A discussion with tack

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sorry, I have a tendency to be flowery with language. Regarding what it means to be a god, I agree with you, the concept is nebulous, but it hasn't always been so. 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. 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. 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". 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.

We don't have to refute the deist concept of god to invalidate the theist concept of god. Further, it doesn't matter whether the deists concept of god is logically possible...that doesn't address the theists argument does it ? 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. Sometimes, it seems, a debate can become so technical that one loses sight of the fact that we're debating over something that exists in the real world. Stories, myths, drawings on caves..these are real things in the real world, all following patterns of progression..all influenced by earlier narratives or the storytellers unique position in time or geography.

Does that help to simplify my position?

---

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? I just insist, that when they make such certain claims, they be able to back it up with more than hot air and thoughtful philosophical debates.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

[tackattack]

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep, when people in the bronze age wrote that all things were possible to god, they meant all things logically possible..........they couldn't have possibly meant exactly what they said. We haven't leveraged our far more refined traditions of philosophy or logic at all on this one. Is this the kind of thing you mean when you say you believe "as advertised"?

[Zenith]

[reverendjeremiah]

In discussions like this, I lean heavily on the philosophy of Absurdism.

#1 - Religious belief, just like political templates, are a free for all. Each individuals ideas of religion are different than any others. No matter how fundamental, "pure", and dogmatic they thing they are.

#2 - Pointing at the vast past and contemporary evidence that the "meaning of life" is merely an opinion, as no inherent meaning of life has yet been discovered, in relation to the individual.

#3 - therefore if a divinity exists, or a numerous amount of divinity's exist, then regardless of abundant or lack of dogma, or subect thereof, can disprove that said creator(s) are directly responsible for such an absurd circumstance as meaning being a personal and fleeting, as opposed to inherent and eternal matter.

#4 - Therefore the cosmos, with or without gods, is absurd.

Yes..Absurdism is a form of agnosticism...and it is very easy holding that philosophy to find humor in many things that most others would not or could not dare to go.

I like to call it "agnosticism on crack".

[Zenith]

[The Grand Nudger]

We actually know a great deal about the kinds of things people 5000 years ago thought about. It's all over everything they made, just like it is today. We have mountains of data as to where concepts of god come from. Specifically we have mountains of data as to where both the god of the NT and the god of the OT come from (it's a very interesting discussion, and the case can be made very easily that they're not the same god). It's just as clear a case as the Tannu, unless you believe that it is not. Why aren't you suspending disbelief for the Tannu god Tom Army in the way that you are suspending disbelief for Zues, Athena, etc?

I don't understand why you (or anyone for that matter) insist that we don't know these things. There's an entire field of academic research devoted to it. There's even a sub-field devoted to nothing else within that field. Cultural Anthropology and Comparative Religion. There are real people, in the real world, who consider real evidence and make this their life's work.

It may be an interesting discussion, theorizing as to why god would do this or that, or how....but I can't help but make the comparison to Santa. How do his reindeer fly? Can we show logically that his reindeer can fly? What are the philosophical implications of flying reindeer? In what way does this sort of discussion about god differ from the discussion about Santa and his reindeer?

A quick note about atheism, I can't speak for all atheists, however. It is not because I am already an atheist that there are explanations other than god. It is precisely because there are other explanations that I am an atheist.

It is not the atheist who wishes god to be beyond explanation, or states that there "could be no" evidence, it is the theist that insists he must be, that there cannot be. Again, this was not always the case. God/gods didn't "exist outside of this universe" until theists had to account for the curious lack of god IN this universe. As an atheist, I can say "show me the evidence", I'd be forced to change my position wouldn't I? It is the theist who maintains that no such evidence could exist, and yet they see it everywhere. It's dishonest, a debating tactic, no statement of truth.

[reverendjeremiah]

It is not the atheist who wishes god to be beyond explanation, or states that there "could be no" evidence, it is the theist that insists he must be, that there cannot be. Again, this was not always the case. God/gods didn't "exist outside of this universe" until theists had to account for the curious lack of god IN this universe. As an atheist, I can say "show me the evidence", I'd be forced to change my position wouldn't I? It is the theist who maintains that no such evidence could exist, and yet they see it everywhere. It's dishonest, a debating tactic, no statement of truth.

I can tell you what else "exists outside of this universe", and that is nothing.

..may I also point out the invisible and the non-existant look exactly the same.

Another thing, I have heard a few of my fellow electricians say "god is infinitely powerful". I ask them to explain EXACTLY what we learned about power theory when it comes to "infinite power". They slowly and grudgingly admit that "infinite power" is THE EXACT SAME THING as "no power". When you are deluded, sometimes it is difficult to admit that you hold conflicting definitions.