Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord

[punshhh]

'god' must exist because the existence of 'god' is "necessary" for the existence of observable reality?

This is where you trot out your evidence, right?

You don't seem to be following. At no point have I suggested that god exists, or that there is concrete evidence of his existence. This is an exercise in intellectual thought, not in what exists or not.

 

[punshhh]

In what way do you think equivocating the process of imagining 'god', or a 'god', or any 'gods' (even apophatic 'gods') to exist, without the first scintilla of evidence, by calling it "regarding it as existing" (without the first scintilla of evidence)?

As well say it is not imaginary because you "assume" its existence, or "postulate" its existence, or "pretend to" its existence--you are still claiming existence for something without any evidence at all.

How is that a reason to believe in it?

Its not a reason to believe in it, rather its a reason to not rule it out.
The fact that I referred to some people regarding it as existing is not a claim to its existence. It's only a reference to some ways in which the concept of god is used.

 

[ehcks]

That's not what I'm suggesting. It either exists or it does not exist, who knows.

The problem is that there is no "it." There are many gods. Many thousands of gods. We know that all of them are false, because to say we do not know that all of them are false is to say that you believe they are all simultaneously possible. Even the mutually contradictory ones. Especially the contradictory ones.

There's also no "it" in the sense that each individual person has a different idea of what their god(s) is/are. There is no singular idea of what that word even means. It has no common definition, much less a real definition. Before you can intellectually contemplate the idea of a god, the word "god" has to mean something. What does it mean?

 

[punshhh]

One of these things is just like the other. How is a 'god' that is "believed" in, without any evidence (and, in fact, in the face of evidence to the contrary), NOT imaginary? Do you suppose it exists just because of beleivers' faith?

It is the belief which is imaginary(if god does not exist), not the concept which is believed. The concept itself can be derived through rational thought, like many others.

And by the way, in four years of posting on this site, I have not seen one piece of evidence suggesting that God/god does not exist. Although I have seen lots of references to scientific understanding of physical matter dressed up as some kind of relevant evidence.

 

[ehcks]

It is the belief which is imaginary(if god does not exist), not the concept which is believed. The concept itself can be derived through rational thought, like many others.

No, the belief is real. Some people believe in magic and the supernatural and giants in the sky they might someday climb a beanstalk to.

That people believe is not imaginary, the thing they believe in is. The concept their belief is based on is not real.

 

[punshhh]

The problem is that there is no "it." There are many gods. Many thousands of gods. We know that all of them are false, because to say we do not know that all of them are false is to say that you believe they are all simultaneously possible. Even the mutually contradictory ones. Especially the contradictory ones.

There's also no "it" in the sense that each individual person has a different idea of what their god(s) is/are. There is no singular idea of what that word even means. It has no common definition, much less a real definition. Before you can intellectually contemplate the idea of a god, the word "god" has to mean something. What does it mean?

Good question, but just because there are varying definitions, does not mean that it is a fruitless exercise.

I can give it a definition if you like.

An entity, or being who generated the world of existence we know.

 

[ehcks]

Good question, but just because there are varying definitions, does not mean that it is a fruitless exercise.

I can give it a definition if you like.

An entity, or being who generated the world of existence we know.

That says nothing about anything. You've essentially called god "anything I think is god."

 

[punshhh]

No, the belief is real. Some people believe in magic and the supernatural and giants in the sky they might someday climb a beanstalk to.

That people believe is not imaginary, the thing they believe in is. The concept their belief is based on is not real.

Let me be more specific, while the act of belief is real, a real activity. Its origin is imaginary, an act of imagination. There are of course imaginary concepts, but not all concepts believed in are imaginary, they may be intellectually derived.

 

[punshhh]

That says nothing about anything. You've essentially called god "anything I think is god."

Perhaps, but if it is that being, we would not be here without it.

 

[ehcks]

Perhaps, but if it is that being, we would not be here without it.

That's only technically true in the most pretentious way. You've defined god as "the cause of the universe." If the cause of the universe was the Big Bang, you've defined god as the Big Bang. If the cause of the universe was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, your god is now a self-parody.

 

[zugzwang]

Good question, but just because there are varying definitions, does not mean that it is a fruitless exercise.

I can give it a definition if you like.

An entity, or being who generated the world of existence we know.

One of the interesting distinctions - well, if one is interested in such stuff - between Islam and Christianity, is that Christians have mainly introduced the idea of secondary causation. This happened in the medieval period (I think), and in a sense, gave rise to a primitive version of methodological naturalism. Or in the old joke, the religious invented science, in order to describe nature.

But many Islamic thinkers rejected secondary causation, e.g. al-Ghazali, and are often termed 'occasionalists', which seems to mean that every occasion incorporates God's direct causation.

Anyway, going back to your point about 'generated the world of existence', a Sufi might say, 'generates reality right now', which is a form of occasionalism; however, this presents lots of problems, e.g. how does human agency arise? So Christianity has introduced an intervening layer of causation.

Of course, some people have said that this explains why Islamic countries did not develop science, since direct causation doesn't require secondary causation, but this is a very thorny topic.

 

[Belz...]

His existence is irrelevant to the point.

The existence of a thing is irrelevant to whether it is imaginary ?

 

[punshhh]

That's only technically true in the most pretentious way. You've defined god as "the cause of the universe." If the cause of the universe was the Big Bang, you've defined god as the Big Bang. If the cause of the universe was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, your god is now a self-parody.

I have defined god as "the cause of the universe we know", not "the cause of the universe" and yes the Big Bang fits to an extent. I did include the words entity/being though. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an imaginary being, which only exists in the minds of people, so could not have caused the universe.

 

[ehcks]

I have defined god as "the cause of the universe we know", not "the cause of the universe" and yes the Big Bang fits to an extent. I did include the words entity/being though. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an imaginary being, which only exists in the minds of people, so could not have caused the universe.

The FSM is one of the infinitely many possible gods, and is therefore exactly as plausible as to have caused the universe as any other.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Who knows what actually exists.

I don't know whether I'm just now noticing it, or if it's a meme or a talking point, but...

...Darn! I sure am hearing versions of the bolded part all the time recently.

In a discussion with an intelligent friend on Evolution, he reminded me that "No one really knows". He said the same thing about the age of the earth.

It was reflected in the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate, with Ham taking the position, "If you weren't there, then you can't know."

I hear it constantly when discussing the probability of "life after death".

And don't get me started on Climate Change. And focusing on the phrase "the science is settled" rather than the science itself.

Another common, and apparently related theme is "Scientists don't know everything!" Trivially true, and stipulated, so why bring it up constantly?

Is it just me, or has there been a resurgence in what I consider a nascent "know nothing" world view? I see it as a first step in a slide from rationalism back into the dark ages, but maybe "It's Just Me!" (tm)

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an imaginary being, which only exists in the minds of people, so could not have caused the universe.

C'mon...

You're obviously intelligent.

You must KNOW what the response to that will be before you post it.

Right?

 

[tsig]

I have defined god as "the cause of the universe we know", not "the cause of the universe" and yes the Big Bang fits to an extent. I did include the words entity/being though. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an imaginary being, which only exists in the minds of people, so could not have caused the universe.

How is this any different than god?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Its not a reason to believe in it, rather its a reason to not rule it out.
The fact that I referred to some people regarding it as existing is not a claim to its existence. It's only a reference to some ways in which the concept of god is used.

Then it is the very same reason not to rule out the existence of the fairies at the bottom of your garden, or the Unicorn, or Jame Retief. All are equally imaginary; all are creations of humans.

You have yet to explain why 'gods' get a special pleading pass...

 

[Slowvehicle]

You don't seem to be following. At no point have I suggested that god exists, or that there is concrete evidence of his existence. This is an exercise in intellectual thought, not in what exists or not.

It is you who are refusing to follow the consequenses of your own claims. Assuming 'god' (or a 'god', or "some deity", or any 'gods') exists, in the utter absence of any evidence, is precisely equivalent to assuming thatthe Tooth Fairy exists. It does not matter whether you call it "assuming that it exists", or "regarding it as existing", or Imagining it to exist" or "being prudent about its nonexistence".

As an exercise in" intellectual thought", the only supportable conclusion is that, until evidence (concrete, empirical, objective, non-anecdotal evidence) for the existence of 'god' (or a 'god', or any 'gods') is presented, belief on it is an identicall groundless act as believing in any other imaginary entity for which no evidence can be presented.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It is the belief which is imaginary(if god does not exist), not the concept which is believed. The concept itself can be derived through rational thought, like many others.

No. It is possible to demonstrate that vast hordes of people, veritably myriad multitudes, "beleive" that 'god' (or a 'god', or "the 'gods' ", and especially their 'god''), exists. However unfounded, that "bleif" is not imaginary. It is, instead, the multiply exclusive objects of that belief, that have been invented to justify the belief itself. The "concept" itself is a back-formation.

And by the way, in four years of posting on this site, I have not seen one piece of evidence suggesting that God/god does not exist. Although I have seen lots of references to scientific understanding of physical matter dressed up as some kind of relevant evidence.

I wondered how long iit would take for you to slip in the requisite attempt to invert the onus probandi. It is not up to "science" to "disprove" the existence of what the credulous want to call 'god'. It is up to the ones claiming the existence of a 'god' (or any 'gods') to provide evidentiary support for their claims.

If, and only if, actual evidence (practical, empirical, testable, non-anecdotal, physical evidence of any of the multiple thousands of 'gods' which have been invented, imagined to exist, is presented; at that point it would be the proper purview of "science" to test, assess, and attempt to falsify that evidence (as with the "evidence" for Nessie, or Champy, or 'Squatch, or Nicolas Van Rijn, or any other imagined entity).