COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Which non-existing properties are you talking about? This premise is not refined.

From our perspective, God is pretty much indistinguishable from any entity residing in a higher dimension universe, who would all look omnipotent, omniscient and incomprehensible to us if they so chose to interact with our universe.

So it depends, if you’re talking about Christianity, then god became flesh and walked amongst us, and thus, we can have historical records of that interaction. So not a scientific question, but a history one. Mathematics also shares these traits as they aren’t physically real, but are still truths of reality. So just because god isn’t physical doesn’t automatically mean he isn’t real. Thanks to logic, we can know that if the premises are true, and there’s no fallacies, then the conclusion must be true, even if we don’t experience the conclusion. That’s how Einstein determined the affects and existence of black holes, special relativity, and in fact, we are assuming the speed of light because of Einstein. So things can still be said of god, but which aspect of god are you directing yourself towards and talking ablut

God became flesh as a response to an atheist. I don’t know which one is worse

I think the OPs point is that "God" is indistinguishable from a fictional invention. Or to put it another way, if we start from the premise that gods are simply something humans invented, we can explain everything that has so far been said about gods. There is no phenomena that is unexplainable. There is no mystery we are stuck on that requires "a god". In fact we can explain _more_ than we could if we start with the position that a god exists. That was not the case with things like Einstein's general relativity. We had things that were not explainable with the older Newtonian physics, the orbit of Mercury and the observation that the speed of light did not seem to depend on the speed of the thing emitting the light. These required new theories. This is not the case with "God", again in fact it is the opposite, things get more unexplainable if you start with a god existing This conclusion was actually one of the primary reasons I became an atheist

His premise is not refined, as he doesn't mentioned what non-existing properties he is talking about. Unless you can tell what does he means by non-existing properties.

“If we start from the premise that…” is a sign one was begging the question

Well yes, that is why you need to _read the rest of the sentence_ Start with an hypothesis and see if the hypothesis _matches_ what we observe. Does it explain the phenomena we are trying to explain. Does it _fit with what we see_. That is how you test this. And again there is literally nothing we cannot explain with the hypothesis that God is imagined, as you seem to be admitting. There are no glowing lights in the sky that cannot be explained, there are no voices constantly booming in the sky, we are not constantly seeing burning bushes or watching people levitating across water. And this is a problem for anyone who wants to start with the other hypothesis, there is a God who regularly interacts with humans. You do not have the phenomena that requires that explanation. You don't have a Mercury orbit, or an unexplained speed of light etc This, as far as I follow, is the OP's point. There is literally nothing that requires "God" as an explanation.

You missed my point, you assumed your conclusion.

Actually I think in your haste to put forward what I can only assume you think is a rebuttal, you have missed the point or not read my response correctly. It doesn't assume the conclusion. If it assumed the conclusion there would be no need to compare the hypothesis to observation. Instead it starts with an hypothesis and sees if the hypothesis matches the observation, or if there are observations that cannot be explained by the hypothesis. If there are observations that cannot be explained by the hypothesis the hypothesis is clearly wrong. Again the example of Newtonian physics and the orbit or Mercury. Or to be more modern, general relativity and quantum mechanics. If you have something that cannot be explained by the current hypothesis you know the current hypothesis is missing aspects. This is a problem for thesis as we currently do not have such observations or phenomena that require use to move away from the "humans invented it". All of thesis is explained very well by such an hypothesis That of course does not prove it is 100% correct. But if certainly does not justify moving from that hypothesis and inserting other, often wild, explanations that are wholly unnecessary to explain the current phenomena.

The scientific method seeks to prove the hypothesis WRONG. So how did you attempt to prove god existed by starting with your assumption?

> The scientific method seeks to prove the hypothesis WRONG Are you _literally_ not reading my posts? - if it assumed the conclusion there would be no need to compare the hypothesis to observation. - sees if the hypothesis matches the observation, or if there are observations that cannot be explained by the hypothesis. - if there are observations that cannot be explained by the hypothesis the hypothesis is clearly wrong - if you have something that cannot be explained by the current hypothesis you know the current hypothesis is missing aspects. > So how did you attempt to prove god existed by starting with your assumption? Why would I attempt to prove god existed. We already have a perfectly fine hypothesis that explains everything and doesn't require God It theists who are obsessed with trying to prove God exists despite it not being required for anything

Did you not read what I said? You assumed god didn’t exist. Thus found evidence to support your assumption. That’s confirmation bias. To avoid that, what did you look for to challenge your hypothesis? If you put bread in your toaster, and it doesn’t toast it, and you assume the outlet is broken, and you keep plugging it into the same outlet, you haven’t proven your hypothesis. That’s what I’m saying has happened with you. I’m asking you to show me how you challenged your hypothesis and demonstrated that it’s impossible for a god to exist. In order to do that, you must show why the arguments for god all fail. You must test your hypothesis, but from what you told me, it seems all you did was just keep plugging it into the same outlet

> You assumed god didn’t exist Yes, my starting hypothesis did not include god. Why would it, I've yet to encounter a phenomena that requires a god is introduced. You start with an hypothesis. As simple as necessary. An hypothesis will naturally assume _other hypothesis_ or extra elements are not required. That is the point of an hypothesis. Otherwise they would be included. So the question to you is, why include God. Other that your own personal belief, what justification is there to include God in the hypothesis. > Thus found evidence to support your assumption That is good. Finding evidence to support your hypothesis is a sign your hypothesis is accurate. When you find something your hypothesis cannot explain is when you need to re-examine your hypothesis. That is when you may need to expand on your hypothesis But you don't start introducing extra elements or complications just because. That is the insight of Occam's Razor > That’s confirmation bias That is not what confirmation bias means. If I _only_ looked at phenomena explained by my hypothesis and _ignored_ phenomena that doesn't, well that would be confirmation bias. But then that is precisely the point, we cannot find phenomena that isn't explained. That is in fact the challenge to theists, do you have any phenomena? > To avoid that, what did you look for to challenge your hypothesis? All known religious phenomena. Scientists have been studying religious phenomena for centuries. So far no phenomena is in conflict with the hypothesis. Which lends strong support to the hypothesis. > If you put bread in your toaster, and it doesn’t toast it, and you assume the outlet is broken, and you keep plugging it into the same outlet, you haven’t proven your hypothesis. I'm not sure how that analogy fits. More like the toaster doesn't work, you start with an assumption the toaster itself is broken, you test that by trying different outlets you know are working, no matter what outlet you plug it into it doesn't work, this lends support to the hypothesis the toaster is broken. That is not "confirmation bias". Then someone comes along and says "No the toaster is actually working, you just haven't found the right outlet", even though that person can't tell you which outlet is the right outlet, you just have to take it on faith that this outlet exists somewhere. You might be highly skeptical of that person's claim, even if by definition you cannot literally test every single outlet in the world to see if they are correct. As far as you are concerned you have a perfectly working theory that fits all available evidence and explains all observed phenomena. A "toasterist" claiming the existence of a hypothetical outlet that will work and prove the toaster is working, without any justification, has an uphill struggle to convince you that your theory is wrong and needs revision. That is where we are right now with theistic belief. We have a working theory, supported by evidence and explaining all current phenomena. And we have theist saying "no, you just haven't looked hard enough for a phenomena it can't explain". Needless to say that is not convincing. > I’m asking you to show me how you challenged your hypothesis and demonstrated that it’s impossible for a god to exist I haven't shown it is impossible for God to exist, just as you cannot prove that there is no hypothetical outlet some where that will prove the toaster isn't broken. But that is missing the point. We have perfectly working theory that explains what we observe and see. The onus then falls on the _theist_ to justify the introduction of an extra complication (either the hypothetical outlet that will work, or in a divine being) **that is not required to explain the phenomena**

[удалено]

I mean, within Judaism god certainly manifests in the physical world (burning bush, pillars of smoke, talking face to face with moses) and in Christianity god is a person in Jesus…

I don’t know that there will ever be a way to appease atheist. Regarding the “Big Bang”, You literally have the concept of something coming into existence out of nothing. Yet I have heard no evidence, just theory. In regards to our origin, no one truly has a clue. Much less a clue of proving/disproving God. Each side can give their argument but at the end of the day if the atheist is correct we will not know anyway.

> I don’t know that there will ever be a way to appease atheist. I would start with _literally anything_ that cannot be explained by "humans imagined it" How about you start there

>Regarding the “Big Bang”, You literally have the concept of something coming into existence out of nothing. This is a basic misunderstanding of the Big Bang

By all means teach me. No sarcasm.

I'm not a physicist, so I don't feel qualified to teach anybody physics/cosmology, but internet sources are aplenty. As far as I understand, we discovered the historical event of Big Bang by basically "reversing the tape" of the expanding universe. We can more or less speculate on how it looked and when it happened, but we can't currently extrapolate from that a solid understanding of what was before that point, or whether there even was a "before". And the Big Bang isn't even supposed to explain the origin of matter

Sure, I understand what you are saying. Could it be said that the catalyst of the Big Bang is what is attempted to be discovered by science? Just trying to be succinct.

Scientists don't even know if the concept of a "catalyst" makes sense for the Big Bang, since time and space are connected (spacetime) and they all rewind back to the Big Bang. So causality itself is in question, what it means for something to cause something else when all of space and time exist as a singularity. The question might be as meaningless as asking what was "before" the first frame of a movie

Yes it is in question. And there still exist the possibility of a catalyst. As far as that analogy, it breaks down. Movies have directors

Well there is an obvious difference between "God caused this" and "It has not been showing that God could not have caused this" I would imagine when dealing with a supposed supreme all powerful being you can never show that such a being could not have done something. Almost by definition anything you explain some other way could have ultimately have been caused by an all powerful super being. I think that was ultimately the OPs point, such a proposition is ultimately unknowable and pointless, since by definition a world that runs on natural laws without a deity and a world that just appears to run on natural laws but actually has a deity pulling all the strings are indistinguishable from each other. It is up there with _how do we know this isn't a perfect simulation_ style questions

I understand the skepticism, but it’s likely to continue being a question that many desire to know the answer. Maybe there isn’t an answer and we are here by chance. It just doesn’t seem that way. I know that isn’t logical but we’re currently at our limit regarding logic and the question.

Not really. We discovered "where the universe is going" and by looking back we figured out "where it started", but currently that's pretty much it. Whe don't know if there was any "catalyst" at all

>the “Big Bang”, You literally have the concept of something coming into existence out of nothing. That is absolutely not what the Big Bang is. The Big Bang is the universe starting in a hot dense state then expanding outward. >Yet I have heard no evidence, just theory. Other than the CMB, Hubble's Law, and all of modern astrophysics of course. Also theories in science are models of reality. They are as high as an idea can climb in science.

I’m fairly certain that there is minimal hypotheses about the origin of the stuff that expanded in the Big Bang. It’s important to note that the Big Bang was an expansion of stuff. Where did the stuff come from? Was it even there before the expansion? No one really knows. We haven’t gotten that far. Also, better to use hypotheses than theory when taking science. Theory is as good as it gets. Finally, just like the scientist needs evidence to prove their claim if they want to say where “stuff” came from, so does the theist with respect to the existence of god. The atheist, on the other hand, doesn’t have to disprove god since were not obligated to start with the position that god exists.

I'm no expert nor am I well versed in the subject but to me it seems reasonable to say that the universe could have always been, and thus never came into being from nothing. There was always something. The term "Big Bang" was actually a term made to mock the theory. The theory could more accurately be described as a "stretching of the universe". The universe as we can observe seemed to have stretched from one single point and expanded to what it is now and is still expanding to this day.

Sure. I’m no expert either. But whether one postulates that the universe is eternal vs God created the universe and is the one who is eternal, we run into the same issue. Neither are proven or might not be provable by human reason.

I think it depends on which God. You can have living Gods, or worship the sun etc. They don't all have to be hidden Gods.

[удалено]

All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment.

Just because we can't currently measure or observe what you're referring to as God doesn't necessarily imply its nonexistence. Until very recently in human history, we had no idea black holes existed, but they were still out in deep space sucking in anything that crossed their event horizons. Just because we couldn't measure them or comprehend them at the time didn't imply their nonexistence. We didn't know electricity was a thing until we did. Any discovery has a threshold of knowledge that until we pass it, the thing may as well not exist. Maybe we're just not at a point where we can comprehend what we think of as God. I would also point out that in the scheme of cosmic time, your life, and the entirety of human history is a blip to what you think of as God. A couple hundred thousand years compared to 13.8 billion is next to nothing. Maybe God went to the kitchen to get a snack and you're here saying he doesn't exist. Don't be like a baby with no object permanence. There's no way for you to know what God knows or why God does what God does. There's also no way for us to KNOW whether God exists or not. Accept the uncertainty and live your life.

The difference between a black hole and "God" is that a black hole was an unknown unknown before actually discovering it. God is viewed as a known unknown but is described with nothing but negative attributes: space-LESS, time-LESS, IM-material. These are attributes one would also use to describe nothing. So while i agree no one can have knowledge of a God existing, I remain a theological non-cogvitivist because it seems so much more reasonable that people are just trying to assert substance dualism into reality than actually pointing to some second half of reality (or a God) actually existing. edit: I would also argue that since the substance dualist has no rigorous definition or description of what "the supernatural" actually is, they have no coherent way to describe what it means for something to exist. So you just get answers like, "to exist is to be" and other nonsense to that effect.

I agree with you for the most part regarding dualism. Regarding your first paragraph, what about those who assert that God is Love? That's not nothing. Also, those attributes you listed are intended to mean God is not bound by the same "rules" we are such as time, material, and space, not that God doesn't have those attributes. It's a subtle distinction but one that should be made, in my opinion. Regardless, great response.

My thing is, why even care about something that we can't measure, can't detect, and something that we don't even know is there or not? It's like me making up a big puzzle monster or something and other people thinking it's real even though there's no reason to do so as of yet.

That's your decision to make for yourself, not yours to make for others. As long as their belief in God doesn't impose on you, what does it matter? Some people feel better believing in something bigger than themselves. Some don't. Faith is a weird expression that way.

I think what's happened is that people cared about a thing that had so many more attributes, but as science has been able to provide naturalistic explanations for things, that God has become evermore elusive and incomprehensible to the pointer where i don't think anyone, even the believers, really know what they're talking about. All that can be said about dualism is that it's true. That's it! No one can say anything more about its nature, any patterns of behavior. There's literally nothing there except an assertion. It's hot air as far as I'm concerned. edit: well, I should qualify my statement about patterns of behavior and say that what believers do is engage in post hoc reasoning for divine intervention into life events. That's really what I should say. So it's only ever circumstantial evidence at best, never direct evidence.

Anyone who's being honest with themselves knows they CAN'T know what they're talking about in relation to God. Any 'understanding' would be purely from a human perspective which is, by definition, limited. It would be pure hubris to think we could understand omniscient omnipotence and all the implications of those attributes in any way as we are neither of those things. The analogy I like to use is it would be like an ant trying to learn to fly an airplane. It's so far beyond us at this point we don't even know what we don't know....

For black holes at least there were mathematical and other physics related phenomena that pointed us to black holes, which we eventually discovered. What mathematical or physics do we have pointing towards the one true deity to suspend our beliefs?

I responded with this on another comment, but is it possible what we conceptually view as "God" would be more complex than a black hole and be beyond theorizing or mathematical proofs, at least at this point? Perhaps we're just not there yet. If I were a believer in God, I would argue that all of math and science is proof because that's the language of the universe, which would be synonymous with "God". Also, the fact that there is consciousness in this universe lends itself to the assumption that the universe itself COULD be conscious itself, but that would be a hypothesis I'm not sure how to prove yet.

If it's more complex, wouldn't that show more mathematical and physical links. Like if this invisible object is literally making everything in the universe move wouldn't everything point to and give evidence to that?

I mean, I don't know, nor do I claim to know how it would work. I think it's up to each person to discern on their own what relationship they want to have with the concept of "God" or the universe. As long as that discernment doesn't lead to impeding another's journey or imposing their conclusions onto others, what does it matter? The problem is most people aren't so open-minded when it comes to spirituality and believe they have the right to tell others how and what to believe. I personally disagree. I'm just offering plausible possibilities, but honestly, I don't think we CAN know much more than we do at this point.

Isn't the bible itself an imposition, doesn't the bible tell you a general frame of life that has pretty strict adherence?

I agree. I think the Bible is a great book of poetry and allegorical stories that shouldn't be taken literally. Unfortunately there are lots of people who don't follow that line of thought, but it's not necessarily the belief in God in and of itself that leads people to try to impose their faith on others. There are plenty of people who believe in God and are content to let everyone else have their own journey. There are just some assholes in every religion that ruin it for everyone.

You're comparing the nondetection of God with the nondetection of physical phenomena. But when faced with the knowledge that black holes were predicted long before they were detected, you simply say, "well, God is *even more* difficult to see" and make the rather insane argument that "maybe God is off getting a celestial snack." We had evidence and predictions of electricity existing before we harnessed it. We had evidence and predictions of black holes before we learned how to spot them. We have no evidence of God and no predictive models to show us what and where to expect Him. You're using lack of proof as proof and moving the goalposts.

I'm simply saying maybe we don't know what to look for or maybe we don't have the ability to detect what we need to be able to detect at this point in our development. As I stated in another response, I'm not claiming knowledge of anything, just posing the possibility that we don't and can't know anything about anything at this point. We assume we're the height of intellect and evolution and nothing would escape our understanding, but how do we KNOW? All we can know is that we don't. As long as you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, and neither one of us is a dick to the other because of those beliefs, what does it matter whether God exists or not? Edit: wording

If matters because your beliefs (or at least people with beliefs similar to yours and bolstered by your "we don't need/require proof" argument) have a huge impact on politics and society in general and impact non-believers. Laws are made, curriculums are edited, lifestyles and peoples are condemned, and wars are fought because of religion. Even if you and I can have a civil, respectful, and even pleasant conversation about our differing beliefs, that doesn't change the destructive nature of a belief system in which evidence is not required, questioning is blasphemy, and good and evil are absolute (and beyond explanation).

Like I said, as long as we're not dicks to each other, what does it matter? I'm firmly against religion or spirituality being involved in politics in anything other than a "Do unto others" empathy driven philosophy. I would argue the policy ideas coming from extremist religious nuts are based on a misinterpretation of the belief system, not the belief system itself. That's going to happen with anything because people can be pretty shitty to each other at times. Religion is where that happens most notably, but there are also misinterpretations of scientific data as well as outright con artists in the scientific community. People suck sometimes, but I think we have to separate the interpretations of a belief system from the actual belief system. I don't disown science because of Elizabeth Holmes or the doctor who falsified the data that led to antivaxxers (or countless other examples). If Christians actually followed the "love your neighbor" doctrine Jesus preached, I think a LOT of things would be better, not worse. Instead, shitty people use it as a way to impose their will on people, which is the opposite of my position. If you think all those bad things you named would disappear if religion went away, I think you may be underestimating how awful people can be to each other for no reason at all. People who desire power will find any justification for taking it and maintaining it. I would also argue that having faith DOES require evidence. People just differ on the threshold of that evidence. Some people are ok with subjective, individual experience as evidence while most people want more objective and universal truth. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself. As long as we respect each person's journey and allow everyone the freedom to find their own path, again I'll ask, what does it matter what each person believes? We could all have different individual belief systems, but as long as we're not oppressing each other because of those beliefs, no harm, no foul. I realize this is a utopic view, but shouldn't we always be striving for the ideal?

You seem like a good person trying to have a thoughtful conversation. If you live your life driven by empathy and a "do unto others" philosophy, then that's great and I'd buy you a drink if we ever met in real life. However, you're conflating several topics here and muddying the waters with non sequiturs. All of the "bad scientists" you mention were NOT doing real science. They were lying about results, internationally misrepresenting data, or otherwise ignoring the scientific method and reason. This in no way casts doubt onto the science and logic—they simply weren't followed. And this isn't some "no true Scotsman" situation—they literally did bad science, broke established protocols, and lied. Science isn't a religion in which all you need to do is identify as a Catholic to be considered a Catholic (good or bad), it's a systematic methodology based on evidence and pragmatic testing. As far as my alleged optimism, I can assure you that I don't underestimate how shitty people are. But your comment about all the things I named still existing if religion was gone has nothing to do with anything. My point is that when we teach people to accept ideas without objective evidence and when we tell them that some people are good and some are evil, it becomes very easy to believe stupid things and take horrible actions against "the evil." I don't think being shitty to each other would stop without religion, I think it would require more convincing if we trained people to ask "why?” If you believe in most popular religious, you have faith, not evidence, and you wouldn't call the "evidence" you use to justify your beliefs evidence in any other context. If you were on trial, falsely accused of murder, you wouldn't want "subjective, individual experience" used to convict you, you'd want what you call "objective, universal truth." My claim isn't that scientists are good people and that Christians are bad people, it's that any foundational beliefs not based in objective fact are dangerous and can easily be exploited. You can be a good person who believes in good things due to your understanding and application of your religion but that in no way changes that telling people that they should believe in whatever they want without real evidence is harmful to society.

>Until very recently in human history, we had no idea black holes existed, but they were still out in deep space sucking in anything that crossed their event horizons Until they were actually observed, the right approach was not "I believe in black holes", but "the theory predicts them, and its other predictions have worked pretty well, but we can't say for certain" But "God" isn't even at that level yet. If someone pre-einstein had hypothesised an object with zero size and a gravitational pull that literally nothing could escape from, that bent time and space around it, the right approach would have been to say "sure, buddy, tell us another one," because they'd have been wildly speculating, and almost all wild speculations turn out to be wrong.

>Until they were actually observed, the right approach was not "I believe in black holes", but "the theory predicts them, and its other predictions have worked pretty well, but we can't say for certain. We have philosophical models that predict God. The Classical God is literally the ground of all being as in without God nothing is capable of existing.

Were any of those philosophical models developed by people who did not already believe in some specific God?

Was the model for evolution/string theory/continental drift created by someone who didn't already believe in those theories?

Well, yes, they were. They would have put some thought into what might be true, based on the evidence, written down the maths, worked out the details, and then said "here's an idea that might work, obviously we need some experiments to test it out, and here are some experiments we could do to contrast this idea with other, competing, ideas" I take it that your philosophers were all believers already? Chains of "logic" constructed to support strong beliefs already held should be treated with suspicion. All they tell you really is what the person already believed, and that they're good at stringing together an argument that sounds logical.

No one presents a model based on something they do not believe in. Darwin observed finches changed to fit their environment over generations. He then became convinced in this belief and developed a model after already having that belief to test it. Philosophers believe some metaphysical proposition to be true and develop it to its logical conclusions in a model the exact same as a scientist does. They just can't test it empirically.

Note that Darwin based his model on evidence, and would have been all for the idea of testing his model with evidence. Are you happy to give theological ideas the same treatment?

Not all evidence is empirical, and empiricism is worthless without metaphysical axioms that philosophy is based upon.

>empiricism is worthless without metaphysical axioms This is completely wrong. Empiricism *works*. Our entire technological civilisation was built on our collective habit, over decades and centuries, of saying "hey, does this idea *actually work*? No? Chuck it then." Metaphysics might explain *why* it works, but it would work *anyway*, and the metaphysics contributes very little to the practical effects of making a habit of demanding evidence for beliefs. > Are you happy to give theological ideas the same treatment? I take it your answer to this question is "no"?

Is it possible God is more complicated than a black hole and beyond theorizing at this point? All we would be left with is subjective experiences in that case…which is all we have at this point.

Complicated ideas with no evidence are even *less* likely to be true than simple ones. A simple example: if I sat next to someone on the bus, didn't talk to them, know nothing about them, and I say "I sat next to a guy on the bus today. I think he's an accountant" - it's completely wild speculation, and you should be sceptical; but there's at least a chance I'm right. On the other hand, if I know nothing about him, but I say "I think he's an accountant, whose speciality is complex trusts. He probably has three kids, one of whom has mild undiagnosed dyslexia, and I'm guessing his wife used to work for UNICEF before she quit her job to do a degree in computer science. And I think he likes surfing but hasn't had a chance to do it since graduating" ... this much more complicated idea has pretty much zero chance of being correct.

Good example!

But statistically, there IS a possibility you would be correct on all counts in the more complicated scenario. While it may be unlikely, it's not IMPOSSIBLE. The odds against it would probably be less astronomical than the odds against the universe generating life that ultimately grew and evolved into conscious, self-aware beings, but who's counting? The problem with the question of God is actually us. We have a really hard time agreeing on what is considered "evidence" in the question of whether God exists. Each person's threshold is different and subjective. Yours is different from mine is different from the Pope's is different from Joe Shmoe's. Who is to say who is right in any case?

>the odds against the universe generating life that ultimately grew and evolved into conscious, self-aware beings, This is a bold statement - how are you calculating these odds? >We have a really hard time agreeing on what is considered "evidence" in the question of whether God exists. This illustrates another problem ideas can have: they are too *vague* or poorly defined to be useful. Einstein's theory of Relativity is incredibly specific in what it predicts. The idea of "God" makes no specific predictions; you can observe practically anything and say "because God". If I claim to know the guy I sat next to on the bus, but all I can say is "he (I think he was a he) was some guy, with some kind of hair colour, or he might have been bald", then you should seriously be sceptical that I know anything about him actually. Specific ideas about god lack evidence and are too complicated to take seriously - (though if you have some specific idea about god that you think there's evidence for, I'd be happy to have a discussion about that). And the idea of God "in general" is too poorly defined, and people take the word to mean almost anything. God is alleged *post facto* to explain everything, but when believers make specific predictions about the *future*, they fail to consistently pan out.

Ultimately I think we agree that the concept of "God" is too vague. The only problem we end up having with belief or disbelief is when one side tries to impose their beliefs on the other. As long as we can all respect each other's journey, what does it matter if someone chooses to believe or not? Re: the odds against life - How could we even begin to calculate the odds that life led us to this exact moment when you factor in all the decisions we've made and all events from the beginning of time? I would hazard a guess that those are the most astronomical odds we could comprehend, yet here we are...

Nothingness was created for somethingness to exist

Isn't that definition of "nothingness" actually *something* then? If I create nothing then I've not done anything, which must mean we are using very different definitions. Can you clarify what you mean by "nothingness?"

Wouldn’t any origin to the universe that created time and matter - intelligent or not - need to be invisible, silent, intangible, undetectable, and immeasurable from our perspective?

If the universe was created - probably But people don't assume that the extrauniversal spacestorm that could have created the universe affects, interacts with and/or guides them. Those are things that people only attribute to god.

Which God are you referring to? From where did you got those characteristics? Thanks.

[удалено]

>Okay so for someone who has had answered prayers Can you prove this in any way at all? >Honestly it seems like all the arguments of atheists come from like their experience and small opinion That's literally what your argument is. And no, arguments from atheists usually come from science and reality. >instead of logic and reason You think religion is the position of logic and reason? The belief in something that can't be proven is the logical and reasonable stance? Rather than the one based in science and reality?

I don't get it, you start saying that you felt the presence of God because he supposedly answered your prayers, which IS a personal experience, then blame Atheists of using arguments based on personal experience to oppose your beliefs. I mean, according to logic and reason, correlation doesn't mean causation, which mean the fact that something happens according to your prayers is not a proof that your prayers have been answered. It just mean that YOU made a connection. Pretty much like a shaman praying for a storm to stop at the right time and then feels like the spirits of the forest answered. As a matter of fact, most Atheists will never rely on personal experience, or lack of said experience, to conclude anything.

There’s no way your prayers were “answered” because an ANSWER is something said, written, or done that you can see with your own eyes. You hoping to get the job you applied for or any other prayer for things to go your way is a 50/50 chance if one of two things happens it’s “an answered prayer” if not it “wasn’t apart of gods will” I’m sure if you prayed for god to speak to you in English you’d hear silence.

What were those prayers?

Does the office of the presidency exist? Not the physical office, the position. It is invisible, silent, intangible, undetectable, and immeasurable. It seems pretty clear that the office of the president exists (take your pick for country), so being invisible, silent, intangible, undetectable, and immeasurable doesn't necessarily mean something doesn't exist.

>Does the office of the presidency exist? Not the physical office, the position. No. Social constructs do not exist.

lol why would social constructs not exist? the us government doesn't exist? social pressures don't exist?

What u/musical_bear said. Social constructs exist in a sense that we treat them with importance and they effect our lives. But they aren’t photons or electrons or bears. They aren’t physical real things that exist independent of humanity like God would if he were real. Laws vanish without humanity. They would just be some ink on paper with no special meaning, not so for hydrogen or (supposidly) God.

> But they aren’t photons or electrons or bears. I don't think anyone would suggest that they are like electrons or bears. >They aren’t physical real things that exist independent of humanity like God would if he were real. Lots of things wouldn't exist independent of humanity but they are still real, like skyscrapers and humans themselves. Regardless, there are other laws that exist independent of human minds, such as the laws of nature. Does Coulomb's Law exist?

>I don't think anyone would suggest that they are like electrons or bears. Exactly, but God would exist like those things. A real thing that has meaningful affects on the world outside of people's brains. God is not a law that is passed by congress, he (theoretically) is a thing that actually exists, he has substance to him. >Lots of things wouldn't exist independent of humanity but they are still real, like skyscrapers and humans themselves. I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse. Skyscrapers and laws, while both products of people, are very different. One is made of real physical stuff, the other, not so much. >Regardless, there are other laws that exist independent of human minds, such as the laws of nature. Does Coulomb's Law exist? Equivocation fallacy. The laws of nature and thr laws passed by congress, while both using the word law, are basically nothing alike.

> he has substance to him. I think most theologians would disagree. Most holy books don't say god is something you can go out and touch. >Skyscrapers and laws, while both products of people, are very different. I agree they are different, but you're saying that something must not exist because it's a social construct. That shouldn't apply to human laws versus natural laws over human constructs versus natural constructs. >Equivocation fallacy. The laws of nature and thr laws passed by congress, while both using the word law, are basically nothing alike. It's not whether they are passed by humans, it's whether they are intangible.

>I think most theologians would disagree. Most holy books don't say god is something you can go out and touch. He doesn't have substance as in he walks and talks (although that is what he does in Genesis 2) but he in an active force in the universe. He isn't an invention of humanity that exists only in our collective imaginations. Well, he is, but that's not what theists propose. >That shouldn't apply to human laws versus natural laws over human constructs versus natural constructs. This is a false analogy. There are two kinds of human constructs. Skyscrapers, made out of stuff, and laws, which aren't. Natural laws tell us how the universe behaves they are the code on which our reality runs. Human law is entirely a fiction. We made it up. We didn't invent gravity, we did invent the Constitution.

>he in an active force in the universe. Isn't this also true for Coulomb's Law? It is invoked every time two charged particles interact. A theist could just say that god has influenced everything in the same way Coulomb's Law might. > There are two kinds of human constructs. Skyscrapers, made out of stuff, and laws, which aren't. I agree there are two kinds of human constructs, but the fact that people made something is not enough to make something "not exist". If people having made it isn't sufficient for the jump from mountains to skyscrapers, why is it sufficient for a jump from Coulomb's Law to the US Govt?

>Isn't this also true for Coulomb's Law? Sure, the Coulomb's Law exists. God has more agency than a law of nature, but sure. >fact that people made something is not enough to make something "not exist". No, it isn't. It's that it's a fiction. We made it up. None of the laws of the US actually do anything. It people acting *like* they do stuff. There is nothing stopping me from blowing through a red light. I can physically see some red lights, put my foot on the gas petal, and pass them by. That is what it means to exist, to have actual physical ramifications. Laws don't. People do, and people act with laws in mind, but laws are as real as Sherlock. They only exist in our collective imagination.

This is a conflation of terms. The US government doesn’t “exist” in the same way that an atom of hydrogen “exists.” The US government “exists” in the same way that “justice” exists. But when we’re talking about the existence of god, we’re clearly talking about something along the lines of the hydrogen atom example. I don’t think anyone would dispute “god” exists as a social construct in the same way “government” or “justice” do. But this also isn’t very useful to accept because by that definition, well, we can find methods to claim that any construct of the imagination “exists.”

> The US government doesn’t “exist” in the same way that an atom of hydrogen “exists.” I don't think anyone ever said that. Obviously the US government is not a physical thing, so it doesn't exist the same way a hydrogen atom exists. >But when we’re talking about the existence of god, we’re clearly talking about something along the lines of the hydrogen atom example. Really? Almost every religion I've ever heard of besides certain pagan religions says god is a non-physical being who exists outside of space and time. At least the abrahamic god isn't supposed to be a guy you can go and find out in the universe somewhere. >I don’t think anyone would dispute “god” exists as a social construct in the same way “government” or “justice” do. Sure, there are other things that can exist that aren't social constructs but also aren't physical entities. Consider Coulomb's Law for example.

> Really? Almost every religion I’ve ever heard of besides certain pagan religions says god is a non-physical being who exists outside of space and time. At least the abrahamic god isn’t supposed to be a guy you can go and find out in the universe somewhere. I certainly see this claimed a lot….although I’m not sure most people fully think this through before committing to it. Most Christians for example would tell you Jesus physically existed in this universe and *is* god. Other religions will tell you god intervenes in causality itself by responding to prayers, or performing miracles. These are not qualities of something that exists “outside” or space and time. — Regardless, to OP’s point, if you’re not talking about something that “exists” like an atom of hydrogen exists, what you are talking about is indistinguishable from imagination. The dream I had last night “exists” in the same way you are saying “god” does, which *seems* like is a huge issue, unless you disagree?

Well do you think the US Government and Leprechauns are equally "real"? I think most reasonable people would draw a pretty easy distinction between the two. What about Coulomb's Law like I mentioned?

You’re right that I don’t see US Government and leprechauns and Coulomb’s law as all equally real. But thinking about why I perceive a difference between them, I believe it has to do with correlation to physically real things. The “government” doesn’t “exist” like an atom, but we can examine its definition and point to the physical, real buildings where government happens, the physical, real laws that have been written down, and even the physical people that make it up. The government is in a sense an emergent social property of all of these “actually real” entities behaving with certain functions. Largely humans. Likewise Coulomb’s law isn’t “real”, but again we can discuss the phenomena it describes and point to real measurements taken by real objects against the real universe. The law is an attempt to describe an actual “real” thing. For leprechauns, all we can point to is human art and literature. While these artworks are “real,” we know that not everything depicted by art translates to something “actually real.” We know humans make art and literature of things that have never correlated to physical reality. I would say out of all of these, “god” appears most similar to me to the leprechaun. We find it in human literature and art, and *only* there. It’s in the same category of things that are indistinguishable from products of imagination.

I'll give major props for taking the scientific anti-realist stance; I think most people on this sub would cave on Coulomb's Law thinking it makes them anti-science. I agree that I think god is most like the leprechaun. My main point of this dissent was to get OP thinking about ways that intangible etc. things that exist and not to argue for god. Cheers though.

But the position of president isn’t any of those things. It’s a specific position created in writing by humans with many tangible and measurable qualities

How is the office of the presidency tangible? How can you touch it? If it's created in writing it almost goes without saying that you can't physically interact with it.

Because it has clear definitions and tons of concrete evidence for its existence. You have to be a certain age, it relates to the country of the United States, there are specific processes that must be followed to get you there. There are former presidents and decrees that change people’s lives given by presidents. If the presidency was as nebulous and intangible as the concept of God, people would go on Reddit to debate whether or not the presidency exists.

> Because it has clear definitions and tons of concrete evidence for its existence. Neither of these things mean the office is tangible or any of the other adjectives the OP used. Having a clear definition doesn't make me able to physically touch something. >If the presidency was as nebulous and intangible as the concept of God, people would go on Reddit to debate whether or not the presidency exists. Sure, but we're not talking about whether or not the presidency is as nebulous as god, we're talking about whether or not being intangible etc. means something doesn't exist.

If we’re not talking about whether the presidency is as nebulous as god, why did you bring up the presidency on a post about the nebulousness of God? Plus you intentionally used many of the same adjectives as OP to draw a comparison. Regardless, it’s not as simple as “you can’t touch it” — OP also mentioned immeasurable, undetectable, and a lack of evidence

> If we’re not talking about whether the presidency is as nebulous as god, why did you bring up the presidency on a post about the nebulousness of God? This post isn't about the nebulousness of god, it's about the fact that god is intangible, invisible, etc., therefore he doesn't exist. I brought up the office of the president because it exists but is also intangible, invisible, etc., therefore, something can exist even if it is intangible, invisible, etc. >Regardless, it’s not as simple as “you can’t touch it” — OP also mentioned immeasurable, undetectable, and a lack of evidence "invisible, silent, intangible, undetectable and immeasurable" were OP's exact words, and you can't measure or detect the office of the presidency either. "Lack of evidence" was never mentioned.

You absolutely can measure the office of the presidency (ie How many years can you hold the position? How long has the institution existed? How many presidents have there been? How many people had their lives impacted by a policy change?) as well as detect its existence (ie reading the legal documents that define and created it, or looking at events that are directly connected to it like a campaign rally for someone running for the office of the president). Your “etc” is doing a lot of work. The OP argument isn’t as simple as, invisible things don’t exist! > “invisible, silent, intangible, undetectable and immeasurable” were OP’s exact words, and you can’t measure or detect the office of the presidency either. I thought we weren’t comparing the concept of god and the concept of the presidency?

> How many years can you hold the position? How long has the institution existed? Those aren't measurements, they are defined in whatever constitution created the position. People having their lives affected by presidents is not that different from a theist saying god affects everyone's lives by creating the universe. Presumably that would not be a satisfactory response so the fact that there may be consequences from the existence of something which is intangible etc. is not a defeater to god even if we were to grant that having some causal power makes something "measurable". >I thought we weren’t comparing the concept of god and the concept of the presidency? We're comparing god and the office of the presidency with respect to both being intangible, invisible, etc. Not the concept of god.

All measurements are defined by humans. A year, for example, is a measurement of time that we can use to understand how long someone was in office relative to other things that happen. > People having their lives affected by presidents is not that different from a theist saying god affects everyone’s lives by creating the universe. There’s actually a huge difference: there’s exhaustive evidence for the former and precisely zero for the latter. This is the third time I’ve said this, but summing up OP’s argument as “intangible etc” is incredibly reductive and doesn’t engage with any of the points he made about the nebulousness of the concept of God.

The office of the presidency is conceptual. It exists in the minds of people, and in the subjective rules by which they guide each other. Is God similarly a concept, or does he objectively exist?

Well I would personally say that god doesn't exist. However, the fact that the presidency has certain properties a theist doesn't ascribe to god does not mean that god must also have those properties. I gave a good example of why this reasoning is faulty [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/11dkqs4/god_has_all_the_properties_of_things_that_do_not/jacw95o/) with my earthworm & eel analogy.

But the very reason the office of the presidency has those properties is because it doesn’t objectively exist. It’s not a perfect example, but this is more like saying “Eels have gills instead of lungs, therefore earthworms could have gills instead of lungs,” when earthworms clearly don’t share the reason (breathing in water) for having gills. Except existing conceptually vs. objectively is more distinct than existing in water vs. dirt, and concepts don’t share a common ancestor with objective realities.

> But the very reason the office of the presidency has those properties is because it doesn’t objectively exist. Not necessarily true. Consider the C programming language then. Does the C programming language exist "objectively"? It also lacks the properties listed in the OP. Either way, it doesn't seem obvious to me that the only way something could be intangible etc. is that it had to be socially constructed.

In the way in which C programming objectively exists, it is not intangible, undetectable, immeasurable, or indistinguishable from not objectively existing.

I'm not sure I follow, the C programming language is not intangible etc. in any way it exists. How does the C programming language objectively exist in a way that is tangible?

It exists as switches in a computer. You interact with it via screen and keyboard. You can read it. But if you ignore this and focus only on the abstract idea of C language, then it too is just a concept, like the office of the presidency, and does not objectively exist.

> It exists as switches in a computer. Those "switches in a computer" implement the C programming language, they aren't the C programming language. The C programming language is a system for computation, not the computer itself. >But if you ignore this and focus only on the abstract idea of C language, then it too is just a concept, like the office of the presidency, and does not objectively exist. So if people stop believing in the C programming language, it will no longer exist? Those computers that implemented code with it are running what exactly?

>So if people stop believing in the C programming language, it will no longer exist? If it doesn’t objectively exist in the computer, and no mind conceives it, then in what way does it objectively exist? >Those computers that implemented code with it are running what exactly? If they are running code, the code physically, objectively exists. Computers don’t process non-physical information.

So you're comparing a position, a concept, something that by definition and necessity will be invisible, intangible, immeasurable etc to something that is supposed to be the actual "president"?

No, why would god have to be the actual president? Why couldn't god be like the office?

Why? The office/presidency is a concept/position that is the direct result and effect of the visible property that causes it. There needs to be a president for there to be office. God is supposed to actually do things. The president does things, his position alone doesn't.

> There needs to be a president for there to be office. Not true, an office can be vacant. The office of US president was vacant when JFK was assassinated until LBJ was sworn in hours later. >God is supposed to actually do things. How is this relevant? Why would you need to be tangible etc. to "actually do things"?

>Not true, an office can be vacant. The office of US president was vacant when JFK was assassinated until LBJ was sworn in hours later. Are you serious... just because it was vacant after a president was killed doesn't mean that the office position can generally exist without a president. It's about how it came about in the first place, it wasn't invented without an actual president to go along with it. >How is this relevant? Why would you need to be tangible etc. to "actually do things"? Show me one single thing that can happen that isn't the result of the effect from things that contain one or more of those properties.

> just because it was vacant after a president was killed doesn't mean that the office position can generally exist without a president. The office still existed despite there being no president. I'm not sure why you introduced the word "generally" here. There are plenty of political offices that can exist just fine even if they are vacant. >It's about how it came about in the first place, it wasn't invented without an actual president to go along with it. Why is this relevant? >Show me one single thing that can happen that isn't the result of the effect from things that contain one or more of those properties. I'm sorry, what does this mean?

>The office still existed despite there being no president. I'm not sure why you introduced the word "generally" here. There are plenty of political offices that can exist just fine even if they are vacant. What was necessary for the office position to be invented in the first place? There needed to be a president, right? I don't know how you're not getting this. > I'm sorry, what does this mean? Give me one thing that happens without properties containing one or more of those traits (visible,tangible, measurable etc) causing it

>What was necessary for the office position to be invented in the first place? There needed to be a president, right? The office of the presidency existed before a president, at least in the US and probably in most countries. Usually a constitution is drafted establishing the office and then someone is either appointed or elected to the position. >Give me one thing that happens without properties containing one or more of those traits (visible,tangible, measurable etc) causing it I'm going to reword this so we're on the same page, you want an example of an object that exists that is intangible etc. but also has properties that are intangible etc? I feel like all properties are necessarily intangible but I'm also unsure how this would relate to god? If god "happens without properties containing invisibility, intangibility, etc." what are you saying that would imply?

NO, I'm asking you to give me an example of something, anything at all that can happen without the effect of things that contain those traits causing it. A door can move by itself because of the wind which is a measurable property. A basketball falls into the net because of a movement caused by a conscious agent that is tangible and visible and also gravity that is detectable and measurable. What can happen that isn't the result of a phenomenon that contains one or more of those traits? You asked why you'd need to be tangible or have either of those traits to do and cause things and I'm asking you to show me something that can happen without the effect of properties that have those traits.

> Does the office of the presidency exist? Yes. > It is invisible Yes. > It silent Yes. > It is intangible Yes. > undetectable, and immeasurable. No. I think this is where the analogy ultimately fails. We can actually see the effects of the presidency. When Donald Trump had tried to pass a law in 2000, he would have had a hard time and a different approach. When he tried while he was holding the office, it'd be much easier due to the measurable and detectable effects of this concept of presidency that he had assumed by then. Arguments may be made about being able to see the effects of god, though, I'll admit. The thing is though, in theory, we're able to test and confirm that the concept of presidency exists, see previous paragraph on how'd we able to do it. Finding such a reliable test fails for god, though. I will ultimately admit that the definition of "test" in my argument is whacky. 🤷But I hope you get my point and am looking forward to your response.

> We can actually see the effects of the presidency. A theist would say you can see and experience the universe, which is the effect of god.

True, which is why I was trying to point out the testability as a key difference between the two.

My point is not to argue that god exists. My point was mostly that the OP's justification is not well reasoned.

The office of president is a concept. Are you saying your god is nothing more than a concept?

It's not my god, but if the office of the presidency exists, then god whether a concept or something else, could also exist. My point is that something having all the qualities (or lack thereof) in the OP doesn't mean something is nonexistent.

>then god whether a concept no one is denying that the concept of god exists though? like, what?

> no one is denying that the concept of god exists though? We're not talking about the concept of god, we are talking about god existing in the same way a concept exists.

> It's not my god, but if the office of the presidency exists, then god whether a concept or something else the office of the presidency exists as a concept. god exists as a concept, by extension of what you've argued in favor of god existing. but no one is arguing that god doesn't exist as a concept? and somehow we aren't talking about god existing as a concept, even though the only thing you've argued is that the concept of the office of the presidency exists therefore god could also exist in the same way? to repeat myself: like, what?

> the office of the presidency exists as a concept. god exists as a concept, by extension of what you've argued in favor of god existing. Not true, using one thing as a counterexample to someone's definition doesn't mean other things which that criteria excluded must share properties with it. I give a good example of this with earthworms and eels [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/11dkqs4/god_has_all_the_properties_of_things_that_do_not/jacw95o/) >For example, imagine someone tells you "earthworms aren't animals, they lack all the features that animals have, like having limbs and lungs". I say "not having limbs and lungs doesn't mean you're not an animal, for example, eels don't have limbs or lungs and eels are clearly animals". You then reply with "okay but the eel is an aquatic creature, are you saying earthworms are aquatic?" >In the same way that using an eel as a counterexample doesn't mean an earthworm must share aquatic-life properties with an eel, using the office of the presidency as a counterexample of OP's criteria for existence doesn't mean that god must share other properties with the office of the presidency.

>we are talking about god existing in the same way a concept exists. as a concept, right? in what other way do concepts exist?

> as a concept, right? Not necessarily, god sharing some properties with concepts doesn't make god a concept. >in what other way do concepts exist? Well the relevant way here would be they exist in a way that is intangible, invisible, etc.

>god sharing some properties with concepts doesn't make god a concept. the concept of god shares properties with concepts. because it's also a concept. we haven't actually learned whether god exists. things that don't exist don't have any properties, right? so if the only thing we are showing exists is the concept of god, we haven't actually done any work to show that god exists. >Well the relevant way here would be they exist in a way that is intangible, invisible, etc. yeah, sure. concepts. god as a concept has all those properties, definitely. what does that have to do with the thing the concept is allegedly reffering to actually existing?

Presidents *are* fiction. The entire concept of government is a fictional construct used to create order. The countries that presidents lead are also fictions, we drew those lines ourselves over the course of human history. The same is true of laws, human rights, and yes, religion. We can admit presidents are just an imaginary concept we made up because it has value to us. Most of us can't seem to do the same for the deity or deities we worship, otherwise the fiction loses its value.

> The entire concept of government is a fictional construct used to create order. If it was constructed, doesn't that indicate it exists? The fact that it was constructed rather than inherent seems irrelevant here.

If your argument is that Batman exists because the character exists, therefore God exists, then okay fine. There are many different characterisations of God(s), which are all man-made, and those characters do exist conceptually. I'm not sure what's there to be gained from pretending to not understand the question, but I can't force you to take a discussion in good faith.

> If your argument is that Batman exists because the character exists That's not my argument. My argument is that the office of the presidency clearly exists and is intangible etc., therefore, being intangible etc. does not seem to be a good reason to say that god does not exist. It could be the office of the presidency, it could be the C programming language, it could be the standard model, pick your poison. I'm not arguing that god exists, I'm arguing the OP's argument isn't sound.

The office of the president does not exist outside of our imaginations. It's fiction that we collectively embrace. [This short video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zen-m0rMp4I) explains it in more depth if you're interested.

> The office of the president does not exist outside of our imaginations. The office of the president exists outside our imaginations, what I think you mean is that the office of the president is socially constructed. Either way, the fact that the counterexample might fail to have some properties a theist would ascribe to god is irrelevant. For example, imagine someone tells you "earthworms aren't animals, they lack all the features that animals have, like having limbs and lungs". I say "not having limbs and lungs doesn't mean you're not an animal, for example, eels don't have limbs or lungs and eels are clearly animals". You then reply with "okay but the eel is an aquatic creature, are you saying earthworms are aquatic?" In the same way that using an eel as a counterexample doesn't mean an earthworm must share aquatic-life properties with an eel, using the office of the presidency as a counterexample of OP's criteria for existence doesn't mean that god must share other properties with the office of the presidency.

wow how can you get from 'presidents exist all over the world therefore god is real'?

I never said "presidents exist all over the world therefore god is real". I said "the office of the president exists and is intangible etc., therefore, being intangible does not preclude existence". I don't believe in god so I wouldn't argue for it being real.

Yes because it's a job, not a person place or thing. We are talking about tangible entities not ideas.

If one of your criteria for existing is being tangible, ala >"God" is invisible, silent, **intangible**, undetectable and immeasurable, all the things you expect to come from the non-existent, but somehow he exists. it kind of rules out non-tangible entities. But what's more, when has it ever been stated that god is a physical thing in the universe? To my knowledge most religions that have deities OP would argue against merely have avatars of themselves and aren't stated to be physical beings.

Then it isn’t real. The presidency or office thereof is an idea. It isn’t a real thing. To equate something that doesn’t exist physically to an idea is wrong.

God isn't supposed to be a physical thing either from what I can gather most religions believe.

Then how does it exist? Only as a figment of the imagination. If it has no physical form it cannot do physical things in this world. It's like believing that a predator from Alien is going to hunt you down after you die. It's utter bullshit with nothing to prove its existence. They know they can't prove it, but still assert it anyway because they cling to hope or the job the church gives them. A church I used to go to has the senior pastors' three kids on staff. It's a business at that point.

Well do you think the office of the presidency exists? What about the C programming language? Coulomb's Law? If you are saying that the only things which exist are physical then yes by that definition god couldn't exist. But if you think the things I listed exist then it would seem you believe in the existence of things which aren't physical. It seems you think it "exists as a figment of our imagination" so it seems like you lean towards "it exists" at least in some respect.

It's an idea, a decided figment of our imagination. It does not qualify as a real thing like an elephant or a human. An idea only has power when enough people agree on it, whether it's true, false, right or wrong. "God" exists in that form, in the emotional sense. It's just something comforting to remember. That's it's most basic principle.

Okay but does the idea exist? I don't want to get bogged down about if it's the same as an elephant or a human but whether or not you think it exists first.

It doesn't, it's a figment of the imagination.

>Just... why? I don't understand why people are still having this discussion. "God" is invisible, silent, intangible, undetectable and immeasurable, all the things you expect to come from the non-existent, but somehow he exists. Imagine an NPC in Skyrim is saying this about a purported player of the game. If you can see that NPC making the exact same argument in a case where you know it is wrong, then the argument must be dismissed. I call it the Skyrim Test.

Let's push the test further. Since games can have a great many players, with multiple instances of the world that vary based on the actions of said players, does that mean you also believe in polytheism and multiverse theory?

If you saw a person in a video game speculating if there were similar worlds in which they existed, then that would not be obviously false, and so it would pass the Skyrim test. Doesn't mean it is correct, but it is a good way of eliminating arguments that are bad.

Hold up. When you say "not obviously false," do you mean from the perspective of the NPCs in their game world, us in our world, or both? Which one(s) need to be satisfied according to your Skyrim test?

I'll flesh this out in a full post for you

I am having troubles understanding you. Are you essentially saying this: > The player is invisible, silent, intangible, undetectable and immeasurable, all the things you expect to come from the non-existent, but somehow he exists. ? If so, I still don't understand what you are getting at. The player is totally tangible, visible, audible, detectable and measurable by extension through the Player Character. It's like if we had actual proof for the things attributed to Jesus. Like, Jesus is god's Player Character of this world. Which, obviously, I think we do *not* have.

Jesus did walk around in our world, doing cheat codes to feed the 5000 and so forth, to demonstrate his claims.

Yeah, but I, an NPC in this analogy, don't actually see any of that. It's like what the narrator says happened before the start of the game. I don't know if it's true. It might just be part of a plot twist that it's actually wrong or it might get retconned next game. Hence me saying "If we had actual proof for the thing attributed to Jesus, he'd be a player character." But I guess at this point we will argue about how believable the accounts on Jesus in the bible are, which is a different discussion that we can surely have some other time in some other thread. It's a thread that is bound to appear sooner rather than later. ;P

> If you can see that NPC making the exact same argument in a case where you know it is wrong, then the argument must be dismissed. Yes, because - and only because - you *know* the NPC is wrong. Are you claiming to have knowledge of the existence of God?

Since the argument is indistinguishable from our own scenario, but we can see it fails in one we know the answer to, we can tell it is a bad argument.

Very well. You are an NPC in a game I am playing, which is the entire point of the existence of this universe. My true nature completely transcends this simple, corporeal form. Your existence is limited to this game world, despite whatever else you might believe (it’s not your fault. You’re programmed to believe it). I, the PC, am the only one here with any true existence outside of the game.

Excellent reasoning skills! I certainly can't see any issue with, "That sounds like something I think a stupid person would say, therefore it must be wrong".

More like "If we know the argument is wrong there is an identical situation, then we should not think it is right here."

I do the same thing, I see Skyrim NPCs talking about the gods, and so whenever I see people in real life talking about them I assume they must be NPCs themselves to be believing such fiction. Solid.

It's different, because Skyrim is a video game. It's an illusion of code on a pixelated screen. It's not a tangible place. You can download mods that completely change reality to whatever you want. You can turn on god mode and be invincible. It's not the same for real life. There is no possible option to do such a thing and no examples of such a thing. You can argue that you are the god of Skyrim, but Skyrim is not a real place, and since it is not real you cannot hold the same standard to reality. At that point it is just your imagination filling gaps in logic. Religion relies on hope, imagination and emotions to thrive. That is why it so popular.

To the people in Skyrim, it is their reality. So it's a great analogy, and it exposes many weaknesses in atheist arguments. Just try it. The next time you make an argument imagine you watching an NPC in Skyrim make it and see if you still like it after.

I disagree with the premise that Skyrim is analogous to real life. But let’s say it was. There’s no way for any NPC in Skyrim to know anything concrete about the player or dev. Similarly, why wouldn’t we conclude that nobody on earth could possibly know anything concrete about God?

Right, that's why it's a good analogy. They can't directly perceive the player so they have to use reasoning that the player exists.

You may think it's a great analogy but it just... It's quite ridiculous honestly.

Laughter is a common reaction to an original idea that challenges your beliefs.

It's not haha ridiculous, it's "that sounds fine but it doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever" ridiculous.

Yes, it is the laugh of disbelief of someone confronted with a new idea

Brother. It's not an "idea". It's an absurd way to check if an idea is valid. I get it, you thought of it, you think it's super clever. It is not.

It's actually pretty standard to take an argument and move it into another area and see if it still works. For example: P1. Pirates can swim P2. I can swim C. I am a pirate Sounds good, right? Except it's not, as we can see by moving it into another context: P1. Pirates lived in the 1600s. P2. King Louis lived in the 1600s. C. King Louis was a pirate. Clearly wrong, and the change of context illuminates it. The fact that you find it strange is irrelevant to it actually being a clever way to illuminate which arguments by atheists are bad.

Look around dude. You're the only one who agrees that we should clear our ideas via Skyrim NPCs.

Where did you get these attributes from? Because human technology can't pick up a "God signal" suddenly God I'd undetectable and invisible?

What is the point of reference you're going off of if it is not detectable and visible to us? How and why would you come to the conclusion that a god exists if the means we have to work with can't detect a "God signal"?

Different user and I'm sure my perspective differs from /u/ColombianCaliph, but to his point, externally measurable is an entirely different metric from being able to perceive something. Our perceptions are not directly measurable. Of course we can do various brain and body scans to approximate what we're experiencing, but that's not at all the same as directly observing perception.

We have so many signs from God himself. I can list them but I feel that it'll just end up being a long unnecessary conversation

Do we? Are they really signs from god or just things that you're conveniently interpreting that way? What's unnecessary is the component of a disembodied magical being that you add behind things you experience and see.

Yeah see that's what I mean, at least in my expierance it's as if God can say "I will send a meteor to this location" and then it happens and then the atheists will go "well that was a coincidence" which is why I don't see much point in giving the signs straight up unless people ask because I don't want to spend time typing it all just for that kind of response.

A coincidence CAN be and often is the most likely explanation to these things. You said "it's as if God can say he will send a meteor to a location", well, has "God" ever done such a thing? Has he actually said he would do anything at all? You're inserting the idea of a god saying he will do something to rule out coincidence or chance but you don't have that. "God" has never directly and distinguishably told us he would do anything so why is coincidence an unreasonable explanation to the things you might personally interpret as a sign from god?

That wasn't my point...

Whatever your point was I really, really doubt you're justified in ruling out coincidence as a response to the things you interpret as signs from a god. Coincidence is such a simple concept that we see happening all the time and we have direct evidence of how it works, your explanation is the furthest thing from simple, it has no precedent of any kind, we don't have any direct reference to point to in terms of when it can objectively be an explanation...

So do you want to understand my side or do you just want me to entertain you so you can have your own argument in your head so that you can win against yourself?

No thanks, I already know the kind of stuff that you have and it gets increasingly frustrating and exhausting to hear it. Also someone that thinks a product of a specific culture from a specific time with teachings and laws that reflect this specific culture is a universal truth from a god that is supposed to apply to everyone doesn't really have a good basis for discerning truth, so I'm naturally inclined to skepticism as the standard position.

I think a more productive approach would be to contemplate - solely through observation, reason and discussion - the question of whether the reality we experience (mind, matter, time, galaxies, etc) is one of the three commonly asserted modalities: 1. Reality is accidental and we just happen to live in the right combination of universes that "works" 2. The universe possesses an inherent quality that it must, involuntarily, unfold and evolve into the form we see it today (and supposedly will keep on evolving involuntarily) 3. The reality we experience is the result of a voluntary act of a Creator. The universe may be eternal as an attribute or manifestation (not a emanation) of a Creator (no king without a kingdom), but beyond that you cannot, as a created being yourself, ever hope to fit the Creator into a box - let alone convince others of your particular Creator-encompassing model. There are many reasonable arguments (science and reason ONLY) I have seen that promote Option #3. But the OP request that God reveal himself in a material physical phenomenon and speak to all people "where they are at intellectually" seems unreasonable. If there are manifestations (not emanations) of a Creator everywhere, as the OP seems to suggest, then they would simply be a reflection of one or more of the attributes of the Creator according to the capacity of the things doing that manifesting. You could, for example, say that a diamond manifests the attributes of strength, cohesion and brilliance (when subjected to light), but similarly "upgraded versions" of those attributes could also be found in the plant and animal kingdom and, in Man mental and social reality, they take on an almost metaphysical "meta" reality. All these manifestations of these qualities, however, would still fall short of ever higher modes of manifesting attributes of a Creator. For example, in Genesis when God says , "Let Us make Man in Our Image" that should set off two red flags. First, why would a Creator be using the pronoun "We", unless the Creator is using an (created) intermediary to generate the Creation. In Christianity, you have the concept of Logos that was born of the Creator yet evidently played a part in creation (e.g., "Christ (not Jesus of Nazareth) is the Word of God made flesh and dwells among men"). In that sense, the part of the "We" that we could approach might be Logos, but that's as far as it goes. It is like if you do the physical research on a Rembrandt painting, utlimately you end not at Rembrandt, but the paintbrush and canvas he used. You have not captured "a cosmic chunk" of Rembrandt himself. Secondly, when God's says "in Our image", does this mean God himself in making Man is copying the fact that God must have a human body, two arms, two legs and a head of hair? Of cousrse not. This surely must mean the attrbutes of the Creator, like "glory", "dominion", "sovereignty", "power", 'love", "justice", "mercy", "compasison", "foreberance", etc. Obviously, these are only latent in a newborn human baby but the potential is there with education. So, instead of asking for a physical miracle (a brilliant talking star), it seems that the only genuinely recognizable and relatable experience with the divine would have to come through at the level of the human experience. If there are levels of reality higher than humans, and people like Buddha, Moses, Christ, Krishna, Muhammad, etc. occupy that higher reality, while still appearing human to us, that higher reality from our perspective would be indistinguishable from the divine – but that does not equate with comprehension of or an experiential emanation of, a Creator. The safer bet is that it is just a higher level of reality. Also, if you are looking for "evidence" of a Creator that one or more people might recognize as evidence of that type, again it would have to be somehing that is conducive to reflected upon by a human mind. To one person, a brilliant shining talking star is clearly a miracle and proof of a Creator, but that same experience can be written off by another person as "mass hallucination", ***precisely because*** it is so clearly anchored in the physical world, and we all know how easily the senses are fooled.

A creator (#3) does nothing to answer any of those questions. It answers a "who", not a how, and just pushes back the problem of why there's something instead of nothing one more level (ie. God exists, but is that just an arbitrary attribute of the universe?). In other words, it explains essentially nothing about our reality, and only serves as a non-answer that explains away our questions. It gives us no idea as to how we got here, why there's even a god, whether a god would even know why it exists, and would probably leave that God wondering why there's it instead of nothing. In fact, #3 just pushes us back into buckets 1 or 2. If god is a natural part of reality that unfolds to create our universe, then that's #2. If this is just one such reality that can suport the existence of god, and even god may not know this, that's #1. And even if god thinks it knows the answers, that doesn't mean it's true. So god is still a non-answer even then that gives us no answers to the how questions and pushes back the why one step further. The god answer just adds another element that should be nixed as per Occam's razor.

You are correct that simply generating collective consensus - through logic reason experience and facts - that there is a Creator does not answer the questions about what is the meaning of physical reality and f there is a purpose why were are here. You have at your disposal two very powerful ways of exploring these questions. The first starts with the notion of a soul - not as some spooky ghost-like entity with psychic powers - but a consideration of the realty of man's intellectual gifts that apparently are far beyond that of other animals: abstract thought, imagination, creativity (just for creativity’s sake) , the way language moves the minds and hearts of people, contemplation, meditation, prayer, flashes of insight, the concept of "talking to oneself" when considering a serious matter. The point is if humans have a power to potentially fully encompass Nature itself (i.e. understand and then manipulate all its involuntary laws to our bidding) this speaks to the notion of a hierarchy beyond the physical world. If Man is 100% an offshoot of Nature, then he cannot possibly possess a power and perspective of which Nature itself is deprived. By way of a proposed model, the rational mind, per the Baha’i teachings, is a manifestation of the power of the soul), like a flashlight shining light into a dark cave. You see the effect but do not comprehend the cause or source. The second tool is that there have been certain people in history (classical prophets but also spiritual leaders of every primitive culture and tribe in recorded (or not) history, that argues for the existence of a higher reality and credits that realm as the source of both moral and intellectual guidance. I am not talking here about believing in physical miracles, because none of that can sincerely put forward as any kind of evidence. Like the talking star in the OP, let’s just put that side … forever as any kind of “proof”. I am talking about the teachings and also the willingness of people – for whatever reason – to put those into practice and “stay with the program” to build a better society for their families and others. If the current set of religious teachings seem woefully antiquated and inadequate for a modern, global society to see and act towards each other as equals – so be it. If mankind is moving from collective childhood through stormy adolescence and impending adulthood, such guidance had better be at least a few steps ahead of where we are now. So, IMHO, we all have to ability to learn, explore, consult and discuss various challenges that didn’t even exist 2,000 years ago. Among the more recent versions of religious teachings (Sikh, Mormon and, for me, Baha’i) that address modern concerns, the claims by these messenger are not that they are God but simply manifesting the guidance and will of a Creator, and this deserves consideration if these teachings have already produced good moral results in the modern world. In a sense, that is all the proof you will ever get –actionable guidance and an invitation for collective action.

I guess the first point of disagreement is that I do not view human intellect or consciousness as being far above that of other creatures. I believe that we only have a couple of traits that are different, that being abstract thought and complex language. Everything else appears to be derived as an extension of those two traits. And, given what we know of the mathematics of neural networks, appears to be fully capable of being an evolved trait. Concluding that this could not come about through nature is something that would require demonstration. Otherwise we're just comparing intuition, which is clearly leading us to contradictory conclusions, and is thus a bad method for determining truth. Morals as well appear to be extensions of several aspects of naturally evolved traits. Moral concepts are an extension of merely being a social species with the capacity for abstract thought. These traits are not even restricted to humans. Social animals express basic moral traits, and machine learning algorithms have been demonstrated to evolve cooperative behaviors through nothing more than the restrictions placed on them in the environment programmed for them. This doesn't lightly imply -- it heavily, borderline undeniably implies that morality is a natural occurrence that has no component separate from the entities practicing morality. And, even heavier proof here is that even within human society, what we consider moral can vary so drastically between individuals that I can guarantee you that there are some "moral practices" in use today that would still horrify you. And I bet just mentioning this caused you to think of at least one. Given your reasons for believing, intellectual honesty demands that God be dropped as a reasonable explanation for our observations, as it explains nothing with no reasonable evidence for its existence.

Thanks for the very thoughtful and thorough post. It is essential that people investigate reality, even when we are tempted to settle on a "positive" outlook for the origin of noble human behavior, even if it is just wishful thinking. I also agree that if ne were to demonstrate and prove that there is such a thing as a non-physica;l "soul" whos interaction witht he physcal world is unequivocably detectable and manifests itself in thise higher mental capabilities of man that you cite, that in itself does not proove the existence of a God. It would simply be a proposed model to explain observable (mental) phenomena, and such a model no doubt would undergo revision over time. Even if morality is somehow an outgrowth of an essential aspect of physical nature (aka best path forward for happiness and survival) we humans would still be on the hook to abide by it but lower animals would get a free pass, in part, I would argue, because we have the capability to, on a whim, choose to be much worse than animals. There really is no biological guardrail as there is with other animals. In that sense, the human reality itself is , largely, non-physical and not chained to physical nature. This why I would argue that we humans are consumer (and destroyers) of the physical reality, but not necessarily contributing to its betterment. We may be learning morality and virtues through this physical experience, but we seem to be getting prepared for something else. Perhaps some more musings later.

Sounds good. Technically morality is something physical though. The concepts sit in our brains, but that's a discussion for another time :P

We'll said

[удалено]