They concocted up their god. They can make it do whatever they want it to do.

It's all imaginary anyway.

I'm with Min...big yawn.

TFS Wrote:I didn't know whether to post this is the religion forum or here. I copy pasted this post from the Evidence God Exists PART II thread because it highlights a big problem a lot of theists I have met have not realized. I've heard many theists explain that they believe their deity is 'everything' or is 'nature' yet some of these theists have a problem believing that all organisms share a common ancestor or that life originated by natural processes. The problem is that if they describe their god as 'nature' then there should be no problem in accepting that their god works with natural mechanisms.

Bolded because you are right. Also, if they believe that 'God' is more than 'nature'... yet still responsible for nature: it is still true that 'God' works with 'natural' mechanisms In these cases, much of the 'work of God' would be completely indistinguishable from 'nature'.

And I agree with that Sae

(June 4, 2010 at 1:45 pm)Saerules Wrote: Bolded because you are right. Also, if they believe that 'God' is more than 'nature'... yet still responsible for nature: it is still true that 'God' works with 'natural' mechanisms In these cases, much of the 'work of God' would be completely indistinguishable from 'nature'.

You are right. Since God usually works through nature many people don't realize that he is working at all. Here is a post I made in the Humor section which illustrates this:

Quote:

Quote: Paul the Human Wrote: A Christian, a Jew, and an atheist are standing in line to be executed during the French Revolution.

The Christian is first, and he lays down on the guillotine. Before the executioner pulls the lever he shouts, "My god will save me!" The lever is pulled, and the blade swooshes down, stopping just short of his neck. The executioner, believing a miracle of god has occurred, figures he can't kill this man, so he sets him free.

The Jew lays down on the guillotine. Like the Christian, he shouts, "My god will save me!" The lever is pulled, the blade falls, and once again, it stops just short of his neck. The executioner, again, believes god is on this man's side, and lets him go.

Finally, the atheist lays down on the guillotine. He examines the guillotine, finds a rock in the gears, and says to the executioner, "Well here's your problem..."

Here is a story about a man who made the same mistake this atheist did:

There was a man who had complete faith that God would protect him no matter what happened.

The Weather Bureau predicted that the town he lived in would be flooded and the government sent out workers to warn everyone to evacuate. The man told the person who delivered the warning to him, "I have faith that God will protect me. I don't need to leave."

The flood came and water filled the first floor of the man's house and he had to flee to the second floor. As he was looking out the window some people came by in a boat and offered to take him to safety. He told them, "I have faith that God will protect me. I don't need your help."

The water rose and filled the second floor and the man was forced to climb up on the roof. A man in a helicopter saw him and offered to rescue him but he said, "I have faith that God will save me."

The water continued to rise and the man drowned. In Heaven he said to God, "I had faith that you would save me from the flood. Why did you fail me?" God replied, "But I didn't fail you. I sent you a warning so you could have left before the flood came, and when you stayed I sent a boat and a helicopter to rescue you."

Both the atheist in the first story and the man who had faith in God failed to recognize that the natural events they observed were the result of God's actions.

(June 4, 2010 at 2:36 pm)theophilus Wrote:

(June 4, 2010 at 1:45 pm)Saerules Wrote: Bolded because you are right. Also, if they believe that 'God' is more than 'nature'... yet still responsible for nature:

it is still true that 'God' works with 'natural' mechanisms In these cases, much of the 'work of God' would be completely indistinguishable from 'nature'.

Both the atheist in the first story and the man who had faith in God failed to recognize that the natural events they observed were the result of God's actions.

Good things happen to good people. Bad things happen to Good people. Bad things happen to bad people. Last but not least, good things happen to bad people. The fact that good things happen to bad people and I don't mean 'life changing good things' I mean 'Wow, the cops didn't make it on time!" or "They never found the body!" or "I guess nobody cared about the body after all." makes your view of a deity that works by natural means meaningless. Like i said towards the end of another post http://atheistforums.org/thread-3842-pos...l#pid73544 : your logic is based on a poor understanding of probability: the idea that there is 'good luck' and that favorable probability must be caused by a deity is pareidolia. see http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html In the end, you make no distinction between what is caused by your deity or a deity (since you may blame satan for unfavorable probability as well) and what is caused by nature alone.

As in your first example, if the x didn't kill you, you wouldn't hesitate to thank your deity rather than find out why x didn't kill you but even if you did find out there was a natural explanation you'd still say that 'god done it'... Your definition of your deity's behavior is not useful if it cannot be distinguished from nature.

(June 4, 2010 at 2:36 pm)theophilus Wrote: Both the atheist in the first story and the man who had faith in God failed to recognize that the natural events they observed were the result of God's actions.

But why is that God? Or if it's merely nature and nothing more, why call it God? If you go around calling Nature "God" all the time, people might think you believe in a supernatural deity as opposed to merely nature. So it's rather misleading. Better to just call nature "Nature" really.

EvF

Spinoza, that famous dutch guy (1632 - 1677) from jewish origin that set(s) the tone for many atheist, formulated it as "deo sive natura", meaning god aka nature. To some this may sound as a recognition of the existence of a god with all the fancy attributes of gods that have come to grow on us, but for the close reader it was the annihilation of god as a sentient agent governing the universe. For if you say that god IS the universe, it means that god is not a personal god, not an agent governing the universe, not a prime mover. With Spinoza god is just another name for nature. If you fail to see the difference between the god of Spinoza and the traditional abrahamitic god after several rereads, than consult your nearest shrink for a mental reboot. You may be hung up in old school theistic delusions and smuggling in god properties that are not attached to nature.

BTW, precisely this confusion is what has led many to misqoute Einstein who was a great admirer of Spinoza, did not believe in a personal god but was in great awe of nature and sometimes called it god.

"Why call it god?"

Well wasn't that a clever relabeling trick of Spinoza that provided a bridge from a society heavily dominated by old school beliefs to a society that could laugh away it's old school sillyness in a puff?