Is a Hidden God the Same as No God?

[pood]

To conclude the genesis story is untrue because one is an atheist is question begging. No consistent atheist thinker does this.

Okay. What evidence do you have that Genesis chapter 1 isn't true?

If you believe Genesis chapter 1 is true, you have the burden of proof. I don’t need to disprove a sky daddy, a talking snake, a magic apple, a mythical first couple (there was no first human couple) and so on.

If someone tells me that a sky fairy made Man by breathing him into existence from dust or dirt or whatever it was, I conclude the claim is false until the person making the claim shows evidence.

And I, for my part, do a similar thing. If someone tells me that a monkey hanging from a tree fell to the ground when his tail broke and picked up a briefcase and went to work on Wall Street or whatever it was, I conclude the claim is false until the person making the claim shows evidence.

Yeah, no, sorry. I think what you are trying to haul out here is the “Sophisticated Theology” card, that atheists only engage with caricatures of Christianity, and ignore the “sophisticated” stuff.

What sophisticated stuff? You raised Genesis Chapter 1. And, it says what it says. Sky Daddy, taking snake, magic apple, six-day creation, and so on. Now you may believe that this stuff was never intended by the writers to be taken literally, and perhaps that is so. But how would you or I or anyone know that? There is no biblical Rosetta’s stone that says, “here is the sophisticated stuff that Genesis really means.” Personally I suspect that Genesis Chapter 1 represents at least in part an ancestral memory of the transition from hunter-gatherer culture to agriculture, but I have no way to demonstrate that. It’s just a hunch.

So we all have to engage with what Genesis says — talking snake, etc. By contrast, evolutionary theory does not say what your caricature claims. Unlike the well-hidden “sophisticated” theology of Genesis, evolutionary theory is clearly spelled out with evidence and data, and so anyone who makes a caricature of it is either doing so out of ignorance or deliberate deceit. Not so with atheist engagement with Genesis. We all have to engage with the ridiculous nonsense the text says, and if the text is supposed to some kind of allegory for something or other, no one has a clue what the allegory is for.

You see what I did there? I took a ridiculous parody of evolutionary theory and then demanded someone provide evidence for that ridiculous parody. What logical fallacy is that? Does that spring from science or ideological fixation?

Yeah, and I just explained above why there is no parallel ridiculous parody of Genesis ch. 1. It says what it says — it’s a a self-parody! If it actually means something else, no one knows what that is.

It is preposterous on the face of it and contradicts all known natural processes.

People are remarkably silly creatures. Atheists think that humans are animals while claiming science is the best tool for examining nature.

Humans ARE animals. Even non-atheists should realize that.

All the while they complain of all the killing and savagery perpetrated by religion as if that weren't something they had observed in the wilds of nature by animals.

Naturalistic fallacy.

They object to God as something created by themselves because if the primitive people had to create their own gods they certainly didn't believe in the natural existence of gods in the first place.

I don’t know what the above is supposed to mean.

Never giving it a thought that their real objection is a sociopolitical frustration with a quasi-theocratic majority.

Nor the above.

Therefore we reliably conclude that the genesis story is false, which conclusion a fortiori gains more credence by the fact that all human groups across the globe have their own independent creation myths that are equally preposterous. But we should privilege the Judeo-Christian creation myth over all those others why exactly?

You really don't know anything about evolution prior to Darwin, do you. Empedocles, the "father of evolutionary thought." Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Aristotle? I mentioned earlier. Before Christ.

You really don’t read very well, do you? I know all about the history of evolutionary ideas dating to ancient Greece and maybe before. How did you miss the part where I said Darwin and Darwin alone hit on the key engine of evolution: NATURAL SELECTION. None of those other thinkers had a clue about that. THAT is why Darwin is singled out over the previous thinkers — he found the correct MOTOR of evolution.

Gilgamesh isn't the oldest flood story. There are older Sumerian flood myths. The logical question you have to ask yourself is when were each circulated and from where? For example, let's say I heard about an event from a witness and later saw a report about it in the paper. Later still there was a documentary. Does this mean the latter sources rewrote the earlier or that the event couldn't have happened?

The Bible gives great detail in chronology which is useful in this case. Adam was created in the fall of 4026 BCE. The flood took place from 2370-2369. During that time the Bible hadn't been written yet, but records were being kept and oral history was well known. After the flood a man named Nimrod (Sumerian Dumuzid, Hebrew Tammuz) founded the Sumerian cities of Accad, Babel and Calneh in the land of Shinar. (Genesis 10:8-10; Ezekiel 8:14)

The key here is a fellow called Peleg. Peleg was born (2269-2030 BCE) 100 years after the flood and since he lived during that time, he was named Peleg which in Hebrew means division. (Genesis 10:25) He lived sometime after Nimrod built the tower of Babel and God scattered the people. People wanted to stay centered around the tower, and cities Nimrod founded, but God wanted them to fill the earth.

So, when the people scattered all over the globe, they took the oral stories they had learned about gods, floods, giants (the Nephilim that provoked the flood) and Tammuz's filthy idol, the cross. That's why you see variations of those stories all over in spite of obstacles of language, geography, etc.

Generally, the oldest version of Gilgamesh is dated as early as 2100 BCE, though variations came later. Moses wrote Genesis in 1513, but much of what he wrote took place much earlier. That means that the stories from the people that scattered had roughly 500 years to spread and evolve. That's why the Christian missionaries were surprised to find the cross (originally a pagan idol first used by Nimrod/Tammuz) and we see myths about giants and floods and gods all over the globe.

Is all the above supposed to prove something significant?

 

[pood]

Another point about Darwin and evolution: unlike others who had talked about the possibility of some kind of evolution or other, he unlike they did not just sit around and gasbag about it. He went out and checked. And by checking — by doing science — he discovered natural selection.

 

[unapologetic]

And both DO EXIST - as stories.

Yes, I agree. As I've said before:
Dog (I'm a dyslexic atheist) does exist.
As a strawman/sock puppet for a cult, and enforcer for it's protection racket. As a gecko mascot/pitchman for it's Life (after death) insurance scam.

Atheists demand evidence so they can reject it regardless.

Not regardless. I ask for evidence because I know theirs will be weak to non existent.

What about colors? Does purple exist?

Purple is a wavelength accurately defined by humans and called 'purple'.
'god' is inconsistently defined by differing tribes of humans. And highly disputed. So should not be claimed to exist with any assurance.

 

[RIS]

Which misses the point.

All right, then, let's review our approach. First, I made the point that colors don't literally exist. I did that to make the point that something doesn't have to literally exist in order to be something significant in our lives. That is from my theistic perspective, and contextually, this being a skeptical public forum in a discussion on the subject of hidden gods. Of course, words have different meanings. Like the color purple does not exist. You rightly pointed that out. Hidden could mean unseen, like purple, or gods. A god doesn't need to literally exist in order to be a god. Got to keep this relatively short. I tend to be somewhat verbose.

Hidden can also mean obscured. The disciples asked Jesus why he spoke in parables. A more critical person might say riddles. Jesus said he did that to reveal the mysteries of God's kingdom to the faithful while keeping said mysteries obscured from the unfaithful. (Matthew 13:10-12)

Summarizing this point: the faithful needn't cast their pearls before swine. Pigs have no use for pearls. God requires faith because it is important that his people don't just believe, but sincerely want what he offers. Like a rich man who, looking for a bride, doesn't advertise his wealth to avoid attracting a gold digger. You will note that believers tend to think they will get whatever THEY want from God. Not what God wants for them.

All right, I'll shut up about that now.

Let's use fairies as an example instead of unicorns. Trolls, goblins, wizards, Brahma, and so forth.

Made up shit. Not necessarily, and certainly not in the theological sense, hidden.

Let's just cut to the chase. I'm a Bible believer. My objective as a true Bible believer in most cases, outside of this one, is not to convert unbelievers, but to educate interested persons. The goal is to educate with accurate knowledge, not to convert. The interested party can then decide whether to accept or reject Jehovah God. Either outcome from my perspective is good so long as they choose based on accurate knowledge instead of religious ideology.

Now, here, in this forum, my objective isn't to do that, though it is similar. My objective here is debate and discussion.

My point here is that there is a fine line between debate and ideological fixation. The public forum puts us in the undesirable position of the ideologue. So, having done this on forums for over three decades [shakes head, metaphorically kicking my own arrogant ass]

Wait a minute, I lost my train of thought, believe it or not. Uhh - I don't know, that crazy guy without any clothes - YES! Gollum, trolls, wizards - gods are in the eyes of the beholder. I don't need to make my gods exist to you and you don't need to make them not exist for me.

Maybe I still don't get the point? But I can give a hell of a sermon, huh?!

No? Just backwater, stump jumpin' jibberspeak? To each his own. I'm not a troll. Trolls exist. But literary trolls (i.e. LOTR) exist in a figurative sense and can still be useful. Or not. Let the reader use discretion.

 

[lostone]

Do you believe it possible that your God could be an unusually long lasting Boltzmann brain? That the thoughts of this Boltzmann brain could be 'creation'? That this universe is an art work by this "God', Permanently existing as a 'Block Universe'? Or a simulation? Brahma is said to exist and die multiple times, creating the universes with his thoughts each lifetime. Have you ever heard of Eternalism? Given all these possibilities, and many more here unmentioned, isn't your faith just one out of many, and is it any wonder why people throw up their hands and conclude none of them are likely?

 

[unapologetic]

Con men require faith because it is important that his people don't just believe, but sincerely want what he offers. Like a con man who, looking for a bride, doesn't advertise his wealth to avoid attracting a gold digger. You will note that marks tend to think they will get whatever THEY want from con men. Not what con men want for them.

Fixed it for you.
god doing the same doesn't make it legit.

"but sincerely want what he offers." A second life? Who wouldn't want that? No need to test it.
The only test of 'faith' is how gullible they are. How sincerely they are 'hooked'.

 

[RIS]

Atheists demand evidence so they can reject it regardless.

Not regardless. I ask for evidence because I know theirs will be weak to non existent.

I disagree. I think that all of the evidence points to the existence of gods and God and there is, not at all surprisingly, no evidence against the existence of gods and God. For a more detailed explanation I refer to this post I made on another forum recently. A dark, dusty, quiet corner of a huge forum called. Lipstick Alley

Purple is a wavelength accurately defined by humans and called 'purple'.

Right. I just now posted a response on the subject in this thread. Here. You may have already read it.

'god' is inconsistently defined by differing tribes of humans. And highly disputed. So should not be claimed to exist with any assurance.

Bloody hell, I'm going to have to disagree with you again! That twice now. We must be doing a good job.

The English word God was first used by the pagans prior to the arrival of the Christian missionaries. The word means "pour; libate." Used as such and naturally adopted by the Christians due to libation being used in sacrifice. The meaning of the various words used over time, in every language ever known to man, has been the same. From ancient Biblical Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek to our Germanic English. Simply this: mighty/venerated. That isn't disputed, it's confused. A god can be anyone or anything. Supernatural or natural. Existent or non-existent. Evil or good, both being subjective anyway, and mortal or immortal. Real or fabricated. Believed or not. Some of the gods of the Bible are Satan, Moses, the judges of Israel, Tammuz the Sumerian king, Jesus, Jehovah, Dagon, Molech, Baal, Ashtoreth, sticks, stones, idols, poles, etc. Paul said to some, their own belly was their god. A god is in the eye of the beholder. Eric Clapton is a god. Frodo Baggins. Kim jong-Un. He may look like Winnie the Pooh, but he is a god to millions of desperately, unfortunately ignorant reluctant worshippers.

Zeus is a god. I don't worship him, don't think he literally exists, but he is a god. Roman rulers who did literally exist were also called Zeus, like the Japanese royal family, Amaterasu, and Shintoism.

 

[RIS]

Con men require faith because it is important that his people don't just believe, but sincerely want what he offers. Like a con man who, looking for a bride, doesn't advertise his wealth to avoid attracting a gold digger. You will note that marks tend to think they will get whatever THEY want from con men. Not what con men want for them.

Fixed it for you.
god doing the same doesn't make it legit.

Legit? What's that? Jesus conned doubting Thomas.

 

[RIS]

Do you believe it possible that your God could be an unusually long lasting Boltzmann brain? That the thoughts of this Boltzmann brain could be 'creation'? That this universe is an art work by this "God', Permanently existing as a 'Block Universe'? Or a simulation? Brahma is said to exist and die multiple times, creating the universes with his thoughts each lifetime. Have you ever heard of Eternalism? Given all these possibilities, and many more here unmentioned, isn't your faith just one out of many, and is it any wonder why people throw up their hands and conclude none of them are likely?

It isn't science. You don't have to accept it. You pick which one is right for you or none. Anyway, most "skeptics" don't seem to know much about any of them, they just see them as a threat to their own worldview. They don't have a similar competing ideology.

 

[lostone]

Do you believe it possible that your God could be an unusually long lasting Boltzmann brain? That the thoughts of this Boltzmann brain could be 'creation'? That this universe is an art work by this "God', Permanently existing as a 'Block Universe'? Or a simulation? Brahma is said to exist and die multiple times, creating the universes with his thoughts each lifetime. Have you ever heard of Eternalism? Given all these possibilities, and many more here unmentioned, isn't your faith just one out of many, and is it any wonder why people throw up their hands and conclude none of them are likely?

It isn't science. You don't have to accept it. You pick which one is right for you or none. Anyway, most "skeptics" don't seem to know much about any of them, they just see them as a threat to their own worldview. They don't have a similar competing ideology.

I enjoy speculation, and speculating, but that is not belief.

I was raised on classical Greek and Norse mythology and loved it, and still do. Terry Pratchett's Discworld is what I view as fascinating reading.

Ultimately, it all comes down to simply not being able to believe or select any one of the possibilities, since none of them offer me any what I perceive as persuasive reasons to do so.

 

[pood]

Atheists demand evidence so they can reject it regardless.

Not regardless. I ask for evidence because I know theirs will be weak to non existent.

I disagree. I think that all of the evidence points to the existence of gods and God

What evidence would that be?

and there is, not at all surprisingly, no evidence against the existence of gods and God.

There is a veritable mountain of such evidence. Still and all, no evidence “against” God is actually needed, since the burden of proof is with you.

What is the evidence for God?

 

[pood]

In your bit at Lipstick you “define” God as anyone or anything that is venerated, supernatural or natural.

I’m sorry, that is distinctly unhelpful to the point of being ridiculous. You say you are a biblical believer, which means you believe in an all-powerful supernatural deity who created the world and presides over its affairs somehow. If you believe in some other kind of God — a fiction that is nevertheless venerated, like the noble lie, or your next-door neighbor, or your car, then you are not a biblical believer. Making the definition of god so elastic that it fits anything is to render the word meaningless and discussion pointless.

 

[pood]

Do you believe it possible that your God could be an unusually long lasting Boltzmann brain? That the thoughts of this Boltzmann brain could be 'creation'? That this universe is an art work by this "God', Permanently existing as a 'Block Universe'? Or a simulation? Brahma is said to exist and die multiple times, creating the universes with his thoughts each lifetime. Have you ever heard of Eternalism? Given all these possibilities, and many more here unmentioned, isn't your faith just one out of many, and is it any wonder why people throw up their hands and conclude none of them are likely?

It isn't science. You don't have to accept it. You pick which one is right for you or none. Anyway, most "skeptics" don't seem to know much about any of them, they just see them as a threat to their own worldview. \

So you say. Any evidence to back up this claim?

 

[pood]

Atheists demand evidence so they can reject it regardless.

Not regardless. I ask for evidence because I know theirs will be weak to non existent.

I disagree. I think that all of the evidence points to the existence of gods and God and there is, not at all surprisingly, no evidence against the existence of gods and God. For a more detailed explanation I refer to this post I made on another forum recently. A dark, dusty, quiet corner of a huge forum called. Lipstick Alley

Purple is a wavelength accurately defined by humans and called 'purple'.

Right. I just now posted a response on the subject in this thread. Here. You may have already read it.

'god' is inconsistently defined by differing tribes of humans. And highly disputed. So should not be claimed to exist with any assurance.

Bloody hell, I'm going to have to disagree with you again! That twice now. We must be doing a good job.

The English word God was first used by the pagans prior to the arrival of the Christian missionaries. The word means "pour; libate." Used as such and naturally adopted by the Christians due to libation being used in sacrifice. The meaning of the various words used over time, in every language ever known to man, has been the same. From ancient Biblical Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek to our Germanic English. Simply this: mighty/venerated. That isn't disputed, it's confused. A god can be anyone or anything. Supernatural or natural. Existent or non-existent. Evil or good, both being subjective anyway, and mortal or immortal. Real or fabricated. Believed or not. Some of the gods of the Bible are Satan, Moses, the judges of Israel, Tammuz the Sumerian king, Jesus, Jehovah, Dagon, Molech, Baal, Ashtoreth, sticks, stones, idols, poles, etc. Paul said to some, their own belly was their god. A god is in the eye of the beholder. Eric Clapton is a god. Frodo Baggins. Kim jong-Un. He may look like Winnie the Pooh, but he is a god to millions of desperately, unfortunately ignorant reluctant worshippers.

Zeus is a god. I don't worship him, don't think he literally exists, but he is a god. Roman rulers who did literally exist were also called Zeus, like the Japanese royal family, Amaterasu, and Shintoism.

A god can be anyone or anything. A car? A bottle of whiskey? The planet Saturn?

I guess that’s very convenient if you want to simply define God into existence.

But you said you are a biblical believer. Which means you believe in a supernatural all-powerful deity that proofed the world into existence and presides over it and interacts with it somehow, with humans a special object of his concern. If you don’t believe that you are not a biblical believer in the commonly accepted version of the term. So what, specifically, do you believe god is? I’m betting it’s not your car, or Charles Darwin.

 

[unapologetic]

no evidence against the existence of gods and God.

Where is the evidence against unicorns, elves. Bigfoot, Nessie, Champ, etc? Never found, Never even seen. The lack of evidence is enough evidence to ignore it.

Bloody hell, I'm going to have to disagree with you again! ...

The English word God was first used...

That paragraph is not disagreeing with me. Your English speaking christian tribe is at odds with the other tribes you mentioned.

They don't have a similar competing ideology.

Right. That competition is part of what dis-attracts some of us. I live in a christian occupied country. When it comes to religion, I am a 'Contentious Objector', or resistance fighter/freedom fighter.

 

[RIS]

There is a lot of non-factual statements here.

Certainly possible, I fuck up all the time. Often reading my posts and thinking no one is paying attention or surely, they would have called me out and concluding, well it's just that they don't care.

Let's kick it around a little bit and see if we can fix it. Fact checking, I think the desperate liberals call it. We, on the other hand, will examine the facts though, rather than lie about them by finding some confirmation biased propaganda, see if we don't.

The Bible did not invent boiling of water, that existed for thousands of years before the Bible, and it was figured out by humans.

Okay. First of all, science and the Bible were made by humans. Secondly, I never suggested either one invented anything, including boiling water. The point was people didn't need science to tell them boiling water would work. Don't overestimate the importance of science. That makes you an ideologue. Something to avoid.

The thing you say about babies in nonsensical.

Of course it is, but it's true. Source: Harvard Medical School

The Bible said the Earth was flat,

Let me stop you there. Show me where the Bible says that. Actually, it says the Bible is spherical, a globe (Hebrew chugh) Isaiah 40:22

but ancient Greeks knew it was spherical, and Eratosthanes even determined the diameter of the Earth.

Isaiah completed the book in 732 BCE. About 500 years before Eratosthenes was born.

The Bible has nothing about hygiene, and Semmelweiss didn't exist until the nineteenth century.

Really? Not Leviticus 11:1-15:33? I know when Semmelweis existed; I wrote this article a couple years ago.

The fictional flood not only is not hydrological science, but contradicts known laws of geology, hydrodynamics and thermodynamics.

That's conjectural. How many global deluges have there been historically? How would you know what one looked like and how would you test it if the results you think are normative are of that one event? It's a pointless exchange. You don't want to believe it, don't believe it. Science minded "skeptics" are so dogmatic. Like John D. Rockefeller, who funded and founded the healthcare system we know and loath said, competition is sin.

The Bible thought day and night was due to the sun orbiting the Earth, and science has never considered miasmas as explanation for this, or indeed anything.

Again, show me where the Bible gives a geocentric statement. It doesn't. Theology did based upon science. Specifically, the Catholic Church under the tutelage of Thomas Aquinas who admired Aristotle. Miasmas is an abandoned medical theory, science of the Dark Ages until after Semmelweis. Until the germ theory replaced it in 1866. Shortly after Semmelweis and Pasteur.

If science is so important to y'all how come you don't seem to know much about it? Answer? It's just a fake ideology with you that you erroneously think makes you look smart. You have to accept science to appeal to this deception. How scientific. How unreligious. How stupid.

Science is reflective of reality, while the Bible has not only fictional "explanations" but they are less accurate than those of even older mythologies. Science does not cling to "dark ages' ideas, but many religious people do.

Why are "skeptics" so often like food critics who have never eaten the food?

 

[pood]

I can see where this is going: evading questions, throwing up smokescreens, straw-stuffing, redefining standard terms in non-standard ways, ostentatious displays of faux erudition, etc. Oh, of course, and petty insults.

 

[lostone]

Re Isiah 40:22. A circle is not a sphere. A circle drawn on the edge of a sphere is a flat earth. Discworld.

I thought you claimed not to be an ideologue, but you also say you've been doing this for 30 odd years? .

 

[lostone]

'desperate liberals'? Tell me again that you're not an ideologue. Are you by chance a Dominionist? Religious people shoving their laws on other people is what makes so many non-religious people become anti-religious.

 

[Elixir]

How many global deluges have there been historically?

“Historically, there is no scientific evidence for a single global flood, but many cultures have myths and legends about catastrophic deluges.”

So, none.
But that’s historically. As a rhetorical device or a point of religious dogma, one can summon as many global fluddes as one needs, to put their fantasies on even semantic or rhetorical footing with scientific observation.