Talk me out of it.

[RemieV]

I haven't been in this section of the forum for very long, so I thought I'd take a risk and start a thread.

I believe in the possibility that there is a theistic God. I am not a part of any religion or denomination.

I'm hoping for a discussion of why this possibility cannot be true. Hopefully it will be more philosophy and less science, since I am more educated in one than the other, though I'm willing to follow any links provided.

Why can't there be a God with his fingers in the pie?

I don't have any deeply-held belief structures or anything. I have simply not heard any argument against a nameless theistic God.

The discussion might come down to, "Why WOULD you believe something like that?" but I hope it doesn't. I want to become more educated on other ideas.

And that's the only purpose of the thread.

Thanks, and I can't wait to read any responses anyone feels like sharing.

-- Remie

[ohp]

surely you're asking people to prove a negative..

[Lonewulf]

Arguing that there can't be a God is impossible. Of course there can be. But there's a difference than admitting to a possibility, and proclaiming faith.

[RemieV]

Oh, I'm not asking for proof of anything. I'm just asking about philosophical conclusions.

Maybe I should rephrase, and make it, "Why does a theistic God not make sense to you as a basis for personal belief?"

Not to say that it should. I'm just trying to round out the philosophy aspect of my education.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by RemieV

I believe in the possibility that there is a theistic God. I am not a part of any religion or denomination.

I'm hoping for a discussion of why this possibility cannot be true.

No can do.

I could probably give you reason after reason why various phenomena in the universe do not require a god, but I cannot honestly argue that there is no possibility of a god existing somewhere.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by RemieV

"Why does a theistic God not make sense to you as a basis for personal belief?"

Occam's Razor, for short.

[Beerina]

Not just proving a negative -- proving that something doesn't exist has infinite abilities and the desire to hide from proof.

It is unique in posessing both these properties.

Now if you are truly arguing a non-denominational god, then it would not have the one property of desiring to hide. But if it's not trying to hide, we are seeing very scant evidence of it.

And a "start the universe running then hands off" god is indistinguishible from no god at all, as far as we can tell. And I would argue that type of god is not particularly moral for creating the universe, knowing torture could happen, and certainly for not stopping the situation after seeing it actually happen.

[RemieV]

Really, honestly, I'm asking because I'm not that smart. Rather, I find that there are a great number of people around this place who are much smarter than I am. So I'm just asking questions...

And I understand that a deist God is indistinguishable from no God, but isn't that also true for a theist God? Why would the amount of evidence in support of or in opposition a deist and theist God be different?

[Miss Anthrope]

Originally Posted by RemieV

I haven't been in this section of the forum for very long, so I thought I'd take a risk and start a thread.

I believe in the possibility that there is a theistic God. I am not a part of any religion or denomination.

I'm hoping for a discussion of why this possibility cannot be true. Hopefully it will be more philosophy and less science, since I am more educated in one than the other, though I'm willing to follow any links provided.

Why can't there be a God with his fingers in the pie?

I don't have any deeply-held belief structures or anything. I have simply not heard any argument against a nameless theistic God.

The discussion might come down to, "Why WOULD you believe something like that?" but I hope it doesn't. I want to become more educated on other ideas.

And that's the only purpose of the thread.

Thanks, and I can't wait to read any responses anyone feels like sharing.

-- Remie

Hi Remie,

I see this as a very sincere post so I'll give it a shot.

The cold, plain truth is that the idea of ceasing to exist is terrifying. The idea, when you lose someone, that all that is left is their offspring and those who remember them is equally terrifying. This is enough to not just make people believe in a god or an afterlife...some people NEED this, desperately, because they cannot stand the other possibility.

The human ego is another issue. It seems that it is human nature to not want to believe that a person can simply come to an end.

I think, ultimately, it is narcissistic to imagine a god that would be bothered with my day to day life. Why am I so important? Why is anyone, really? I understand the desire to feel important that way, but I think, when you break it down, that it is childish. Or child-like, perhaps.

Let me tell you...I grew up a woo. I then turned to the church. So I've been on this journey of "looking for answers". Before I studied in earnest the subjects of philosophy, sociology, anthropology and evolutionary psychology...I simply took a look at basic human behavior and it was easy to conclude there is no god. People can be stupid, hurtful, cruel, murderous, wonderful, giving, caring, the whole gamut. I knew, from common sense, that these behaviors came from the environment they grew up in, brain chemistry, basic biology and personal choice. It was only confirmed by science. We're part of the animal kingdom, not apart from it.

As a site that I like to read states, "26,000 children will die of starvation today. Why should god answer YOUR prayers?" A god with his hands in the pie does not make sense on a philosophical level when you look at the world today...or yesterday.

I understand why people want and need to believe. But I think it's like burying one's head in the sand. In my own journey, I believe overcoming the fear and facing life with crystal clarity is worth it.

[roger]

Remie, to expand on the Occam's razor argument.

We atheists posit a world.
You theists posit a world, and a God powerful enough to construct that world.

Underneath the atheist position is another assumption, that the world can be created on it's own, without outside influence.

Underneath the theist position is the assumption that either

1) the world cannot be created on it's own, but that there exists a God complex enough to create that world, but that itself was created (or always) existed on it's own;

or 2) that the world could have come into existance on it's own, but as it happens it was done by God

or 3) the world was created on it's own, but oh yeah, there's this infinitely powerful being as well.

All three of those are more complicated than the atheists position. Occams razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

Now, that is not the death knell for the theist position. For admittedly the atheist's position is still an assumption, not a full explanation. There's a lot of hand waving involved. Occam's razor can only be applied with rigor only when there's actually evidence for your position.

For example:

I report seeing the following: a man and woman fighting, and the man storms out of the room.

We can posit that 1) they were having a fight, or 2) they were acting in a movie.

Occams razor says 1 is most likely, since a lot more fights occur than movie's being filmed. But if I supply one more piece of information: after the fight, a woman in a director's chair yelled "cut".

Now I can spin a story that 1) is still the correct explanation, but it is going to be pretty far fetched. As I add more pieces of data (there were movie cameras pointing at the couple, etc), 1) becomes less likely, and 2) becomes more likely.

So, if we apply Occam's razor with only the first piece of information (a couple fighting), we will on average be right in deciding they were having a fight, not filming a movie, but we also could be wrong. A preponderance of evidence could convince us they were just filming a movie (a script with the words they said would do wonders, as would an eventual DVD of the movie with the scene in it).

Right now we don't have that evidence re theism. So, we atheists could be wrong in our use of Occam's razor. But, it's the best we have. Why believe in something that we have no evidence for, an idea that we know that people people entertain because they find it comforting, when to the best of our knowledge the materialist position is sufficient to explain the universe?

The real arguments are more subtlely argued than this, but I think the above is reasonable for a throw away post on a bulletin board.

[Phil]

The default position is "there is no god". Unless evidence is presented in support of another position, the discussion on a scientific level ends.

But we are emotional creatures, and we don't like the discussion to end there. The subject of our reliance on emotions may be a better place to start your discussion. Miss Anthrope has contributed to it nicely.

But the amount of evidence in support of or in opposition to a deist god, a theist god, or any god (pink unicorn, garage dragon, celestial tea kettle, etc.) is exactly the same.

[The Atheist]

Can I suggest that asking scpetics is possibly not a great plan, to start with.

I advise, if you're thinking seriously about it, to go a sensible christian place first - e.g. Ship of Fools - where you will get honest opinions as to why those people believe in their gods and are able to provide you with personal anecdotal experience of those gods.

Once you've done that, come back here for the other side of the social construct which is religion, then you'll be in a position to decide which path you should follow.

That, and PM Darth Rotor and Myriad - they're the smartest christian posters here. Whatever you do, do it because it's right for you. Personally, I hope you realise that it's all a crock, but as long as you're happy with your findings, what does it matter what others think?

[RemieV]

Okay, I'm aware that this argument works just as well for fairies, Bigfoot, and any other number of things. I just want to know whether or not I'm missing something.

Let's say I'm a monkey in the forest. For some reason, the idea of a human being comes to me. I think there are humans.

If I spend my entire life looking for humans, and never find one, does that mean they don't exist?

It seems like in order to believe something like that I'd have to be working off all the data. I'd have to travel the entire world.

And then, even if I did, it still wouldn't work because humans are sentient, and they're not holding still for me to find them.

I understand that in order to suppose that there is a God, it would be very likely that should he happen to have his finger in the pie, there would be evidence to that effect.

I think about Flatland often in terms of gods.

If a God was affecting things right in front of me, would I see it for what it was, or would I try to make it fit in my perspective of the way the world worked?

It's nearly impossible to see outside of your own perspective. And then, if you tried to explain it, it would just be an anecdote because anything involving a sentient creature wouldn't be repeatable unless you knew exactly how it operated.

I agree that much of religion is wishful thinking. I do not see a reason that a superior being would want to be involved in day-to-day human life. That doesn't mean there isn't one. I can imagine instances that would go well with either side.

By the way, I'd like to again point out that I am just thinking aloud, and asking for opinions of people who are smarter and have thought this through better than I have. I am not a theist, a deist, or an atheist. I simply haven't gotten the information required to say that I am anything.

Thanks, everyone, for your responses so far. They are interesting, and I'm thinking about them.

[Miss Anthrope]

Let's say you are a an ancient human, and to explain an earthquake, with your limited knowledge, you decide there must be a god causing the rumbling. You look your entire life without finding one, but you see plenty of "signs from god" in natural disasters. While I have never seen a tectonic plate under the earth, I knew as I was thrown out of bed by the Northridge quake that it was the tectonic plate, not god, that made the earthquake.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Can I suggest that asking scpetics is possibly not a great plan, to start with.

I advise, if you're thinking seriously about it, to go a sensible christian place first - e.g. Ship of Fools - where you will get honest opinions as to why those people believe in their gods and are able to provide you with personal anecdotal experience of those gods.

Once you've done that, come back here for the other side of the social construct which is religion, then you'll be in a position to decide which path you should follow.

That, and PM Darth Rotor and Myriad - they're the smartest christian posters here. Whatever you do, do it because it's right for you. Personally, I hope you realise that it's all a crock, but as long as you're happy with your findings, what does it matter what others think?

I am asking here because I am looking for intelligent opinions on the subject, and felt like starting a pondering thread . It is skeptical opinions that I wanted. I am checking to see if I'm missing anything, that's all. And if I was, it would be more likely that I'd be missing it from the skeptical side.

In my life, I've been a member of the following churches: Lutheran, Southern Baptist, Catholic, Disciples of Christ. My father is a Jehovah's Witness.

I am pretty well steeped in religion.

But it's not a religious perspective I was looking for.

When I was about thirteen, I asked the youth minister of the Southern Baptist church how there could be free will as well as God's plan. I thought that I was just missing something then, too.

He didn't have an answer. Rather, he tried and failed. What he said didn't make any sense.

Since then, I discovered answers that sort of jived elsewhere. That doesn't mean they're right. But the perspective is nice.

As for Christianity - I am not a Christian. I don't particularly want to be a Christian.

[Piscivore]

If Piggy's still around ask him too. He had a brilliant set of posts on the subject that I cannot immediately locate.

[CFLarsen]

Big Question. Sure is.

There is a possibility of there being a theistic God. Of course there is. Just as there is a possibility of there being a Tinkerbell. And if Tinkerbell comes in the shape of Julia Roberts, who am I to lament?

But I digress.

Is there a theistic God?

Well, there is absolutely no evidence that there is such a God. Or any kind of God. So, with all the might and weight of science, we can say that there is no such God.

Does it make sense if there is such a God?

Well....that depends on what you (or I, since I posed the question!) mean by "sense". Does it make you feel good, and that's that? Fine by me, as long as you don't try to impose your beliefs on others. Apparently, 1 in 5 men go to sleep with their teddy bears, so who am I to point fingers (considering that I got cats to cuddle with, which are so much better)?

If, however, you don't feel that the natural laws explain the universe well enough, and you need some intervening God to explain what you don't understand, your ass is grass and I'm a lawn mower.

Because if you want a God merely because you can't fathom - or accept - that you are but a speck on a small planet in some distant parts of a run-of-the-mill galaxy, but instead insist on a God which, despite all the worlds in the Universe, you want to focus on you and your needs... I think you get m'drift.

Yeah, we will all die. So what? We are here for now, and that's just...great. Really: Isn't it? Don't you just love being alive? Just being alive?

But - would you like to stay alive forever? Be trapped either in an ever-decaying body (ewwl....), or be trapped in the same body, at whatever age you would prefer? Which age would that be, by the way? You want to be a toddler forever? You're going to fill up the planet with used diapers! You want to be a 7-year old girl? ....nah. You want to be a teenager? Forever? Filled with hormones and little else? For the sake of world peace, girl, don't! You want to be 29 forever? (OK, like so many of your sisters, you may try, but it...gets...old...). You want to be 85? You want to go from 85 to 15 to 55?

No, we can't stay alive forever, and we don't want to, anyway. Not only would this planet be kinda over-crowded in no time flat, it would also be intolerable. Not just to other people, but to yourself.

You live, you die. Why worry so much about what happens after you die, if you don't worry one bit about what happened before you were born?

Life. It's a great ride. But it's a ride nonetheless. And what happens after that? If there is a Heaven, you got it all made. If there isn't, and it's all...nothingness? Well...why do you care? You won't experience it anyway.

You could aspire to becoming fertilizer for daffodils, though. Or an oak tree, which will stand 10 times longer than you ever did.

Not a bad way to "exist".....is it?

Go out tonight, and look at the stars. They are indifferent to you, sure. But you have the privilege to enjoy them. So, do it.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

No, we can't stay alive forever, and we don't want to, anyway.

Speak for yourself. The sooner I can get my brain implanted into a nigh-immortal cyborg body shell the better.

Quote:

Not only would this planet be kinda over-crowded in no time flat, it would also be intolerable. Not just to other people, but to yourself.

That's what the sterilisation virus is for.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by Miss Anthrope

Let's say you are a an ancient human, and to explain an earthquake, with your limited knowledge, you decide there must be a god causing the rumbling. You look your entire life without finding one, but you see plenty of "signs from god" in natural disasters. While I have never seen a tectonic plate under the earth, I knew as I was thrown out of bed by the Northridge quake that it was the tectonic plate, not god, that made the earthquake.

And I absolutely agree that when seeking answers for something that you haven't the knowledge to understand, the easiest place with the most simple answers is the supernatural.

However, many great thinkers have concluded that there is a god, and I would like to believe that it wasn't just because they were unaware of tectonic plates.

Many great thinkers have also concluded that there isn't. I'm interested in finding the path that leads to both conclusions.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by CFLarsen

Big Question. Sure is.

There is a possibility of there being a theistic God. Of course there is. Just as there is a possibility of there being a Tinkerbell. And if Tinkerbell comes in the shape of Julia Roberts, who am I to lament?

But I digress.

Is there a theistic God?

Well, there is absolutely no evidence that there is such a God. Or any kind of God. So, with all the might and weight of science, we can say that there is no such God.

Does it make sense if there is such a God?

Well....that depends on what you (or I, since I posed the question!) mean by "sense". Does it make you feel good, and that's that? Fine by me, as long as you don't try to impose your beliefs on others. Apparently, 1 in 5 men go to sleep with their teddy bears, so who am I to point fingers (considering that I got cats to cuddle with, which are so much better)?

If, however, you don't feel that the natural laws explain the universe well enough, and you need some intervening God to explain what you don't understand, your ass is grass and I'm a lawn mower.

Because if you want a God merely because you can't fathom - or accept - that you are but a speck on a small planet in some distant parts of a run-of-the-mill galaxy, but instead insist on a God which, despite all the worlds in the Universe, you want to focus on you and your needs... I think you get m'drift.

Yeah, we will all die. So what? We are here for now, and that's just...great. Really: Isn't it? Don't you just love being alive? Just being alive?

But - would you like to stay alive forever? Be trapped either in an ever-decaying body (ewwl....), or be trapped in the same body, at whatever age you would prefer? Which age would that be, by the way? You want to be a toddler forever? You're going to fill up the planet with used diapers! You want to be a 7-year old girl? ....nah. You want to be a teenager? Forever? Filled with hormones and little else? For the sake of world peace, girl, don't! You want to be 29 forever? (OK, like so many of your sisters, you may try, but it...gets...old...). You want to be 85? You want to go from 85 to 15 to 55?

No, we can't stay alive forever, and we don't want to, anyway. Not only would this planet be kinda over-crowded in no time flat, it would also be intolerable. Not just to other people, but to yourself.

You live, you die. Why worry so much about what happens after you die, if you don't worry one bit about what happened before you were born?

Life. It's a great ride. But it's a ride nonetheless. And what happens after that? If there is a Heaven, you got it all made. If there isn't, and it's all...nothingness? Well...why do you care? You won't experience it anyway.

You could aspire to becoming fertilizer for daffodils, though. Or an oak tree, which will stand 10 times longer than you ever did.

Not a bad way to "exist".....is it?

Go out tonight, and look at the stars. They are indifferent to you, sure. But you have the privilege to enjoy them. So, do it.

Claus, darling, I was wondering when you'd come

I have no problem with ceasing to exist, and if I was going to make up a God it wouldn't be for living forever. If I was inclined to make one up, it would be to create someone who cares about me even though my life is trivial and will probably never have a great accomplishment in it.

But I'm not making up Gods. I'm just wondering aloud what brings people to conclusions.

And yours, Claus, my dear, are mostly guided by absolute evidence, and even the evidence presented is well up for attack. Even if God and all his angels floated down to you on golden clouds and jammed the horn of Gabriel up your nostril you'd still say to yourself, "Aha, but he didn't show me his passport." Okay, not that extreme. Let's just say you're one hell of a skeptic.

To me, it seems unlikely that every person on the planet only holds beliefs for which they have indisputable evidence. Even skeptics. Because the amount of time it would take to gather such evidence would be longer than a lifetime. Some things you take for granted.

Now, do I believe in the possibility because I simply want to? Sure, why not. I also find some philosophy compelling because it makes sense with what I know of the universe. Philosophy is different from fact, I'm well aware, and since it depends largely upon my perspective, it is largely inapplicable.

But what, in my world, does not depend upon my perspective? What, in yours, does not depend on yours?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Oh, I'm not asking for proof of anything. I'm just asking about philosophical conclusions.

Philosophy doesn't do conclusions. Philosophy is a process whereby a comfortable living is extracted from the productive branch of society.

Quote:

Maybe I should rephrase, and make it, "Why does a theistic God not make sense to you as a basis for personal belief?"

"Personal" in what sense? Just joshin' with ya, I'm not really a Philosopher . I see no basis for a personal belief at all, let alone care about the style and colour, so I guess I'll just bug out now ...

Quote:

Not to say that it should. I'm just trying to round out the philosophy aspect of my education.

... right after advising you to root out the philosophy aspect and use the space for something useful.

[Solus]

Originally Posted by RemieV

And I absolutely agree that when seeking answers for something that you haven't the knowledge to understand, the easiest place with the most simple answers is the supernatural.

However, many great thinkers have concluded that there is a god, and I would like to believe that it wasn't just because they were unaware of tectonic plates.

Many great thinkers have also concluded that there isn't. I'm interested in finding the path that leads to both conclusions.

Upchurch and the posters above his have explained why I don't believe in any gods or invisible dargons in my garage (although I do have one).

Why do you care what "great thinkers" have concluded? Make your own conclusions. It shouldn't matter what the founding fathers of the US thought for example. Belief is up to you ultimately. As to my understanding, many philosophers and others concluded there had to be a some kind of deity because at the time they could think of no better explanation. It's the same today.

I chose not to believe in something has a .000000001 to the power of 1000000 chance (not sure what the real chance is) of being true. Some peoples' definition of "god" is so broad you could just call it nature but some prefer to call it god.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by Solus

Upchurch and the posters above his have explained why I don't believe in any gods or invisible dargons in my garage (although I do have one).

Why do you care what "great thinkers" have concluded? Make your own conclusions. It shouldn't matter what the founding fathers of the US thought for example. Belief is up to you ultimately. As to my understanding, many philosophers and others concluded there had to be a some kind of deity because at the time they could think of no better explanation. It's the same today.

I chose not to believe in something has a .000000001 to the power of 1000000 chance (not sure what the real chance is) of being true. Some peoples' definition of "god" is so broad you could just call it nature but some prefer to call it god.

Well, I consider the thoughts of great thinkers because I accept the possibility that they're smarter than I am, have thought about it harder, and come to conclusions that save me the time of pondering my whole life to reach the same one...

Every philosopher stands on the shoulders of the one before, after all.

When it comes to actual belief of some kind, of course I'll handle that part on my own. But I do like hearing what other people have said, and I also like hearing the opinions of people on the forum

Even recent philosophers have justified a belief in God. I mean, there are philosophers out there right now, and they have access to all sorts of information

[Jon.]

Originally Posted by RemieV

I haven't been in this section of the forum for very long, so I thought I'd take a risk and start a thread.

I believe in the possibility that there is a theistic God. I am not a part of any religion or denomination.

I'm hoping for a discussion of why this possibility cannot be true. Hopefully it will be more philosophy and less science, since I am more educated in one than the other, though I'm willing to follow any links provided.

Why can't there be a God with his fingers in the pie?

I don't have any deeply-held belief structures or anything. I have simply not heard any argument against a nameless theistic God.

The discussion might come down to, "Why WOULD you believe something like that?" but I hope it doesn't. I want to become more educated on other ideas.

And that's the only purpose of the thread.

Thanks, and I can't wait to read any responses anyone feels like sharing.

-- Remie

I think before I could intelligently discuss why I don't believe in a "nameless theistic God" I would have to ask you some questions about this proposed deity. What are its characteristics? Where does it exist? How does it interfere on Earth? Is it eternal? Did it have a beginning; will it have an end?

Y'see, I often get challenged to explain why I don't believe in God. Several of the arguments I advance are answered with "Well, what if God were..." followed by a quick shifting of the goalposts. So I've made it a policy not to debate the existence of God with anyone who won't tell me what kind of God we're debating in advance.

I find that this policy can have the happy side effect of forcing theists to examine their own beliefs so closely that end up atheists. Actually, that has never happened, but I fantasize about it a lot.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by RemieV

However, many great thinkers have concluded that there is a god ...

I think they've mostly not concluded that there isn't. How many of these thinkers were first presented with the idea of a god in their adulthood? In all cases they were deciding not to shed a belief they were brought up with. Mostly they saw no reason to. Science, for instance, has no problem with religion. Believing scientists are unlikely to be Biblical literalists in the first place, and religion can't contaminate a test-tube.

Quote:

Many great thinkers have also concluded that there isn't. I'm interested in finding the path that leads to both conclusions.

Concluding that there isn't is far more active.

If you had been brought up in a non-believing society, where the concept of a god was arcane history at best, would you be persuaded of one by any conceivable argument? It would surely require some event or observation that made the scientific view of reality untenable. That's any scientific view in principle, not just some current Standard Model that could be fixed or replaced. A very tall order.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Remie, could you define god for us? I'm betting your definition will be incoherent, which goes a long way toward making me skeptical of his existence. For example, is he omniscient? Is he supernatural?

Originally Posted by Jon

Y'see, I often get challenged to explain why I don't believe in God. Several of the arguments I advance are answered with "Well, what if God were..." followed by a quick shifting of the goalposts. So I've made it a policy not to debate the existence of God with anyone who won't tell me what kind of God we're debating in advance.

Like that.

~~ Paul

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Even recent philosophers have justified a belief in God.

Name two.

Chances are, I will not agree that they managed to justify their believes.

[Zygar]

Originally Posted by roger

Remie, to expand on the Occam's razor argument.

We atheists posit a world.
You theists posit a world, and a God powerful enough to construct that world.

Underneath the atheist position is another assumption, that the world can be created on it's own, without outside influence.

Underneath the theist position is the assumption that either

1) the world cannot be created on it's own, but that there exists a God complex enough to create that world, but that itself was created (or always) existed on it's own;

or 2) that the world could have come into existance on it's own, but as it happens it was done by God

or 3) the world was created on it's own, but oh yeah, there's this infinitely powerful being as well.

All three of those are more complicated than the atheists position. Occams razor says the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

Firstly, Occam's Razor postulates. It does not dictate.

Secondly, I disagree with the manner in which atheists apply Occam's razor to god. In what way is it more complicated that a being created the universe, than that it just formed itself on it's own? There is no simple explanation for the formation of the universe. Infact, the entire scientific community will readily admit that we have utterly no clue what happened within the first Planck time of the universe since the Big Bang. Also, what happened prior to the Big Bang?

Basically, what I am saying is that you are going off of faith in the universe's ability to just sorta happen. Occam's razor does not give us a solution to "goddidit" vs. "itjustsortahappened".

I don't genuinely have a strong viewpoint on the existence of a god of any sort. The skeptic in me is just as skeptical of the atheists as of the world's religions.

[Zygar]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Remie, could you define god for us? I'm betting your definition will be incoherent, which goes a long way toward making me skeptical of his existence. For example, is he omniscient? Is he supernatural?

She did:

Originally Posted by RemieV

I believe in the possibility that there is a theistic God.

Basically, a theistic god is a god which does interact with the world. As opposed to a deistic god is one that does not interact with the world.

I think her question does not require any further definition of a god.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Zygar

Secondly, I disagree with the manner in which atheists apply Occam's razor to god. In what way is it more complicated that a being created the universe, than that it just formed itself on it's own?

We use Occam when we have two competing theories that both accurately explain the facts at hand. As far as the original formation of the universe is concerned, the two theories have the same explanation: poof! This is not a particularly compelling situation in which to invoke Occam, since there is no explanation at all. If we're patient, physics might improve its explanation. I'm not convinced religion will.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Remie

I believe in the possibility that there is a theistic God.

Originally Posted by Zygar

Basically, a theistic god is a god which does interact with the world. As opposed to a deistic god is one that does not interact with the world.

I think her question does not require any further definition of a god.

I completely disagree. My hamster fulfills that simplistic definition of god. You have left oodles of assumptions unstated.

~~ Paul

[gnome]

I have a take that seems different from what has been posted already...

The question was asked, "Why does a theistic God not make sense to you as a basis for personal belief?"...

I can break it down in a few ways...

If you're talking about a Creator god, that made the universe and about which we know nothing... that is not any more interesting or useful to me than the idea of not having a god... it's just throwing in a concept that I will never experience except to explain the existence of reality. If it has no other effect on the universe, it isn't necessary to think about it any further.

If it does have an effect on the universe... is it, for example, omnipotent? Here's where I have an issue that is more interesting... I don't exactly see the point of holding faith in an omnipotent god... or at least in supposing such a god would want something from me... or if the concept of an omnipoent being "wanting" something is meaningful at all. Being omnipotent, I don't see how its will does not become reality immediately. What need would it have of my faith in it? Or, indeed, for anything else to exist at all? Whatever satisfaction it might get from making something, can it not generate that satisfaction directly in its own mind?

If the god is less than omnipotent, it is a finite being and like any other finite being I will not hold an opinion until I have experience of it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Gnome

If it does have an effect on the universe... is it, for example, omnipotent? Here's where I have an issue that is more interesting... I don't exactly see the point of holding faith in an omnipotent god... or at least in supposing such a god would want something from me... or if the concept of an omnipoent being "wanting" something is meaningful at all. Being omnipotent, I don't see how its will does not become reality immediately. What need would it have of my faith in it?

As Mercutio has so cleverly pointed out in another thread, where do we get this omnipotent thing from anyway? Just because this purported god made the universe does not mean he is omnipotent. How could we possibly tell if he was?

If he is truly omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

~~ Paul

[RationalReverend]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Occam's Razor, for short.

Occam was a Christian Monk...

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Every philosopher stands on the shoulders of the one before, after all.

No, they stand in a line, "taught" by the one before, and "teaching" the next one. Science builds on accumulated knowledge, Philosophy can stick to discussing what "knowledge" is. There can be no accumulation in the time-less, formless environment that Philosophy inhabits.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by RationalReverend

Occam was a Christian Monk...

Hey, a man's gotta make a living ...

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by RationalReverend

Occam was a Christian Monk...

Although he did do his share of cage-rattling. Enough so to bring about the displeasure of the Pope.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

If he is truly omnipotent, can he destroy himself?l

This conjures up an image of a Shane moment, "My job here is done ..." and riding off into the sunset and extinction. For all we know it's already done it, whatever the job was.

This omnipotency would have to be a one-shot thing, the god would not only have to destroy itself but also leave no chance of another omnipotent entity arising.

[Zygar]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

We use Occam when we have two competing theories that both accurately explain the facts at hand. As far as the original formation of the universe is concerned, the two theories have the same explanation: poof! This is not a particularly compelling situation in which to invoke Occam, since there is no explanation at all. If we're patient, physics might improve its explanation. I'm not convinced religion will.

~~ Paul

So you agree with me that Occam's razor should not have been invoked in the post to which I was responding. Thank you.

[Zygar]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I completely disagree. My hamster fulfills that simplistic definition of god. You have left oodles of assumptions unstated.

~~ Paul

I suppose that I shouldn't rule out the possibility that god took the form of a hamster so he could run on a wheel for a while in a cage in your home. Everyone needs a vacation once in a while.

But seriously, look up Theism^WP and you will see that it is simply a version of god that sits somewhere between the Judeo-Christian God and the Deist god that just kicked off the universe and went on vacation. I was somehow assuming that the definition of Theist God was pretty obvious.