A discussion with tack

[Zenith]

In fact some gods proposed were very specific...these gods fell by the wayside when we found better explanations for things such as rain, just to give one example.

Funny thing: it is a popular conception that this is how the gods were born. But this sounds quite... illogical to me. Consider this: man, while he was still an animal (i.e. without having the attributes that made him man) saw the rain and the thunder as something natural, like "it just happens". Now, when he grew up and developed some intelligence, said "There must be a creature like me behind that rain!!". In other words, if we consider that has man invented the gods to explain the natural phenomena as he evolved into a man, then we have some problems:

1) From where the hell did he get the idea that there must have been a human-like creature behind the rain?? I mean, consider a child that has some ability to think (4-5 years old) and he sees the rain - he wasn't told anything scientific nor religious regarding the rain. The child sees the rain, and... what is the first thought? "there must be a human-like person that did it!"???

The man imagines by combining what he sees - he doesn't invent something 100% new. So the problem is: neither the pre-human being nor the first human being could have invented the concept "god" (as we didn't have the concept "alien" before understanding that the celestial bodies are truly similar to the earth in shape, and that other planets may be just like us - to support life and life to be born there - life like we are).

So, growing up for millennia with the thought regarding the rain that it is simply a natural thing, "it just happens", and being accustomed with that understanding/view, it would have been a way too big step to come and say "there was a creature looking like me that did that!!". And I believe that such a situation is... quite impossible.

2) It would have been much easier to assume that "it just is so", "it has always been so", etc. I've heard (but, can't check that) that once it was thought that the universe was never created, but that everything simply existed as it is now. Now, wouldn't it be much easier to the first human being as it is to a 4 years old boy to assume that "things have always been so"? Would that statement have been less smart or something?

3) The thing with the rain (i.e. we have rain => we have a god of rain) cannot represent too many deity types. For instance, we had gods of wine (wine, which was invented by man), gods of parties (perhaps usually or always, they were the gods of wine or fertility), gods of war, etc., i.e. everything that man was and man did was impersonated into gods. This was obviously not done to explain natural phenomena.

I understand the underpinnings of the deists argument of god, no sense in rehashing them at all. I'm simply stating that the deists god, which does not answer prayers, interact with us..whatever..is the product of the constant erosion of the theists claims.

Well, I think deism evolved from theism. But even deism evolved into what it is now. Perhaps modern deism evolved into a more natural (rather than supernatural) approach of God's existence that would explain why miracles don't happen among us.

If a believer wants to argue for God, with a capital G, they're going to have to do better than plug god into whatever we don't currently have an explanation for. That's a god of the gaps. Saying that god only needs to create us to be god, is strikingly similar to saying, "I don't know how we got here..ergo god".

Well, I make distinction between the word "god" and the word "God" - the latter, usually referring to the God of Islam or the God of Christianity or the God of Judaism or the God of deists. That's because if one uses the word "god" only (without making a distinction between "god" and "God"), the deists may understand "The First Cause", the muslims "Allah", etc. and "a god who is not a god" sounds very odd (I think about a god of wine and someone tells me that because I don't know what, he is not a god).

About "Saying that god only needs to create us to be god, is strikingly similar to saying, "I don't know how we got here..ergo god"" - I didn't mean that. I meant that I use the word "God" to signify the Creator, originator of the Universe, unlike a god that simply taught people to make wine.

As about the "god of the gaps"... I don't know what to say. Basically, every philosophy is like that: an uncheckable hypothesis that gives an explanation to something - and that hypothesis is backed up with reasons, not evidence. Also, science itself is based on reason (along with technology), i.e. what scientists say is what they understand of the things they notice (and those things that lead them to conclude a thing are being called "evidence").

The fact is that I didn't spend much time debating with people over the "god's existence" issue. So, sorry that I can't add something much fruitful.

Maybe it only bothers me when a theist responds to the statement "Your god is not real" with the contention that the deists god cannot be conclusively shown not to exist. That's not what they're arguing for at all is it, we've let them pull a bait and switch haven't we.

My poor english... what does "bait and switch" mean?

The fact is that there is a big step between the deist God and a theist God. That is, one may claim even that a conscious God - much more superior to man - created everything, but that He is now ignoring everybody - and no one can prove the contrary. Or, one may claim that there is a conscious God that created everything and who is deceiving everybody, so that all our life is actually only an illusion (and not the reality) - that cannot be checked either. But the fact is that when we're talking about religions (specific theist Gods), no one can really prove that his religion is the 'truth' and that the god of his religion is the true God.

We don't have to refute the deist concept of god to invalidate the theist concept of god.

Well, the fact is that I don't think that the deist God could be proven not to exist. The statement is like saying "There is a person that belongs to a dimension we could never reach, so that we can never check to see whether he indeed exists or not. Now prove me that that being does not exist!"

As about the theist Gods... We can check religions and use our reasoning to get to a conclusion regarding their claim. E.g. you could say either that Allah is unfair, unjust, insane, illogical, etc. and that He exists, OR (because you don't like how it sounds), that He doesn't exist. And a logical reason to support the latter would be to say "if there were indeed a God Allah as He is in the Qur'an, then the world we see around would have been a very chaotic world". And the latter is still reason, not evidence.

Further, it doesn't matter whether the deists concept of god is logically possible...that doesn't address the theists argument does it ?

No, it doesn't.

Logically proving that any concept of god COULD exist may be a wonderful exercise in logic, or rhetoric...but it completely fails to invalidate the absolutely stunning amount of evidence that we have leading us to the conclusion that gods are mans invention.

It is not evidence. It is reasoning: you can't bring any evidence that the goddess Athena never existed or that the god Zeus never existed or that who knows what god that came first in people's cultures never existed - and that he/she doesn't still exist. It is only our reason that makes us draw the conclusion that it was man's imagination that made them.

Does that help to simplify my position?

Yes.

And for the record..I don't define a god, it's believers do. A god is a list of attributes or actions ascribed to a supernatural cause by those who believe. It can be the god of the whole damned thing (christian god) or the God of Biscuits with Holes in Them. In the end I really don't have any say in what someone defines a god to be do I?

Actually, given the fact that the word "god" is being used, having a definition, i.e. a clear understanding of what that should mean, is good. Consider: you don't have to be a christian to say what a "church" is, or a muslim to say what a "mosque" is. Those buildings are religious, they belong to religious people, but everyone uses those words. So you don't say "I don't define the word "mosque". Let the muslims define it!" - you do indeed have a clear image of what a "mosque" is. The same is with the gods: you don't have to be a worshiper of the ancient greek gods to define the word "gods" - you simply use the meanings that have been assigned on them all this time.