for atheists

Bambi,

You: <i>On the other hand, such a godhead is: 1) ultimately just as limited as you or me</i>
Me: <i>Not in our universe - only in His own.</i>
You: <i>But what's the difference? I mean, in an absolute sense.</i>

It would make a big difference to us. A God could presumably do what he likes in our universe. We can't.

I don't think you need to be absolutely supernatural to be God-like. I am reminded of one of Clarke's laws: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Me: <i>The world's religions describe God as the Great Designer, whose hand guides the universe etc. etc.</i>
You: <i>Such a godhead is no longer a primary cause of all existence. It is merely a primary cause of our existence. Quite a step down from every religion I've encountered so far.</i>

Religions tend not to get into details like this. They tend to regard our existence (i.e. our universe's existence) as all existence (leaving room for heaven, hell and so on). That's enough to keep most of the people happy most of the time. :)

<i>Having any sentient actor as an explanation of anything that is not obviously authored by sentience is essentially anthropomorphic and naive to a fault. It's a baby's view of the world.</i>

Not if it turns out to be true. ;)

<i>The feeling is that such a God is not only small and limited, but utterly irrelevant and totally unessential for existence.</i>

You are, of course, quite welcome to hold that view. For myself, I prefer to reserve judgment on that issue, since all the data isn't in yet.

<i>So how is the God you propose any different? It's just another proximate cause, not a final one.</i>

This particular god is, but there can be other gods which aren't.

<i>Not to mention that the very idea is spurious, aside from being wrong with overwhelming likelihood. I suppose one can huddle with it in some imaginary reality, but what's the point?</i>

All this is just your personal opinion. As I say, you are welcome to it. I am not arguing that a god exists. I am only saying that a god is not logically inconsistent with anything. I simply raise the possibility of His/Her/Its/Their existence, and keep an open mind.


edit-- PS I couldn't find your mathematical justification to say that God is improbable.
 
Originally posted by James R

<i>So how is the God you propose any different? It's just another proximate cause, not a final one.</i>

This particular god is, but there can be other gods which aren't.

...

I am only saying that a god is not logically inconsistent with anything. I simply raise the possibility of His/Her/Its/Their existence, and keep an open mind.
Click to expand...

But that's been the main point of disagreement between us from post one. The problem is that your mind's entirely too open :D

The particular god we discussed is not logically inconsistent. However, as soon as you try to imagine some deity that is not what you call a proximal cause, you get into logical contradictions.

Whenever you try to conceive of an uncaused cause, and moreover of an intelligent one, you're entering the realm of the logically impossible.

edit-- PS I couldn't find your mathematical justification to say that God is improbable.
Click to expand...

:confused: I checked that link, and it works for me... Is it broken for you?
 
Dunno, perhaps because I like my life. Why should I kill myself?

Indeed, would be best for all if most thiests commited mass suicide....solve the problem of overpopulation and they would be oh so sure that they would be rewarded in the next life. And since athiests are only about 1% of the world's population, we would be quite well off materially.

So, drink the Flavor-Aid already! Or better yet, sacrifice yourself to Cthulu.

BTW...God is not logically disprovable....but the concept is irrational if we use Occam's razor.

Basically, since there is no evidence for the existance of God, postulating his existance is unnecessary.
 
Bambi,

That link refers to pagenumber=4. Perhaps you have a different number of posts per page than I do (I have 10, I think).

I can't see any mathematical argument when I follow the link. Perhaps you could summarise here.
 
All to the 'Glory' of God!

Originally posted by Bambi
Loone,

I just wanted to let you know that it deeply offends me when you attempt to associate my country's flag, and therefore me by implication, with religion.
Click to expand...

SO!:) This nation was in fact created with GOD in mind! The 'New-Age' 'brain-washers' are doing a job on the truths of the founding of this great country, which are scornful lies and devilish deceptions about our history! The bedrock of our laws and sociaty are founded in our Jeudeo-Christian Faith! That is why we are so GREAT a nation! But soon when we turn from the TRUTH, we will soon be no longer be 'great', but fools, that will destroy this country from within!:mad:

United we stand, one nation under GOD!:D

And if not, 'United we 'think' we are, one nation under FOOLS!:(

"When the 'wicked' rules, the people morn!"
 
Loone,

This nation was in fact created with GOD in mind!
Click to expand...
If you mean the Christian god, which I'm sure you do then no totally wrong yet again.

The founding fathers were specifically not Christian and they despised the so-called revealed religions that Christianity represents. They would be appalled to see your ignorant claims and how religion has insinuated itself into government.

Follow this link to read some more.

http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html

Some extracts –

Thomas Jefferson:

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.

John Adams

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Thomas Paine

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."

James Madison:

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Summary

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Cris
 
It's also worth noting that the "under God" between "one nation" and "indivisible" was added sometime around the 1950's or 60's. It reflects a culture much more modern than the origins of the country.

Nevertheless, to be fair, most of the founders were religious in one way or another. They just weren't Loone types, fortunately.
 
Hoth,

Yes I agree although most of those founders were Deists and Deism is almost indistinguishable from atheism as anyone can get and still believe a god exists.

Try this http://www.deism.com/

But a lot of the changes that occurred in the 1950s were a result of the fear of communism, and in particularly McCarthyism, who made the association that because communists were bad and all communists were atheists then all atheists were bad. In those times no one dared question any religious beliefs for fear of appearing to be atheist and therefore a communist and therefore anti-American.

That invalid logic led to the removal of "E Pluribus Unum" and the forced introduction of "In God We Trust" on our money, and all because no one in the senate or congress had the courage to object apparently out of fear of being branded anti-American.

Oh well.
Cris
 
I'm Australian (don't all laugh), but I seem to recall something about the USA consitution specifying a separation of church and state. The reason being they wanted a nation run without interference from religious organisations, or so it seems to me.
 
Adam,

You’re not alone; there are many Australians here at sciforums.

And yes there is an official separation of Church and State, but what does that mean when the president is blatantly religious and has stated on record that he doesn’t consider atheists as being real American citizens. And then religions are allowed tax exemption for pushing their superstitions.

And of course the Dubya is trying hard to have the government directly finance religions. He has made the first step with his faith-based initiative. And of course there are very few politicians who will openly claim they are not religious.

Sigh!
 
Originally posted by Cris

... has stated on record that he doesn’t consider atheists as being real American citizens.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not serious.
 
I don't know if Dubya has any quotes on the subject, but former President George H.W. Bush said this in 1987 (while running for President): "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."

Sadly, that got him elected. That says something about this nation, unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top