Euthyphro Once More.

[i_am_i]

We're very clever indeed at what we're clever at, but we may simply not have the hardware to comprehend something the size of the God premise.

Here we go again. I'll say it once more: we have all the hardware and software necessary to comprehend that the overwhelming evidence shows that the "God premise" is nothing more than a human invention, and as such is as easy to understand as the evolution of the plow.

It's hardly a fair comparison, though, considering that the plow actually does something.

[Typist]

Ok J, I'll take your assertion as a time saving summary of your view.    So now that we get your main point,  perhaps we could explore it together in more detail.

I'm open to consider a theory that everything any theist has ever said about God is made up and wrong.   I don't know this to be true, but neither do I know it to be false.   It's worth considering.

For the moment, let's assume it is true.

How does this prove that something we could call a God does not exist?

[i_am_i]

Ok J, I'll take your assertion as a time saving summary of your view.    So now that we get your main point,  perhaps we could explore it together in more detail.

I'm open to consider a theory that everything any theist has ever said about God is made up and wrong.   I don't know this to be true, but neither do I know it to be false.   It's worth considering.

For the moment, let's assume it is true.

How does this prove that something we could call a God does not exist?

It doesn't.

Sure there may be a God, just as there may be planets billions of light years away that are just like our own. There may be a lot of things that we know nothing about, there have to be. But that isn't the point. The point is that whatever anyone now claims to know about God is based on nothing more than a human invention, and if you can't see the far-reaching implications of that then brother I don't know what to tell you.

[Typist]

Sure there may be a God,

Thus, some of these theists might be right.   Or, more likely, might have stumbled on to some little corner of the truth, which they then mangled in the translation, and then turned in to a power trip etc etc.

The point is that whatever anyone now claims to know about God is based on nothing more than a human invention,

How can you say this with such certainty, when you just said above that "sure there may be a god"?   If there is a God, and you and I don't know anything about it, how do we then proceed to claim that all God claims are made up crap?

Do you see?   Unless we can prove there is no God, or can prove we know what God is, we have no way to definitively declare somebody else's conception of God an illusion.

All we can do is what theists do, which is say, "it feels like this to me, my inclination is", etc.

and if you can't see the far-reaching implications of that then brother I don't know what to tell you.

You've presented a theory, an assertion.   Lots of folks share this assertion, so yes, it does have a big effect on our culture.  

You seem to be implying there are far reaching implications of some established fact, of which I see none.   Just saying, that's the view from here, that's all.

Your turn.

[i_am_i]

Your turn.

Everything I've ever seen about God, any old God you want to talk about, has the hand and the mind of man all over it. It's obvious. There was a time when men themselves claimed to be Gods. The "face of God," the "hand of God," the "will of God," "the judgement of God." All a human projection, anthropomorphising this concept into a character that we can all understand by its human traits.

Could there be some sort of infinite super-intellegence that does whatever an infinite super-intellegence does? Sure, why not? I find it highly unlikely and I really don't care one way or the other. And neither, evidently, does anyone who is perfectly happy with any traditional religious man-made depiction of such a being.

[Typist]

All a human projection, anthropomorphising this concept into a character that we can all understand by its human traits.

Yes, I agree that this humanizing of God is a very common process, and seems to illustrate theists limited ability to consider non-human forms of intelligence.  

We see this same human-centric focus from atheists who insist human logic must be suitable to evaluate whether there is a "super-intelligence" proposed to be a billion times more powerful than our own.  

Could there be some sort of infinite super-intellegence that does whatever an infinite super-intellegence does? Sure, why not? I find it highly unlikely and I really don't care one way or the other.

Thanks for your frankness.   In mutual honesty, I get the impression that many Internet atheists (don't know whether this applies to you or not) aren't really interested in these topics, they're just looking for some group to be superior too.   In our era of political correctness, theists are one of the few groups left that are acceptable to slam.    

You know, if we were to make blanket statements about blacks, gays, jews, women, ethic groups etc, we would be chastised by our peers.   But we can yell "theists are moronic idiots!" and get a big round of applause on atheist forums.  The fact that theists are probably the largest group in human history, and thus are incredibly diverse, is usually skipped over.

[elliebean]

Everything I've ever seen about God, any old God you want to talk about, has the hand and the mind of man all over it. It's obvious. There was a time when men themselves claimed to be Gods. The "face of God," the "hand of God," the "will of God," "the judgement of God." All a human projection, anthropomorphising this concept into a character that we can all understand by its human traits.

Could there be some sort of infinite super-intellegence that does whatever an infinite super-intellegence does? Sure, why not? I find it highly unlikely and I really don't care one way or the other. And neither, evidently, does anyone who is perfectly happy with any traditional religious man-made depiction of such a being.

QFT

And anyway, even if there were such a being that we couldn't comprehend it with our "limited intelligence" we couldn't know anything about it anyway, which would make it indistinguishable from non-existance, hence the mootness of any debate on the subject.