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

[RoboTimbo]

Show the special pleading?

Did you not understand it the previous 732 times it was explained to you?

What is your definition of 'god'? If it is simply 'creator of the universe', we already have one that fits that definition and it doesn't imply agency.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

"Observations about nature do result in an intellectual realisation of god, "

why? it did not for me. i don't even see the conection.

Me neither.

As Dawkins says, a rainbow is even more beautiful when ones grasps the physics behind it. Hence, his title, "Unweaving The Rainbow".

It's entirely possible to be in awe of nature without seeing God or god, with or without "intellectual realisation". I would think the proper "intellectual" response is to invoke Occam and to eliminate as many unsupported assumptions as possible, not spuriously add them.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I see humans and conclude god may exist. I see all requirements around me in nature.
No, I didn't assume it, I observed it.

And you are welcome to assume 'god' "may" exists. Unless and until you offer more evidence than your hopeful assumptions, the 'god' you "conclude" "may" exist is exactly as likely (and precisely as imaginary) as the Teapot. Or the Unicorn.

No. You have not, in fact, "observed" 'god'.

You "concluded" 'god' "may" exist...with no actual evidence that it does.

It's still special pleading offered in support of a circular argument.

 

[Slowvehicle]

This criticism only applies to god with a capital G. Even when used in reference to God, it is left wanting.

Um, no.

The problem of infinite regress pops up whether you plead you are talking about 'god', 'God', your 'god', or any 'gods'.

If everything is created, then whatever you are calling 'god' was created...turtles all the way down.

If you plead that everything other than whatever yo are calling 'god' was created, but non 'god' because it;s special; then all you have is dissembling all the way down.

 

[Slowvehicle]

My avatar has the appearance of a fairy, the world we find ourselves in has the appearance of the world we know.

Are you now claiming that your whole bit about fairies and brownies was nothing more than, "It looks like there's a fairy there"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

This is irrelevant, as I am not attempting to prove anything, or say there is a necessity for anything. Although I accept that there probably are necessary things.

You do, however, claim that the 'god' you imagine is soemhow less imaginary than its imaginary peers.

I don't see the relevance of worship, surely this is a response derived through religion. If god exists, it exists independent of humanity and its responses.

Especially of you define your imaginary apophatic 'god' in such a way that it excludes the things to which the term applies...

I don't assume one, I consider that it might exist for the purposes of discussion of gods. The problem is that you and numerous other posters on this forum, assume a lack of gods, with only the flimsiest rational justification.

The problem is that you plead your admitted assumptions about your 'god' (concept), then assume that all the work is done. The step that would separate your 'god' (concept) from Rangy Lil would be the step where yo provide evidence.

Whenever you are ready...

The erosion of such explanations is irrelevant to the issue. These are imagined explanations, humanity is bound to clothe the concept of god with human characteristics. If god exists, it exists independently of humanity and what humanity thinks.

Then why call the imaginary entity you are pleading for, 'god'?

I suggest you discard these arguments as I am considering a philosophically derived god, for which such arguments are irrelevant.

Ah. Since it is a "philosophically-derived" 'god', special pleading is de rigeur,, and can be specially pled to be appropriate.. Still exactly as imaginary as the Teapot, or Pecos Bill.

 

[Stone]

the conclusion that altruistic social engineers have largely been believers in a god or gods still does not give me any reason to believe in a superpowered invisible overlord of the kind that the various monotheistic world religions hold in high regard.

Hi --

[I've been battling a nasty case of sciatica this past couple of weeks or so. I've now got it under control, sort of.]

Vortigern99's description here is not quite my conclusion, though. My -- provisional -- conclusion -- until the human brain is finally mapped as thoroughly as the genome -- is that altruistic social engineers have largely been introducers of some new counter-cultural brand of deity/dieties that usually gets them into all sorts of further trouble during their lifetime.

So why bother getting themselves into even further trouble when their road is already bumpy enough with their new ethical/social paradigm, and why is it always precisely these ethical/social pioneers who also get into these hostile counter-cultural models of the divine in the first place? Is it logical for -- now, maybe it is, only I'm just not seeing why -- the most practically useful and far-seeing innovators in the social/ethical area to be also the most misguided in their personally introducing 100% of the myriad divinity models known to humanity?

I _think_ this _partly_ answers SlowVehicles' inquiries. But I'll address those in another post.

Stone

 

[Slowvehicle]

Life exhibits agency.

From which it is perfectl proper tp derive the idea that living things can be demonstrated to exhibit agency.

That is no basis for concluding that a philosophically-derived creator-'god' exists.

Your use of the word "must", makes it irrelevant. I am not claiming anything means an intelligent creator must exist, only that similar characteristics can be observed in nature. As such, to consider that there may be intelligent agency in nature, is not purely imaginary, it can be scientifically observed.

Interestingly disingenuous use of "intelligent agency in nature" to imagine an intelligent agent outside of nature. Still an imaginary entity.

The question, "where are you, personally, identifying agency in nature is important, as humans have a tendency to over-assume agency.

I am not considering an omnipotent etc God, which your point addresses. I am considering god like beings and there are numerous entities in the set of intelligent agents.

Ah. You are defining 'god' out of your imaginary 'god-like' beings (or attempting to claim that you are). At that point, why call it 'god'?

Not to mention, even if you claim that what you are calling 'god' isn't really 'god', but some other class of imaginary entity; you still need to distinguish it from the Unicorn with evidence of its existence.

 

[Stone]

Stone,

Could you take a moment to condense the main thrust of your thesis into one or two concise sentences?

Something like:

"Summary - where I attempt to show..." and then go on to say what your treatise will work towards proving or providing evidence for.

Perhaps condensing your 12 part musings into an outline format might also make it more accessible.

Only then can we decide whether this belongs in a thread devoted to proofs of God or not.

Those are all sensible suggestions. Thank you.

I hope I may have some time to do that during the upcoming Memorial vacation.

Stone

 

[Slowvehicle]

New Zealand, I tramped the Abell Tassman national park, amongst others.


Observations about nature do result in an intellectual realisation of god, with a small g( ie, finite gods). No not first cause, this is old apologetics. The first cause arguments assumes that human logic is in someway correct, this cannot be established in regard to issues for which there is no rational explanation, among others.

Perhaps, in your case, "observations about nature do result in your "intellectual realization" (without any evidence) of a not-'god' (but 'god'-like) 'god'. Generally, observations of nature properly lead to conclusions about nature.

Still not different from Pau Anna who pulls the tides, o best beloved.

How is resolving "issues for which there is no rational explanation" with imaginary, non-rational entities anything but special pleading?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hi --

[I've been battling a nasty case of sciatica this past couple of weeks or so. I've now got it under control, sort of.]

Vortigern99's description here is not quite my conclusion, though. My -- provisional -- conclusion -- until the human brain is finally mapped as thoroughly as the genome -- is that altruistic social engineers have largely been introducers of some new counter-cultural brand of deity/dieties that usually gets them into all sorts of further trouble during their lifetime.

So why bother getting themselves into even further trouble when their road is already bumpy enough with their new ethical/social paradigm, and why is it always precisely these ethical/social pioneers who also get into these hostile counter-cultural models of the divine in the first place? Is it logical for -- now, maybe it is, only I'm just not seeing why -- the most practically useful and far-seeing innovators in the social/ethical area to be also the most misguided in their personally introducing 100% of the myriad divinity models known to humanity?

I _think_ this _partly_ answers SlowVehicles' inquiries. But I'll address those in another post.

Stone

No, it does not, not even partially.

Sciatica is the pit. I hope you continue to feel better.

 

[Stone]

...except for the ones who are "iconoclastic" enough not to need to cripple themselves with superstitions

That is precisely the type I first spent all my time looking for. That type doesn't exist -- to my frustration and astonishment. That's when I went back to the drawing board. The closest to that are either altruistic pioneers in the social/ethical who borrow someone else's non-belief (like Democritus) or altruistic pioneers in non-belief who borrow someone else's paradigm in the social/ethical (like Matthias Knutzen).

If I could uncover but one documented figure who pioneers in both, I could dispense with my -- provisional -- conclusions entirely.

Stone

 

[Slowvehicle]

That is precisely the type I first spent all my time looking for. That type doesn't exist -- to my frustration and astonishment. That's when I went back to the drawing board. The closest to that are either altruistic pioneers in the social/ethical who borrow someone else's non-belief (like Democritus) or altruistic pioneers in non-belief who borrow someone else's paradigm in the social/ethical (like Matthias Knutzen).

If I could uncover but one documented figure who pioneers in both, I could dispense with my -- provisional -- conclusions entirely.

Stone

Ah. Surmise as substitute for argument, with a healthy helping of dismissing the outliers. Interestingly top-down argument of moral development.

 

[punshhh]

"Observations about nature do result in an intellectual realisation of god, "

why? it did not for me. i don't even see the conection.

Some do some don't.

 

[punshhh]

Is this something like an "argument by definition"?

For my benefit, how, exactly, do you define god and God?

Well, it is probably best to stay with god, as God, being omnipotent/present/benevolent will rapidly takes us into theology, which is crackpot philosophy around here.

god = intelligent being responsible for the origin and or persistence of our known world.

Such a god can be entirely finite and fallible.

 

[DC]

Some do some don't.

so your statement was wrong, instead of it does, it should be it can or does for some. ok

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well, it is probably best to stay with god, as God, being omnipotent/present/benevolent will rapidly takes us into theology, which is crackpot philosophy around here.

God= intelligent being responsible for the origin and or persistence of our known world.

Such a god can be entirely finite and fallible.

This is the point where evidence would distinguish your imaginary 'god'-like not-'god' from other imaginary critters.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Still not different from Pau Anna who pulls the tides, o best beloved.

Wait!

I thought that was Bill O'Reilly!!!

 

[Stone]

You are, as always, encouraged to provide evidence (practical, empirical, objective evidence) of the existence of a "deity". That would still leave you with an uphill, root-grown, and stony row to hoe, demonstrating that "morals" "come from" that particular "deity".

Variants of deity do not preclude the idea that morals come from strictly partial glimpses of perfectly real aspects of deity on the part of the most enlightened social/ethical pioneers. So morals needn't be tied to one "particular deity" at all. "Particular deities" are only human constructs, in the same way that linear time is. "Simultaneous time" as uncovered by the quantum physicists does not preclude linear time as perceived by the unaided human brain in the first place. Linear time is still a property of time. Time itself is still a reality, even though it's a reality of far more complexity than previously glimpsed. The "particular deities" glimpsed by the altruistic pioneers are merely indications of a wider reality which is too glibly called Yahweh or Brahma in more parochial contexts.

Your next hurdle would be to explain how societies that "knew not your 'deity' " somehow still managed to have morals (and ethics, and mores, and culturally-variant ideas of "right" and "wrong"...).

Because "your deity" is only a single partially glimpsed aspect or property of deity emanating from one altruistic pioneer's perception. More in-depth synchronization of all such pioneers throughout time, plus rigorous scientific mapping of the brain, will be needed before a clearer model emerges of just what the "divine" really is -- and what it isn't. Different models still manage to foster morals because the pioneer responsible for them in each case has evidently caught some glimpse, however partial, of something real in the divine. They haven't necessarily glimpsed the whole.

Stone

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Well, it is probably best to stay with god, as God, being omnipotent/present/benevolent will rapidly takes us into theology, which is crackpot philosophy around here.

God= intelligent being responsible for the origin and or persistence of our known world.

Such a god can be entirely finite and fallible.

You did not provide your definition of "god".