Does Anyone Still Believe in God? (page 38)

freemindfade

Why thank you pumpkin! (Victory!)

God:

error 404: Definition not found...

To simply dismiss a claim as "irrelevant", would be (for the third time now) an argumentum ad lapidem. It would also be rude, and dishonest if a person knew what they were doing... Because, I dunno, someone had told them, more than once, in this very thread.
Jus' sayin'.

If someone posits a god with a personality you don't like. I dunno, let's say an asshole god. Your dislike of said personality is not a sound reason for disbelief.

I don't personally think it's reasonable to even provisionally accept the god concepts people posit, I've no desire to have such an overburdened and stuffed ontology. So I don't.
But your reasons given for dismissing said gods are nonexistent. If you are going to be so smug, do better. It is easy to justify your position, refusing to do so seems needlessly obtuse.

Unless you want to tell everyone how being "irrelevant to Viviane" or being an "Asshole" are obstacles to existence or logical possibility?
That'd be full-on fascinating.

stuffwotifink

freemindfade

RE a definition: [Please remember, I don't believe in a god. But I think can speak on what you were asking, a little.]

The "god" that most people I have spoken to, seem to be speaking about when they discribe their often ill defined god concept, is obviously similar to the god of the gaps.
But these people are "Finding god in what they know, not what they don't know", to paraphrase Dietrich Bonhoeffer's famous objection to the god of the gaps. (Before I'm accused of describing that god.)
They may well be wrong, but it is still not the same as the god of the gaps, it's the very opposite.

It is abductive reasoning.
"Stuff looks designed, a designer explains this best".

Most deists don't go beyond that. (The rest is "who knows")
Oh, sure, an educated deist can wax lyrical about where they see design in biology or whatever. But the argument is pretty much "Stuff looks designed", however complex the phrasing gets.

And that is not stupid or steeped in fable.
One need only look at the fields of teleology and teleonomy.
Even the staunchest of materialist atheists in biology uses the terms "apparent design" and "apparent purpose" [or variations thereof].

It is simply a matter of opinion as to if there is the appearance of design because of a designer, or if the appearance is no more than an illusion due to human psychology.
Apophenia? Maybe, damned if I know.

Hence my confusion when some deists are scorned and mocked alongside those with bloated theologies and reduced gods. Not everyone believes because of some desperate scrabble for hope - some people just think there is a "god/maker" of some kind and make no further claims, as they are not pretending to know anything about the "maker/god" they think they have abduced from looking at the things that seem "made" to them.
This is perfectly logical abductive reasoning. However bad people think the conclusion it draws.
It's "inference to the best explanation", people just differ on what that "best explanation" for "apparent design" is.

If it doesn't seem like a strong argument, that's because it doesn't try to be an argument at all. It is simply a statement of belief and it seems a shame to lump these people in with biblethumping fuqtards, simply because they are honest enough to express what they think.

Jmo.
[Btw, you seem like a theological noncognitivist. If so, it seems odd to ask people to define something you don't think can be defined. If you are not a theological noncognitivist, feel free to ignore that remark. It was simply an impression I got from your previous posts, I'm in no way pinning the tag on you.]

C0ntr013r

stuffwotifink

Excellent explanation, I think this issue is often confused in these debates, and it just turns into a free for all flame war between; Atheists vs Theists vs Desists vs Agnostics vs Gnostic, and any combination of the different ideologies.

cofty

I have no interest in arguing against deism. It seems like such a vacuous position it isn't worth bothering about.

C0ntr013r

I have no interest in arguing against deism. It seems like such a vacuous position it isn't worth bothering about.

Except Gnostic Deism that is? ;)

cofty

Not really. An absent god of any flavour is as relevant to the sum total of human knowledge as the fact I have a yoghurt in my fridge that goes out of date tomorrow.

It is a cop-out. "some stuff is really complex so there must be some unknown god". Yawn...

stuffwotifink

It is a cop-out. "some stuff is really complex so there must be some unknown god". Yawn...

That is neither stated nor implied in my comment.

cofty

I wasn't responding to anything you said.

You have been here for 22 days. I have been having these sort of non-discussions with Prologos for 6 years

stuffwotifink

So you were commenting because of something he said yesterday?
And you speak of relevance?

Does Anyone Still Believe in God?

Excellent explanation, I think this issue is often confused in these debates, and it just turns into a free for all flame war between; Atheists vs Theists vs Desists vs Agnostics vs Gnostic, and any combination of the different ideologies.

Share this