What does God do?

[zgmc]

And you know this because????

Please go ahead and tell me why anything you set out is anthing more than mere unsupported opinion or that your statement is simply not just made up wishful thinking..if you are certain you must have a reason that we could find plausible.

So lets have it...what have you got?

One the one hand we get "we cant know the mind of God and in the same breath we get a detailed account of how humans have an intimate relationship with God such that he plays an active but undemonstratable role in the life of humans.

Sure...
Is his absence not evidence well firtly of his absence but secondly that he simy is not there at all or ever was.

Now this heaven you talk about upon what basis do you claim that such a "state" or place exists..have you been there????? or do you rely upon an account from a reliable witness who has been there and returned with some sort of account or description.

In fact do you know of anyone in this era or one passed who has been there and told of the visit?

Well of course not! or it would be news even if such a visit took place thousands of years ago.

Its made up and will forever remain so ....and feel free to show how I may be wrong with more than just made up wishful unsupprted fanciful notions.

Alex

I think you were taking me seriously?? Haha.

So, he's trying to get into his own heaven?

What - he created it, then went outside to get the paper and the door locked behind him?

Hey, that's it! THAT's why we always see him wearing a house robe!

Our god is but one of many. A race of gods outside of our dimension. They create universes and worlds so that they can reach their heaven. Cause, why not! But I also like your take on it!

 

[Michael 345]

Our god is but one of many. A race of gods outside of our dimension. They create universes and worlds so that they can reach their heaven. Cause, why not! But I also like your take on it!

Seriously?

 

[Yazata]

What did Yazata eat as a child that all the other atheists on here didn't?

I'm aware of the existence of natural theology. I don't believe that most of the atheists currently posting to this thread have much education in philosophy or religion. The fatal error that many atheists commit is to decide that religion (or even philosophy) is bullshit, that there's no need to study bullshit, yet to pose as knowledgable on those matters.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/theo-nat/

As for me, I consider myself an atheist with regards to the mytho-poetic deities of the religious traditions (Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, Krishna, and all the rest) since I believe (but can't prove) that the names don't correspond to anything in objective reality. At least any more than any fictional character in literature does (which isn't a trivial question).

But when it comes to the metaphysical functions addressed by natural theology, I have to say that I'm an agnostic. I don't have a clue why there is something rather than nothing, how reality originated, where mathematics, logic and the observed cosmic order come from, or any of the rest of it. I don't think that any human being is in a position to satisfactorily answer those kind of questions. (Maybe in the future. Maybe not.) But at the same time I resist confusing the underlying metaphysical questions with the narratives of religious myth in the way natural theology has historically done.

My point in this thread was simply that whatever it is that performs the metaphysical functions would seem to be very busy from moment to moment, keeping reality real, enforcing the laws of physics, underwriting logic and mathematics, and all the rest of the stuff that science typically seems to just assume without very much justification or argument. (It's difficult to see how justification of fundamental ontology is even possible without circularity, since one's explanatory principles would be part of what needs to be explained.)

Of course in my opinion naming the unknown answer 'God' just mystifies things.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think you were taking me seriously?? Haha.

Dude: that's what emojis are for.

Our god is but one of many. A race of gods outside of our dimension. They create universes and worlds so that they can reach their heaven.

So ... joking again?

 

[sideshowbob]

Do you think you are somehow separate from God?

How would I tell the difference?

 

[Michael 345]

whatever it is that performs the metaphysical functions would seem to be very busy from moment to moment, keeping reality real, enforcing the laws of physics, underwriting logic and mathematics, and all the rest of the stuff that science typically seems to just assume without very much justification or argument. (It's difficult to see how justification of fundamental ontology is even possible without circularity, since one's explanatory principles would be part of what needs to be explained.)

whatever it is that performs the metaphysical functions

Stop right there. There are NO metaphysical functions

Plain ordinary physics rules

The rest of the extract is basically anthropomorphism (love that word) you are giving to PROCESSES you (and probably at this stage everyone else) cannot currently explain

You just don't give it a name but you imply its spooky and unknowable

They create universes and worlds so that they can reach their heaven. Cause, why not! But I also like your take on it!

Or perhaps you do give it / them names

Don't sit on the fence

Cause, why not! <--- is not a explanation

Science will find out why not , it is why they build cyclotrons not churches

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The fatal error that many atheists commit is to decide that religion (or even philosophy) is bullshit, that there's no need to study bullshit, yet to pose as knowledgable on those matters.

There is a need to study these things so folk who study the bullshit can write an overview and put it on Wiki so sensible folk dont need to waste too much time if they need to find out a little to be confident that they are dismissing bullshit☺.

A fatal error ... a fatal error could may be made by failing to study chemistry and ingesting mercury.

Leaving religion and philosophy off your choice of subjects in your study not so much.

Perhaps your judgement is influenced by trying to rationalise why you have wasted education time in areas you suggest others know little about.

And I dont observe the claim you make that those (certainly myself) dismissive individuals pose as knowledgable.

I don't think that any human being is in a position to satisfactorily answer those kind of questions.

Exactly. And antibullshiters, atheists, perhaps all share that view.
My simple reminder hopefully brings everyone down to Earth...Its all made up...and the volumes on religion (scriptures)(not so much perhaps with phillosophy) are simply made up.


Sure the study of religion is a necessity to understand history and politics but not to call the claims of theists nonsence.

Alex

 

[zgmc]

Dude: that's what emojis are for.


So ... joking again?

 

[zgmc]

whatever it is that performs the metaphysical functions

Stop right there. There are NO metaphysical functions

Plain ordinary physics rules

The rest of the extract is basically anthropomorphism (love that word) you are giving to PROCESSES you (and probably at this stage everyone else) cannot currently explain

You just don't give it a name but you imply its spooky and unknowable



Or perhaps you do give it / them names

Don't sit on the fence

Cause, why not! <--- is not a explanation

Science will find out why not , it is why they build cyclotrons not churches

Hey man, my made up bs is just as plausible as the rest of the made up bs.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I think you were taking me seriously?? Haha.

You showed me a soap box and I stood on it...
I just thought you "poed" and interesting position☺
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

Hey man, my made up bs is just as plausible as the rest of the made up bs.

Good that you understand you are sprouting Cowpat

And I agree your Cowpat is as good as anybody else's Cowpat

Just as long as you also realise that it's not reality that's fine

Give it a name, give it a personality, give it the ability to defy the laws of physics, give it domain over us BINGO

Ladies and Gentlemen we have a religion. Who will be the first to step up and try this miracle
Guaranteed to solve all your problems and answer all your questions about life the Universe and everything
Small print
Individual results may vary. Please see reality if symptoms persist

 

[Baldeee]

Exactly. And antibullshiters, atheists, perhaps all share that view.
My simple reminder hopefully brings everyone down to Earth...Its all made up...and the volumes on religion (scriptures)(not so much perhaps with phillosophy) are simply made up.

it could be argued that even atheists who argue that there is no God fall into the same bucket as theists who claim there is, especially when the concept of God in question is pared back to the core of "cause of all causes".
The more a theist straps on to their concept, whether directed that way by their religion or not, I feel the more there is the atheist (agnostic or otherwise) can argue against, but one should be wary of throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
I.e. refuting the clothing that a religion suggests God wears is not the same as refuting the wearer.

Sure the study of religion is a necessity to understand history and politics but not to call the claims of theists nonsence.

And what are you calling nonsense about the theist‘s claims?
That there is a cause of all causes?
Or simply some of the clothes they add on to it?

 

[DaveC426913]

it could be argued that even atheists who argue that there is no God fall into the same bucket as theists who claim there is,

True. While there being no God is a pretty good theory - based on the hull hypothesis and Occam's Razor - there's nothing stopping it from being proved wrong tomorrow.

 

[Baldeee]

True. While there being no God is a pretty good theory - based on the hull hypothesis and Occam's Razor - there's nothing stopping it from being proved wrong tomorrow.

isn't that the point though, that it can‘t be proven... either way.
It is a philosophical matter of the origin of everything: either there was/is a cause of all or there was/is not.
Either notion is utterly unprovable, at least in the absence of an a priori assumption (leading to circular reasoning).
Remove oneself from such a priori assumptions and "I don't know" is surely the most honest answer one can reach, is it not?
To claim that there is no God is as belief-ridden as to claim that there is.

So in answer to the thread title: if there is a God then he has done all he need do, by definition (God being defined most basically as the cause of all causes); and if there is no God then the question is moot.

 

[DaveC426913]

isn't that the point though, that it can‘t be proven... either way.

No no - it could most certainly be proven in favour of the theists.

If, tomorrow morning, a mile tall bearded guy parted the clouds, and turned the sun off for all odd-numbered street addresses, and gave all the fish in the sea the ability to speak, that would certainly be compelling.
If any doubting Thomas' didn't feel that was sufficient, he could certainly do anything that they decided would convince them.

Of course, the same possible test is open for cosmic unicorns.

 

[Michael 345]

certainly do anything that they decided would convince them.

I'm still waiting for my flock of flying horses

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

it could be argued

All things may be argued but a good place to start is having something that is reasonably established.
I find nothing that suggests that the alleged relationship between humans and a presumed and as yet unevidenced God exists.
My beef with the theist is their certainty of their belief which is presented without any foundation....in my view.

fall into the same bucket as theists who claim there is,

Absolutely....

I recognise it is no more sophisticated than two kids arguing "tis tisnt"☺
and no more productive.

one should be wary of throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

Throw the baby out and use the water on the garden.

I.e. refuting the clothing that a religion suggests God wears is not the same as refuting the wearer.

Yes but does not stop the theist from describing the wearer in detail or indeed the garments ,so to speak, and my effort is demanding that they offer more than wishful thinking...

And what are you calling nonsense about the theist‘s claims?

Generally any claim made without reasonable support that presents a picture that there is a God who has dictated the scriptures such that their claims that the alleged relationship is more than wishful thinking.

That there is a cause of all causes?

I see it as pointless to argue upon something we can only speculate upon.
Yet I do☺

Or simply some of the clothes they add on

Yes the add on gets to me and remember "its all made up"...now wouldnt that go great on a t shirt.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I'm still waiting for my flock of flying horses

Mine havent arrived either delayed due to easter no doubt.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

To claim that there is no God is as belief-ridden as to cl

I claim there is no Santa.
And I certainly make that claim with a belief...the belief that one can determine with ease when something is made up.
And take the bible ...first page is clear evidence of it being made up...or can you show the author was there to witness this creation he writes about with such certain display of authority on the matter...where did he sit? Who invited him to the event? clearly the author was not there nor was any witness who could describe the event...so tell me why that account is not made up. It is like everything else wishful thinking...think it thru.. it does not hold water ...so to speak.

Alex

 

[Baldeee]

No no - it could most certainly be proven in favour of the theists.

No, it couldn't.
Who is to say that that is God rather than just a very powerful entity?
God, at its core, is the cause of all causes - whether one is a deist, a theist, and irrespective of all the trappings one applies to it, that is God (capital G).
There is no proof of such a metaphysical notion: no proof it ever existed or still exists.
That is the God that one has to work with, otherwise one is simply complaining about the tailor.

If any doubting Thomas' didn't feel that was sufficient, he could certainly do anything that they decided would convince them.

Being convinced is a matter of faith, not proof.
Being convinced of something doesn't mean it is actually true, as I'm sure you'd agree.