Is a Hidden God the Same as No God?

[AJ113]

I have a friend who says that nothing comes from nothing, ergo there must be an intelligent designer. Aside from this being just another angle on the god of the gaps argument in my opinion, (i.e. we don't know how it all began therefore god/intelligent designer), playing devil's advocate and assuming his deduction is true, so what?

If this intelligent designer cannot be seen, touched, or sensed in any way, what difference does it make whether it exists or not? In terms of having any effect on humans, isn't the ID's existence irrelevant, since it has exactly the same consequences as it not existing?

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes. That's right.

If you believe in a god nobody has ever heard from, a god that doesn't care, doesn't act, doesn't tell you what to do or not do...how does that make you any different than an atheist?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I have a friend who says that nothing comes from nothing, ergo there must be an intelligent designer. Aside from this being just another angle on the god of the gaps argument in my opinion, (i.e. we don't know how it all began therefore god/intelligent designer), playing devil's advocate and assuming his deduction is true, so what?

If this intelligent designer cannot be seen, touched, or sensed in any way, what difference does it make whether it exists or not? In terms of having any effect on humans, isn't the ID's existence irrelevant, since it has exactly the same consequences as it not existing?

Parmenides. "Nothing come from nothing. So something has always existed". Now we are simply debating what that something is or are. Parmenides again. Is it one thing or many things? Parmenides, it is one thing. How would we know what the underlying thing(s) are, much less if that is one thing or many? Parmenides again. Change is impossible. Obviously nonsense.

Hitchen's razor. That that can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have a friend who says that nothing comes from nothing, ergo there must be an intelligent designer.

Everything must be A, therefore for B exists.

I'm not impressed.

Aside from this being just another angle on the god of the gaps argument in my opinion, (i.e. we don't know how it all began therefore god/intelligent designer), playing devil's advocate and assuming his deduction is true, so what?

If this intelligent designer cannot be seen, touched, or sensed in any way, what difference does it make whether it exists or not? In terms of having any effect on humans, isn't the ID's existence irrelevant, since it has exactly the same consequences as it not existing?

The "intelligent designer" is also known as the religious camel nose under the tent. It was developed as a way to try and demonstrated deism is order to cram their theism into the narrative. All things need a cause... therefore there needs to be a god... which by luck, I happen to have right here, we call 'em Jesus.

 

[Elixir]

I have a friend who says that nothing comes from nothing, ergo there must be an intelligent designer.

Is your friend like, three?
Try him out on virtual particles.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If this intelligent designer cannot be seen, touched, or sensed in any way, what difference does it make whether it exists or not? In terms of having any effect on humans, isn't the ID's existence irrelevant, since it has exactly the same consequences as it not existing?

Yes. God claims are just more unevidenced claims. Believing in unevidenced claims about gods makes some people feel good, Believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy makes millions of young people feel good too.

 

[TomC]

I have a friend who says that nothing comes from nothing, ergo there must be an intelligent designer.

Why does your friend add "intelligent designer", when all the evidence is against that?
When Michelangelo carved his masterpiece, "David", he also created a big pile of debris. The chips and dust were swept up and discarded, but he did create them. Calling it intentional, though, doesn't seem right, much less intelligent design.
Or, consider this. Perhaps the singularity was more like God flushing the toilet after taking a dump than intelligent design.
I call that "The Big Bung Theory"

Tom

 

[Rhea]

If this intelligent designer cannot be seen, touched, or sensed in any way, what difference does it make whether it exists or not? In terms of having any effect on humans, isn't the ID's existence irrelevant, since it has exactly the same consequences as it not existing?

Yes. That's right.

If you believe in a god nobody has ever heard from, a god that doesn't care, doesn't act, doesn't tell you what to do or not do...how does that make you any different than an atheist?

Exactly, it doesn’t.

All of the people who point to things humans have done and call it God are demonstrating their reality that the god they claim - doesn’t actually do anything. Humans do. Humans write “bibles”, humans tell stories, humans see patterns in clouds…. And all of their claims really amount to a god(dess)(es) that have no discernable interaction. At all.

They believe in things that humans do, or that happens by physics and chemistry without direction, and they call it God, but they never produce any actions thqat were actually done by their god.

Like, even evangelizing andf telling the story of god - always done by humans. Every word, every whisper, every written paragraph. Humans all the way down.

 

[SIB]

I have a friend who says that nothing comes from nothing, ergo there must be an intelligent designer. Aside from this being just another angle on the god of the gaps argument in my opinion, (i.e. we don't know how it all began therefore god/intelligent designer), playing devil's advocate and assuming his deduction is true, so what?

If this intelligent designer cannot be seen, touched, or sensed in any way, what difference does it make whether it exists or not? In terms of having any effect on humans, isn't the ID's existence irrelevant, since it has exactly the same consequences as it not existing?

yup, like a galaxy 10^9 ly away is to my brother. But they are there.

For me, personal and political need are a distant second to describing how the universe works to the best of our ability at any given time. In political forums, yeah, sure, anti-christian, anti-muslum, anti-jewish, anti-atheist bigots have their say and their vote. lol, scary thing there.

Its relevance, for me only, is that means there is something more. The belief in something more (whatever that is) is the starting point that has the most observations supporting it. Its like dark matter to me. Yeah sure, to the vast majority it is meaningless. But something is there. Its when we start claiming "It is ... only and if you disagree you are evil, wrong, delusional, weak minded, and weak faith." It can be something more and we can be as important as a stomach cell (singular) is to you.

I think that some atheist's need to man up. I think other need to stand up to fundy think type atheist. "team unity" is political. look at USA and Russia and China and see how team unity as "The holy guiding light of truth" ends. It is ok to believe in something more and still not believe in a Christian, Muslim, or some half man half wolf. "Fear is the mind killer". I get it, religion is dangerous. Misinformation is misinformation. For me, faith based atheist are just like any other faith base belief system. People of faith shout the rest of down with "they are wrong and evil" ... and the rest suffer the consequences of belief systems based on personal needs, blind faith, the worst of all revenge alone. But hey, I am just a interhack that doesn't care what you believe until we make laws. So ...

 

[ideologyhunter]

Are invisible gnomes the same as no gnomes?
Remember, with Nessie and Bigfoot we have "photos" and "film".

 

[Elixir]

Invisible gods make a lot more money than no gods do.

 

[abaddon]

If this intelligent designer cannot be seen, touched, or sensed in any way, what difference does it make whether it exists or not? In terms of having any effect on humans, isn't the ID's existence irrelevant, since it has exactly the same consequences as it not existing?

Our mental picture of what nature is determines our attitudes and behaviors towards nature and one another. What we think of the world is how we treat the world.

As we all know, thinking a God exists has its effects on the believer's behaviors. Humans are believers, what they believe determines what their world feels like to them and how they act towards it.

The belief the designer exists causes different consequences from not believing. The actual existence is what's irrelevant.

 

[ideologyhunter]

No doubt about that. Religions have always been a positive factor for a civilization's survival -- group cohesion, rules of conduct, sacrifice, including the willingness of individuals to go to war for the culture. Of course, each item in that list has a negative correlative.

 

[unapologetic]

An 'all powerful' hidden (or hiding) god doesn't need, or even want, our worship. Wants to be left the hell alone.
And obviously doesn't give a shit what we think about it. Why would/should he?
So his existence is irrelevant.

For me, faith based atheist are just like any other faith base belief system.

There you go again. Pretending to be atheist.
Accusing the rest of us of having 'blind non-faith'. As if you are the only 'true' atheist. You are no atheist.

The belief in something more (whatever that is) is the starting point that has the most observations supporting it.

Get thee behind me, you christian.

 

[Jarhyn]

I will reiterate, as I have before:

The same system can be implemented by different individuals at different times and places.

The same individual can implement different systems in different places at the same time.

There are literally no strictly one:many or manyne relationships there. It's any:any.

From the perspective of a denizen of a system, until that system differentiates, and only to the depth of differentiation, the creator exists in a superposition of potentiality with all other co-creators.

It's just like Schrodinger's cat in a box, but instead of being inside the universe's math and incalculable, it exists as a thing boxed outside of it and incalculable.

But from outside, we can see that the implementation has a discrete creator and we're just tittering because they don't know which of infinitely many possible creators which ones they will discover as consistent with their own existence.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Meh. It's like aliens. They aren't doing anything for us. They're not interacting with us. No one can produce convincing evidence they're here. So even if they are here, it's as if they aren't, so they may as well not be here anyway. Just like aliens, Jebus could show up today and let the world know he's real, but he never does.

So where did everything come from? Fuck if I know. And that's a better answer than putting forth the idea that some ancient being is angry at people for using dildos.

 

[SIB]

An 'all powerful' hidden (or hiding) god doesn't need, or even want, our worship. Wants to be left the hell alone.
And obviously doesn't give a shit what we think about it. Why would/should he?
So his existence is irrelevant.

For me, faith based atheist are just like any other faith base belief system.

There you go again. Pretending to be atheist.
Accusing the rest of us of having 'blind non-faith'. As if you are the only 'true' atheist. You are no atheist.

The belief in something more (whatever that is) is the starting point that has the most observations supporting it.

Get thee behind me, you christian.

Its all about intentions for me. If a Christian approaches questioning honestly, openly, and intentions are just to do the best we can with what we have to help each other? I would follow them before an faith based atheist that shouts everybody down with "evil god", delusional", "weak minded", "we must stop them at every turn."

Define atheist? I list the personality traits of a fundy think type Christian. What would an atheist sound like with those personality traits? How would an atheist with those traits react when challenged? With all do respect your lord ship.

But your post is an example of misinformation to me. "Wanna be Christian" verses you providing evidence that we are not part of something more?

Lets keep it to least truth we have ... something more complex. Observations show we are a subset of a more complex system.

If you believe we are not part of "something more" ... that is an extraordinary claim that counters observation. You will need more than "you're a theist". lol, but I am simple minded, I don't understand blind faith. It is way past me. I really need to see a claim match observation before I tag along. To this inter-hack simpleton, name calling just means I am too stupid understand I guess.

 

[Elixir]

I list the personality traits of a fundy think type Christian. What would an atheist sound like with those personality traits?

Hmmm. IMHO that’s not a valid question. I think those personality traits are largely a result of Xtian indoctrination.
IOW, they’d sound like a fundy. If someone was raised in a strict atheist environment (I can’t even picture that) then your question might have relevance. I have never even heard of a militantly enforced atheist family environment, but I’ve met lotsa people who grew up in strict religious environments.
Kids in religious family are sent to their rooms, grounded or otherwise punished for taking god’s name in vain, but I never heard of any atheist kids being punished for mentioning god in a way that could imply that gods are real.

 

[Jarhyn]

I list the personality traits of a fundy think type Christian. What would an atheist sound like with those personality traits?

Hmmm. IMHO that’s not a valid question. I think those personality traits are largely a result of Xtian indoctrination.
IOW, they’d sound like a fundy. If someone was raised in a strict atheist environment (I can’t even picture that) then your question might have relevance. I have never even heard of a militantly enforced atheist family environment, but I’ve met lotsa people who grew up in strict religious environments.
Kids in religious family are sent to their rooms, grounded or otherwise punished for taking god’s name in vain, but I never heard of any atheist kids being punished for mentioning god in a way that could imply that gods are real.

Except they aren't.

They're the combination of some archetype when loaded with Christianity, but as per SIB's observation, I see the same thing from atheists raised as atheists, it just manifests in different ways.

I think that oftentimes, there is a mind virus involved, a big fat gross case of "organized religion", but conspiracy theorists can easily be atheists, as can incels.

The one Hallmark of the archetype of "believer" is that it almost universally opens them up to some form of external control.

 

[Swammerdami]

I have a friend who says that nothing comes from nothing, ergo there must be an intelligent designer. Aside from this being just another angle on the god of the gaps argument in my opinion, (i.e. we don't know how it all began therefore god/intelligent designer), playing devil's advocate and assuming his deduction is true, so what?

If this intelligent designer cannot be seen, touched, or sensed in any way, what difference does it make whether it exists or not? In terms of having any effect on humans, isn't the ID's existence irrelevant, since it has exactly the same consequences as it not existing?

Yes, that's how I feel. The Creator might be "Mathematics", a Grand Simulator, an Omnimax entity like Leibniz envisioned, or even just an abstraction to serve as grammatical convenience. Such a Creator might have created a single multiverse, or an infinite number of multiverses but is unlikely to have particular interest in one species on one of the septillions of planets in one of the myriads of universes he may have created.

What would it even mean to "worship" such a "God"?

Yes. That's right.

If you believe in a god nobody has ever heard from, a god that doesn't care, doesn't act, doesn't tell you what to do or not do...how does that make you any different than an atheist?

Who's trying to be different from an atheist?
It is Christians who are inconsistent. You produce abstract "proofs" that some abstract Creator should exist -- fine -- and then arbitrarily map that abstraction to a mythical act of magic where a wedding-guest changes water into wine! Or to the Fall of Jericho after Joshua circuits that city not six -- nor eight -- but seven times.

That's useless unmotivated hocus-pocus. It's much like proving one of Fermat's theorems and then saying "There! That proves #7 will win the first race tomorrow at Pimlico!"