The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept

[Captain Scarlet]

Would I be correct in concluding that an implication of Fr0d0's including 'not susceptible to empirical detection' as an essential element in the definition of the Christian God is that for any God for which there is empirical evidence, it is not evidence of the Christian God, by definition? For example, we could be assured that a miracle that withstands scientific scrutiny is not the work of the Christian God.

If the actions of a god sp. the xtian concept are not felt in the natural world then there is no such things as miracles. If these actions are felt in the natural world then they can be measured and observed using empiricism. I don't see the middle ground here. How can an action be both felt in the natural world, but not available to empiricism? For example the miracle of turning water into wine would have been certainly testable and enjoyably so by the folks at that wedding.

[Mister Agenda]

A miracle could be the work of a different god. I dont believe in them (either of them), but should one occur it would support the existence of beings that can operate in defiance of physical laws.

Fr0d0, I'm curious: if God doesn't do miracles, why so many miracles in the Bible? It's like they're not even talking about the God to whom you're referring.

[fr0d0]

I don't know how you work that out M. God does do miracles. None of them conclusively prove God, only through faith.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I don't know how you work that out M. God does do miracles. None of them conclusively prove God, only through faith.

Which doesn't prove god. So what we know is that god is unproven, and some believe in him despite this.

---

Would I be correct in concluding that an implication of Fr0d0's including 'not susceptible to empirical detection' as an essential element in the definition of the Christian God is that for any God for which there is empirical evidence, it is not evidence of the Christian God, by definition? For example, we could be assured that a miracle that withstands scientific scrutiny is not the work of the Christian God.

If the actions of a god sp. the xtian concept are not felt in the natural world then there is no such things as miracles. If these actions are felt in the natural world then they can be measured and observed using empiricism. I don't see the middle ground here. How can an action be both felt in the natural world, but not available to empiricism? For example the miracle of turning water into wine would have been certainly testable and enjoyably so by the folks at that wedding.

Exactly. All he has to do is turn something into something else, which could be recorded for posterity, and job done. Easy.

[Captain Scarlet]

A miracle could be the work of a different god. I dont believe in them (either of them), but should one occur it would support the existence of beings that can operate in defiance of physical laws.

Fr0d0, I'm curious: if God doesn't do miracles, why so many miracles in the Bible? It's like they're not even talking about the God to whom you're referring.

Yes of course if a miracle is recorded it could be a different god. But then xtianity is wrong.

This is exactly what happens when humans paint, then re-paint, then re-paint again their god/s, because of the inconvenience of facts and discoveries. Over the generations god has moved. We found them up mountains, then in the sky, then in the heavens, now in a supernatural realm whatever that means. Unlike the past we are no longer able to detect their presence in what we know of reality. Sophisticated theology and xtians have fine tuned their god into the dark recesses of the human imagination where no light can penetrate, simply to hold onto a dead concept and in doing so have made it meaningless.

[fr0d0]

Which doesn't prove god. So what we know is that god is unproven, and some believe in him despite this.

And that is precicely the point. Faith is an absolute requirement. Never blind faith, but rationally derived faith, as defined above.

The concept of God hasn't changed one little bit. What has changed is our mindset which irrationally dismisses faith on materialist grounds.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Which doesn't prove god. So what we know is that god is unproven, and some believe in him despite this.

And that is precicely the point. Faith is an absolute requirement. Never blind faith, but rationally derived faith, as defined above.

The concept of God hasn't changed one little bit. What has changed is our mindset which irrationally dismisses faith on materialist grounds.

Oh here we go again.

There is nothing rational about faith and there is nothing irrational about dismissing faith. Faith is unevidenced belief.

As for materialist grounds of evidence, we live in a material world, so material proof is required. god could provide material proof that he exists right here right now.

[Captain Scarlet]

As for materialist grounds of evidence, we live in a material world, so material proof is required. god could provide material proof that he exists right here right now.

Indeed and apparently he did exactly that 2011 years ago, if you believe xtianity is true.

I would also expect that a significant % of xtians also believes that god intervenes materially everyday all over the world in answer to prayer as well.

If an xtian thinks it is irrational to dismiss a god purely on material grounds, then you have to say its irrational to dismiss any invention of the human mind, whatever that maybe (even though we do that unthinkingly every single day). But once again materialism is not relevant to the meaninglessness of the god concept, its a red herring.

[fr0d0]

Some people are just happy to align themselves with logical absurdity. There should be a limit to how far you go to support your belief system. To me, that's a step too far. Glad we have our cards on the table.

[dtango]

God existed at the time the Old Testament was written, but as he was exactly as described in the book, theists had to reject him as Jews had rejected the gods of their fathers and the Jews’ fathers, as well as the fathers of the Greeks, the Egyptians and the Sumerians, had rejected the gods of their own forefathers.

Today’s god (theologians do not believe in Christ), the out-of-the-universe one, is not an entity, it is a big fat onion consisting of layers of rejections.