Nothing. Which is precisely what I do accept.
But if you don't have to accept anything wrt a deist god, what's your problem?
If you don't deny that feelings of love exist and feelings of a god exist, what is the difference?
What if God was what, exactly, that we haven't been able to detect yet?
Claims about entirely undefined entities are not claims at all.
It's like my claiming that a woogle exists. When you ask what it is, I say I have no clue, it's something we might run across one day, that's all.
This would be mere silliness.
What if I told you that there is something that make you believe in god - yet you can't see it, we haven't any clue as to what it is, and we can't measure it - yet?
No. God is not something we have no idea about. God is an ancient concept, and there's no use pretending it might be something entirely different.
But we had an idea that there was something that would later be called X-rays. X-rays is electromagnetic radiation that is between gamma rays and ultraviolet rays. The latter was discovered in 1801, so - since there was no reason to think that wavelengths shorter than ultraviolet rays was an impossibility, all it would take was to make something that would either produce those shorter-than-UV rays or detect them.
All it makes you is a sloppy thinker.
Can you name one person who has absolutely no beliefs of any kind?
Wrong again. I've said this very clearly. There is no possible definition of God which is valid (i.e. not mere humpty-dumptyism, or empty, or nonsense, or equivalent to not-God) which can be meaningfully said to possibly exist.
"Nonsense", "meaningful". Those are all value statements, not statements of facts.
You might think of the former as a subset of the latter.
The reason God cannot exist is that the entire framework upon which the concept of God or gods rested -- the mythic, supernatural worldview -- has collapsed, and has been replaced by a naturalistic worldview which is now the only game in town.
It is the best explanation we have - so far. But it isn't the only one.
Some of these devices are easily exposed by careful examination, which reveals that the conditions they propose (under which God may exist) require us to accept that God may be real only if "real" ceases to be different from "not real", or if "God" ceases to be different from "not God", or if "exist" ceases to be different from "not exist".
So there is a subset of false arguments for God which rest upon rendering the statement "God exists" non-meaningful.
To you, no. But you can't deny that the idea of God is meaningful to others.
No, it would not, because frisbees and beach balls are not hyperdimensional objects.
Oh? How do you know? Because the way they are defined?
Since I haven't made any such claim or addressed evolution, I fail to see the point of these questions.
Here's the point: Evolution is a fact. We're pretty good at pointing that out, when we debate creationists. "The theory of Evolution is a theory, sure, but evolution is a fact". You know how it goes.
Do you think evolution will ever be proven false?
No, I'm seriously asking you that question.
Where do you propose such a thing would exist?
I am not claiming that everything we don't currently perceive must not exist.
Now, where would such a thing supposedly exist?
In a place we haven't looked. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
This is another case of confusing the idea of a thing with the thing itself.
Your thoughts did not create the universe or do any of the things attributed to God by those who believe in God.
Heard of the creationist explanation of fossils being buried there by God to test our faith?
It could be true - only it falls outside a scientific explanation, since the explanation is non-falsifiable.
Is there any doubt about love? All you have to do is look at human behavior to understand that it's real. The totality of human activity makes no sense without it.
But what does that have to do with God?
There is much doubt about love. E.g., the way we view "love" in the western world is very different to how other cultures view it.
You got a definition of "love" nailed down?
Hmm, well that would kill your rejection of what I wrote quite nicely, which is why I couldn't figure it out. The scenario posited with the simulation makes God and Not-God quite easily distinguishable.
Edit: Also agree with what Bodhi wrote below. You can't just write your definition of what God is in such a way that God cannot exist and then declare God doesn't exist because your definition is unworkable. I put forward my definition twice already, and you have both times avoided commenting on it, despite the fact that it does lay a reasonable framework for declaring a being God.
Precisely.
Let's say you and I were twins. We are brought up exactly the same way, as Catholics. We go to the same classes, we are told the exact same thing.
But if we are questioned about God, we won't give the same answers. To me, god would be one thing, to you another. Sure, there would be huge overlaps, but at some point, somewhere, we would disagree on what god is.
This thread is not about love. I need to understand the relevance here.
Love is a concept that encompasses a lot of different things, depending on who you are.
The entire worldview which produced and allowed the god hypothesis has vanished. As a result, all claims about God's existence have been rendered contrary to fact, empty, nonsensical, or meaningless.
If we take the current claims about God and apply them to, say, flogiston -- another dead proposal which was replaced by a valid one, namely oxygen -- the silliness of modern God claims becomes apparent.
Once it was clear that oxygen, not flogiston, was the critical agent of combustion, suppose flogiston theorists had said things like:
"Actually, we were wrong about the properties of flogiston. We now believe it has properties identical to those of oxygen."
"You can't say flogiston doesn't exist because we might one day discover something currently entirely unknown which we could call flogiston if we so chose."
"You can't say flogiston doesn't exist because we've decided that it has no core properties, so anyone is free to make up any definition they choose, and you can't possibly refute them all, because they are infinite."
"Flogiston may exist, but on a higher plane of existence."
"Flogiston may be entirely beyond our understanding. If so, you can't possibly say it's not real, because by definition we'd all be ignorant of it."
"You can't say flogiston isn't real because someone might one day think of an entirely new definition for it which actually conforms to something we observe."
It's all rubbish.
And yet we're expected to accept such ridiculous arguments about God?
I think not.
As long as the arguments take into account that this could, in the future, be so, yes. Today, however, we have a much better explanation, namely science.
But that doesn't mean that we won't find an even better explanation of the world in the future, one that could also encompass god.
This is one of the most persistent errors about God.
Meaningless statements have no possible truth value.
One does not need to "declare them false" or disprove them. That step is superfluous.
Take the meaningless statement "The Fourth of July is taller than C sharp minor".
It's mere childishness to assert that it cannot be disproved, then claim that this means that we must somehow hold out the possibility that it may be true.
Nonsense has no possible truth value. It needs no disproving.
Again, you use value statements: Meaningless, superfluous, childishness, nonsense.
Do you think quantum physics make sense?
Wrong again. I've explained why the appeal to the cookie jar is invalid, and I'll be happy to explain why all possible definitions must end in these possibilities if the question is asked.
But then, your mind is closed to new possibilities. You cannot call yourself a skeptic, then.
The evidence for that is overwhelming.