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

[skepticalbip]

I was discussing abaddon saying "A god is a divine being or entity worshiped by some people as such".... and whether that definition talking about being worshipped fit the Bible god. That was related to whether the intelligent force in a simulation I believe in can be considered to be a god.

Why, what does the Bible have to do with it?

Why not the Guru Granth Sahib? Or any other work of fiction that includes gods as characters?

The Bible god is believed by many to be real and is considered to be a god. The Bible seems to talk about a time before this "god" was worshipped yet he was still a god....

Many people believing something does not make it so. Many people believe in the tooth fairy and Easter bunny. Many people believed the Earth was the center of the universe for quite a while... some still do.

 

[excreationist]

The Bible god is believed by many to be real and is considered to be a god. The Bible seems to talk about a time before this "god" was worshipped yet he was still a god....

Many people believing something does not make it so. Many people believe in the tooth fairy and Easter bunny. Many people believed the Earth was the center of the universe for quite a while... some still do.

Some people were saying that a god cannot be considered a god if they're not worshipped. I disagreed. Whether or not this god exists isn't the point.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

God is also no god. That's my definition based on observing humans who say they have a god. There isn't anything like that so the OP is proven.

 

[Politesse]

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the entire
reality of which we are aware is a simulation, why would we call the individual or individuals who made the simulation 'gods'?

On first review? Probably not.

After twenty generations of cultural elaboration? I would not be remotely surprised if we did.

 

[abaddon]

The Bible seems to talk about a time before this "god" was worshipped yet he was still a god....

That's the worshipful people saying that about their worshiped god. They believe he existed before humans were around. The belief doesn't make it so. The defining trait of being worshipful applies regardless that believers contrived a belief about the god existing before their worship existed.

 

[excreationist]

The Bible seems to talk about a time before this "god" was worshipped yet he was still a god....

That's the worshipful people saying that about their worshiped god. They believe he existed before humans were around. The belief doesn't make it so. The defining trait of being worshipful applies regardless that believers contrived, in their worshipfulness, a belief about the god pre-existing them.

What about the Greek and Roman "gods"..... say one of them was pretty much the same as the rest but was never worshipped.... would you say that they're not a god? Also when people talk about humans "playing god" it never usually involves them being worshipped.....

 

[abaddon]

What about the Greek and Roman "gods"..... say one of them was pretty much the same as the rest but was never worshipped.... would you say that they're not a god?

I didn't mean to say "it's worshiped by people" is THE single trait that'll qualify something as a god. Actually that was part of my point, and if I didn't make it clear enough then I will now. You seem to want to whittle gods down to 'beings that create stuff'. I think that's not enough to define a god because then computer programmers, novelists, et al, are "gods". Soon the topic is going to be "so what's NOT a god??"

Same problem with making anything that's worshiped into a god. So of course no one single trait defines the term.

--------

And, also... WAS there a Greek or Roman god that wasn't worshiped by at least some persons in those cultures? Or are you ignoring reality and doing a thought experiment so that you can force your "non-obvious god" idea to work? Isn't being descriptive of what the believers do with their contrived idea, "god", the thing that matters when defining a "god"?

 

[DBT]

Neither belief or worship establishes the reality of a God or gods. It matters not if the whole world believes in and worships a God, which, if nothing else, would prove the gullibility of the population.

 

[steve_bank]

Gee..a lot of people believe it, there must be something to it.

 

[bilby]

I was discussing abaddon saying "A god is a divine being or entity worshiped by some people as such".... and whether that definition talking about being worshipped fit the Bible god. That was related to whether the intelligent force in a simulation I believe in can be considered to be a god.

Why, what does the Bible have to do with it?

Why not the Guru Granth Sahib? Or any other work of fiction that includes gods as characters?

The Bible god is believed by many to be real and is considered to be a god.

Sure; But they are flat out wrong, so we should ignore their beliefs.

The Bible seems to talk about a time before this "god" was worshipped yet he was still a god....

So what? Works of fiction tell us nothing about reality.

There was a time before Kal-El was called 'Superman', but he still had super powers, though he hid them from his adoptive parents and his human friends and neighbours. What does this tell us about how super powers work in the real world? Nothing, because they don't.

 

[excreationist]

You seem to want to whittle gods down to 'beings that create stuff'. I think that's not enough to define a god because then computer programmers, novelists, et al, are "gods". Soon the topic is going to be "so what's NOT a god??"

Well I do think there is a grey area - and that things could be called "god-like" rather than definitely be gods. BTW there are "God games":

God game - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

an artificial life game that casts the player in the position of controlling the game on a large scale, as an entity with divine and supernatural powers, as a great leader, or with no specified character (as in Spore), and places them in charge of a game setting containing autonomous characters to guard and influence.

In some of those games, like "Black and White", the player is a god who is worshipped.

And, also... WAS there a Greek or Roman god that wasn't worshiped by at least some persons in those cultures?

About Greek gods:

List of Greek mythological figures - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Types and numbers of gods/goddesses:
Major gods and goddesses - 14
Primordial deities (Protogenos) - 21
Titans and Titanesses - The Twelve Titans - 12, Other Titans - 16
Sea deities - dozens
Sky deities - dozens
Agricultural deities - 11 (including demi-gods)
Health deities - 10
Sleep deities - 6
Other deities - dozens

Perhaps at least one of those 100 or so gods/goddesses hasn't been worshipped.... and in early Greek history that would definitely be the case. Also Greeks would believe that other gods exist such as some of those from other cultures.

Acts 17:23 talks about the gods of the Greeks and says

For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

So the Greeks believed that gods that they weren't aware of existed - and if you're not aware of something you can't properly worship it.

Isn't being descriptive of what the believers do with their contrived idea, "god", the thing that matters when defining a "god"?

I think the Greeks would believe that there are gods that they (and other cultures) aren't necessarily aware of....

Or are you ignoring reality and doing a thought experiment so that you can force your "non-obvious god" idea to work?

The Futurama episode is one of the only things I'm aware of that is relevant to my non-obvious intelligent force belief - and things like "don't put God to the test"....
I think the creator of Futurama is an agnostic and the essence of the non-obvious god idea is that you can't really be sure it exists.... or at least you can't convince skeptics of its reality....

 

[skepticalbip]

The Futurama episode is one of the only things I'm aware of that is relevant to my non-obvious intelligent force belief - and things like "don't put God to the test"....
I think the creator of Futurama is an agnostic and the essence of the non-obvious god idea is that you can't really be sure it exists.... or at least you can't convince skeptics of its reality....

The problem I see in this thread is there doesn't seem to be communication. You seem to be conflating reality and fantasy or imagination. I haven't seen anyone claim that people haven't created fantasy gods or even worshiped gods that are actually imaginary.

The question is reality. Are you claiming that there are actually supernatural entities with powers that can violate the laws of physics in the actual universe that give enough of a shit about humans to meddle in our lives?

 

[excreationist]

.....Are you claiming that there are actually supernatural entities with powers that can violate the laws of physics in the actual universe that give enough of a shit about humans to meddle in our lives?

Yes though it is based on the foundational belief that it is likely we're in a simulation (that is indistinguishable from base reality). For me its message is that they're there and that there is hope in my life. e.g.

My experiences that suggest an intelligent force exists

Hi this is about experiences I had as an atheist/agnostic that made me think that there could be an intelligent force in the universe - maybe even from the future a bit like Interstellar? Maybe I'll become a liberal Christian one day. (very long post...) From March 2018: From my blog: Several...

iidb.org

In video games it is pretty straight forward to violate the rules of physics... though it is more complicated to do it in a non-obvious but somewhat detectable way....
In a simulation humans would be the focus - and in the Roy game or Alan Watts' dream thought experiment "you" are the focus.... the intelligent force could be an AI that is connected with your regular identity (before you lost your memories)

 

[steve_bank]

The question is about scientific theories that can prove a god can not exist.

Imagined alternate realities are for metaphysiocs and philosophy.

 

[Politesse]

So the Greeks believed that gods that they weren't aware of existed - and if you're not aware of something you can't properly worship it.

They clearly did not agree. If your starting assumption is that there are a great many deities, some of whom have revealed themselves to the people of other nations but not yet yourself, why wouldn't it make sense to hedge your bets and honor the unknown gods "just in case"? Thus perhaps winning some favor with them rather than angering them, when you do eventually meet in trade or battle? This seems like a clear-cut appplication of Pascal's Wager. If unknown gods exist and the consequences of ignoring them could be dire, the only logical play is to set up an altar or something. If they don't exist, you're out nothing but some time and a bit of incense. If they do, you might well have saved your deme from destruction. Indeed, isn't Paul arguing that this is exactly what has happened? That he happens to know their unknown God and can now teach them how to worship him properly?

 

[Politesse]

The question is about scientific theories that can prove a god can not exist.

When I see one, I'll let you know.

 

[Jarhyn]

The question is about scientific theories that can prove a god can not exist.

When I see one, I'll let you know.

Well, there is the hypothetical of whether the universe is some interaction of iteration along properties that exist within the number line, such as "the universe is really just a massive prime filter", which would conveniently account for why certain things seem random, and why some are statistically assured.

In such a cosmology, there can be no 'god' by the definition of "creator entity" because it is merely "a property observed as you count numbers from 1 to infinity", which itself encodes math because it's all just properties of a trivial mathematical relationship, and would be observed in any reality capable of hosting such large numbers and operating on them to describe the relationships that exist between them.

 

[skepticalbip]

The question is about scientific theories that can prove a god can not exist.

Imagined alternate realities are for metaphysiocs and philosophy.

The problem I see is that the claims being made are more fantasy than metaphysics.

I could make a similar claim that there is a magical dragon living in my tool shed. This dragon has control over weather patterns around the world. Also he has the magical power to hide any evidence of his presence from anyone trying to find him.

The fact that science can not prove my magic dragon claim is wrong does not mean that it should be considered to be true or even worth seriously considering. I would also consider this claim as fantasy rather than metaphysics.

 

[steve_bank]

The question is about scientific theories that can prove a god can not exist.

When I see one, I'll let you know.

What's a big fish like you doing in a small ponsd like this?

 

[steve_bank]

The question is about scientific theories that can prove a god can not exist.

When I see one, I'll let you know.

Well, there is the hypothetical of whether the universe is some interaction of iteration along properties that exist within the number line, such as "the universe is really just a massive prime filter", which would conveniently account for why certain things seem random, and why some are statistically assured.

In such a cosmology, there can be no 'god' by the definition of "creator entity" because it is merely "a property observed as you count numbers from 1 to infinity", which itself encodes math because it's all just properties of a trivial mathematical relationship, and would be observed in any reality capable of hosting such large numbers and operating on them to describe the relationships that exist between them.

Who's speculation? An finitely divisible number line is a useful mathematical abstraction. It is not reality. Same with Eucliden Geometry. It is based on a point being infinity small and massless, and a line being comprised of an infinte number of points infinitely divisible.

You are philosophizing, not invoking science.