I was thinking about the definition of atheist the other day. So we all should know by now that an atheist simply lacks the belief in a god and doesn't claim that said god doesn't exist. What is the only way of almost definitely saying a god can't exist though? If we define it entirely so that there are properties that can actually be 'tested' against what we know.

Imagine a hypothetical 'god scale' where at one extreme we have the most tangible definition of a god. This god undeniably exists because it's infact a creature that lives among us and will forever reign the earth meaning that all generations have witnessed it to date. At the other end of the scale we have a god that basically can't be detected and is merely responsible for creating everything. We can confidently say that the most tangible god doesn't exist. But the question is now, how far along the scale can we move saying that they don't exist until we get to a definition of a god that is plausible? It seems to me that Deism has to be the belief of a non-religious person because the amount of definable gods on the scale are endless. One is bound to stop somewhere along it and not be able to justify why that god couldn't exist.

Can you give an example of a plausible god?

(June 9, 2012 at 9:58 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Can you give an example of a plausible god?

Well everyone's threshold would be different, but I guess for me it might be a god that doesn't get involved in the physical world and therefore it hasn't showed up.

I haven't really given much thought on the implications of such a god. This thread was just about exploring how far we can say within reason that a god doesn't exist.

Hawkins has said a god is not required. An

Which to you makes more sense?

Allah is a real god?

Or, humans made him up and marketed him?

Vishnu is a real god?

Or, humans made him up and marketed it?

The god of Jesus is a real god?

Or, humans made him up?

The Egyptian sun god is real?

Or humans made him up?

Claiming a generic entity with no name or organized religion still is claiming a thinking entity with no material in as a cause. It is still as much of a gap answer as those above.

The bottom line is that nature and the universe do not need a god, nor are they a god themselves. The universe is merely a thing, like an on going weather pattern that constantly changes moves.

The problem with both theism and deism is that it assumes all this was invented, not manifested.

---

Three books you should read.

1. The God Delusion, By Richard Dawkins. He explains our desire, wishful thinking, as basically the moth mistaking the light bulb for the moonlight.

2. The New Atheism, By Victor Stinger, also goes into why god is not needed and is a mere sugar pill.

3. Why people believe weird things, By Michael Shermer(one I need to get myself)

Brian37 Wrote:Hawkins has said a god is not required. An

Which to you makes more sense?

Allah is a real god?

Or, humans made him up and marketed him?

Vishnu is a real god?

Or, humans made him up and marketed it?

The god of Jesus is a real god?

Or, humans made him up?

The Egyptian sun god is real?

Or humans made him up?

Claiming a generic entity with no name or organized religion still is claiming a thinking entity with no material in as a cause. It is still as much of a gap answer as those above.

Yeah I guess my description is still very broad. It's considerably more plausible than the gods you have mentioned though, right? We could still keep adding attributes that can be tested to see if they violate reason itself.

Quote:The bottom line is that nature and the universe do not need a god, nor are they a god themselves. The universe is merely a thing, like an on going weather pattern that constantly changes moves.

The limitation that science has on explaining things is that it can't give a reason for a process happening. Say I kicked a football in the air. We could do all sorts of measurements on it and also my muscles. Can science explain why I decided to kick it?

The whole god is needed argument seems to henge on whether god exists or not. If he does exist, he is likely needed. If he does not exist then he is not needed.

(June 9, 2012 at 10:25 pm)Adjusted Sanity Wrote: The whole god is needed argument seems to henge on whether god exists or not. If he does exist, he is likely needed. If he does not exist then he is not needed.

What do you mean by 'needed'?

(June 9, 2012 at 10:28 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 10:25 pm)Adjusted Sanity Wrote: The whole god is needed argument seems to henge on whether god exists or not. If he does exist, he is likely needed. If he does not exist then he is not needed.

What do you mean by 'needed'?

How would I know? If it exists probably preforms some function. If not, it preforms no function.

What function would an entity have to preform to be called god? I'm sure that question has more than one answer.

Quote:Yeah I guess my description is still very broad. It's considerably more plausible than the gods you have mentioned though, right? We could still keep adding attributes that can be tested to see if they violate reason itself.

Mental masturbation is not reason. Reason is the ability to kick your ideas with real tools like scientific method. And the history of scientific method is leaving no room for a deity of any kind.

All I hear you doing here is say "Let me make something up, and see if it works".

You don't simply make something up. You go with prior established data and then work with that with standard established tools to test and falsify it. There has never been any credible data for a god, not even a generic one.

(June 9, 2012 at 10:32 pm)Adjusted Sanity Wrote:

(June 9, 2012 at 10:28 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: What do you mean by 'needed'?

How would I know? If it exists probably preforms some function. If not, it preforms no function.

What function would an entity have to preform to be called god? I'm sure that question has more than one answer.

I think your question falls under the attributes for it. It could be said that the tangible god in the OP has a sort of function. Personally, I think as you move down the scale the need for a function has to be dropped.