Happy Atheist Forum

[read before responding, I know its long but the question makes more sense afterwords]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
"Ok, so I don't believe in any god. What would it take for me to be convinced?" -Dr_Pepper

Thess two thoughts lead to this next thought and question for you. Before that, let me take you on a ridiculous hypothetical journey with me:

Today's technology is amazing, and most of it wasn't even conceived 50 years ago. How would you explain television to a peasant from the middle ages? How about the Internet, or mobile phones to someone in the 20's? We have things now that weren't even a part of science fiction in the past, which are now used by each of us daily. Its pretty incredible.

That being said, there is no real reason for me to believe that this trend won't continue, that in 50 years, my grandkids will be using technology that I currently can't imagine. What about 100 years from now? 1000? How long until we become gods? How long until we can create a god? (google "the last question" if you've not read that)

So, time for that ridiculous hypothetical journey I mentioned.

Picture the technology we have now, and pretend we have a time machine. Someone travels back in time, loaded with samples of current technology. Perhaps a team, even, of scientists and specialists, and they all bring their own equipment. (keeping their methods a secret, of course), a meteorologist sees rain coming in a doplar radar, tells the people it will rain, and it rains. A geologist reads a richter scale and sees signs of an earthquake minutes before it occurs, warns the people, and the earth quakes. A physician cures a man of his disease. A farmer uses modern fertilizer and pesticides to yield a miracle-sized crop. These are just a few examples of modern day "miracles" that happen every day, thanks to technology and advancements in human knowledge.    

So how do the locals of the past tell the difference between these people and gods? There are still the issues of omnipotence and omnipresence, but otherwise, these people from the future are nothing short of divine.

So, if someone came up to you claiming to be a god, and did things that you could not explain, that seemed miraculous, would you believe him/her? Why? Remember, if a miracle is nothing but something unexplainable, and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, then how do you know that this 'god' isn't just a higher, more intelligent species? And if it turns out that it is, in fact, a higher species, does that make them worth worshiping?

What do you think? What would you do?

I await your responds with bated breath.  

Kill the Buddha.

Eh, I might get hosed for laughs (or whatever passes for future or alien lulz), but I've got to have some point at which I'd say "OK, you're God, then."  I mean, to put it in perspective, if someone demonstrates a device that runs off solar power to you, makes more solar panels, shows you all the theory behind them (photoelectric effect), you say "OK, you have solar power," not "Eh, there could be miniature batteries in those and your description of them and this 'photoelectric effect' might be total bunk!"  I mean, does it make any difference, so long as they continue making working solar panels or the god figure keeps on acting as the genuine article?  I'm making this forum post under the assumption you're an actual person and not a post-bot (you haven't responded to anyone yet, and even if you did, how can I determine you're genuinely involved and not payed to post to advertise DP?), and that you have a genuine interest in posting.  Likewise, even if something isn't a god, if it wants to appear as such and acts accordingly, what are you going to do?  Tell it off?  Invent more potent technology on the spot?  Nevermind if there is or isn't a punishment for insolence, what will you have accomplished by arguing with it that it isn't a god?  And finally, what if it's the genuine article?  Ask it to make you a god so you can be sure it is what it claims?  How could you be sure it hadn't made you into a lesser god so that it still appeared to be the genuine article?

Quote from: "Dr_Pepper"What do you think? What would you do?

I await your responds with bated breath.  

Would a person from the future with superior technology be able to appear to do miracles? Certainly. If she kept the technology secret.

Well, it would definity take more than someone banging on my door & telling me I need to be saved.     Seriously, I suppose I would have to be convinced that this entity was responsible for the creation of the universe or, at the very least, creation of life here on earth.  

The more interesting question for me is: Assuming I could be convinced of gods existence, would I worship him/her/it?  I have a difficult time with the whole idea of prayer and worship.  Okay, maybe it makes some folks feel better about themselves.  I can appreciate that.  I do a lot of strange stuff that makes me feel better about myself, but I won't do into details here.  I think lots of folks do it to stay on God's "good person" list.  Would this god really "blame" me for using my own logical reasoning to question his existence?  Even if I were to assume there is a "God", is this all-powerful entity really going to care about stupid little things that I do?   I'm sure he'd have bigger things to worry about.  Does it make me less worthy if I don't go to church regularly?  If a mass-murderer prays every day, does that make him better than me in the eyes of God?  I think not.  I guess what I'm saying is that, even if I were convinced there was a God, I don't think I would partake in any form of worship.

Anything that is said to be supernatural but that can be explained by science, regardless of how advanced, is by it's nature not supernatural. The god of the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran is by definition supernatural. Since the supernatural cannot exist, god cannot exist.

God would have to tell me why I keep having this sense of De Ja Vu:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3267 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3267)

Been there, worshipped that,
JoeActor

Quote from: "Will"Anything that is said to be supernatural but that can be explained by science, regardless of how advanced, is by it's nature not supernatural. The god of the Torah, Bible, and Qu'ran is by definition supernatural. Since the supernatural cannot exist, god cannot exist.

QFT

By every definition of "god(s)" I've ever heard, any being I could measure and observe the effects of could not be a god. The idea of god(s) is internally conflicting and requires impossible facets such as "supernatural" or "omniscient". Simply put: God(s) can't exist.

I've always said that it would "simply" require a rock solid logical proof of god.  So far any attempts have resembled swiss cheese.

Quote from: "Dr_Pepper"So, if someone came up to you claiming to be a god, and did things that you could not explain, that seemed miraculous, would you believe him/her? Why? Remember, if a miracle is nothing but something unexplainable, and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, then how do you know that this 'god' isn't just a higher, more intelligent species? And if it turns out that it is, in fact, a higher species, does that make them worth worshiping?

What do you think? What would you do?

I await your responds with bated breath.  

I wouldn't believe it, thanks to Occam's Razor. I will agree he/she make miracles as long as we can't explain HOW he/she do it. He/she is God is one explanation, but of course there are many other possible explanation. Any explanation is simpler than "He/she can do miracles therefore he/she is God. Nothing is more complex/unexplainable than God itself. The explanation "They are God" even doesn't adress the question HOW he/she do it. It only explain the status/identity of the "Miracle Maker."

One would have to know what is a god. In Christian mythology God is the name of a single supernatural being. In Greek mythology their are many gods like a species of people giving birth to those of their kind. It seems you are saying that we are godlike to people of the past with our modern technology; that however doesn't make us gods.

And to answer the question in the title of your post "What would it take for you to believe in a god or gods?". It would take proof. But even if I had proof I wouldn't worship god.

It's hard to say what would make me believe in god. It would all depend on the definition of god. Eddie Izzard said something along the lines of "If there was a divine plan, it seems like the plan was to make it look like there was no plan;" though if god actually was something like that it would be totally unprovable and not worthy of consideration.

Though to be fair, if for no intelligible reason two of every animal started traversing the planet to the Middle East to board an exaggerated life raft built by a 600 year old man, I admit I'd be impressed.

Were there a there there, I might see God. But as an ignostic, I find that the term is fatuous, meaningless, nebulous, otiose and, vacuous. Even the terms First Cause and the Designer have no referent.[So, I use Dr. Paul Kurtz's term igtheist to emphasive that.] We have the argument from pareidolia, the teleonomic/ atelic argument,  Hume's dysteological  one, the problem of Heaven, the  presumption of naturalism, the one of rationalism and the one of skepticism, the ignostic-Ockham and the hiddenness argument as our naturalist [positive atheism' case against Him. :devil:

These guys already believe in Alien Creator-Gods.

Full Playlist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7l0cJL7e4w&videos=m6C0mffMe-c&playnext_from=TL&playnext=1)
[youtube:c3xo2cst]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7l0cJL7e4w[/youtube:c3xo2cst]

According to this, basically all religions are mostly true.

Watch it, it's funny.

:brick:

Two part answer:

1. I would believe in one or more "god-like" beings if there was sufficient evidence for them, evidence that could not be more easily explained by some other, simpler construct, evidence that survived a peer-review process, etc. Such beings may have certain attributes that one tends to associate with a god-being, but could not have all of them traditionally ascribed to capital-G God, as those are inconsistent with each other.

2. I've come to the conclusion that there is no way that a god-like being that had a few of the god-like traits could ever demonstrate that he/she/it had somehow created everything and was in fact the capital G God. Therefore I would never believe in such a being.

I find this one very difficult to answer effectively.

The only being I could say is unambiguously a god is a supernatural being that is in fact omnipotent. As this very concept is self-contradictory, I cannot see me ever coming to accept the existence of such a being.

Considering any non-omnipotent being, their deification becomes very subjective.

Assuming the existence of supernatural beings, how powerful does one have to become, in order to be considered a god? I doubt anyone would claim the common or garden variety poltergeist would qualify. What then of angels and demons? The stories concerning these entities often suggest they have powers beyond the comprehension of any human, yet we still do not typically call them gods in themselves.

The bare minimum I would expect would be a supernatural being that could do things no natural being ever could. Simply doing the same but faster or more efficiently is not enough to convince me of divinity. Even then, this would just be a starting point.

The short answer I guess is that I can envisage belief in the supernatural, if compelling enough evidence were repsented to me, but I would remain sceptical as to whether any such being could be considered a god.

Under the proposed examples and constraints I would either be killed by said *outsider* or killed by the locals for defying their brand new God. The reason is because I would keep asking questions on how a thing was done as well as observe it until i found out how it was accomplished. If the scientists would not tell me (and as this is set back in the middle ages) I would most likely whack them over the head take any thing I did not recognize. Then I would tie them up and *encourage* them to tell me how things worked. Now a days my action would be similar but less barbaric. I would keep questioning them until it became annoying to them and they left. I don't believe in Gods but I am always open to people being smarter than me.

QuoteI don't believe in Gods but I am always open to people being smarter than me.

I think this highlights a flaw in my answer tbh.

I might believe in the supernatural if given enough evidence, but in all likelyhood this would simply be a case of me not being smart enough to understand how things actually do work.

Ghost/spirit/angel/demon/leprechaun/tooth fairy/etc of the gaps, if you will.

Quote from: "Dr_Pepper"What would it take for you to believe in a god or gods?

Proof.
 

F

Quote from: "maestroanth"I get what you mean,

but Dr Pepper (lawl a cool diet pop) does have a point.

I never liked this forum for one thing, b/c they can't philosophically destinguish their nuturing effects of God (AKA being raised by a doctrine to emotion) to a philosophical  (independant from emotion) one.  They fake happiness, w/o understanding it.

Dawkins himself has a few key fallacies. Even the forum over the dawkins site is more objective than ppl recovering over how religion sucks.

Likewise, I grew balls and I'm agnostic.

Being happy and atheist makes not sense emotionally.  Being happy in acceptance of continuous mystery makes sense emotionally.

This is why we have the space program, this is why we picture love, this is why we picture a HP.

I hope the moon is the first step.

Pardon me, sir, but: No.

You are misusing the term "agnostic". It is not a middle ground between belief and non-belief, instead - as it's root word "gnosis" would suggest - it is a description of knowledge. You can believe or not believe and still not claim knowledge.

It makes perfect sense - emotionally and otherwise - to not believe in a god or gods and be happy.

Also, your rather insulting suggestion that anyone gnostic about their belief is "without balls" makes little sense. It's not about courage or testicular fortitude, it's about having a well constructed argument to base your claim of knowledge on. You can not make sweeping judgments about such things while not addressing the arguments at hand. To do so is to be intellectually dishonest.

Finally, you've made an assertion without citing any facts to back it - in your first full paragraph on the above post. It reeks of fallacious thinking, but can not be argued with because it has no context to argue. It even contains a term of uncertain meaning - "fake happiness".

Quote from: "JillSwift"Pardon me, sir, but: No.

You are misusing the term "agnostic". It is not a middle ground between belief and non-belief, instead - as it's root word "gnosis" would suggest - it is a description of knowledge. You can believe or not believe and still not claim knowledge.

It makes perfect sense - emotionally and otherwise - to not believe in a god or gods and be happy.

Also, your rather insulting suggestion that anyone gnostic about their belief is "without balls" makes little sense. It's not about courage or testicular fortitude, it's about having a well constructed argument to base your claim of knowledge on. You can not make sweeping judgments about such things while not addressing the arguments at hand. To do so is to be intellectually dishonest.

Finally, you've made an assertion without citing any facts to back it - in your first full paragraph on the above post. It reeks of fallacious thinking, but can not be argued with because it has no context to argue. It even contains a term of uncertain meaning - "fake happiness".

Don't bother. Seriously.  

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Don't bother. Seriously.  

Ah. Bummer.
Thanks for the heads-up. Appreciated.

Ignostic that I am,I cannot accept a being whose attributes are incoherent and contradict each other, whether an omni-being or a limited being, anthropomorphic or metaphysical [contrary to Dr, Paul Edwards, who thought the former different:]. Each of the arguments fails, affirming thereby igmosticsm. The notions of First Cause and Grand Designer themselves are incoherent: how can the First Cause make sense when cause is eternal, thereby eliminating a first cause, and patterns aren't designs, thereby eliminating a designer.  :eek2:  :brick:
  As a free being, why should I worship anyway? No God owns me! lol

There's so many definitions of "god", that it seems I could claim a rock was a god if the definition of god was, "rock". The fact that god is supernatural really just means that we can give god any definition we want. But if someone from the future came to the past and told me to worship him, I'd tell him to suck my plums.

:headbang:
 God is the ground of nothing. it is equilateral to the collateral for the lateral side of being. So much for theology, that silly nonsense!

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Kill the Buddha.

 

Wouldn't Buddha just reincarnate and kick his ass?

Been thinking about this... If someone told me there was a book with the following criteria, I would believe in God:
1) Must describe an awesome guy.
2) Awesome guy must have magical powers and work in mysterious ways.
3) Awesome guy inspired the author by means of aforementioned magical powers.
4) Must be non-fiction.
5) Must be very old and very popular and thus true and yet internally inconsistent so I need faith.

 

Aip,indeed! :bananacolor
:  As we have our level of consciousness, we grant ourselves liberty so that thereby we acquire it  neither from any God nor the state, and thus have no shepherd or potter to be our totalitarian leader. No God has the right to condemn us or demand worship from us! So, God  would just have the one-way rapport with us- that of putting us in a far better  place in the first place as noted @ the problem of Heaven.
 So,and as I have illustrated, how can He even exist being incoherent and no argument can instantiate Him. So, the matter results in a psychological factor of human life. Since most theists never know our atheology it is a problem of ignorance as well.
  So, nothing can ever convince me that a square circle is possible! That is a matter of conceptual analysis rather than one of dogmmtism or a close mind just as one does not even try to see if a perpetual motion machine realizes itself. :brick:

Somebodies had a little bit too much righteousness for today, methinks.

nothing can make me believe in such a vague fallacy thingy like the idea of a "God"



...and even if HE did exists, I will surely not follow Him because of his unethical, irrational ways.

Quote"The only difference between God and Adolph Hitler is that God is more proficient at genocide."   --Anonymous

Well... let's start with a more basic question... what exactly is a God?

skeptic griggsy, I don't know why a picture was attached to your post....so I deleted it.  If it was your picture, make it your avatar.

Quote from: "Ellainix"Well... let's start with a more basic question... what exactly is a God?

When I see "God" I think Judeo-Christian deity since they are the only group I know of who refers to their deity as God instead of some other name.

So, God is a god but a god may not be God....not sure if anyone else makes that distinction.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Ellainix"Well... let's start with a more basic question... what exactly is a God?

When I see "God" I think Judeo-Christian deity since they are the only group I know of who refers to their deity as God instead of some other name.

So, God is a god but a god may not be God....not sure if anyone else makes that distinction.

Thats usually how I distinguish it though i've been complained too referring to God as God.  To make it easier we can call the Judeo-Christian god YHWH (or any of its other spellings).  

If the question asked is what exactly is a god (lowercase) then i'd answer an imaginary being or beings thought up to control the weak minded masses.  Or if i'm in a nicer mood i'll use this definition, a fictional being used to justify mass murder and barbarism.  ^_^

How about a definition of god as, "whatever it is you worship". When you think about it, the connotations of the word "god" originally came from the word "lord" as in, human lord. Hence the phrase, you can not serve two masters(lords).

It makes sense, then, to define god as whatever you dedicate your entire being towards. For some people, that's money. For others, it's solving problems. For yet others, it's simply themselves. What's more, the "god" doesn't have to be real objectively, so long as it's real to the person serving it.

Would that be a good definition?

Renegicat, god, yes, poetically. :raised:

Quote from: "Ellainix"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Kill the Buddha.

 

It doesn't mean what you think it means.

For the sky to split open, with a smack to the face. Otherwise, I'll continue being the skeptic that I am. By skeptic I mean, one who finds the idea of a man in the clouds to be ridiculous & sad. By sad I mean, actual intelligent adults buying into it. If that's not a sad state of affairs, I don't know what is. Either way, there's my two cents.

Quote from: "Dr_Pepper"(keeping their methods a secret, of course)

That's right, because keeping knowledge secret = power.

Quote from: "Dr_Pepper"There are still the issues of omnipotence and omnipresence, but otherwise, these people from the future are nothing short of divine.

Um, those are some big issues. Without OP I see no point in the classification of godhood.

Quote from: "Dr_Pepper"So, if someone came up to you claiming to be a god, and did things that you could not explain, that seemed miraculous, would you believe him/her? Why? Remember, if a miracle is nothing but something unexplainable, and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, then how do you know that this 'god' isn't just a higher, more intelligent species? And if it turns out that it is, in fact, a higher species, does that make them worth worshiping?

What do you think? What would you do?

I await your responds with bated breath.  

Wouldn't do anything. Being a higher species is not on my list of what makes something worship-able. I think this goes to the heart of the theist/atheist problem. They come at us atheists always as though they simply have to convince us god exists. I can believe he exists I just can't bring myself to think highly of him. That's a whole different ball game they seem unable to address.