An empty name is one like xtrz. So what does it mean to say anything about xtrz? Pegasus is an empty name and we say Pegasus doesn’t exist. God is, on the other hand, a full name, well-defined and not some imaginary thing like Pegasus.
Alternatives to what?
Hitchen’s Razor applies here
1 Like
In another sense true. The claims God exists and God doesn’t exist are both asserted without evidence.
Lots of concepts are true, theism just isn’t one of them. It’s like: lots of things are edible but fictions aren’t. Anyway, rejecting “Santa Claus” does not imply or require an “alternative” belief.
My point stands. Disbelief of whatever the idea – no matter how “meaningful” some/many/most people find it – and for whatever the reason does not imply or require that there must be an “alternative belief” to replace it.
Another way of putting it is this: there are two alternatives to ‘living with a supernatural fiction’ (e.g. theism), either ‘living with a different supernatural fiction’ (e.g. spiritualism, idealism) or ‘living without any supernatural fiction’ (e.g. naturalism). The latter is by far more reasonable and consistent with all of our best, most reliable, knowledge of both the human condition and the natural world from which the human condition is necessarily inseparable.
@180Proof I wonder how it’s neither God exists nor God doesn’t exist and theism is false.
- The OOO-God is incoherent, like a square circle. This is something theists have to acknowledge, but we can be scientific about it
- God is an empty name, comparable to Pegasus. This is caricaturing God, a strawman. Moreover where the similarity is most apposite is that both haven’t been proven to exist/not exist.
- God beliefs can exist for a variety of reasons, some of which may not be philosophical. Yes, but this is mere speculation and/or not a Disproof(God).
Appeal to popularity fallacy. “Most people” are superstitious or magical thinkers (i.e. anti-rational).
1 Like
It looks like there are not as many arguments for the nonexistence of the Deity than for the existence of the Deity. All the pro-Deity arguments fall short of the mark and all the anti-Deity ones too. Following Hume’s footsteps, in light of the issues thus so far raised, I echo, Is He able but not willing? Then is he malevolent? Is He willing but not able? Then is he impotent? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Yes @LordKing777 the PoE is the one reason that stands out in deconversion stories. I already mentioned Richard Dawkins’ colorful and yet factual description of God. There’s plenty more where that comes from. I’ve also dealt with it satisfactorily and if you read my summary you’ll understand.
(God, Objective Morality)is a highly consonant dyad. The post-war period in the USSR and the PRC was far, far worse than during the war.
That’s true. God does have a way of putting people in their place. Consider how he spoke - out of the whirlwind - to Job as Job inquired about the tragedy that had befallen him. God reminded Job that it was He that had created the world.
There’s no harm - barring the one you mentioned in your post - in beholding God. 
Absolutely no issue if you happen to see God.
Everybody has dreams. Yes, there’s nothing special about God. I’m interested in Proof(God exists/does not exist). 
“If you talk to God, you are praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.”
Thomas Szasz
1 Like
Haha. Good one. I don’t talk much and I’ve become hard of hearing. Good day sir. I need an ear trumpet 
St. Augustine thought differently. He was very concerned about skepticism
Yes, that’s my point, (intelligence, theism) is a consonant dyad and so is (intelligence, atheism). The advancement of science unveils order in nature, but also grest suffering \to Deus malus or Deus bimoralis.
So you propose (some form of) either Maltheism/Gnosticism or Dystheism? If applicable, cite some evidence of a supernatural entity (or “miracles”); if not
supernatural, explain why this (sort of) so-called “deity” matters.
Yes, we already agreed, (dystheism/maltheism, the world) is more consonant than (Deus bonum, the world). Another candidate is (Deus bimoralis, the world)
I believe our ancestors took the world to be a creation and hence creator deity. To them (Creator, world) was a more consonant dyad than (Nothing, world). This particular trope carried over well into the 17th and following centuries (re Leibniz, Descartes, etc.).
Miracles were always associated with the divine and in some parts of the world was effected via spiritual energy and was not the exclusive domain of gods. I believe there are tales of how an ordinary human brought even the gods to their knees, wielding immense spiritual power.
Just yesterday someone told me that he always looked at everything as a miracle 
Say someone’s parents were at their prime when there were 7 billion people on earth. The probability of them meeting by random chance is given by 1/24499999996500000000 = 4E(-20)
Rare things happen and no law of nature has been violated. Lotteries are won and nobody shouts, miracle! when that happens.
Miracle is the violation of a law of nature by the particular volition of the deity or by the interposition of an invisible agent. ~ DH
Is God a mathematician? ~ ML
Newton and Galileo talked about knowing the mind of God.
The deity created the world. Even as an atheistic historian the beginning is where the journey ends.
1 Like