Proof and evidence will always equal Science

[polymath257]

I don't think that intelligent theists usually say that God is an object in the universe.

That's right.

I am one of those 'douchbag' atheists that see God as equivalent to the tooth fairy.

So you acknowledge that your view of God is not that of intelligent people.

[/quote]

No, my view is not that of intelligent *theists*. Intelligent people can disagree. And intelligent people can be wrong about basic things.

Intelligent theists have at least admitted that the object of their veneration isn't a big sky-daddy. That is, at least, a first step.

---

I skimmed that thread, but don't see your argument there.

You're right. This was the post of which I was thinking...

https://atheistforums.org/thread-47154-p...pid1486079

From that link:
"Fairies, Unicorns, Santa Claus, Bigfoot and the like would by any definition be contingent non-transcendent material beings. The Christian God is non-contingent, transcendent and immaterial. There is no point of comparison. It is a massive category error. "

No, fairies are NOT considered to be material. So there is an overlap.

More importantly, the phrases 'contingent' and 'transcendent' are ones that need to be defined and their relevance discussed and understood. Is dividing things into 'contingent' vs 'necessary' or 'transcendent' vs 'mundane' actually a good classification scheme that leads to better understanding? Or are they outmoded ways of thinking that need to be discarded because they don't fit the world as it actually is?

My position is that the whole notion of 'necessary existence' vs 'contingent existence' is a basic mistake (although a long standing one).  It is based on a notion that the 'forms' of things are already existing and that they need to be actualized in order to produce specific cases. That, to me, is simply nonsense.

Instead, what is often discussed as 'contingency' is actually a matter of causality. And causality is *always* a matter of physical laws and their application. The whole notion of 'necessity' needs to be dripped as useless. Furthermore, the notion of causality is something that needs to be tested and supported by actual observations. And, for the last century or so, we have realized that classical notions of causality are simply false.
As for 'transcendency', I have no idea what that even means in practice. it seems to be a catch-all term to witness that people are in awe, but the actual definition seems to be elusive.

So, even your 'definition' of God is problematic on several levels.

But *far* more relevant is that there is no actual evidence that Gods, fairies, unicorns, or any number of other mythological creatures actually exist. They seem to be made up notions with no actual referent. if anything the case of God(s) is in a worse shape because the philosophy underlying it is so poor. At least we would know whether we actually found a unicorn or not.