Is a Hidden God the Same as No God?

[DLH]

If you had not explicitly told me that you made it up, there would be no way to tell whether it was a story or a real account of a commonplace event - because there is inadequate detail to test it against any evidence.

What difference does it make? Are you familiar with parables?

 

[lostone]

Might is for bullies. It's not worthy of worship, or even of tolerance. The mighty are tyrants all, and are to be despised by anyone with an ounce of self respect.

I feel like I'm talking to a family of children who have really serious abandonment issues. Are you trying to insult me by insulting my God or some vague insubstantial God concept. Because that's just silly.

So, you're out, correct? Let me see if I got this right.

1. You, I mean you bilby, don't believe in my God? You don't have any gods? Don't want anything to do with them?

If that's the case, I'm cool with that. Now how do you and I interact? Are you not cool with the fact that I do believe in specifically my God, and not in others? I don't know how to interact with you. I don't see the problem. If you don't like tyrants, they are not worthy of your worship, and in your opinion no one with an ounce of self-respect where do we go from there? Just agree to disagree? Because I don't see any point in arguing with someone's opinion.

You don't want a god. Okay. I'm not trying to force my belief down your throat and I assume you aren't trying to do the same with me. What now?

But you are trying to force your belief down our throats. Very forcefully. You wrote a lot of verbiage about how important is was for gods to be mighty. There has been little discussion about your god. About your concept of God, yes, that has come up a lot, but not your god specifically. We gather that you believe in a Biblical God, but that has not been much discussed on this thread in recent posts.

 

[abaddon]

If you had not explicitly told me that you made it up, there would be no way to tell whether it was a story or a real account of a commonplace event - because there is inadequate detail to test it against any evidence.

What difference does it make? Are you familiar with parables?

He was trying to help you understand what "real" means to him.

Most people think an entity should exist apart from human imaginings to be real and to exist. Imaginings and concepts exist but they represent purported entities outside the imagination. The question then becomes "but is the thing in your imagination also in the world apart from the imagination?"

If the answer's No then most people say the entity doesn't really exist. Instead of being an existent entity, it's a fiction. (And as such you don't get to say the fiction does things like create universes or cause floods).

You don't bother with an answer. I'm thinking it's because it'll be very hard to show the idea/image of God corresponds with a God that creates universes and caused a global flood. It's much easier for you to pretend that atheists: 1) believe in gods because gods are anything that's worshipful and everyone worships something. Or 2) atheists would believe in God if they didn't dogmatically reject him.

 

[Elixir]

"IF it doesn't exist, it is not mighty" is a completely logical and true claim about anything.

It also doesn’t diminish the power of the story of god.

 

[unapologetic]

I'm not trying to force my belief down your throat and I assume you aren't trying to do the same with me. What now?

Then why are you even here?
You didn't come here to be deprogramed.
It seems like you think debating atheists will strengthen your faith?
I for one, don't want any part of that. Goodbye.

 

[bilby]

Might is for bullies. It's not worthy of worship, or even of tolerance. The mighty are tyrants all, and are to be despised by anyone with an ounce of self respect.

I feel like I'm talking to a family of children who have really serious abandonment issues.

Your feelings are your own problem and your own responsibility.

Are you trying to insult me

No.

by insulting my God or some vague insubstantial God concept.

If I wanted to insult you, you wouldn't be left in any doubt of my intent.

I certainly wouldn't waste time insulting any gods, or any vague insubstantial god concepts. There's nothing there to insult.

I am not in the business of insulting Superman, for the exact same reason - I am not pretending to treat gods as occupying the exact same category of entities as Superman; It's not rhetorical or allegorical or metaphorical for me - they are indistinguishable members of the class "powerful fictional beings". I won't insult Gandalf or Darth Vader either.

To even imagine that such a thing would be possible is a gross error.

Because that's just silly.

We agree. It is silly.

So, you're out, correct?

I don't know to what you are referring. Out of what?

Let me see if I got this right.

1. You, I mean you bilby, don't believe in my God?

Yes.

You don't have any gods?

No, I don't.

Don't want anything to do with them?

Where do you get that idea? I am right here having just as much "to do with them" as anyone.

Nobody is forcing me to be here.

If that's the case, I'm cool with that.

Well, it's not the case. But I don't see any reason why you should lose your cool either way.

Now how do you and I interact?

By posting text on a message board, I expect.

Are you not cool with the fact that I do believe in specifically my God, and not in others?

I couldn't care less what you believe.

I am not cool with you expressing your beliefs without challenge; I wouldn't expect you to be cool with me saying my piece without you being able to respond, either.

I don't know how to interact with you.

You are already doing it

I don't see the problem. If you don't like tyrants, they are not worthy of your worship, and in your opinion no one with an ounce of self-respect where do we go from there?

That's up to you. Perhaps you could explain why I should like tyrants, or worship them, or why I should respect others for their sycophancy?

Or perhaps you can explain why you don't feel that the weilding of might is tyrannical?

Perhaps, if you really cannot come up with a rebuttal of what I say, you could consider the possibility that I am right, and that you are wrong?

Just agree to disagree? Because I don't see any point in arguing with someone's opinion.

Given that that's all you have done in this thread, that's a bit rich. Arguing with people's opinions is what discussion boards are for.

You don't want a god.

What you or I or anyone else wants is not relevant in the slightest to the question of whether or not a god exists outside of fiction.

Okay. I'm not trying to force my belief down your throat and I assume you aren't trying to do the same with me. What now?

We could stop wasting time with belief, and start examining reality, and testing hypotheses against it?

As far as I am aware, that's the only reliable way to find out about reality.

 

[bilby]

If you had not explicitly told me that you made it up, there would be no way to tell whether it was a story or a real account of a commonplace event - because there is inadequate detail to test it against any evidence.

What difference does it make? Are you familiar with parables?

The difference is the minor but crucial distinction between "reality" and "made up stories".

I am familiar with parables. They are useful for illustrating social rules and behaviours and their consequences; They are not useful for determining what does or does not exist as non-fiction. Nor are they supposed to be.

 

[DLH]

I am familiar with parables. They are useful for illustrating social rules and behaviours and their consequences; They are not useful for determining what does or does not exist as non-fiction. Nor are they supposed to be.

They instruct in a way which allows you to see things from another perspective.

 

[Elixir]

Is someone offering gods?
I hear it’s a bull market in the SE United States. Kind of a hard sell around here though; we already have several times an eternity’s supply.

 

[bilby]

I am familiar with parables. They are useful for illustrating social rules and behaviours and their consequences; They are not useful for determining what does or does not exist as non-fiction. Nor are they supposed to be.

They instruct in a way which allows you to see things from another perspective.

Yes. Which is great for matters in which perspective is important - typically social rules, wherein the subjective opinions of all of the different actors are shaped by their individual point of view.

There are no other perspectives from which to view objective facts about reality. The speed of light in a vacuum (for example) is the same for all observers.

Objective reality is not well suited to being examined through parables. Social behaviours are ideally suited to being examined through parables.

Stories are useful. There's nothing wrong with stories. All humans love stories.

Stories are, however, not reality. And reality is not subject to our storytelling efforts. If I wrote a sci-fi story that included the use of "faster than light radios", that doesn't, wouldn't and couldn't imply that such radios are, or ever could be, real things in the real universe we really inhabit.

 

[Elixir]

Objective reality is not well suited to being examined through parables.

Parables are descriptive, not objective.
To be usefully objective, observations (examinations) must be repeatable. As you point out, parables, at best, reflect social dynamics and stuff like that, which cannot be reliably re-observed. This divide is where much woo resides.

 

[unapologetic]

One point I forgot mention:

(If god) ...hadn't created any sentient being of spirit or flesh to worship him he wouldn't be God or a god.

So your concept of god is like an internet 'influencer': Without 'likes' and 'subscribers' he is nothing.

 

[DLH]

So your concept of god is like an internet 'influencer': Without 'likes' and 'subscribers' he is nothing.

Sort of, but not quite. Without likes and subscriptions he isn't an 'influencer.' That doesn't mean he is nothing. But he only needs one. If my god is the FSM's second cousin from Israel but I'm the only one who deifies him then he would be my god and therefore a god. Just not known or venerated by anyone else.

 

[unapologetic]

I'm the only one who deifies him then he would be my god and therefore a god. Just not known or venerated by anyone else.

Just like my career as an influencer.
There is no authority who defines how many likes it takes. I would guess most self-described 'influencers' have no followers except Mom.

 

[aupmanyav]

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?

From what I have read or told about Abrahamic religions, I think he acts only after one dies (and not immediately after one's death, but after an undisclosed interregnum).

BTW, I may tell you that Hindu Gods are active all the time. Shani (Saturn) judging you and acting furing your life time, Yama, after your death (both being sons of the Sun God), and Brahma reserving action on some of your deeds for a time of his liking to introduce a surprise element, like your winning a lottery or your business going bust in spite of all your efforts.

 

[lostone]

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?

From what I have read or told about Abrahamic religions, I think he acts only after one dies (and not immediately after one's death, but after an undisclosed interregnum).

BTW, I may tell you that Hindu Gods are active all the time. Shani (Saturn) judging you and acting furing your life time, Yama, after your death (both being sons of the Sun God), and Brahma reserving action on some of your deeds for a time of his liking to introduce a surprise element, like your winning a lottery or your business going bust in spite of all your efforts.

Brahma is said to have many, many incarnations, as I understand it.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Well, some elasticity is necessary, but you are right that RIS has vigorously leapt far past that sleek aquatic predator.

I provided my definitions at least, and I'm glad my thread on the subject of disambiguation proved rhetorically useful here.

Ultimately, we are discussing whether the universe is a "creation", and trying to discuss, as a result, creators.

Discussing anything that isn't a creator is non sequitur.

At the very least, we can prove that the idea of such a creator, such a god is NOT nonsensical, since we can observe humans being such things relative to their own creations.

Most atheists, I think, would find this uncontroversial when laid out this way. They may object to the use of the word that doesn't also assume the rest of Christian loading (tri-omni bullshit), but that's more them stepping into a no-true-scotsman fallacy.

Rather, to me, it seems to expose exactly the necessary and sufficient qualities of such an entity, and they *do* resemble omnipotence and omniscience, at least with respect to their creations.

But this still doesn't provide evidence that WE have a god over our existence. It doesn't disprove it. It proves that it is possible, no more and no less.

I take that as a reason to hope (but not believe) that there is such a thing. I think it is eminently dangerous to any hope of winning "Pascal's Wager" to believe anything about that entity though other than that if you find yourself there, it would behoove you to be ready to forgive it's variance from your expectations.

Being able to generalize exclusively on the qualities and game theory of a creator of a closed system is, nonetheless, an important task.

 

[aupmanyav]

Brahma is said to have many, many incarnations, as I understand it.

Yeah, once every 311 trillion years. ..

 

[aupmanyav]

Ultimately, we are discussing whether the universe is a "creation", and trying to discuss, as a result, creators.

No. My view, according to a strain of Advaita, is that there is no universe, but an image in our minds because of the energy spread in the universe.
In this view, the discussion is on whether this energy spread is eternal or just one phase, the other being non-existence; and if so why?

 

[Jarhyn]

Ultimately, we are discussing whether the universe is a "creation", and trying to discuss, as a result, creators.

No. My view, according to a strain of Advaita, is that there is no universe, but an image in our minds because of the energy spread in the universe.
In this view, the discussion is on whether this energy spread is eternal or just one phase, the other being non-existence; and if so why?

So, then the "universe" would be our minds, and certainly not non-existent. And then what are our minds? They would exist somewhere... and then that somewhere is the real universe and you are back to recognizing that *something real is happening*.

You're not going to be getting away from the reality of cogito.