God vs Science

[FallentoReason]

Why is it important that the god described did not create the earth in 6 days by breathing magic words onto the skein of the void?

Because the universe it hypothetically brought into being doesn't tell us it happened in 6 days around 6-10 thousand years ago. This is an example of the Creation disproving the Creator under those conditions--that the universe was made in 6 days around 6-10 thousand years ago.

My belief is that the Creation can't disprove the hypothetical Creator because that's simply nonsensical. Of course, you're interested in actually figuring out the sound reasoning that justifies the presuppositioned Creator in the first place, if I'm not mistaken?

Why does the narrative collapse at the point of unsubstantiated stories (and is that really another story altogether)? If not the god that did these things then what god? Some other god, some other name? Or do you choose (at least for a time) to carry that name along to the next idea of a god. A pleasant artifact of an unremembered faith?

I can safely say that I was definitely an atheist for the first 8-9 months of me being deconverted. Now if I were to label myself right now, I'd honestly say I'm somewhere in between atheism and deism simply because I don't know if my perception of this Creator is purely a romantic philosophical view or if there's something more to it that brings it together with reality. Do you see my dilemma? The former is nothing more but a placebo (which, as I said before, has changed me for the better thus far) and the latter is what I would see (if properly justified) as true deism.

The physical world may not tell us stories about gods, perhaps because there are no stories to tell, but those stories of gods nevertheless propose to tell us of the physical world. The damning indictment in all of this is not that the physical world does not tell us something about gods in and of itself, even though the narratives are arranged such that they -should-, but that these narratives of god have failed to tell us about the physical world, which, again, by their very own arrangement they -must-.

Sure, and by "narratives" are you exclusively referring to holy books, or is deism included?

Now, the world between your ears, where uncertainty seems to bear unlimited possibility and with it an easily won credulity, a world in which the phrase "a creation can never disprove it's creator" is something more profound or meaningful than a nonsensical jumble of words......well, gods can tell us plenty about that world.

What sort of stuff would you expect to hear from these gods about that world?

Your closing remarks here are seriously going to be "we don't know - therefore god"?

No, because that's a clear cop out. I think the elegance and beauty of this universe gives me a reason to extrapolate further that what can be known scientifically.

---

There actually is not debate.

Then what are we doing right now?

There are merely people who like the idea of having an invisible super hero, so our species invents them, like they always have.

Agreed, hence why holy books hold no water.

There is no evidence that thoughts occur outside biological evolution.

If we hypothetically say there's an "extra-natural" place i.e. something outside of nature, then why would your observation that is exclusively about nature rule out what's possible in the extra-natural place? The two don't overlap.

There is however, TONS of evidence that our species is capable of being irrational and making up and believing false things.

Agreed.