Ace Otana Wrote:Perhaps there is no 'motive'. Like how people expect there to be a purpose, but what if there isn't any? Perhaps there is no 'why', only 'how'.
Yeah it's possible that there is no motive. I just can't help but wonder why the universe does exist as opposed to not ever existing in the first place.
Taqqiya Mockingbird Wrote:Having realized the absurdity of his Catholic Gawd, he is still clinging to this idea that there MUST be a gawd somehow, and trying to invent one and give it a minimum amount of vague enough qualities that he can circumvent all the reasonable objections to god-myths he has run up against. And yes, you nailed it: by necessity a gawd of the gaps.
This is unusually thick of you.. I remember clarifying 2-3 on AF.com that I WAS NOT Catholic. That was my upbringing but not my belief during the time of my stay at AF.com
I feel alright in calling you thick because we already established you have no emotions whatsoever
Tempus Wrote:I apologize in advance if I'm missing something here since I've kind of skimmed over this thread, but perhaps one of the assumptions apophenia is referring to that you're assuming there is a motive for matter existing. The best way to get rid of hidden assumptions in my experience is to start over with nothing.
Let's clarify what we all mean by 'motive'. I'm not using the word in the sense of 'purpose', but simply the act of matter coming into existence. It didn't have to come into existence because some god desired it -- that would mean it has purpose. So, what's the motive or reason for matter? A god could have created it but it's absolutely useless and serves no purpose.
I feel like some hidden assumptions have crept in, so I'll have to rethink some of the stuff that has been said in the thread to better understand what we have all established.
Rhythm Wrote:By all means, assume things. As long as we agree that a concept or theory of a god does not constitute any actual being.
Well I guess when I first got the idea of the scale I subconsciously assumed that the existence was also a given. But after testing the scale a bit and seeing how far we can get with it, I think you've helped me realise that the scale only helps us draw the line between non-existent god and a plausible god.
For a plausible god to then exist means we would have to prove its existence, but I wouldn't have a clue how to go about that.
Quote:Why would the bird need to be divine to create the cosmos? You have evidence that an 80 foot bird didn't create the cosmos? Again, it's more plausible in that it invokes fewer unjustified assumptions. I don't have to assume a plausible bird exists, now do I? That it's just as pathetic as an origins story as a god goes without saying...but wasn't that precisely my point to begin with? You tell me that I have made a material claim that is false and yet you feel comfortable assuming that there is some plausible god that makes this same material claim?
Your false material claim is the bird itself. There is no such bird with said dimensions in the world. It's just like my Most Tangible God that lives on earth with us for eternity. That is a material claim the moment I say such a being exists here with us in the physical world, and an obvious false claim too.
Quote:Depends on how this god did the creating, but whether or not it's "in violation of physics" is irrelevant to me, what is relevent is that it is an interacting god who could be measured by way of determining its influence. It becomes a falsifiable proposition and possible for us to test empirically, and at that point thought exercises would be the proper tool for the job exactly how? (I do recall you mentioning that for you a plausible god falls on the scale somewhere around not interacting with our world btw)
When I said in violation of physics I meant it contradicts reality basically.
Yeah I completely agree with you here. A plausible god that intervenes in our universe is a god that could be observed and, as far as I know, doesn't exist. So yes you're correct, for me a plausible god has to be below the line of intervention in our universe.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
