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

[steve_bank]

I'll play devil's advocate. How does science exclude the possibility of a god?

Radio waves pass through solid objets and are unseen yet have a causal effect on reality.

Nobody has seen an atomic particle.

The idea that we humans with our tiny brains and our instrumentation on Earth can know everything is a definition of hubris and arrogance.

I have applied science and know the models work, yet they are far from satisfying. I don't think we have even scratched the surface of reality.

If I am to be objective I can say claims like YEC are refuted by science, but I can'r say objectively god is refuted.

 

[DBT]

What exactly is this thing we call God?" What are its properties? How does it interact with the universe? Where did "God" - whatever it's supposed to be - come from?

 

[excreationist]

What exactly is this thing we call God?"

As part of a simulation I think it could be an AI, trans-human or post-human.

What are its properties? How does it interact with the universe?

In a scenario like Genesis 1 it could use voice commands.

Where did "God" - whatever it's supposed to be - come from?

It would have a beginning outside of the simulation.

 

[Politesse]

That is why there are lexicographers. Lexicography is not philosophy.

But if you ask any lexicographers about the definition of these terms, they'll tell you the same damn thing....

Have you ever actually talked to one? They're not under any delusions about the transitory and uncertain nature of their work.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is why there are lexicographers. Lexicography is not philosophy.

But if you ask any lexicographers about the definition of these terms, they'll tell you the same damn thing....

Have you ever actually talked to one? They're not under any delusions about the transitory and uncertain nature of their work.

WTF?
It doesn't matter how frustrated a lexicographer may be, it does not make what they do philosophy. You don't seem to have a clue what philosophers do... it isn't coming up with new or arguing about current definitions for words.

 

[Politesse]

That is why there are lexicographers. Lexicography is not philosophy.

But if you ask any lexicographers about the definition of these terms, they'll tell you the same damn thing....

Have you ever actually talked to one? They're not under any delusions about the transitory and uncertain nature of their work.

WTF?
It doesn't matter how frustrated a lexicographer may be, it does not make what they do philosophy. You don't seem to have a clue what philosophers do... it isn't coming up with new or arguing about current definitions for words.

Of course they don't do philosophy. They very pointedly do not do philsoophy. Which is why they generally recognize that the meaning of certain words is likely to be various, diverse, and changing over time, and why they generally try not to take sides. If they know the definition of a term is in dispute, they'll generally just include both positions, or try to state the definition so vaguely that it could apply to either position. Which is fine for a dictionary but not for technical use. When dictionary.com defines god as "a deity" and a deity as "a god or goddess", that is entirely correct but pretty noncommital about the complexities of those terms, and in fact explains very little that a philosopher, policy-maker, social scientist, or priest might need to know about the history of concepts of divinity.

As for the idea that philosophers do not debate the definitions of words.... I don't know what to tell you, man. That makes nearly everyone who has ever written on philosophy, from Plato to Platinga, not a philosopher. In short, a very dubious definition of "philosopher".

 

[skepticalbip]

That is why there are lexicographers. Lexicography is not philosophy.

But if you ask any lexicographers about the definition of these terms, they'll tell you the same damn thing....

Have you ever actually talked to one? They're not under any delusions about the transitory and uncertain nature of their work.

WTF?
It doesn't matter how frustrated a lexicographer may be, it does not make what they do philosophy. You don't seem to have a clue what philosophers do... it isn't coming up with new or arguing about current definitions for words.

As for the idea that philosophers do not debate the definitions of words.... I don't know what to tell you, man. That makes nearly everyone who has ever written on philosophy, from Plato to Platinga, not a philosopher. In short, a very dubious definition of "philosopher".

So you haven't actually read any real philosophy, only internet posers. I haven't read any that don't use an existing definition for words and stick with that definition throughout the argument. Rebuttals by other philosophers do not use an alternate definition when responding but actually address the argument made.

Typical internet posers will 'argue' using an alternate definition (or make up their own) so are not even addressing the original argument.

 

[Politesse]

That is why there are lexicographers. Lexicography is not philosophy.

But if you ask any lexicographers about the definition of these terms, they'll tell you the same damn thing....

Have you ever actually talked to one? They're not under any delusions about the transitory and uncertain nature of their work.

WTF?
It doesn't matter how frustrated a lexicographer may be, it does not make what they do philosophy. You don't seem to have a clue what philosophers do... it isn't coming up with new or arguing about current definitions for words.

As for the idea that philosophers do not debate the definitions of words.... I don't know what to tell you, man. That makes nearly everyone who has ever written on philosophy, from Plato to Platinga, not a philosopher. In short, a very dubious definition of "philosopher".

So you haven't actually read any real philosophy, only internet posers. I haven't read any that don't use an existing definition for words and stick with that definition throughout the argument. Rebuttals by other philosophers do not use an alternate definition when responding but actually address the argument made.

Typical internet posers will 'argue' using an alternate definition (or make up their own) so are not even addressing the original argument.

Plato is an... internet poser? I'm getting confused.

 

[skepticalbip]

No but it is good that you recognize that you are confused...

To help you a bit... If lexicographers doing what they do does not make them philosophers then some poser "philosopher" pretending to do what lexicographers do does not make them philosophers either

 

[Elixir]

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

Lots of things are "like gods", including the infinity of things that, like gods, don't exist.
Things that do exist may be "like" gods in one or more respects (e.g. we don't understand them), but I agree that the existence of any tri-omni Supreme Being running the show can be positively ruled out. Mostly because if one exists, it behaves precisely as if it didn't. So why bother even trying to apprise its chances?

 

[steve_bank]

What exactly is this thing we call God?" What are its properties? How does it interact with the universe? Where did "God" - whatever it's supposed to be - come from?

I think it is one of those things that if you don't know there is no point in trying to explain it to you.

 

[DBT]

What exactly is this thing we call God?"

As part of a simulation I think it could be an AI, trans-human or post-human.

What are its properties? How does it interact with the universe?

In a scenario like Genesis 1 it could use voice commands.

Where did "God" - whatever it's supposed to be - come from?

It would have a beginning outside of the simulation.

We have what is written in old scrolls and told to us by priests. And a simulation is not necessarily constructed by a God.

 

[steve_bank]

A hit and run thread?

Still haven't heard how science proves gods can not exist. I await a response with great anticipation.

 

[skepticalbip]

A hit and run thread?

Still haven't heard how science proves gods can not exist. I await a response with great anticipation.

Drop the Pope into a deep bog of quicksand with no way out for him but by the hand of god. A team of scientist could then observe and record whether or not there was a god to save him.

Surely, the Pope has enough faith to agree to the test...

 

[excreationist]

A hit and run thread?

Still haven't heard how science proves gods can not exist. I await a response with great anticipation.

Drop the Pope into a deep bog of quicksand with no way out for him but by the hand of god. A team of scientist could then observe and record whether or not there was a god to save him.

Surely, the Pope has enough faith to agree to the test...

I believe in a non-obvious god and a related verse is "Do not put the Lord your God to the test" (Matthew 4:7, Luke 4:2)

 

[excreationist]

We have what is written in old scrolls and told to us by priests.

I believe some of it could have been guided by an intelligent force but the old scrolls aren't necessarily factual.

And a simulation is not necessarily constructed by a God.

Simulations are often created by programmers but there can be tools so that non-programmers can create worlds. In the game the creator can have god-like powers - though this might require cheats / mods / hacks, etc. Can you give an example of a simulation that wasn't created by a being with god-like powers within the simulation?

e.g. Conway's Game of Life involves initial conditions with an intelligent source.... I thought the being that decides this could be considered to be a god....

 

[abaddon]

We have what is written in old scrolls and told to us by priests. And a simulation is not necessarily constructed by a God.

A god is a divine being or entity worshiped by some people as such.

The notion of extending the concept to any doofus who has some technical power, like computer programmers who assemble (or "create" if you want to be hyperbolic about it) a similitude of life (or "universe" if you want to be hyperbolic about it), is just people failing to know what similes are - they conflate "like" and "is".

 

[excreationist]

A god is a divine being or entity worshiped by some people as such.

I don't think a god has to be worshipped. What about in the Bible when God hasn't created other beings yet - at that time he wouldn't have been worshipped but I think he still could be considered a god. edit: perhaps you mean that a god is a divine being and/or people worship it as a divine being. Then I guess it depends what "divine" means. BTW in the game "Black and White" the villagers worship you as a god....

The notion of extending the concept to any doofus who has some technical power, like computer programmers who assemble (or "create" if you want to be hyperbolic about it) a similitude of life (or "universe" if you want to be hyperbolic about it), is just people failing to know what similes are - they conflate "like" and "is".

I think there is a grey area between things that are god-like and definitely a god.... BTW in Google "divine" means "of or like God or a god" and a synonym is "godlike".

 

[Coleman Smith]

While god does not exist I have plosive refutable evidence that Elvis is alive.

 

[steve_bank]

A hit and run thread?

Still haven't heard how science proves gods can not exist. I await a response with great anticipation.

Drop the Pope into a deep bog of quicksand with no way out for him but by the hand of god. A team of scientist could then observe and record whether or not there was a god to save him.

Surely, the Pope has enough faith to agree to the test...

The theist retort is something like whatever happens is god's will. it is all part of the plan. Maybe god is testing the pope;s faith like Job.

Still no proof of god either way.