International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Religion and Philosophy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   When Does Religion Become Just Silly? (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341273)

Darat 21st January 2020 02:01 PM

And of course psion10 has now moved onto the typical next stage, now talking about a god that no religion posits exists. In other words he is no longer actually talking about a god but a gobblduck.

It's like a history recap, wonder when we will get to the 20th century...

Thor 2 21st January 2020 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12961262)
I don't agree that "militant agnostic" is a silly phrase. I kind of like it. Some people on these boards say I'm an atheist since I don't have a *specific* god-belief. I gotta say, though - I can sit in a synagogue or mosque and be OK with the prayers on offer. Master of the Universe, the Almighty, the Creator ... but I find Christianity hard to wrap my head around. Christ died for my sins? I just literally don't know what that means, because he didn't even die. It doesn't speak to me. If I go to a Christian worship service and they stress the "died for our sins" part I feel like a hypocrite.

I think Jesus was probably a really sweet guy, though.


The "Christ died for my sins" thing has never made sense to me either, and may be the epicentre of the silliness of Christianity. Once you take that on board all the other silly stuff can be accommodated too.

That Jesus was "a really sweet guy" I can handle, if you read about some of the good things he is credited with doing and saying. Given that nobody was following him around and jotting down the details with a Bic pen in a Spirex notebook, lessens the credibility of those stories written about so many years later.

Non the less I can handle the idea that a guy called Jesus may have inspired others with his extraordinary moral vision. He was not unique however, just got the good press and publicity.

JoeMorgue 21st January 2020 02:30 PM

Here's the problem.

Even if take the stories as outlined in the Gospel 100% at face value, ignoring like literally all the reasons we shouldn't do that, but just hit the "I believe" button and believe them.

God creates a human being that is also him somehow, sends him to Earth. This person lives a fairly long (I mean 33 years wasn't ancient in the olden days but it was a good run) life and at the end of it suffers for... a couple of days and then dies, returning to heaven to be with is father who is also him.

That's the big martyrdom? That? Sure Crucifixion sucks but that's the example of suffering that we're supposed to be wowed by?

I provide IT support for a major cancer doctor. I see people everyday who are suffering a thousand times more then in the story of Jesus.

John McCain suffered a thousand times more as a POW then Jesus did on the cross and that wasn't even enough to get my vote, I'm sure as hell not about to worship the guy. Christopher McCandless suffered a thousand times more dying alone and afraid in a feces stained sleeping bag in a wrecked bus in an Alaskan winter and he was an idiot.

There has not been a single hour in human history where countless people were not suffering more in that hour then goddamn Jesus did during his entire life. Right now at least one person within like a 20 mile radius of like 90% of people is suffering more right now then Jesus ever did.

Jesus didn't die for our sins. He had a really bad weekend for our sins.

And that's even ignoring the fact that God sent... himself to absolve us our sins that he put on us and now I've gone cross-eyed.

That's not salvation. That's your mother at Thanksgiving going "Nobody ever helps me!" but then running you out of the kitchen so you can't.

Thor 2 21st January 2020 03:02 PM

A rough weekend it most certainly was I suppose. And the notion of dying but not dying ......... well died but then resurrected himself? Well I suppose Pop did that although father, son, and casper are all one? :boggled:

Glad you added that last bit on though because that makes me cross eyed also.

Steve 21st January 2020 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor 2 (Post 12961768)
A rough weekend it most certainly was I suppose. And the notion of dying but not dying ......... well died but then resurrected himself? Well I suppose Pop did that although father, son, and casper are all one? :boggled:

Glad you added that last bit on though because that makes me cross eyed also.

As near as I can see the rough weekend in the stories had zero effect on anyone's "sins". There is still an awful lot of sinning going on.

Thor 2 21st January 2020 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12961798)
As near as I can see the rough weekend in the stories had zero effect on anyone's "sins". There is still an awful lot of sinning going on.


Lots of sinning going on to be sure. Christianity needs this of course because Jesus died to save us today, 2000 years after he was here, from being condemned for the sins he knew we were going to commit. If we were not miserable sinners then the cross hanging stunt would have been meaningless. Ame Perdue says it best:

That some Divine Enigma should Foresee
What a Bad Fellow I was Doomed to be.
And so, to save prospective Me, become
A virtual Suicide, quite puzzles me.

Steve 21st January 2020 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor 2 (Post 12961832)
Lots of sinning going on to be sure. Christianity needs this of course because Jesus died to save us today, 2000 years after he was here, from being condemned for the sins he knew we were going to commit. If we were not miserable sinners then the cross hanging stunt would have been meaningless. Ame Perdue says it best:

That some Divine Enigma should Foresee
What a Bad Fellow I was Doomed to be.
And so, to save prospective Me, become
A virtual Suicide, quite puzzles me.

I sure do agree with the last line.

arthwollipot 21st January 2020 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12961307)
It wasn't a valid response to anything. It was just calling an arguer names in the hopes that they will shut up and that is absolutely silly.

I literally said it as a joke. I neither desired nor expected you to shut up. I did expect a few people to chuckle briefly.

psionl0 21st January 2020 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12961693)
And of course psion10 has now moved onto the typical next stage, now talking about a god that no religion posits exists. In other words he is no longer actually talking about a god but a gobblduck.

So a God that creates the universe, works miracles and (presumably) nobody sees is not like any god ever described?

psionl0 21st January 2020 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12961530)
My argument is that if God exists he has to leave evidence for his existence that somebody would have been able to provide after... *checks calendar* going on about several thousand years now.

Why?

arthwollipot 21st January 2020 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12962029)
Why?

Because if he didn't, if he never left any evidence of his interacting with the world, we would have no way of knowing that he was there and no reason to believe that he exists at all.

The principle of parsimony suggests that you don't need to believe in something when there is no evidence for it.

psionl0 21st January 2020 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 12962049)
Because if he didn't, if he never left any evidence of his interacting with the world, we would have no way of knowing that he was there and no reason to believe that he exists at all.

The principle of parsimony suggests that you don't need to believe in something when there is no evidence for it.

Who says that you have to believe in any version of a god (or that any gods exist at all) or belong to a particular religious sect? I am not trying to convert any atheists here.

My point is (and always has been) that it is no less silly to claim no gods as a scientific fact than it is to claim the existence of god(s) as a scientific fact.

BTW How do parsnips bolster your argument? :D

ynot 21st January 2020 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12962075)
My point is (and always has been) that it is no less silly to claim no gods as a scientific fact than it is to claim the existence of god(s) as a scientific fact.

Are you claiming the odds of god(s) actually existing or not is 50/50?

psionl0 21st January 2020 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12962130)
Are you claiming the odds of god(s) actually existing or not is 50/50?

Why would I put a number on it? We don't even know what the sample space is.

ynot 21st January 2020 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12962132)
Why would I put a number on it? We don't even know what the sample space is.

"We" don't even know if a "sample space" even exists.

Aren't you a theist? Isn't your "number" 100% for, 0% against? (your God wants to know)

psionl0 22nd January 2020 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12962138)
"We" don't even know if a "sample space" even exists.

Sure we do. It's the dragon free garage. :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot (Post 12962138)
Aren't you a theist? Isn't your "number" 100% for, 0% against? (your God wants to know)

What anybody believes and what can be proven are two different things.

Darat 22nd January 2020 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12962027)
So a God that creates the universe, works miracles and (presumably) nobody sees is not like any god ever described?

Finally you define what you mean when you use the word god, that's good since we can now have a more meaningful discussion. It's rather a barebones definition so not one that as far as I know any religion has as its definition but I'm happy to put that aside for now for the sake of discussion.

Your god seems to be contradictory, you say your god works miracles therefore it is leaving evidence of its presence.

psionl0 22nd January 2020 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12962143)
Finally you define what you mean when you use the word god, that's good since we can now have a more meaningful discussion.

What did you think I meant by a god? A rock?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12962143)
Your god seems to be contradictory, you say your god works miracles therefore it is leaving evidence of its presence.

This is why I don't want to nail the definition down to a specific god. You will just scour the relevant texts, quote-mine the most ridiculous passages then claim that this proves that "my god" can't exist. :boggled:

A god that can create the universe and remain hidden for thousands of years can obviously perform miracles. Whether there are any reliable witness reports of other miracles is for another topic.

Darat 22nd January 2020 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12962181)
What did you think I meant by a god? A rock?

People have labeled all sorts of things with the word god so how is anyone to know what someone means by God unless they tell us? And some people have indeed believed rocks aka a mountain to be a god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12962181)
This is why I don't want to nail the definition down to a specific god. You will just scour the relevant texts, quote-mine the most ridiculous passages then claim that this proves that "my god" can't exist.

If you say you believe for example in the god that the RCC claims exists then yes I would use what that church says are its gods attributes. As one has to assume anyone that claims that god exists has to as well.

Have to say it seems a strange criticism to throw at me, that you won't define your god because it can't stand up to criticism!

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12962181)
A god that can create the universe and remain hidden for thousands of years can obviously perform miracles. Whether there are any reliable witness reports of other miracles is for another topic.

There is nothing obvious about it, but if you claim miracles occur than that is evidence open to everyone. You can only know a miracle has occurred if it is detectable.

Plus of course nearly everyone who claims to believe in a god, all the Christians, all the Muslims, all the Hindus, all the Sikh claim to believe in a god that is active in our world* and can be seen to be active, and those gods account for the gods the vast majority of actual believers in the world claim to believe in.


*there may be some esoteric sects that don't but I don't know of any.

abaddon 22nd January 2020 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12962181)
What did you think I meant by a god? A rock?


This is why I don't want to nail the definition down to a specific god. You will just scour the relevant texts, quote-mine the most ridiculous passages then claim that this proves that "my god" can't exist. :boggled:

A god that can create the universe and remain hidden for thousands of years can obviously perform miracles. Whether there are any reliable witness reports of other miracles is for another topic.

How do you distinguish between a god who is apparently the hide and seek champion of the universe and a god which does not exist at all?

The answer appears to be that it is not possible to do so in any way. If you disagree, please provide your method for doing so.

JoeMorgue 22nd January 2020 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12962029)
Why?

Because there is no difference between a God that leaves literally no trace for his existence and no God at all.

As people have been asking you for several pages now, if you disagree please define a God in some meaningful way and provide some evidence for his existence.

But all you've given us is several pages of "Nuh-uh."

JoeMorgue 22nd January 2020 06:33 AM

And again all psionIO has done is make up an argumentative God, a God that doesn't exist in anyone's actual belief structure but is just a "Best of" collection of excuses and special pleadings and cop-outs. A vague God doing nothing in some walled off pocket universe that never interacts with us and who can't be proven or disproven by argumentative design, who never has any defining characteristic unless it's a reason why an argument why he doesn't exist doesn't work.

We start talking about God and suddenly a bunch of otherwise bright people start acting like "Valid reason to think something is true" and "A bunch of excuses I'm making up as we go along, all after the fact, all just blatant special pleading, as to why we can't disprove something" are the same thing.

It is functionally the Invisible Dragon in My Garage, that think psionIO has swore up and down several times now is not the same thing yet has yet to explain how on any level beyond "It's God so different because I say so."

JoeMorgue 22nd January 2020 07:02 AM

And as I always point out the longer this argument goes on, the more someone digs their heels in, just won't drop their end of the rope, just won't give up that hill, will forever hold that last "But technically you can't say with absolute total certainty that I am 100% provably false..." in a deathgrip... the more I am proven right.

Because only with God (and one step removed concepts like souls and related concepts like metaphysical beliefs and such) do we do this.

If psionIO or any other believer/apologists go to their fridge to look for a beer, open the fridge, and see no beer... they stop looking for the beer. They don't start making up alternative hypothetical undetectable beers and keep looking.

If they go into their garage and don't see a dragon, they never even consider the possibility that a dragon might be there. They don't start hypothesizing invisible, incorporeal, mute dragons and start looking for them.

They don't lie awake at night listing off all possible things that could exist in the universe, assigning probabilities and "strong and heavy belief" and "Do I believe or do I know?" and "Do I not believe that there's a toucan in a top hat dancing the Charleston on the far side of Mercury or an I agnostic about it?" or any such flippery or nonsense.

This is the biggest mental disconnect here and it always is in this discussion.

"The God Question" for all it's grandness and pomp and self importance that has to be hung on it because... reasons isn't a question where the answer doesn't meet some burden of proof, it's a question where the burden of purpose to even ask the question in the first place hasn't been met.

And people are not going to pretend like this is some impossible to understand concept when it demonstrably and provable isn't.

If you are walking with your friend down a normal city street one day and he stops and goes "Wait... is there 40 foot tall polka dotted sloth wearing lederhosen and riding a tricycle in front of us right now?" your response would not be to go "Hmmm... that's a good question. Let me stop and consider this question and assign an intellectual value to it, along with a reasoning behind my statement." it would be "Why are even asking?" You would default to "The question is not valid" not "Oh my God you asked the question so now I have the obligation to actually put mental effort into an answer."

I've always been rather put off by the common idea that I'm supposed to have an opinion about God just... ready at all times. It's as if I ran up to someone and demanded they have their opinion about elves or fairies fully formed and ready to defend at that moment.

Theist, atheist, agnostic, believer, apologist... in any sane world these terms would be meaningless. We wouldn't be assigning every titles based on their opinions and how they got them because nobody would be asking the question in the first place.

psionl0 22nd January 2020 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12962321)
And again all psionIO has done is make up an argumentative God, a God that doesn't exist in anyone's actual belief structure but is just a "Best of" collection of excuses and special pleadings and cop-outs. A vague God doing nothing in some walled off pocket universe that never interacts with us and who can't be proven or disproven by argumentative design, who never has any defining characteristic unless it's a reason why an argument why he doesn't exist doesn't work.

We start talking about God and suddenly a bunch of otherwise bright people start acting like "Valid reason to think something is true" and "A bunch of excuses I'm making up as we go along, all after the fact, all just blatant special pleading, as to why we can't disprove something" are the same thing.

It is functionally the Invisible Dragon in My Garage, that think psionIO has swore up and down several times now is not the same thing yet has yet to explain how on any level beyond "It's God so different because I say so."

I don't know who's argument you are dealing with but it certainly isn't mine.

My argument is that nobody knows the answer to whether god(s) exist or not. I am not talking of an infinitesimal chance that there might be a god either. There is a vast ocean of knowledge that we don't have a clue about. Just because you didn't find a god in your toilet doesn't make you an authority about anything.

JoeMorgue 22nd January 2020 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12962503)
My argument is that nobody knows the answer to whether god(s) exist or not. I am not talking of an infinitesimal chance that there might be a god either. There is a vast ocean of knowledge that we don't have a clue about. Just because you didn't find a god in your toilet doesn't make you an authority about anything.

And that argument is stupid because nobody knows anything under those standards yet you don't freak out when somebody says there is no beer in the fridge and no dragon in the garage.

The "BUUUUUUUUUT YOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUU CAAAAAAAAAAN'T KNOOOOOOWWWW FOOOOOOOORRRR SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUREEEE!!!" argument applies equally to everything.

And yet I must miss it when you're in literally every discussion that has ever happened or could ever happen to scream about people for making declarative statements.

Again, for the million time at this point, God is not different. He doesn't get his own special argumentative rules. No matter how much you think he should.

God is not more likely then an invisible dragon in my garage or a teaport orbiting Saturn just because you've retconned a bunch of special pleading definitions onto him.

ynot 22nd January 2020 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12962503)
My argument is that nobody knows the answer to whether god(s) exist or not.

So why do you conclude/believe a god exists?

By the terms of your argument, by what method does anybody know whether ANYTHING exists or not?

JoeMorgue 22nd January 2020 01:20 PM

There's a concept in quantum physics called Quantum Tunneling. Essentially it means that it is, theoretically, possible for a solid object to pass through another solid object. It happens all the time on a quantum level but outside the probability of it happening there is nothing stopping it from occurring at any time.

I could tomorrow, wake up, walk into my garage, shoo the invisible dragon out of the way, get it my car, and drive right through my garage door to the outside, every atom of Dodge Dart, Goodyear Tire, and 175 lbs of ex-Navy IT guy passing through the garage door as it wasn't there and not one single law of physics as we currently understand it would have to be rewritten.

Such an invent is improbable on a level that nearly impossible to put into words, requiring specific quantum states of trillions of atoms to all function in a specific way at one time, but again nothing about the nature of how we perceive the universe would have to be adjusted.

Me getting into my car tomorrow morning and trying to just drive right my garage door without opening is possible, but me actually doing it would be functionally insane.

Believers/apologist grabbing this tiny shred of possibility screaming about how we can't be certain are doing just that, trying to drive through their garage doors.

arthwollipot 22nd January 2020 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12962317)
Because there is no difference between a God that leaves literally no trace for his existence and no God at all.

This is why Occam's Razor shows that when fully articulated, agnosticism leads directly to atheism.

There is no functional or practical difference between a universe that contains a noninterventionist, hidden god and a universe that contains no god at all. We should not be adding unnecessary entities. It is more parsimonious to assume that the universe does not in fact have a god.

psionl0 22nd January 2020 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12962872)
There's a concept in quantum physics called Quantum Tunneling. Essentially it means that it is, theoretically, possible for a solid object to pass through another solid object. It happens all the time on a quantum level but outside the probability of it happening there is nothing stopping it from occurring at any time.

I could tomorrow, wake up, walk into my garage, shoo the invisible dragon out of the way, get it my car, and drive right through my garage door to the outside, every atom of Dodge Dart, Goodyear Tire, and 175 lbs of ex-Navy IT guy passing through the garage door as it wasn't there and not one single law of physics as we currently understand it would have to be rewritten.

Such an invent is improbable on a level that nearly impossible to put into words, requiring specific quantum states of trillions of atoms to all function in a specific way at one time, but again nothing about the nature of how we perceive the universe would have to be adjusted.

Me getting into my car tomorrow morning and trying to just drive right my garage door without opening is possible, but me actually doing it would be functionally insane.

Believers/apologist grabbing this tiny shred of possibility screaming about how we can't be certain are doing just that, trying to drive through their garage doors.

Claiming that the probability of the existence of a god is of the same order as "quantum tunneling" of large objects (ie virtually impossible) is no less silly than asserting that it is impossible.

You have absolutely no idea what the odds are. You are like a child who has just discovered that 1+1=2 and is now trying to weigh in on the validity of the theorems of calculus with complex numbers.

Steve 22nd January 2020 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12963354)
Claiming that the probability of the existence of a god is of the same order as "quantum tunneling" of large objects (ie virtually impossible) is no less silly than asserting that it is impossible.

You have absolutely no idea what the odds are. You are like a child who has just discovered that 1+1=2 and is now trying to weigh in on the validity of the theorems of calculus with complex numbers.

Itís quite silly isnít it? Just like speculating about the existence of a god you made up.

psionl0 22nd January 2020 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12963378)
Itís quite silly isnít it? Just like speculating about the existence of a god you made up.

It is even sillier to say that I just made up a god when I have been arguing the opposite all along.

marting 22nd January 2020 08:36 PM

As long as I can remember it seemed to me religion was silly but it does seem to fill some deep need many have. I still don't get it.

I also recall being taught that a singular God was somehow an improvement over multiple Gods. That didn't make sense to me either.

Steve 22nd January 2020 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12963385)
It is even sillier to say that I just made up a god when I have been arguing the opposite all along.

You have been arguing that you did not make up a god? Then why speculate about the possible existence of one?

arthwollipot 22nd January 2020 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12963438)
You have been arguing that you did not make up a god? Then why speculate about the possible existence of one?

psionl0 is, as I said, being defiantly agnostic. All they are suggesting is that it is just as impossible to prove the nonexistence of a god as it is to prove the existence of one. And they are insisting that we acknowledge that one point.

Which I have. And this point is why I am an atheist.

Darat 22nd January 2020 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 12963444)
psionl0 is, as I said, being defiantly agnostic. All they are suggesting is that it is just as impossible to prove the nonexistence of a god as it is to prove the existence of one. And they are insisting that we acknowledge that one point.



Which I have. And this point is why I am an atheist.

But that only works because he posits that there could be a god unlike any that are claimed to exist by the many religions. So why even call that "god"? It makes no sense at all to use the word "god" in his case unless it is to try and create some ambiguity which lets him create a gap he thinks he can shove "god" into.


I'm happy to accept what the religions describe as their god or gods and therefore can say with certainty that the actual gods that religions claim exist do not exist.

Steve 22nd January 2020 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 12963444)
psionl0 is, as I said, being defiantly agnostic. All they are suggesting is that it is just as impossible to prove the nonexistence of a god as it is to prove the existence of one. And they are insisting that we acknowledge that one point.

Which I have. And this point is why I am an atheist.

Then psionl0ís point is quite pointless.

arthwollipot 22nd January 2020 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12963458)
But that only works because he posits that there could be a god unlike any that are claimed to exist by the many religions. So why even call that "god"? It makes no sense at all to use the word "god" in his case unless it is to try and create some ambiguity which lets him create a gap he thinks he can shove "god" into.


I'm happy to accept what the religions describe as their god or gods and therefore can say with certainty that the actual gods that religions claim exist do not exist.

Well, deism does propose a "hands-off" style god that sets the universe in motion and then never interferes again, and that might fit into psionl0's description, but otherwise every religion on Earth suggests that their respective deities definitely meddle in the affairs of mortals and their meddling should therefore be detectable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 12963462)
Then psionl0ís point is quite pointless.

Indeed.

I Am The Scum 22nd January 2020 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 12963255)
This is why Occam's Razor shows that when fully articulated, agnosticism leads directly to atheism.

There is no functional or practical difference between a universe that contains a noninterventionist, hidden god and a universe that contains no god at all. We should not be adding unnecessary entities. It is more parsimonious to assume that the universe does not in fact have a god.

This really highlights how pointless these arguments are. It's like asking what Kennedy was thinking about a split second before he was shot. Okay, yes, there is a correct answer to the question, but you're fooling yourself if you think you're doing anything more than speculating.

psionl0 23rd January 2020 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12963458)
But that only works because he posits that there could be a god unlike any that are claimed to exist by the many religions.


<snip> You are just playing dumb in the hope that I will make some statement that will give you the opportunity to say "gotcha!"

If the universe is created then it is blatantly obvious that the necessary qualities of a god or gods would be that they must be capable of creating the universe and everything within, they are not a product of the universe (they exist "outside" of the universe), they are capable of controlling events in the universe and they are capable of interacting with people in the universe (either from within or beyond the universe).

There is no need to speculate on the motivations of such gods nor on any other characteristics that such gods may possess.


Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited for Rules 0/12

Darat 23rd January 2020 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12963539)
I don't really believe that you are really this stupid. You are just playing dumb in the hope that I will make some statement that will give you the opportunity to say "gotcha!"



If the universe is created then it is blatantly obvious that the necessary qualities of a god or gods would be that they must be capable of creating the universe and everything within, they are not a product of the universe (they exist "outside" of the universe), they are capable of controlling events in the universe and they are capable of interacting with people in the universe (either from within or beyond the universe).



There is no need to speculate on the motivations of such gods nor on any other characteristics that such gods may possess.

There are many religions that have a god or gods that are not creators of the universe or the earth or anything else.

You wish to use a meaning for the word god that is unlike any god of any religion I have ever heard of, so why do you use the word "god" to describe your idea?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.