Can a slug be God?

[robvalue]

edited:

Posted too hastily, I'll come back to this.

[Ignorant]

If it's all so complicated, vague and beyond our understanding that we couldn't tell the difference...

Anyhow I wanted to give you respect for differentiating between a philosophical/scientific discussion and faith. That's rare on here, most religious theists shoehorn in stuff from their books like it is fact. At that point, I can't continue a reasonable discussion. [1]

Oh, and I don't think theists are deliberately trying to be evasive. Not all of them, anyway. Some come across as particularly dishonest, but you don't. [2] I do think that the whole concept has been sold so as to be vague enough to escape science. [3] It has to, or else it will fall on its face. And it has become increasingly vague as science has progressed. [4] I mean, look back at Yahweh in the first book of the bible. He's clearly a humanoid walking on the earth. That's about as far away from the description you gave for God as you could get. The stories are taken more and more metaphorically as it becomes clear the literal readings conflict with reality. By the smart theists, anyway. Some cling to literal interpretations and are willing to deny reality to do so. [5]

1) Well, while I wish I could say I have never done it before, thank you for your kind words.

2) That is good to read!

3) What do you mean that, and by who was it sold?

4) What makes you say that it has become increasingly vague as science has progressed? So far, I haven't gone beyond Aristotle's concept (which dates from at least the 4th century BCE).

5) Certainly a different topic!

[robvalue]

I'm referring to the concept of god as it's presented to people. People generally don't come up with all this on their own, it will be a mixture of what their parents/community tell them and reading they have done.

I'm saying that parents can't tell their children that god is something that demonstrably doesn't exist. It has to be mysterious and untestable. And as science has been able to test more and more, so the concept has become less and less testable.

I'm not accusing you of becoming more vague, I'm talking about the history of the concept of god. Clearly 2000 years ago god was pretty much a humanoid, with obviously human emotions and desires, and he lived in Heaven which was "above" Earth while hell was below. That's a big generalization, but I'm pointing out that god was placed just outside the limits of exploration at the time. They thought the earth was flat, and that the sky was basically a route to the heavens. This last point especially has biblical support.

As it became clear the earth was round, there was no "under" the earth, and that heaven was nowhere to be found in the sky, everything become more ethereal. Heaven moves to another dimension; god, nowhere to be found either, now starts losing all his attributes (he's non-physical, timeless, formless, apart from this reality...)

I'm not accusing anyone in particular of anything, I'm noting the progression that the god concept has taken as compared to what science has learnt. Every time science reaches out a little further, so the god concept gets moved a little further away. Again, it has to, or else it would be falsified and the game would be up.

You couldn't tell, and here's why: If "one of these gods" was not involved with a particular reality, that reality would not exist. If that reality didn't exist, then there is no difference to observe because there is nothing to observe at all. If you are proposing that a reality might exist without involvement in the "act-of-existing", then I simply don't know what you mean.

I don't think you intend to, but this seems to be word games to me. You're working "god" into the definition of the universe and existence, so that it becomes necessary. Just calling god the "act of existence" is fine; but it's an equivocation fallacy to then suppose this tells you anything further, by association with the word "god". If god is merely the universe, or part of the universe, then it's nothing to do with any sort of deity. It's just renaming what we already have.

Even so, if you say reality cannot exist without a "god", then you are just assuming your conclusion. There is no failure criteria. If "god" is simply part of the definition, then you haven't demonstrated that "god" is anything we don't already know about.

If god is meant to be something other than just an aspect of the universe as we know it, then I would like to know what a reality without this thing would be like. If that's all god is though, then you get no argument from me. The universe exists. Your definition seems to be again unique to you; each theist has their own idea. That leaves the atheist with no clue as to what real thing everyone could possibly be referring to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qahB7mYhLxs

[Ignorant]

Posting error: my bad

[Ignorant]

I'm referring to the concept of god as it's presented to people. People generally don't come up with all this on their own, it will be a mixture of what their parents/community tell them and reading they have done.

I'm saying that parents can't tell their children that god is something that demonstrably doesn't exist. It has to be mysterious and untestable. And as science has been able to test more and more, so the concept has become less and less testable.

I'm not accusing you of becoming more vague, I'm talking about the history of the concept of god. Clearly 2000 years ago god was pretty much a humanoid, with obviously human emotions and desires, and he lived in Heaven which was "above" Earth while hell was below. That's a big generalization, but I'm pointing out that god was placed just outside the limits of exploration at the time. They thought the earth was flat, and that the sky was basically a route to the heavens. This last point especially has biblical support.

As it became clear the earth was round, there was no "under" the earth, and that heaven was nowhere to be found in the sky, everything become more ethereal. Heaven moves to another dimension; god, nowhere to be found either, now starts losing all his attributes (he's non-physical, timeless, formless, apart from this reality...)

I am sorry, Rob, but this is a really poor generalization. Was god clearly and pretty much a humanoid 2000 years ago? This generalization may be too big indeed. Same goes for the flat earth. I would invite you to look into that history a second time. It isn't nearly as simple as you generalize.

I'm not accusing anyone in particular of anything, I'm noting the progression that the god concept has taken as compared to what science has learnt. Every time science reaches out a little further, so the god concept gets moved a little further away. Again, it has to, or else it would be falsified and the game would be up.

You couldn't tell, and here's why: If "one of these gods" was not involved with a particular reality, that reality would not exist. If that reality didn't exist, then there is no difference to observe because there is nothing to observe at all. If you are proposing that a reality might exist without involvement in the "act-of-existing", then I simply don't know what you mean.

I don't think you intend to, but this seems to be word games to me. You're working "god" into the definition of the [?]universe[?] and existence, so that it becomes necessary. [1] Just calling god the "act of existence" is fine; but it's an equivocation fallacy to then suppose this tells you anything further, by association with the word "god". [2] If god is merely the universe, or part of the universe, then it's nothing to do with any sort of deity. It's just renaming what we already have. [3]

1) I don't think I'm working god into anything. You asked if god could be identical to a creative slug. I said no, based on the little I know about what god is. God isn't conceived of so-as-to-BECOME "necessary". Instead, our experience of reality leads to the conclusion that something about reality, namely: "the-act-of-existence" IS BEING, by necessity. 
It does not follow that, because god is the subsistent "act-of-existence", god is identifiable with the universe. 

2) This is not a question about demonstrating that the "act-of-existence" IS god. Instead, it was a question about the understanding of the "what" of god, and a comparison of that "what' with a slug able to create.
When I say, god, I mean the subsistent "to be", the subsistent "act-of-being", the subsistent "act-of-existence", the burning bush's "I AM", and all of the related ways of putting it. A slug can't be that, and any reality can't "be" at all without it.

3) God is not the universe, nor is he "part" of the universe.

[Heatheness]

This is mainly aimed at theists, but everyone is welcome to chime in. I'm still totally lacking any coherent notion of what a god is.

Is it defined by its qualities? Or by its achievements? Its status? What?

Consider this scenario. A long time ago, all that existed was a slug. That's it, a slug. Nothing predates the slug.

Suddenly, the slug creates all of the rest of reality around it somehow. Maybe this was deliberate, maybe it did it by accident. Now it exists alongside everything else. Along with this creation came the rules regarding harm and death, which previously did not apply. The slug lives out its days, then dies. Fast forward several billion years, and we have the present day.

So my question is this: would this slug be a god? If not, why not, and what else would make it into one?

It's irrelevant how the slug did this, or if it's possible, since these are never considerations when gods are discussed.

Not unless he can pass the salt test.

[robvalue]

OK thanks for your responses ignorant

I'm afraid I can't understand what you're saying here, so I'll call it a day I think. Thanks for having the discussion with me though!