sacred” is “is”, and even that is famously up for debate.

How about, "Successive generations evolve"?