Are We Living In God's "Matrix"?

[JesusHChrist]

You, sswhatever, do interact more than most .. but like most you lean on credentials a lot. Just saying.

There is some kind of fish that has been lying too long in the sun in Denmark....

Spidey senses are all a-tingly. Could be just too much coffee of course. Or the meth kicking in.

[sswhateverlove]

Ok friends

It's been fun, but I have other things to do. Maybe I'll be back after the weekend is over (if you're lucky). I know I've probably been quite entertaining- boredom sucks. Don't miss me too much...

[Cyberman]

Any reason why you're spamming this across all your threads instead of saying it once and moving on?

[JesusHChrist]

ok, I guess I'll get out the scrub bucket and start cleaning the place up now.

You've left quite a nasty mess.

[Tonus]

I ask because of the absolute nature of the atheist perspective. Most atheists I know argue they are 100% sure there is no intelligent design, no influencing entities, however, how can you be so sure? What is it that confirms that for you?

I think that it's our approach to pretty much anything else. There are many things that we do not believe in until sufficient evidence or proof gives us reason to do so. Only when it comes to gods (sorry-- "intelligent designers") do we change the parameters and demand some flicker of acceptance that it is 'possible.'

I understand that there are people who believe that science is actively conspiring to deceive everyone by denying god, even if it means that they lie about their discoveries and research. Or maybe they just believe that scientists are unwitting pawns of some evil force that wants to keep us from discovering god. But science just works with what we can detect and examine and test. And so far, no god (sorry-- "intelligent designer") required. Until they or I discover otherwise, why would I care that my certainty should be 99.9% instead of 100.0%?

[dissily mordentroge]

Why should it be taken that 'intelligent designer' is necessarily the same or similar entity as 'God'?

[Tobie]

Why should it be taken that 'intelligent designer' is necessarily the same or similar entity as 'God'?

Because theists suffer from something called confirmation bias.

[fr0d0]

Why should it be taken that 'intelligent designer' is necessarily the same or similar entity as 'God'?

Because that's our placeholder for it. It means nothing more than it says, and shouldn't overly worry us. Certainly nothing to get hung up about.

[dissily mordentroge]

Why should it be taken that 'intelligent designer' is necessarily the same or similar entity as 'God'?

Because that's our placeholder for it. It means nothing more than it says, and shouldn't overly worry us. Certainly nothing to get hung up about.

Obviously I failed to make my point. Essentially I can't see why it's not possible to imagine an intelligent designer/s as an advanced civilisation rather than any kind of deity. However, as the first aboriginal tribes reacted when encountering the white man they often thought they were interacting with 'Gods'. We may react in the same way if we encountered any civilisation sufficiently advanced to have created our universe experiencing it as totally beyond our immediate understanding.
On the other hand there's always the possibility such an entity would need to terminate it's own existence in order to introduce randomness and free will as part of it's creation. Kind of suicide on a cosmic scale . So, we may find ourselves here as the product of intelligent design but be left with no evidence of a creators identity. This leaves us totally responsible for our own future and survival, a concept obviously utterly too terrifying for those who need to be cushioned by theological certainties, even if those certainties are of a sado masochistic kind such as Christianity's central message of redemption through suffering.
Hope that makes some kind of sense.

[fr0d0]

I still think "god" encompasses all of that :p Breaking out of your comfort zone is good.