3 ms·

If 'god' did not create the universe but allowed the Big Bang to take place then it would be impossible to 'anthropologise' this deity. 'god' would just be an e

If 'god' did not create the universe but allowed the Big Bang to take place then it would be impossible to 'anthropologise' this deity. 'god' would just be an energy completely unlike how the religious view he/her/it.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago
Do you think that all religious people imagine God as a man with a long white beard who lives in the sky? Many are just fine with the idea of a non-anthropomorphic God. It's funny what strange things some atheists believe about all theists. (The reverse is also true, of course, but frankly I'd expect better of the atheists.)
- Cheapshot1 10y ago
  No, you are misrepresenting what he was saying. If god created the universe, but did not interact with it after it's creation then you can't claim him to be one of the many mythical figures people make him to be. Second, if god does interact with our universe he is than testable to some degree.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > If god created the universe, but did not interact with it after it's creation then you can't claim him to be one of the many mythical figures people make him to be. Sure, you can, since the watchmaker god precisely is one of the many mythical figures people make him out to be. > Second, if god does interact with our universe he is than testable to some degree. Not really; if you have a complete model of all interactions within our universe, you can test whether there is anything else acting on our universe (though that's indistinguishable from a gap in your model of what goes on in our universe). OTOH, if you have a predictive model of how God interacts with our universe (which mythical portrayals disagree on whether this is even in principle possible) you could test if that particular model seems accurate.
    - Cheapshot1 10y ago
      >Sure, you can, since the watchmaker god precisely is one of the many mythical figures people make him out to be. Or it could be magical fairies with magical universe creating powder. You can't claim something without something to support the claim. My fairies with magical fairy universe creating powder is just as plausible as any god in this scenerio. Also if it manifests in the universe it is at least detectable. We might not know the cause but we can see the "supernatural" event taking place in the universe
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Or it could be magical fairies with magical universe creating powder. Sure, the watchmaker god is not distinguishable from lots of other things, but that's different than it conflicting with all mythical portrayals of god (which it can't do since it is one such portrayal.)
        Cheapshot1 10y ago
        The problem with this is the assumption of the god. God of the gaps argument. Unless the evidence points to it being a god we can not start making claims about it. Example. You can't disprove god but he is all knowing loving and created the universe. This logic makes me scratch my head. Thinking Why just Why
      - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
        > Or it could be magical fairies with magical universe creating powder. You can't claim something without something to support the claim. My fairies with magical fairy universe creating powder is just as plausible as any god in this scenerio. You're moving the goalposts. First you said that a non-involved deity is incompatible with any religious conception of God, which is incorrect. Now you've shifted to asserting that there's no evidence for the existence of a non-involved deity, which is reasonable, but has nothing to do with whether or not the idea is compatible with theism as it exists.
- ImTalking 10y ago
  I didn't write anthropomorphic... I wrote anthropologise (which I'm sure is not a word) but I wrote that to state that it would then be impossible to include this deity into human culture. I mean, what are we including?
- vixen99 10y ago
  As an atheist I don't care what conception religious people have of their 'God'; while it remains private, it's up to them. The problem arises when they suggest courses of action affecting other people, based (they say) on an indirect or direct communication with that God. Aside from its breathtaking arrogance, this is demonstrable fairy-tale-telling. Sadly the history of humanity is littered with the miserable results of this chain of command. This is not an argument along Dawkins' line. An internal religious life is perfectly possible provided one is clear that, as Simone Weil puts it 'God can only be present in creation under the form of absence' (tr) or 'necessity rules!'. Weil had a formidable intellect and this idea is far from mere incantation or nuttiness in her hands.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

Do you think that all religious people imagine God as a man with a long white beard who lives in the sky? Many are just fine with the idea of a non-anthropomorphic God. It's funny what strange things some atheists believe about all theists. (The reverse is also true, of course, but frankly I'd expect better of the atheists.)

Cheapshot1 10y ago
No, you are misrepresenting what he was saying. If god created the universe, but did not interact with it after it's creation then you can't claim him to be one of the many mythical figures people make him to be. Second, if god does interact with our universe he is than testable to some degree.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > If god created the universe, but did not interact with it after it's creation then you can't claim him to be one of the many mythical figures people make him to be. Sure, you can, since the watchmaker god precisely is one of the many mythical figures people make him out to be. > Second, if god does interact with our universe he is than testable to some degree. Not really; if you have a complete model of all interactions within our universe, you can test whether there is anything else acting on our universe (though that's indistinguishable from a gap in your model of what goes on in our universe). OTOH, if you have a predictive model of how God interacts with our universe (which mythical portrayals disagree on whether this is even in principle possible) you could test if that particular model seems accurate.
  - Cheapshot1 10y ago
    >Sure, you can, since the watchmaker god precisely is one of the many mythical figures people make him out to be. Or it could be magical fairies with magical universe creating powder. You can't claim something without something to support the claim. My fairies with magical fairy universe creating powder is just as plausible as any god in this scenerio. Also if it manifests in the universe it is at least detectable. We might not know the cause but we can see the "supernatural" event taking place in the universe
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Or it could be magical fairies with magical universe creating powder. Sure, the watchmaker god is not distinguishable from lots of other things, but that's different than it conflicting with all mythical portrayals of god (which it can't do since it is one such portrayal.)
      - Cheapshot1 10y ago
        The problem with this is the assumption of the god. God of the gaps argument. Unless the evidence points to it being a god we can not start making claims about it. Example. You can't disprove god but he is all knowing loving and created the universe. This logic makes me scratch my head. Thinking Why just Why
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      > Or it could be magical fairies with magical universe creating powder. You can't claim something without something to support the claim. My fairies with magical fairy universe creating powder is just as plausible as any god in this scenerio. You're moving the goalposts. First you said that a non-involved deity is incompatible with any religious conception of God, which is incorrect. Now you've shifted to asserting that there's no evidence for the existence of a non-involved deity, which is reasonable, but has nothing to do with whether or not the idea is compatible with theism as it exists.
ImTalking 10y ago
I didn't write anthropomorphic... I wrote anthropologise (which I'm sure is not a word) but I wrote that to state that it would then be impossible to include this deity into human culture. I mean, what are we including?
vixen99 10y ago
As an atheist I don't care what conception religious people have of their 'God'; while it remains private, it's up to them. The problem arises when they suggest courses of action affecting other people, based (they say) on an indirect or direct communication with that God. Aside from its breathtaking arrogance, this is demonstrable fairy-tale-telling. Sadly the history of humanity is littered with the miserable results of this chain of command. This is not an argument along Dawkins' line. An internal religious life is perfectly possible provided one is clear that, as Simone Weil puts it 'God can only be present in creation under the form of absence' (tr) or 'necessity rules!'. Weil had a formidable intellect and this idea is far from mere incantation or nuttiness in her hands.