God is "dead"

[Syne]

It is trivial that you cannot define the claims of a belief you do not hold. Only the believer has any pretense for grounds on which to make such claims. Anything you, as an atheist, claims of another's belief can only be a strawman unless you are arguing someone who freely agrees with some claim you make.

This is a claim, not supporting argument.

Let's narrow it down: Why is my take on Christian themes irrelevant? What makes it so. Remember, I already know what you think; now I need to know why you think it.

Your assumptions that Christianity is not about belief and is about submission.

I don't see belief as being a theme in Christian mythology. Submission, sure. Faith, yes, but not in his existence; faith, rather, as an action.

As an atheist, you have no more grounds to define theist beliefs than a string theorist has to define LQG. If the string theorist could define LQG then LQG would not be a field of research, as string theorists do not think it is valid, and would define it as such.

Wow. Is your attentional bias so strong that you missed "so-called" in the sentence you emphasized? But maybe you really do not see a distinction, since you believe all gods to be equally mythical.

I see the distinction. He's creating a hierarchy of gods. He's saying he's not alone up there, which is the whole point.

Hierarchy? Just another non sequitur. "So-called" is a qualifier that marginalizes the term "god" so used, denoting false gods. I really try to believe that you are not this obtuse, but after the unmistakable mistake, I am really starting to think you may be.

That would only prove my point that you are unqualified to make claims about another's beliefs.

Wait, so now the qualifications are merit-based? I thought you said it was solely because I lacked belief.

It is because you lack belief that your claims are without merit. It would be the same as me claiming that atheism was only a dislike of god. You would cry foul, and for good reason, just as I am about your claims of a belief you do not espouse. If you really cannot understand that then very little is likely to make it through your attentional bias.

Man, you're in love with using the word "trivially."

It so aptly describes the ease with which your arguments are refuted.

It is trivially obvious that men wrote the Bible, so yes, ANY attribution made in the scriptures is done by men. People believe what is written just as a social-scientist believes self-reported data, and just like social-scientists, people take it with varying grains of salts.

But okay, at least I know what you meant now. My question is then why believe in the grandest claim of all--God was here--if you're not going to trust the men to report other significant details correctly? Such an interpretation of the Bible doesn't seem to lead to belief.

The details reported by men are necessarily subjective, just like any self-reported data. Scripture is largely a testament to the beliefs of men. But like I said, theists find evidence beyond the pages of scripture, and that scripture only relates the subjective understanding of this.

"Miracles" are only insisted to have happened IF you believe in Biblical literalism.

Not necessarily. I don't believe everything in the Bible was meant to be taken literally. But some of it was, including a lot of the silly stuff.

Again, what you believe of a belief system you do not espouse is irrelevant unless you are arguing someone who agrees with your claims. Maybe you should just go find your usual easy target to ply your lazy arguments on. You know, make yourself feel smart.

Now if you wish to debate popular claims, I am more than willing. But you must then establish the popularity of each claim (with objective evidence like polls and statistics) before proceeding. Otherwise you could simply be cherry-picking claims that you find especially ridiculous or or easily refuted. (And preferably in a new thread, as I have no intention of arguing any but my own claims here.)

Where was there a manifestation to someone who did not already espouse some belief?

Not that I know of, though God does give Abraham quite a test. (Oddly, showing a lack of omniscience there, huh?)

Test? Again, completely non sequitur. Omniscience means that God would know the outcome, and that the test was meant purely for Abraham's benefit (to forge his character by fire).

I'm curious: where do you get the notion that free will is important to God?

If free will were not ostensibly important to God then there would be no need for scripture to promote a choice. And free will is how we attribute moral accountability.

 

[Syne]

Given some definitions of the term "God," God is making an "unmistakeable public appearance" 24/7 already anyway.

I completely agree.

 

[Syne]

If a god made an "unmistakeable public appearance" then no sane human could deny its existence, any more than you can sanely deny the existence of the chair you may be sitting in. I.e. no choice whether or not to believe it exists. Or would you like to claim that you can wholly disbelieve your chair exists and still manage to be sane?

The faculties necessary to validate the existence of a chair would not be adequate to validate the existence of a supreme being. Any being able to operate beyond the limits of our knowledge and perception could appear to be God and be nowhere near the real thing. There could be an endless string of entities able to successfully masquerade as God in our eyes, just as we could to lesser beings ourselves. As mere lords of the primates we are in no position to judge these matters, so there’s no point in pretending to be.

Again, your own claim of "unmistakable public appearance". The unmistakable cannot be mistaken. Do you and Balerion take turns with the helmet? A god operates beyond the same "limits of our knowledge and perception" as scientific speculation on that which science itself defines as beyond our knowledge and perception. And agnostic arguments about what we are in "no position to judge" are equally applicable to atheism. Are you an agnostic?

Again, "unmistakable" excludes any possibility for error.

 

[Balerion]

As an atheist, you have no more grounds to define theist beliefs than a string theorist has to define LQG.

I guess it depends on what you mean by belief. I'm not trying to say that there is only one kind of "true" Christian, I'm simply pointing out what I saw as themes within the Christian texts.

If the string theorist could define LQG then LQG would not be a field of research, as string theorists do not think it is valid, and would define it as such.

Irrelevant. And incorrect. I can define anything I like. It's up to others to decide whether or not they agree. Most Nazis defined their movement as righteous. Am I not able to define Nazism because I do not practice it?

It is because you lack belief that your claims are without merit. It would be the same as me claiming that atheism was only a dislike of god. You would cry foul, and for good reason, just as I am about your claims of a belief you do not espouse. If you really cannot understand that then very little is likely to make it through your attentional bias.

I would cry foul because your definition would be incorrect, not because you're not an atheist. Certainly you're able to understand and state what atheism entails, even though you don't share its views. (or, view, rather).

It so aptly describes the ease with which your arguments are refuted.

No, you use it with everybody. It's one of those odd forum things where someone falls in love with a word and then shoehorns it into every other sentence. Like Tiassa's new love affair with "subsume."

The details reported by men are necessarily subjective, just like any self-reported data. Scripture is largely a testament to the beliefs of men. But like I said, theists find evidence beyond the pages of scripture, and that scripture only relates the subjective understanding of this.

By this logic, the Bible is merely a[n inaccurate] history book. But this isn't what I hear from many Christians, who report the Bible to be the source and maintenance of their faith.

Again, what you believe of a belief system you do not espouse is irrelevant unless you are arguing someone who agrees with your claims.

By that logic, no argument is relevant unless the arguers end up agreeing. We know this isn't the case.

Maybe you should just go find your usual easy target to ply your lazy arguments on. You know, make yourself feel smart.

I would suggest the same to you. Certainly GIA is around here somewhere, no?

Test? Again, completely non sequitur. Omniscience means that God would know the outcome, and that the test was meant purely for Abraham's benefit (to forge his character by fire).

The Bible itself refers to God's action as a test. (NIV) And all versions suggest that God did not know the outcome:

"...Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” -Genesis 22:12​

If free will were not ostensibly important to God then there would be no need for scripture to promote a choice. And free will is how we attribute moral accountability.

Scripture doesn't promote a choice. It explicitly forbids choice, threatening anyone who takes the wrong path with destruction.

 

[Syne]

Where does the OP specify a personal god?

The OP refers to God with the personal pronoun he. It ascribes to him the logic of an intelligent and will-driven person who can reveal himself to humans. It even says God is teachable. These are all attributes of personhood.

And aside from the OP making claims about a belief he does not seem to espouse (like a string theorist defining LQG), attributing human characteristics is the same anthropomorphism we do to pets, cars, ships, etc.. None of these imbue any real traits.

The only sensible way to distinguish a personal god from run of the mill anthropomorphism is:

A narrower interpretation of a personal god is a deity who takes a personal interest in the world in general and worshipers in particular. This view is intended to challenge a deistic outlook.

A still narrower definition would be a god whose personal interest in worshipers is so great that the deity communicates directly with them and actively intervenes in their lives through miracles. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god#Deism[/ondent]

Are you saying that the OP is not about the nonexistence of a god, but merely about the nonexistence of a personal god? The OP seems to be a claim of the nonexistence of a god in general, and only assumes that if a god can do something (such as show itself) that it necessarily will (which would mean that this god would have not free will itself, which is contrary to the common attributes of a god).

No it doesn't assume a loss of freewill by God. It simply asks why God doesn't reveal himself, assuming he is capable of reasonable actions and seeing religious theists place so much importance on believing he exists.

That necessarily assumes that either a god is not omnipotent (lacks free will) or that it must be a personal god. Neither is necessarily true.

I did not say it was, only that lack of evidence is not proof, which you seem to agree with.

Lack of evidence isn't proof. It's lack of proof. So why should anyone choose to believe in God when there is lack of evidence/proof for his existence?

Good, we agree (bolded). People believe because there is also a lack of evidence/proof against a god existing.

If you are a sane adult, believing in your chair is not a real choice. And just by definition, being compelled (forced) is antithetical to freedom.

What freedom is lost in knowing a chair exists? Does freedom entail some right to choose what exists and what doesn't exist? And if that is the case, what distinguishes that state from a dreaming solipsist who chooses what is reality based on his own whims?

Such choice only exists where there is some doubt as to whether a thing exists or not. And I already address solipsism in my first post in this thread:

Obviously you have already chosen, but that choice has no bearing on its possible existence unless you assert some sort of solipsistic "reality" is all in the mind worldview. ​

Solipsism makes ever argument moot, including science, so it is self-defeating as grounds for any argument.

The OP author is obviously not a believer, although I do agree that any god can be detected by the senses, as any believer "sees" god in the world around them with the same senses you possess.

Theists can "see" God? What do they say he looks like? Where was he sighted? How big was he? Etc..

A common attribute of a god is omnipresence. So all sorts of things, everywhere, and astronomical.

I never said "guarantee", but certainly a lack of compelling (forcing) evidence allows for a freedom of choice.

Lack of evidence for a real object allows for choosing what? Choosing to believe the object is unreal? The choice to be deluded and ignorant of the reality of that object? You have a very strange notion of what freedom is.

Freedom is the ability to choose between alternative speculations that are equally lacking in evidence.

Again, as an atheist, you are definitively the least qualified to make claims of what a "religion is about". Even within one religion and its scripture, there is a gradient of understanding, from what is taught to children to what a theologian learns in seminary, or the like. You consistently argue from the perspective of a child, so I assume the books you read had pretty pictures.

I was a fervent religious theist for 22 years of my life. So that makes me preeminently qualified to make claims about what religion is about. I studied Christianity in diverse manifestations from a literalist interpretation of the scriptures to the heady theological versions of C.S. Lewis, Soren Kierkegaard, G.K. Chesterton, and George MacDonald. By 25 I had rejected it all as delusional thinking. There is little in life I am so sure about than this.

Just as subjective as any other belief, and your claims are moot unless addressed to someone espousing them. Besides, you have yet to demonstrate anything but the most rudimentary notion of a god, so what you supposedly read does not seem to have made any significant impact (and I would expect such an "educated" atheist to make better arguments).

Who said anything about a "right to not believe in the existence of a chair"?

You are. You are saying freewill demands we be able to not believe the chair, and by extention God, exists. That's nonsense. Noone has the freedom to be deluded. Delusion is the absence of freewill fostered by a situation of ignorance.

The nonsense is all yours, as that is a strawman of your own invention. I said that any sane person did not have any choice as to whether a chair exists, specifically because it is so obviously evident. The same cannot be said for the existence/nonexistence of a god.

But since you say, "Noone has the freedom to be deluded", it seems you agree.

Seems you keep evading the question. Can a sane person deny the existence of a chair? It is a simple question that really should not vex you so. If something is proven to be real, there is no rational choice.

Only an insane person, a person with no choice, would deny the existence of a chair. The chair itself proves it's own existence thru our senses, giving us the knowledge to be able to make free and informed choices. We can now sit in the chair, or paint it, or move it to the attic, etc. Knowledge ENABLES freewill. Delusion takes it away. God showing us he exists, which I assume a God could most ingeniously accomplish, enables us the freewill to either choose him or reject him.

Free and informed choice? But you just said that "[o]nly an insane person... would deny the existence of a chair". So which is it? If only an "insane person... would deny the existence of a chair", how can the chair give us choice? And choice for what? Insanity?

So chairs make people insane?! A sane person has no choice but to accept the existence of a chair.

So no one had free will until we had "clear knowledge of what is real and what isn't"? Since science is always advancing, do you then assume that no one has free will?

Not as much freewill. There was time when we had less freewill because we were ignorant of what is real and what isn't. Science continues to liberate us from this state with the manifestation of reality and the exposure of delusion. Knowledge is infinitely accumulative, therefore freewill is infinitely accumulative as well.

False dilemma, as free will (i.e. freedom of action and choice) does not necessitate having complete knowledge. You need to cite a credible reference if you wish to continue using this very odd notion of free will. You know, like you are always complaining about theist notions of god.

So you insist that a god must be personal and that you must be a slave. Sounds like you have some pretty definite beliefs about a god.

I insist God is personal and must be served unconditionally along with 99% of the religious theists on this planet. This is just standard religious doctrine. Your ignorance of this fact appalls me. Do you know anyone who believes in God in any other way?

You need to cite references if you wish to throw around statistics like "99%". A quick search provides this:

Many Christians will talk about receiving the Spirit of God, among other things, but the receiving of faith…not so much! Oh, they may say they have faith but what they are really saying is they believe in God. The belief in God and to believe and accept Jesus as Lord is just one step to living for and serving God whole-heartedly and developing a living, breathing, mountain-moving, life of faith.​

- http://faith1stministries.com/2012/07/26/serving-god-establishes-our-faith/​

And none of these summaries of major denominations claim serving ("works") are necessary to either believing or "being saved": http://christianity.about.com/od/denominationscomparison/ss/comparebeliefs2_2.htm

The closest would probably be Methodists or Mormons, who do emphasize service, but...

Nineteenth century Mormonism defined itself against Calvinistic religions that asserted humans' incapacity and utter dependence on the grace of God. Early Mormon preachers emphasized good works and moral obligation; however in the late twentieth century, Mormons pulled back from an "entrenched aversion" to the doctrines of grace, and today have an attitude of trusting in the grace of Christ while trying their best to do good works. Bushman (2008, p. 76) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism#cite_note-39​

So it seems your 22 years of "experience" mean precisely jack. No wonder you are an atheist.

 

[Syne]

The what?

We have this thing called 'free speech'. I think that that's a good thing. Countless people say all kinds of things, and probably nobody agrees with all of it. (They would be idiots if they did.) Atheists are free to create a museum of atheism if they like. Maybe they have, I'm not interested enough to search for one.

...

I'm an American and I haven't observed anything even remotely like what you describe. In my experience the vast majority of the people around me don't care the least bit what my religion is or isn't. I rarely discuss religion with anyone, outside a few specialized contexts like this board. I feel completely free to pursue whatever religious path I choose, or no path at all. The US is actually pretty successful at dealing with a large and religiously diverse population, while preserving everyone's freedom to believe and practice as they choose, as long as it's consistent with public safety and order. Inevitably, that means that some people will choose to believe things that I don't believe and might even embrace political views different than mine.

It's the nature of the beast.

I snipped it for brevity, but the whole post is a very good, Yazata.

 

[Capracus]

But why should that be a problem?

Why is there a need to validate the existence of a supreme being - especially the existence of the most supreme being?

Can you explain?

Our ability to model existence using the faculty of imagination has been an evolutionary advantage and represents the core of who we are. Attributes such as empathy and technical abstraction are vital expressions of imagination. When imagination is inconsistent with reality its evolutionary value is diminished, and methods of validation such as science have evolved to keep errors of imaginative attribution in check.

Human history is riddled with examples of people claiming knowledge of gods or to being gods themselves. Our faculty of imagination has allowed countless artifacts of ignorance to garner legitimacy until effective systems of validation evolved to uncover their speciousness. The more we learn about our ancestral behavior the more we uncover the roots of the associative errors that spawned such beliefs in divinity.

Again, your own claim of "unmistakable public appearance". The unmistakable cannot be mistaken. Do you and Balerion take turns with the helmet? A god operates beyond the same "limits of our knowledge and perception" as scientific speculation on that which science itself defines as beyond our knowledge and perception. And agnostic arguments about what we are in "no position to judge" are equally applicable to atheism. Are you an agnostic?

Again, "unmistakable" excludes any possibility for error.

Unmistakable in regards to validating a supreme being requires the exclusion of all contenders, and without the unattainable quality of omniscience, how would you expect such a determination to be made?

Of course I’m agnostic, at least until my omniscience kicks in. What about you?

 

[wynn]

But why should that be a problem?

Why is there a need to validate the existence of a supreme being - especially the existence of the most supreme being?

Our ability to model existence using the faculty of imagination has been an evolutionary advantage and represents the core of who we are. Attributes such as empathy and technical abstraction are vital expressions of imagination. When imagination is inconsistent with reality its evolutionary value is diminished, and methods of validation such as science have evolved to keep errors of imaginative attribution in check.

Human history is riddled with examples of people claiming knowledge of gods or to being gods themselves. Our faculty of imagination has allowed countless artifacts of ignorance to garner legitimacy until effective systems of validation evolved to uncover their speciousness. The more we learn about our ancestral behavior the more we uncover the roots of the associative errors that spawned such beliefs in divinity.


Unmistakable in regards to validating a supreme being requires the exclusion of all contenders, and without the unattainable quality of omniscience, how would you expect such a determination to be made?

Of course I’m agnostic, at least until my omniscience kicks in. What about you?

You didn't answer my question.

Someone comes along and claims to know God.
Someone else comes along and claims to be God.

What problem do you see with that?

 

[Capracus]

You didn't answer my question.

Someone comes along and claims to know God.
Someone else comes along and claims to be God.

What problem do you see with that?

They are either ignorant, delusional or frauds. Do you think these are worthy aspirations?

 

[wynn]

They are either ignorant, delusional or frauds. Do you think these are worthy aspirations?

You still didn't answer my question.

So what's the problem for you when others are "ignorant, delusional or frauds"?

 

[Magical Realist]

And aside from the OP making claims about a belief he does not seem to espouse (like a string theorist defining LQG), attributing human characteristics is the same anthropomorphism we do to pets, cars, ships, etc.. None of these imbue any real traits.

The only sensible way to distinguish a personal god from run of the mill anthropomorphism is:

A narrower interpretation of a personal god is a deity who takes a personal interest in the world in general and worshipers in particular. This view is intended to challenge a deistic outlook.

A still narrower definition would be a god whose personal interest in worshipers is so great that the deity communicates directly with them and actively intervenes in their lives through miracles. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god#Deism[/ondent]​

All supremely irrelevant to the fact that the OP itself presupposed a personal God as do 99% of all the religious theists on the planet. To posit God as something else, as a force or a metaphysical principle is merely your attempt at trying to change the subject when trapped into a corner. Which in turn will lead to yet another a tedious string of further posts of you redefining and backpeddling on everything you say and generally being the obnoxious prick you always manage to become in every dialogue.

That necessarily assumes that either a god is not omnipotent (lacks free will) or that it must be a personal god. Neither is necessarily true.

Yes..the OP's question assumed this. Go back and reread it for clarification.

Good, we agree (bolded). People believe because there is also a lack of evidence/proof against a god existing.

God is never seen anywhere at anytime by anyone. Same as with leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, etc. Can you explain how this is a lack of evidence against god existing?

Such choice only exists where there is some doubt as to whether a thing exists or not. And I already address solipsism in my first post in this thread:

Obviously you have already chosen, but that choice has no bearing on its possible existence unless you assert some sort of solipsistic "reality" is all in the mind worldview. ​

Solipsism makes ever argument moot, including science, so it is self-defeating as grounds for any argument.

So what? Again, why does freewill entail being able to not believe existing things exist? What freedom is being advanced here besides the freedom to be deluded?

A common attribute of a god is omnipresence. So all sorts of things, everywhere, and astronomical.

Name some of these things that God looks like. What colors and textures and sounds were involved in God's appearance? If God appeared everywhere, why did so many of us miss it? And if God's size is astronomical, what are the approximate measurements of said being? Lightyears and parsecs will suffice here.

Freedom is the ability to choose between alternative speculations that are equally lacking in evidence.

Freedom is the ability to make choices of action and thought based on accurate knowledge and experience. Freedom based on ignorance and lack of evidence isn't freedom. It's delusion.

Just as subjective as any other belief, and your claims are moot unless addressed to someone espousing them. Besides, you have yet to demonstrate anything but the most rudimentary notion of a god, so what you supposedly read does not seem to have made any significant impact (and I would expect such an "educated" atheist to make better arguments).

I understand God as he is taught and understood by 99% of the religious theists on this planet. Like I said, I have no interest in philosophical contrivances to generalize godhood into some abstract metaphysical principle that nobody can ever experience much less discuss. Just like all theists here you hope to obfuscate God into something beyond all definition effectively disabling all possible negative assertions about him/her/it. That's a game I'm not willing to play here.

The nonsense is all yours, as that is a strawman of your own invention. I said that any sane person did not have any choice as to whether a chair exists, specifically because it is so obviously evident. The same cannot be said for the existence/nonexistence of a god.

Doubting real objects is not a viable choice. It is a delusion. No choice is therefore violated by a chair existing, or by a God existing. There is only the brute acknowledgement of the real. Which is neither choice nor lack of choice. It's just perception.

Free and informed choice? But you just said that "[o]nly an insane person... would deny the existence of a chair". So which is it? If only an "insane person... would deny the existence of a chair", how can the chair give us choice? And choice for what? Insanity?

Knowledge of reality always opens us to more choices. Like I said, knowledge of the chair opens us to a range of choices about things we can do with the chair. Knowledge brings freedom. Delusion, as in denying the existence of what is presented, takes away choice. Which is why God showing himself to exist would be a liberating event to humans. It would free them from the delusion that he doesn't exist--a delusion fostered by a universe that behaves exactly like there is no God at all.

So chairs make people insane?! A sane person has no choice but to accept the existence of a chair.

There never was a choice to deny the existence of the chair since the chair obviously exists. There is simply the sane perception that the chair exists. Choice is irrelevant in this experience.

False dilemma, as free will (i.e. freedom of action and choice) does not necessitate having complete knowledge. You need to cite a credible reference if you wish to continue using this very odd notion of free will. You know, like you are always complaining about theist notions of god.

Like I said, there are more or less degrees of freedom of will, depending on more or less degrees of knowledge. So your claim that freewill doesn't necessitate complete knowledge is true, seeing we only approximate it in more or less degrees of knowledge.

You need to cite references if you wish to throw around statistics like "99%". A quick search provides this:

Many Christians will talk about receiving the Spirit of God, among other things, but the receiving of faith…not so much! Oh, they may say they have faith but what they are really saying is they believe in God. The belief in God and to believe and accept Jesus as Lord is just one step to living for and serving God whole-heartedly and developing a living, breathing, mountain-moving, life of faith.​

- http://faith1stministries.com/2012/07/26/serving-god-establishes-our-faith/

And none of these summaries of major denominations claim serving ("works") are necessary to either believing or "being saved": http://christianity.about.com/od/denominationscomparison/ss/comparebeliefs2_2.htm

The closest would probably be Methodists or Mormons, who do emphasize service, but...

Nineteenth century Mormonism defined itself against Calvinistic religions that asserted humans' incapacity and utter dependence on the grace of God. Early Mormon preachers emphasized good works and moral obligation; however in the late twentieth century, Mormons pulled back from an "entrenched aversion" to the doctrines of grace, and today have an attitude of trusting in the grace of Christ while trying their best to do good works. Bushman (2008, p. 76) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism#cite_note-39​

So it seems your 22 years of "experience" mean precisely jack. No wonder you are an atheist.

Nothing you quoted contradicts the basic Christian doctrine that God is a person who must be served in some way by man either thru the act of faith or by good works or by both. Are you now denying this is a major pillar of all Christian faith? That the vast majority of religious theists really have no personal god in mind and view him in a state of deistic indifference to the needs of humanity? Then you are more ignorant than I thought.

Deuteronomy 10:12
And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul,

 

[Yazata]

The faculties necessary to validate the existence of a chair would not be adequate to validate the existence of a supreme being.

Yes. I agree very emphatically with that.

Any being able to operate beyond the limits of our knowledge and perception could appear to be God and be nowhere near the real thing.

It would certainly be inexplicable. It might be impressive as all hell. (Imagine the 15-mile-wide flying saucers in 'Independence Day.) But... is it a proper object of religious worship?

So how can a human being, given the cognitive resources that we have, tell the difference between a grand cosmic lightshow or even the appearance a incredibly-super space alien, and an appearance of a/the real 'God'?

There seems to be something else necessary, some specifically religious ingredient, and it isn't easy to specify exactly what that is.

There could be an endless string of entities able to successfully masquerade as God in our eyes, just as we could to lesser beings ourselves.

My guess is that if some amazing, inexplicable and seemingly miraculous event actually happened, many people would fall down on their knees and worship it. Much as members of a lost tribe might fall down on their knees in worship if a helicopter full of anthropologists suddenly landed in their isolated village. We can sneer at the villagers for their child-like naivete, but are the rest of us any better off, in the cosmic big-picture?

I think that it's easy to imagine an appearance of what we can call 'the unknown'. That's simply the set of everything that currently exceeds our knowing and understanding.

Maybe... conceivably... there are real religious divinities among the contents of the unknown. But if a real divinity or divinities are part of a much larger class that exceeds our human knowing, simply by definition, how can we ever correctly separate the true divinities from the incomprehensible non-divinities?

As mere lords of the primates we are in no position to judge these matters, so there's no point in pretending to be.

What is it (if anything) that supposedly makes something truly worthy of worship (not a naive mistake, not foolish idolatry) and how can we, finite human beings that we are, possibly recognize that?

 

[Capracus]

You still didn't answer my question.

So what's the problem for you when others are "ignorant, delusional or frauds"?

If you’d answered my question you’d have your answer. Since I and presumably you are a member of a greater society, let me rephrase the question for social relevance. Do you think the promotion of ignorance, delusion and fraud is a worthy goal for a civilized society?

 

[kwhilborn]

@ OP & Fraggle Rocker,

Religion is antiscience

Please show your evidence of this. If anybody has proof that religion is fake just say so. Denying an entity exists because it suits your opinion is not valid science.

I think god is a build up of thoughts, feelings, emotions, from across the universe and is as much a part of its make up as a sun shining upon its solar system.

There are scientific theories that include god. Russellian Science for example.

Religious debates are stupid as there is still a lot of unknowns about our universe, and the presumption necessary to make up your own facts on the matter is pretty blatant.

Genius awaits him who listens. The messages of genius are for the Soul of man. The senses of man comprehend them not.

Walter Russell

 

[Magical Realist]

Please show your evidence of this. If anybody has proof that religion is fake just say so. Denying an entity exists because it suits your opinion is not valid science.

Religion is the one making the extraordinary claim that God exists. If he exists, where the fuck is he? What has he told you lately about what his plans are? What's he look like? Does he have a penis? How long is his beard? Does he dress up in a gown and sandles? Does he have a brain? What's he made of? Cotton candy? Where does he live? What's he done lately to help the human race he allegedly created? What discoveries has religion resulted in? How does that compare to science? Does God turn into a cracker every Sunday in EVERY catholic church around the world? That's a lot of crackers. Do you have some science to back this claim up? When exactly does the cracker turn into God? In the stomach? Or when it finally comes out in the toilet?

 

[Yazata]

Again, your own claim of "unmistakable public appearance".

I think that Capracus was questioning whether an 'unmistakeable public appearance' by a god to humans is even possible.

The unmistakable cannot be mistaken. Do you and Balerion take turns with the helmet?

What helmet?

A god operates beyond the same "limits of our knowledge and perception" as scientific speculation on that which science itself defines as beyond our knowledge and perception...

Again, "unmistakable" excludes any possibility for error.

What would constitute such an appearance? How could finite human beings be sure that it had in fact happened?

What is it that makes something a suitable object of religious worship? How should human beings go about recognizing such things?

And agnostic arguments about what we are in "no position to judge" are equally applicable to atheism. Are you an agnostic?

'The unknown' is a very big set, with outer boundaries of possibility that are poorly defined, simply by definition. There's an effectively infinite number of things that are currently unknown by human beings.

There may or may not be answers out there to questions about the universe's ultimate source, about what (if anything) its sustainer is, about what kind of being is ultimately most fundamental and real, about how the laws of nature came to be, and philosophical questions like that. So yeah, I think that it's best to take an agnostic position with regards to that kind of stuff.

The fundamental religious question still stands, namely what is it that makes whatever thing or things that might correspond to the answers to those kind of questions into suitably religious objects.

There's also the familiar personal deities of religious myth, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu and so on. After all, belief in one or another of these is what 'theism' means to most theists. My own feeling is that the chances of whatever the unknown answers (if any) might be to the cosmological questions turning out to be conform to one of another of these figures is vanishingly small. Not zero perhaps, but so small that I feel confident in disregarding the possibility in my own life. So I'm happily an atheist regarding the familiar figures of human religious myth.

I see it as a matter of probabilities, I guess. It just seems exceedingly unlikely that any of our human religious myths already know and accurately describe the answers to the ultimate philosophical questions. (Assuming that we are even asking the right questions and that our questions have answers.) And it just seems inherently unlikely to me that whatever the answers might ultimately be, that they will somehow come together in the form of a giant cosmic person similar to ourselves. It's even less likely that we are already in communication with such a divine person or that any of our religious scriptures contain those communications.

 

[hansda]

Religion is the one making the extraordinary claim that God exists. If he exists, where the fuck is he? What has he told you lately about what his plans are? What's he look like? Does he have a penis? How long is his beard? Does he wear clothes? Does he have a brain? Where does he live? What's he done lately to help the human race he allegedly created? What discoveries has religion resulted in? How does that compare to science? Does God turn into a cracker every Sunday in EVERY catholic church around the world? That's a lot of crackers. Do you have some science to back this claim up?

To see GOD, you have to enhance your vision. With the limited vision, GOD can not be seen. A blind man can not see the Sun. Does it mean, the Sun is not existing. So, if we can not see GOD, it does not mean GOD is not there.

 

[Magical Realist]

To see GOD, you have to enhance your vision. With the limited vision, GOD can not be seen. A blind man can not see the Sun. Does it mean, the Sun is not existing. So, if we can not see GOD, it does not mean GOD is not there.

Have you ever seen God with this allegedly "enhanced vision"? What's that involve? 3D glasses? Lasik eye surgery? Squinting just right under a strobing red light? Has this ever worked for you? If not, then wtf are you talking about?

 

[hansda]

Have you ever seen God with this allegedly "enhanced vision"? What's that involve? 3D glasses? Lasik eye surgery? Squinting just right under a strobing red light? Has this ever worked for you? If not, then wtf are you talking about?

Many people have seen GOD. The vision can be enhanced through meditation or Yoga Practices.

 

[kx000]

Many people have seen GOD. The vision can be enhanced through meditation or Yoga Practices.

Or prayer to anything.