Yes, that’s potentially possible, although most cogent arguments of this sort argue for something that I couldn’t fairly call a god without really distorting my conception of that not
That’s the point to break away from thinking of God only in a religious context which is theology not theism. Theism is a philosophical belief the universe was intentionally caused.
I don’t care about such discussions, but they are very much dissimilar to how people commonly speak about gods (as is widely represented in the worlds religions, both present and past).
Religions have different ideas of who the God of theism is. They are mostly in agreement with theism the belief the universe was intentionally caused by a transcendent agent commonly referred to as God. Is it fair to say the God alleged to cause the universe and life almost certainly doesn’t exist? If so this should be of interest to you.
I don’t attempt to answer it because I think it’s an incoherent question. It’s certainly not relevant to my view. I am agnostic on the question of the origin of the universe, and find most philosophical speculation on the matter uninteresting.
The very core issue to theism is the existence of the universe and more importantly the existence of life. The core distinction is a universe that was intentionally caused to exist by God or one that came about unintentionally presumably by natural forces. Yet somehow you’re able to claim ‘God almost certainly doesn’t exist’ yet the ramifications if true don’t interest you.
I don’t rule out the possibility. While I see no evidence for it, it’s possible we were created by an advanced alien species.
That is theism. You don’t strike me as someone who would believe anything that was bereft of evidence. Evidence are merely facts that make a claim more probable than sans a stated fact. The fact the universe exists makes the claim it was caused unintentionally by natural forces or intentionally caused by a transcendent agent (including aliens) more probable than if the universe didn’t exist. The fact life exists is evidence. Theism claims the universe was intentionally caused to produce life. Life exists. You don’t think life had to exist correct?
Nonetheless, my claim stands. God, as understood in terms of all of the religions of past and present, almost certainly doesn’t exist.
Does that include God defined as Creator of the universe and life. Or does that get a pass?
Is it fair to say that if the universe wasn’t intentionally caused that it was unintentionally caused?
The “god” that allegedly did these things? Yes. The word has a common meaning, not solely limited to the creation of the universe. Might the universe have been created? Sure. Might it have been intentional? I think that’s unlikely, but still doesn’t rise to the definition of a god in the traditional use. Again, you can define thing for yourself however you want, but in this argument, I am addressing a very specific, traditional and commonly used notion of god. If you want to address my argument as stated, I welcome your feedback. If you want to redefine the terms of my argument, then we have a problem.
Okay. I don’t care about what you call theism. It has no apparent relationship to actual religion… what you’re calling theology. It’s pointless philosophical speculation of the worst navel gazing kind. Your notion of theism is entirely unrelated to my argument.
Right. Very dissimilar to the common religious notion of a god, which is what I’m addressing here.
While I think this is a nonsense argument, it has nothing to do with this topic. If you want to start your own thread promoting your idea of god, please feel free. I don’t care about arguments for generic creative forces. They aren’t the same as the gods of religion, which is what I’m talking about.
I’ll repeat: I am happy for you to address my argument on it’s own terms. I’m not interested in you changing the terms of my argument to please your personal notion of god.
Ok so you wish to destroy the concept of say the traditional god. So let’s start with genesis the word was god or something like that. Now will you deny that words don’t exist ? @Dobbler
I don’t define anything out of existence… I just don’t accept that alleged miracles are evidence of the divine. They are far more likely to be evidence of something more banal like being mistaken, imagination, or the apocryphal nature of passing stories through a culture (to name a few). Miracles aren’t logically impossible, but they are logically unlikely, and the only reason one would choose them as an explanation is if one already supposed the existence of a deity… which is why they are poor evidence of a deity. It becomes circular reasoning.
Ok that wasn’t genesis but John, as a Christian I should know better than getting these things mixed up… have you read the bible btw ?
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god.
Despite this mix up on my behalf regarding scripture do you deny that words exist or that the the word is god ? It’s easy to cherry pick and build straw man
I am familiar with the reference, but have no idea what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that you think “god” literally means the same as “word” in English? I always construed that passage as being metaphorical. If it is a metaphor, then my answer is that the “word of God” almost certainly isn’t the word of a god, it’s the words of people.
If you think the word “God” literally means the same as the word “word”, then we aren’t speaking the same language.
Well the roots actually go back to Greek so most likely a mistranslation. The word for word in Greek means logos. So now we have an improved definition of god.
logos means not just word but meaning, reason, divine order. Which of these last three will you deny now ? Pick and choose, build more straw man and say we’re taking past each other of you like, I’m here.
Again, are you interpreting the passage literally? I gave you my answer if you are not. If you are, then I have no understanding of what you think. “God” means something very different from “word”, even accounting for translation.
Nope I’ve gone to the authentic meaning of it in original Greek which is to say the word is more than just word although the nature of god cannot be fully grasped as all we have is scripture to go by from the ancients.
But let’s take such scripture at face value using the Greek word logos, which means word, reason, meaning and divine order. Which of these last 4 do you deny the existence of ?
What? I have made very clear what I’m talking about when I say “god”, and it obviously isn’t any of those. Neither is it to most adherents of any religion.
Why would you think my argument has anything to do with these things? I didn’t say "I’m referring to god as encapsulated in John 1:1-5, did I? Why would you impose that?
Ok so which religion/holy book are you arguing against. Again pick and choose, cherry pick if you like, build your straw man and I will engage with you again… or not.
All of them. You don’t seem interested in actually understanding me though. Your questions don’t ring of curiosity, but rather pedantry.
Please prove me wrong on this point. Please display honest curiosity about what I’m talking about and I’m happy to engage. I’m not interested in “debate me bro”.
Right from the start, at the every beginning of your opening post you have limited god to the supernatural or some other such bullshit. This is very narrow minded. Because god is a lot of things which as I’ve said before is word, meaning, reason and divine order. To me though and it’s not just my own definition of god but love as well.
so you see god is many things, and I’ve asked you repeatedly which of these you deny and you have denied nothing because you haven’t yet developed the negation of those things, so now having further added love to the definition of god, will you deny that too? Why ?
Here’s how your question feels to me. I say I’m talking about apples. You say something about fruits of labour, and I say “No, I literally mean apples”. Then you say “Red fruits”, and I say “No, apples. There are apples of different colours”. The word “god” is a commonly used English word that encompasses Jehovah, Thor, Vishnu and others. I’m sure if you’re fluent in English, you’re familiar with the word. Arguing about definitions of well understood words is pedantic, and in these sorts of discussions, mostly pointless. If something I’m saying honestly isn’t clear, I am happy to clarify.
So start your own post talking about your version of God. If my argument doesn’t relate to it, why do you care? Why do I have to be talking about your thing? It’s my topic.
Digression. Atheists often spend a disproportionate amount of time debating biblical literalists who hold what many regard as implausible conceptions of God, the kind of “magic space wizard” caricature lambasted by Dawkins and Hitchens. Yet, for me as an atheist, the more classical conceptions of God, often derived from Aristotelian metaphysics, present a different problem. Rather than seeming false, they often strike me as so abstract and ill-defined that I struggle to determine exactly what is being claimed. So here I’d probably describe myself as an ignostic: someone who holds that such concepts of God are frequently too incoherent, obscure, or imprecise for meaningful discussion to proceed.
