Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
November 2, 2015 at 4:23 pm (This post was last modified: November 2, 2015 at 4:26 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(October 30, 2015 at 10:37 pm)Magilla Wrote:
(October 30, 2015 at 9:47 pm)Beccs Wrote: And then, in the REAL world, god fails to n
make appearances, to answers prayers, and to respond to the evils committed by his followers in his name.
Same again tomorrow...
(October 30, 2015 at 9:51 pm)robvalue Wrote: God's interaction with us seems to be inversely proportional to the sophistication of our recording technology.
He used to be really angry too. He'd have struck me dead for calling him a wank magnet. All I get now is a mild rebuke from people claiming to speak for him.
I'm not picking on you two, or anyone else who discusses God, but I always try to avoid references to God. I will refer to the concept of God, but I want to be sure NOT to give the impression I am talking about anything that has been show to be real. Thus I will put "God" in quotes, by which I mean: ' The concept meant by most religious people, which they refer to as God, but which I have no good reason to believe exists in reality '. I also put the pronoun "he" in quotes for the same reason.
It is much easier to find fault with the concept, than to find fault with a, ( supposed ), real deity - if "God" were really to exist, he is the boss man, the top dog, the all powerful can-do type of entity who made everything, makes all the rules, and can't be faulted. So if we find fault with "God" it's not "God" at fault but us.
So . . .
[ in the REAL world, "God" fails to make appearances, to answers prayers, and to respond to the evils committed by "his" followers in "his" name. ]
[ "God's" interaction with us seems to be inversely proportional to the sophistication of our recording technology. "He" used to be really angry too. "He'd" have struck me dead for calling "him" a wank magnet. All I get now is a mild rebuke from people claiming to speak for "him". ]
My intention is that I don't want to give theists the impression that I am conferring any value upon their claims that "God" exists. The idea is to show that the concept of "God" as proposed by others is ridiculous, logically unsound, lacking in evidence etc., and if real would be unworthy of praise, to boot. Fortunately, on the latter point, there is no good reason which I have found, to accept the reality of any such thing as "God".
I disagree. What something is and whether it exists is a different matter. Essence and existence are not the same.
Daniel Dennett Wrote:Here's another common dodge—not a dodge, a common response: "What God is, is a concept; it's a concept in people's minds; it's a concept that enriches their spirits and inspires them." If you believe this, you're definitely an atheist. God is not a concept; the concept of God is a concept. A cup of coffee is not a concept; the concept of a cup of coffee is a concept. Elementary philosophy.
For example: The Christian God is a supernatural creator of the universe and supposedly male. That's what he is, that's his definition and his essence.
Now there's the separate question... does he exist?
(Of course the answer is almost certainly "No fucking way. There is no skydaddy").
