The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
surreptitious57
Posts: 1057
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:07 am

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:03 am

Seth wrote:
Nearly every member of this group and RDF and RatSkep easily qualifies as a religious capital A Atheist and a good many of them are self evidently and obviously ( and sometimes proudly ) bigoted intolerant hateful religious zealots of the very worst sort no better than the very worst of theists whom they deride excoriate insult belittle and attack
I know you have not generalised to the point of complete inclusion but just for the record I am not one of
those you refer to : I respect everyone as human beings : what I do not respect however are ideas and
that includes those pertaining to belief systems : ideas are there to be taken a part no matter what
they are or who holds them : so for example I can express my disapproval of libertarianism as an
idea and simultaneously respect Seth as a human being : the two are not mutually incompatible
This the natural default position for how we should engage as referenced by the Golden Rule
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN

surreptitious57
Posts: 1057
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:07 am

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:29 am

Seth wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
And you have referenced a paradox in claiming agnostic atheists deny the existence of God : an
agnostic is one who has no definitive view on existence or non existence : so how ironic then
that in your eagerness to reference the so called athiest fallacy that you end up committing
a fallacy which then invalidates your own argument : make sure the next one is watertight
Its funny how agnostics are rarely actually agnostic in their comments on the existence of God much less their true internal beliefs Usually it comes out as I m agnostic about the existence of God but because I have seen no credible scientific evidence that God exists I don t believe he does Thats not agnosticism thats equivocating Atheism
That position is agnostic atheism and not just agnosticism or atheism per se : I do
not believe in God or Gods but cannot falsify such a belief : if however you are
going to take atheists to task for their perceived lack of agnosticism logic
dictates that you should equally take theists to task for theirs as well
Are you prepeared to do that and if not please provide a reason
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN

surreptitious57
Posts: 1057
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:07 am

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:49 am

Seth wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
There is no such thing as the scientific definition of God since He does not reside within the physical
And your critically robust scientific proofs of this assertion are . . .
If God did reside within the physical and nowhere else then He would be subject to the
same laws of biology and physics as all other life : therefore He would not possess
any attributes such as omnipotence or omniscience and would be just as mortal
as you and I : such an entity would not be referenced by humans as a deity
given His lack of metaphysical capability : so God by definition has to
reside outside the physical otherwise he can not be God : simple
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by Coito ergo sum » Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:46 pm

Seth wrote:
And your critically robust scientific proofs of this assertion are...??
What are your critically robust scientific proof of the existence of God?

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by Seth » Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:32 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Seth wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Not quite, but it's close.

When you talk about the capital-A Atheist being "practitioners" of "Atheism" (capital A) as a "religion," we will also need to know what the tenets or basic principles of this "Atheism" of which you speak.

No, you don't. You need only observe how Atheists act and it's easy to deduce that they have any number of things in common, primary among those traits are an active rejection of theistic claims, very often an active hatred of organized religion combined with social and political actions in support of Atheism (atheistic evangelization) and in political and social opposition to some or all organized religions. The basic belief of Atheists is that religion is a bane to human advancement and that belief in deity is indication of mental derangement, along with a belief that society would be better off if no one believed in God (in spite of the clear evidence that when societies organize around atheism it always ends badly, with mass death as one of the most frequent results), and a strong belief that science can answer all questions.

Besides which, a set of "tenets" or "basic principles" held in common by all members is not a requirement of religion.
As a Christian devotedly follows certain tenets and articles of faith, so too to be "as a religion" Atheism must have basic tenets and articles of faith. So, I would ask you to let me know what some major examples of those are.
Atheists are as Atheists do, and I've pointed out significant similarities that demonstrate the practice of religion by Atheists.
"atheism" without the capital A just means nonbelief or disbelief in gods (not just whatever capital G God you're mentioning).
Not quite. "atheism," as defined by both dictionaries and particularly by Atheists (who insist on this definition with great vigor whenever they are accused of practicing religion) means "a lack of belief in god or gods." Not disbelief, just a lack of belief. This is the distinction between implicit and explicit atheism. A lack of belief implies a lack of consideration and value judgments about the claims of theism. It means ignorance of theistic concepts because once a person, any person who has a competent mind, is informed of theistic concepts, they naturally and inherently, and inescapably, give those concepts or ideas consideration, compare them against personal experience and education and other internal touchstones, and they inevitably and irreversibly make a value judgment about the claims. Some people form a belief in the concepts or claims. Some people dismiss or discard the concepts or claims as insufficiently supported by scientific evidence. But only small children and idiots can justifiably or rationally claim to have "a lack of belief" in or more importantly about the existence of god or gods.

If you learn of the claims of theists, and you consider and test them internally and then reject them, you have formed a belief about the existence of god or gods. That is active disbelief, which defines the explicit atheist.

If you hold that belief (which is itself a manifestation of faith in that you cannot DISPROVE the existence of god or gods, you merely have faith in the lack of personal knowledge of what you consider to be credible evidence for the existence of god or gods, which you then extend to support a claim that god or gods cannot or do not exist when in fact you are making that judgment in ignorance), and you build a practice set around that belief, like spending time participating in discussions on line with other like minded individuals, donating to Atheist organizations, proselytizing about the benefits of "reason" and "science," attacking theists, engaging in political activities to advance Atheism and secularism and other actions that are based in your rejection of the claims of theism and your belief that god or gods do not exist and that the influence of religion on society is negative and must be opposed, you are practicing the Atheist religion in every relevant way.
So, there aren't any tenets and principles then?
There's at least one: "I don't believe in God." That's sufficient.
In whatever way you want to phrase it, atheism is the belief that gods do not exist, or the lack of a belief in a god or gods.
Yup.
You are incorrect in your distinction between this explicit and implicit atheism, though. You seem to think that explicit atheism requires an "examination of theistic beliefs" and formation of a belief that they are wrong. This is not correct. One can never have examined all of the theistic or polytheistic or deistic beliefs and rejected them all. Atheism is merely the statement of "I don't know, therefore I don't believe." Or, it is "based on the evidence I have so far, I don't believe." Atheism is either "I don't believe in gods, or I lack a belief in gods." Those are functionally equivalent phrases.
Wrong. I never said that the examination of theistic beliefs needed to be comprehensive. Merely giving consideration to the most basic of theistic claims, that there is a god, and an understanding, however simplistic of what "god" means in that context, creates the required condition for explicit atheism.

The definition of "atheism" (one of them) is not "I lack a belief in gods," it's "a lack of belief in gods." There's a distinction between "I don't believe in gods" and "I lack belief in gods" and "a lack of belief in gods." The first two are conclusions drawn from analysis of evidence examined (the concept of god and what is meant by it) which actually comprise a belief about gods, whereas a "lack of belief in gods" implies ignorance of the concept upon which a belief may be formed. That's not my construct, that's the construct of the philosopher who coined the phrases, George H. Smith.
Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subsets of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p. 13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief.

Smith defines implicit atheism as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists). Children are also included, though, depending on the author, it may or may not also include newborn babies. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[2] Smith is silent on newborn children, but clearly identifies as atheists some children who are unaware of any concept of any deity.

"The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[1]

Source: Wikipedia
I've certainly come to the conclusion that there very probably isn't a god or gods out there, to the point where I'll just shorthand it and say "I don't believe in gods."
Which is fine, but it's still a belief, albeit a negative one, that you have faith in, and upon which you may found a religion or engage in the practice of religion, which may be complex, as in Catholicism, or simple, as in "because I don't believe in gods, I believe that belief in gods is irrational and therefore public policy which supports or advances irrational beliefs in god are improper and should be opposed politically." That's a belief/practice set which may be held devotedly as a matter of conscience or ethics, which is one of the legitimate definitions of "religion."
I mean -- your argument is as applicable to a Christian who rejections Allah or Vishnu. You're going to suggest that a Christian is an implicit a-Vishnuist if he hasn't examined Hinduism, but if he gets a whiff of Hinduism and rejects hinduism, then he's somehow doing so irrationally because he can't prove it wrong?
Strawman. You falsely claim that the particular theistic subject is important, it's not. It matters not at all which god or gods are given consideration, it is the consideration of the root concept of "god" and rejection of that concept which takes one from implicit atheism to explicit atheism and provides one with sufficient belief and faith upon which a practice set may be constructed for a religion to emerge.
That's the essence of your argument.

It's specious, at best. Pure sophistry and circularity.
Wrong.
Your argument really very silly. For example, the argument you make that only idiots or small children could "lack a belief" in gods. I mean, that's just patently ridiculous. If you don't believe in Bacchus, you lack a belief in Bacchus. You may have arrived at your lack of belief through examination of the claims for the existence of Bacchus and found them wanting. When you reject Bacchus, you lack a belief in it. Same thing with whatever this "God" thing is that you keep referring to. By examining your God claims, and seeing that they are nonsensical and childish, at best, one is justified in certainly considering them unproven claims. It's irrational and stupid to believe in an unproven claim. Therefore, the only rational conclusion is to not have a belief in God. All knowledge being provisional, of course, said conclusion is always subject to being falsified as it is based on the best of knowledge at the time, which may change.
This is not about what is justified or unjustified or what's rational or irrational, it's about whether or not atheism can lead to the formation and practice of religion, and clearly it can.

It's not just lack of belief IN gods that defines implicit atheism, it's a lack of belief ABOUT gods as well. Implicit atheism is, as Smith says, a complete lack of understanding of the very concept of "god." Explicit atheism, however, is a lack of belief IN gods that comes from a very clear and obvious belief ABOUT gods. It's "confidence in the truth or existence of something that is not subject to immediate rigorous proofs," which is the textbook definition of "belief." In this context, it's confidence in the truth of the proposition that god does not exist based on a personal examination of the evidence for and against the existence of god. It qualifies as "belief" because while there may be no "immediate rigorous proofs" that god does exist, there is also no immediate rigorous proofs that god DOES NOT exist. Therefore, ANY CONCLUSION drawn about the existence or non-existence of god is necessarily a belief, because neither conclusion is subject to immediate rigorous proofs.

Since belief in something that cannot be proven is a prime element of "faith," you display faith in the proposition that god does not exist by stating "I do not believe god exists" or "I do not believe in god," which are functionally identical statements.

Since you have faith in your belief, you meet one of the principle criteria of "religion" if you hold this belief "devotedly," and quite clearly, based on your argumentation here, you are devoted to your belief that god does not exist. If you hold this belief devotedly and as a matter of conscience or ethics, which you also clearly do based on your argumentation here and in the past, you meet all of the necessary criteria for holding religious beliefs.

If you effectuate your religious beliefs in outward actions in support of your beliefs (a practice set), including sharing and discussing your beliefs with other like-minded individuals, arguing your beliefs with those of differing beliefs, putting your beliefs into action socially by congregating with others of like belief or engaging in social or especially political actions associated with your belief/practice set, you are without any doubt whatsoever engaging in religious practice and you're part of a religion, the religion of big-A Atheism, a religion of many sects and differing levels of involvement and participation, but an identifiable religion worthy of it's own proper noun nonetheless.

Welcome to religion, my friend.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by Seth » Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:34 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Seth wrote:
And your critically robust scientific proofs of this assertion are...??
What are your critically robust scientific proof of the existence of God?
I have none. I have never made any claim that God exists. But you're simply evading the question here. If you cannot provide immediate rigorous proofs that God DOES NOT EXIST, then you are simply stating a belief in which you have faith, nothing more.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:10 pm

surreptitious57, good to see you still have your edge. :tup: :hehe:
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by Seth » Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:58 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Seth wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
And you have referenced a paradox in claiming agnostic atheists deny the existence of God : an
agnostic is one who has no definitive view on existence or non existence : so how ironic then
that in your eagerness to reference the so called athiest fallacy that you end up committing
a fallacy which then invalidates your own argument : make sure the next one is watertight
Its funny how agnostics are rarely actually agnostic in their comments on the existence of God much less their true internal beliefs Usually it comes out as I m agnostic about the existence of God but because I have seen no credible scientific evidence that God exists I don t believe he does Thats not agnosticism thats equivocating Atheism
That position is agnostic atheism and not just agnosticism or atheism per se : I do
not believe in God or Gods but cannot falsify such a belief : if however you are
going to take atheists to task for their perceived lack of agnosticism logic
dictates that you should equally take theists to task for theirs as well
Are you prepeared to do that and if not please provide a reason
I'm a specialist. My job is to attack the illogic and unreason of Atheists. I'm one of the only people who is both prepared and capable of doing so, or so it seems. There's plenty of folks who are ready and willing (though sometimes not so able) to take on theists.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by Seth » Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:04 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Seth wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
There is no such thing as the scientific definition of God since He does not reside within the physical
And your critically robust scientific proofs of this assertion are . . .
If God did reside within the physical and nowhere else then He would be subject to the
same laws of biology and physics as all other life : therefore He would not possess
any attributes such as omnipotence or omniscience and would be just as mortal
as you and I : such an entity would not be referenced by humans as a deity
given His lack of metaphysical capability : so God by definition has to
reside outside the physical otherwise he can not be God : simple
How do you know that the laws of biology and physics do not allow for attributes like omnipotence and omniscience?

More importantly, how do you know that God is either omnipotent or omniscient (much less omnibenevolent)?

How do you know that God must be "mortal?"

How do you know that humans would not reference an entity greater than themselves but less than omnipotent and omniscient as a deity? After all, the cargo cults of the South Pacific worship the C-47.

Why does God have to reside outside the physical in order to be God?

What is God anyway?

You're just reiterating the Atheist's Fallacy by referencing human beliefs about the attributes of God as a premise in an argument about the true nature of God. This is a fallacy because human beliefs about the nature of God may be in error, and God may be something completely, or partially different from what some fallible human has described as God.

To crib someone famous, "Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be divine miracle."
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by Pappa » Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:31 pm

Seth wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Seth wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
There is no such thing as the scientific definition of God since He does not reside within the physical
And your critically robust scientific proofs of this assertion are . . .
If God did reside within the physical and nowhere else then He would be subject to the
same laws of biology and physics as all other life : therefore He would not possess
any attributes such as omnipotence or omniscience and would be just as mortal
as you and I : such an entity would not be referenced by humans as a deity
given His lack of metaphysical capability : so God by definition has to
reside outside the physical otherwise he can not be God : simple
How do you know that the laws of biology and physics do not allow for attributes like omnipotence and omniscience?

More importantly, how do you know that God is either omnipotent or omniscient (much less omnibenevolent)?

How do you know that God must be "mortal?"

How do you know that humans would not reference an entity greater than themselves but less than omnipotent and omniscient as a deity? After all, the cargo cults of the South Pacific worship the C-47.

Why does God have to reside outside the physical in order to be God?

What is God anyway?

You're just reiterating the Atheist's Fallacy by referencing human beliefs about the attributes of God as a premise in an argument about the true nature of God. This is a fallacy because human beliefs about the nature of God may be in error, and God may be something completely, or partially different from what some fallible human has described as God.

To crib someone famous, "Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be divine miracle."
I've never really understood why it's assumed by most people that if there is a god, that god is all-loving. It's presented as a given, yet I don't see any sensible reason why it should be so.
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.


When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.

User avatar
Blind groper
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
About me: From New Zealand
Contact:

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by Blind groper » Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:33 pm

My personal attitude is one of a set of probabilities.

To me, there is no single deity. Instead, there is a range of different models of deities - probably an infinite range.
For each model of deity, we can assign an estimated probability - knowing that there is no objectively derived, empirical measure of such an estimate. It is really just a guess.

So, for example, the Christian model of deity, I would 'guess' a probability of one in a trillion. Exceedingly unlikely, due to the inherent contradictions in their model.

However, someone else may come up with a model of deity, which consists of an alien intelligence, in a distant galaxy, with such an advanced technology that they are indistinguishable from deities from the human perspective. This model I would assign a much greater probability.

Of course, I appreciate that other people would assign quite different probabilities to my guesses. That is fine. The assigning of probabilities is just a mental tool, anyway.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1057
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:07 am

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:38 pm

Seth wrote:
My job is to attack the illogic and unreason of Atheists I m one of the only people who is both prepared and capable of doing so or so it seems There s plenty of folks who are ready and willing ( though sometimes not so able ) to take on theists
Your modus operandi is flawed then : if it was to expose a lack of logic and reason then it
should be of no consequence where it originates from : to do so how ever from only one
quarter is ironically referencing the very same attributes that you seek to attack : you
are not therefore addressing the arguments for atheism but atheism itself because
it is your raison d etre which is not objective : now it does not matter who holds
a belief or what that belief is as long as it can be proven or falsified : but your
refusal to accept this invalidates any claim that you may subsequently make
to defending logic and reason : I have no problem with you being on a self
appointed mission to discredit atheism but do not pretend that it is fair
and just for it is not : ulterior motive and objective investigation are
mutually incompatible : least you are honest so credit to you for that
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN

User avatar
Drewish
I'm with stupid /\
Posts: 4705
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:31 pm
Contact:

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by Drewish » Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:39 pm

Seth is back! Yeah!
Nobody expects me...

surreptitious57
Posts: 1057
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:07 am

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:40 pm

Seth wrote:
How do you know that the laws of biology and physics do not allow for attributes like omnipotence and omniscience

More importantly how do you know that God is either omnipotent or omniscient much less omnibenevolent
Try being omnipotent and respecting the Second Law Of
Thermodynamics and see how far you get : one has to give
and since the latter is one of the accepted laws of physics then
logically it has to be the other : It is not athiests that are making
claims to the characteristics of God : why should they as they do not
believe in Him : but theists : so any questions pertaining to that should
be answered by them : extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

Post by Seth » Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:16 pm

Pappa wrote:
Seth wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Seth wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
There is no such thing as the scientific definition of God since He does not reside within the physical
And your critically robust scientific proofs of this assertion are . . .
If God did reside within the physical and nowhere else then He would be subject to the
same laws of biology and physics as all other life : therefore He would not possess
any attributes such as omnipotence or omniscience and would be just as mortal
as you and I : such an entity would not be referenced by humans as a deity
given His lack of metaphysical capability : so God by definition has to
reside outside the physical otherwise he can not be God : simple
How do you know that the laws of biology and physics do not allow for attributes like omnipotence and omniscience?

More importantly, how do you know that God is either omnipotent or omniscient (much less omnibenevolent)?

How do you know that God must be "mortal?"

How do you know that humans would not reference an entity greater than themselves but less than omnipotent and omniscient as a deity? After all, the cargo cults of the South Pacific worship the C-47.

Why does God have to reside outside the physical in order to be God?

What is God anyway?

You're just reiterating the Atheist's Fallacy by referencing human beliefs about the attributes of God as a premise in an argument about the true nature of God. This is a fallacy because human beliefs about the nature of God may be in error, and God may be something completely, or partially different from what some fallible human has described as God.

To crib someone famous, "Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be divine miracle."
I've never really understood why it's assumed by most people that if there is a god, that god is all-loving. It's presented as a given, yet I don't see any sensible reason why it should be so.
Yes, God could be a complete and utter barbaric and sadistic shit, but if so, all the more reason not to chance her wrath.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests