What If There Is a God?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
But when trying to understand an infinite God with our finite abilities to understand wouldn't it be expected that we would be where we are right now? With a lack of consensus?

[/ QUOTE ]

The current understandings of god are no more or less right/probable/ridiculous than the ancient Greeks/Romans/Native Americans/Druids etc. It's not like humankind is working its way toward the "correct" version of god.

Your "god is love" idea is no more or less probable than anyone else's theory, regardless of how right it feels to *you*. The lack of consensus is much more likely to be because humans have made all of it up, rather than a developing understanding of an actual god.

[Rastadon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if there is a God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stand up and fight it with all your are capable of. At least you will be displaying humane qualities and stand in solidarity against a monstrous being.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

What are you going to do, throw sticks at him?

HUZZAH! HAVE AT THEE!

[/ QUOTE ]

My dick's too short to SIIHP.

[Prodigy54321]

the conclusion of most atheist arguments is not "therefore God does not exist."

it is rather, "therefore there is not sufficient evidence to warrant a belief (or such a strong belief) that God exists." (or that a specific claim does not give us sufficint evidence to...)

I suppose that a God could exist that set up a universe where logic and evidence have no bearing on reality...I guess we are assuming that at least this is not the case.

[bocablkr]

It is not an assumption [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
The current understandings of god are no more or less right/probable/ridiculous than the ancient Greeks/Romans/Native Americans/Druids etc. It's not like humankind is working its way toward the "correct" version of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under my assumptions we would not expect to ever reach a "correct" version of God. All we could hope for is a progressively "better understanding". The terms right/probable may not even apply. Pointing to the Understandings of the past, we could also point to our poor scientific Understandings of that time. We don't have the same kind of evidence as in science that we've made progress in religion, but we believe we have and that is our only approach when it comes to developing relationship to this assumed God. So under the assumption a God does exist and we are approaching him the only way we can, the attack on Religion on this point is unreasonable.

[ QUOTE ]
The lack of consensus is much more likely to be because humans have made all of it up, rather than a developing understanding of an actual god.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way you can know that. And under the assumption that a God does exist it makes no sense to speculate about psuedo-probabilities for imaginary universes in which he doesn't.

So it is only under the presumption that God does not exist that the No-Consensus attack by Atheists is reasonable. Actually, they dress up the presumption a little by presuming some theoretical space of possible Existences, some of which have a God and some of which don't, where they presume some kind of psuedo-probability measure on the space can be speculated about. But logically, that psuedo-theoretical model does not apply under the assumption that a God does exist.

Arguments based on the psuedo-probability model amount to Religious arguments against the existence of a God. That's fine. They are tying to sell their religious belief that there is no God just like Religions try to sell their beliefs. However, the point here is that the psuedo-probability model does not apply for attacks on humanity's response to God, like the No-Consensus attack, under the assumption that God does exist. Under that assumption the presumption God doesn't exist does not apply and the psuedo-probability model on the psuedo-space of possible Existences does not apply.


The No-Consensus attack is just one example of common attacks by Atheists I see. Another is in the "Pushing back the Gaps" thread running right now. It observes how past Religions have attributed natural events to gods. Under the assumption that there is a God isn't it reasonable that our understanding of divinity has progessed along with our scientific understanding of nature? Science has progessed. So has our understanding of divinity. Only under the presumption that there is No Divinity does our pushing back of the gaps look like it's just the jumping from one false position to another.

I'm wondering if this observation of mine is a new insight. I haven't seen it applied in the debates.

PairTheBoard

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The current understandings of god are no more or less right/probable/ridiculous than the ancient Greeks/Romans/Native Americans/Druids etc. It's not like humankind is working its way toward the "correct" version of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under my assumptions we would not expect to ever reach a "correct" version of God. All we could hope for is a progressively "better understanding". The terms right/probable may not even apply. Pointing to the Understandings of the past, we could also point to our poor scientific Understandings of that time. We don't have the same kind of evidence as in science that we've made progress in religion, but we believe we have and that is our only approach when it comes to developing relationship to this assumed God. So under the assumption a God does exist and we are approaching him the only way we can, the attack on Religion on this point is unreasonable.

[ QUOTE ]
The lack of consensus is much more likely to be because humans have made all of it up, rather than a developing understanding of an actual god.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way you can know that. And under the assumption that a God does exist it makes no sense to speculate about psuedo-probabilities for imaginary universes in which he doesn't.

So it is only under the presumption that God does not exist that the No-Consensus attack by Atheists is reasonable. Actually, they dress up the presumption a little by presuming some theoretical space of possible Existences, some of which have a God and some of which don't, where they presume some kind of psuedo-probability measure on the space can be speculated about. But logically, that psuedo-theoretical model does not apply under the assumption that a God does exist.

Arguments based on the psuedo-probability model amount to Religious arguments against the existence of a God. That's fine. They are tying to sell their religious belief that there is no God just like Religions try to sell their beliefs. However, the point here is that the psuedo-probability model does not apply for attacks on humanity's response to God, like the No-Consensus attack, under the assumption that God does exist. Under that assumption the presumption God doesn't exist does not apply and the psuedo-probability model on the psuedo-space of possible Existences does not apply.


The No-Consensus attack is just one example of common attacks by Atheists I see. Another is in the "Pushing back the Gaps" thread running right now. It observes how past Religions have attributed natural events to gods. Under the assumption that there is a God isn't it reasonable that our understanding of divinity has progessed along with our scientific understanding of nature? Science has progessed. So has our understanding of divinity. Only under the presumption that there is No Divinity does our pushing back of the gaps look like it's just the jumping from one false position to another.

I'm wondering if this observation of mine is a new insight. I haven't seen it applied in the debates.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have enough to start a new religion with. The measure of quality that I would use is if that mindset ever leads to anything that reason doesn't get us to first. The measure of success will have to be how many followers you can get along with its longevity, since that's what we've done for every other religion thus far.

And your "there's no way you can know that" response isn't relevant. Given all of the information available, that they're "all made up" is the most likely explanation. Absolute knowledge doesn't enter into the picture, since people realize that nobody has all the answers, and most are convinced that we can't ever really know all the answers.

The only people who ever claim to have the ultimate answers have been unable to demonstrate it in a way that is convincing to anyone qualified to judge it.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

Aren't most of the Atheist attacks on Religion based on the assumption that there is no God? What if there is a God? What happens to their attacks under that assumption?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing, it's just the status quo. Assuming there is a god doesn't create one. Since that is what theists do now( make that assumption) the arguments will continue. cheeesh.

luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
And your "there's no way you can know that" response isn't relevant. Given all of the information available, that they're "all made up" is the most likely explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Repeating the assertion doesn't make it true. You might believe it to be true. But that is a subjective conclusion. Maybe you should start a religion based on That belief.

There's nothing in what I'm saying that has anything to do with supporting Religious arguments For the existence of God. Neither am I opposing Atheist arguments in favor of the belief that there is No God. All my observation is doing is showing that certain kinds of Atheist attacks on Religion are unfair.

PairTheBoard

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
There's nothing in what I'm saying that has anything to do with supporting Religious arguments For the existence of God. Neither am I opposing Atheist arguments in favor of the belief that there is No God. All my observation is doing is showing that certain kinds of Atheist attacks on Religion are unfair.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not unfair to point out the thousands of different gods invented by humans, and point out that that makes your specific version of god less likely to be correct.

If you are arguing that all these gods from Apollo to Zeus are really just man's imperfect conceptions of the same true god, then fine. That's your argument. Mine is that man has shown a continuing tendency to create gods to explain what he doesn't understand, and I have no reason to believe your version of god, or anyone else's, is any less a fabrication than theirs was.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are arguing that all these gods from Apollo to Zeus are really just man's imperfect conceptions of the same true god, then fine. That's your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that under the assumption that Divinity Exists that is a reasonable way to look at the history of our approach to it.

[ QUOTE ]
Mine is that man has shown a continuing tendency to create gods to explain what he doesn't understand, and I have no reason to believe your version of god, or anyone else's, is any less a fabrication than theirs was.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what I'm pointing out is that you aren't really making an argument. You are Proclaiming the Premise, "to explain what he doesn't understand". That is your belief. I accept that. But when you use that belief to attack Religion all you are really doing is proslytizing your Belief. Just like Religious folks do.

PairTheBoard