What does God do?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Nov 11, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    It's still an ad hom. The question is legit regardless of who asks it - or why.

    It would only be moot if everyone else in the world stopped invoking it. Since they do, those of us who want to understand the world (including the views of those in it) ask questions.

    That's really not your place to decide for others.

    It is not atheists who define (let alone redefine) god, that's for theists. Atheists would be tickled pink to have theists provide a concrete definition that holds still long enough to be examined

    Interestingly, one of our longest running threads recently involved Jan the theist who spent hundreds of posts trying to redefine god in an attempt to keep him in the shadows.

    And you are doing it here, now. This thread is asking a perfectly reasonable question. Your drawn-out response is "I don't have to answer that."

    So be it. Your response to the thread topic is to not respond to it. It's not unreasonable to conclude that it's because you don't have a response. We'd love to be wrong.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,701
    On the contrary, when the topic of a question is repeatedly redefined, it inadvertently turns the discussion to "why this happens."

    This occurs regardless of who is answering or what the topic is. Of this, there is ample evidence on the site or any discussion, either online or IRL It has nothing to do with ad homs and everything to do with shifting discussion to where the integrity lies amongst the parties involved.

    The problem is that you are asking the wrong questions. If you cannot even theoretically go past questions of God's existence, you will serve no purpose in attempting discussions that accept, for the sake of argument, that God exists.

    Granted you can see asking questions about God's activities as a means to further air doubts of God's existence .... but if you don't even have the patience or fortitude or resourcefulness to fofeit doubts of God's existence, purely for the sake of engaging in a (in your view) theoretical discussion about God's activities, you are in the wrong thread.

    Basically in cases like these, regardless of the topic involved, there is one of two scenarios that will develop. Persons already engaged in relevant discussion will agree to take the subject down a notch or two so that there is common ground between all parties involved or they will ignore the third parties who are not up to speed on the premises of the question so they can continue their discussion, either for or against.

    Precisely.
    Yet here we have atheistic redefinitions of key terms of the question .... so the question automatically moves further afield as to why this is the case.

    On the contrary, as an example, invoking phrases like "atheistic revelation" for the sake of drawing a parallel equivalent to its theistic counterpart certainly requires a flexible lexiconography ...


    Far from it.
    I am currently engaged in discussing the topic with Yazata who has displayed the sufficient resourcefulness to discuss the subject. I also had a short exchange with JamesR some time back, although for whatever reasons, he decided not to continue that line of inquiry.

    As far as your self goes, in the absence of you posing anything relevant to the OP, we are very quickly approaching the limits established by political demarcations : "Well, you just think that because your world view as an atheist demands it."

    If you have a question in regards to the OP, you are yet to ask it.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    At the risk of speaking for others, I conjecture that all parties here are granting god's existence for the sake of argument. So I don't know why you say that.

    (If, on the other hand, you are referring specifically to this post: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-does-god-do.160177/page-20#post-3517794
    then you may have misunderstood my intent. It was particularly directed at River's non sequitur; it was not intended as an assertion that god has not been granted for the sake of discussion. I could explain more, but I don't want to hijack the thread.)

    This is ego-stroking on your part.
    It's great that you can predict how the discussion will go.
    That doesn't mean it's not worth having for the rest of us; it simply means you have realized who the players the table are, and how the discussion is proceeding. That's not an argument; it's just a sidebar.

    I'm not here to ask the OP questions, I'm on the same team as he. I'm here to hear the responses and discuss them.


    I am going to start reducing my involvement in this meta-discussion, as it is merely adding noise to the signal of the discussion topic. If you want to start a new thread wherein you skillfully identify the players and components of this discussion, and why you don't like it, feel free.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Then again, why would it matter if action were deterministic or indeterministic, if neither allow for free will?
    Many of the most accepted interpretations of QM do.
    But thanks for verifying your dogmatic determinism.
    I see trying to figure out your opinion on free will and determinism. Not so much any evidence in support of free will.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2018
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    When asked:
    You said:
    So if determinism bars free will, how does indetermism grant it?
    Some interpretations of quantum mechanics assume a probabilistic nature, but none can demonstrate it to be factual. The pilot wave theory for example can describe the same behaviors assuming determinism. It’s not about being dogmatic, it’s simply a matter of an ability to extend our deterministic perception of the macro world to that of the quantum level.

    Some quantum like behavior at the macro level.
    Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy.
    http://news.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912
     
  10. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Might it be more likely that the physically conditioned processes that determine subconscious thought are also responsible for the conscious verity? Think of consciousness as being an effect of thought rather than the origin of it.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    scifes:

    I'm aware that there are lots of bright theists out there, on the internet and in the "real world". It would be arrogant indeed for me to presume that I can learn nothing from any of them.

    It's a simple enough question. As a theist, you should have thought about this, surely? Assume your God exists. Then it follows that either he sits back and just observes the world, doing nothing, or he actively intervenes to make stuff happen. Most theists, as far as I am aware, believe that God is active in the world, right now. So I ask: what is God doing in the world right now?

    If you don't have any idea about the answer to this question, and you believe that God is active in the world right now, then either you need to rethink your opinion on that, or you need to do a bit of legwork to work out what your God does, exactly. Then, the next time a presumptuous atheist asks this question, you'll be better prepared. More to the point, you'll understand your God better than you did before.

    I certainly don't require God to have a daily routine. I just want to know, in general, what kinds of things keep him busy. Is he involved in human affairs, or not? Does he mess with other life on Earth? Does he have hands-on control of the weather?

    I understand that God might work in mysterious ways, doing something that is beyond our comprehension. But whatever he is doing, and however he is doing it, it ought to have some kind of measurable effect in the world, ought it not? If not, then what's the practical difference between this God who is active and one who is passive?

    I accept that God could choose not to do anything. I accept that an omnipotent God could do anything. But what is he doing (if anything)?

    Lots of religious people pray to God. Why do they do that? They must think that praying to God is good for something. God presumably notices the prayer. Does God do anything in response to prayers?
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Jan Ardena:

    So God isn't a dude that does stuff all day. Okay.

    Does God do stuff some days, then? Once in a blue moon?

    What about the prayer thing I mentioned above? Does God ever do anything about prayers?

    You don't need to give me his detailed itinerary. A few examples of the kinds of things he does, when he feels like it, in the present, would be just fine.

    Are you saying that God does not manifest in the world at all, then?

    Sorry, you're not being very clear.

    Not much. This is a simple question. Perhaps, as a theist, you can help.

    The world was here yesterday, and so was I, expressing myself all over the joint. If God made the world and me, that was something he did in the past. My question is: what is he up to now?

    But perhaps your answer is that if God wasn't concentrating all the time then the world (and you and I) would disappear. Is that what you're saying? Is that God's job on a day-to-day basis - to concentrate hard to maintain the ongoing existence of stuff?
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Yes MAYBE be consciousness is the result of thought BUT that just appears to shuffle the origin of consciousness around

    Book I am currently reading "Consciousness Explained" - heavy going -
    notes that it does not appear there is a central location where it "all comes together" and consciousness proclaims to the mind (?) "This is what the world is like (what the world is) outside of your existance"

    Why does it tell itself that? How does it "know"?

    Think of consciousness as being an effect of thought rather than the origin of it

    It really is the chicken or the egg writ large

    Might it be more likely that the physically conditioned processes that determine subconscious

    Why would certain physically conditioned processes give rise to immaterial thoughts which are then able to produce physical activity which feeds back into physically processes which - immaterial thoughts - physically processes...... Who decides what the end game is and when (what) physically processes - are required for the feedback process to stop?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 12, 2018
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Musika:

    Would you agree then, that most theists believe in a similarly "dumbed down" version of God? Take the example of prayers, for instance. Expecting God to micro-manage things at the level of individual human lives, in response to pleas by insignificant human beings, seems to ignore the omnimax personality, does it not? Especially as the omnimax personality presumably already has some mysterious but well-ordered plan for all of us.

    I accept that God, with whatever his plans are, would more likely be simply implementing his existing strategy rather than "intervening" to change his plans on an ad-hoc basis (in response to a prayer, for example).

    This whole idea about "miracles" would seem to be unrealistic nonsense then, most likely. Do you agree? Why would God "intervene" in such a way by performing a "miracle"? Such a thing would never be necessary for the omnimax personality. And given that God doesn't want to give himself away (as you say he doesn't) then doing miracles would make no sense for him.

    And yet, many theists seem to expect miracles.

    On the one hand we have that the workings of the world are explainable by human beings, with reference to natural laws etc. On the other hand, we have that the workings of the world can only be explained by positing an all-powerful, conscious and purposeful supernatural entity.

    Why complicate things when nothing in the workings of the world suggests that such added complication is necessary?

    I understand that Occam's razor is predicated on the fundamentally aesthetic idea that things ought to be simple (or, at least, not more complicated than they need to be).

    Are theists just messier thinkers than atheists, then?

    I appreciate that it's possible that underneath it all there's a God pulling the levers. But as a matter of practicality, that fact (if it is a fact) makes no meaningful difference to anybody's life, on a day-to-day basis, as far as I can tell.

    I do concede that, in this context, "God does everything" is an answer to the question I asked. But it's quite a different answer from the kinds of answers that most religions give to the same question.

    Here's an idea: it could be simply pragmatism on my part. My world is complex enough without having to think about any possible supernatural causes that add nothing to practical effects of the natural causes that I am aware of.

    If God is only a worker behind the scenes pulling the levers of nature, then I can happily live my life without worrying about anything "extra" that God might want or do - because God isn't doing anything "extra" that I experience, nor is he communicating any special expectations to me. Pragmatically, my life is the same whether or not this kind of God exists.

    I might well be happy to acknowledge that God is enabling existence, or some such thing, but existence is a given whether or not that is true. Why, then, should I spend my time worrying about that God, as theists do? There's nothing to be gained that I don't already have, in that scheme.

    I take your point. A similar point has been made that any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    Following from what I wrote above, one question would be: why should the Andaman Islanders concern themselves with this "India" that you speak of? Speaking pragmatically, from their perspective, it has no visible effect on their lives.

    I think it would be more a case of stopping certain activities, such as ceasing to explore the idea that God might be there, despite all appearances.

    For most, I don't think God is completely expunged. Even Dawkins, a poster-boy atheist for the theists, leaves the door open on God. I would venture that most atheists seek positive evidence for God, rather than the kind of invisible God-behind-the-scenes or God-of-the-gaps idea that you are putting up here.

    Postulation comes closest, but then postulation is not knowledge. It can be a means to knowledge (as the quote says). Or it can lead to error.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    (continued...)

    Possibly we're getting off track here. Atheism isn't equivalent to a belief in chaos.

    I was, although ID, at least in its most widely-publicised form in the United States, has been shown to be little more than a front for garden-variety creationism, in practice. The uncorrupted idea of ID itself isn't inherently flawed, but it's just more speculation of the kind you discussed previously.

    You've pretty much demolished the Abrahamic religions right there. All of them claim that God specifically and directly revealed himself to human beings.

    When I talk about available information, I mean objectively-verifiable information, not subjective experiences or impressions. I am, of course, aware that many theists claim to have direct subjective experiences of God. (Interesting, none of our resident atheists have said "God talks to me regularly. That's what he is doing in the present." I think I know why.)

    It's not that we all know that theists are deluded. Rather, we all know that theists have nothing to offer in the way of hard evidence to show that they aren't deluded. This isn't a belief that atheists have. It's just stating an observed fact, which should by rights be uncontroversial to theists. Suggest it to them and many of them tend to get upset, though.

    You might believe that there are supernatural entities or forces other than God/gods. But I'm splitting hairs.

    I disagree.

    I recognise that I don't (yet) have a complete explanation of my own existence. But the assertion that necessary cause won't provide one eventually is just one more suggestion.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2018
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Pissed off because???? you don't have a answer?

    And you KNOW this how exactly?

    Ummmm more realistic

    Seems to indicate god as someone less realistic even non existent

    OK

    scifes

    Skepticism and philosophy is means to an end for me

    The end being?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Yazata:

    It seems to me that items 2 and 4 concern what happened 13 billion years ago rather than what is happening now.

    Items 1 and 3 are similar to the idea of God being constantly behind the scenes pulling invisible levers to make things happen as they "should". Would God be rather bored doing that every second of the day? He's a smart guy. Couldn't he automate the process?
     
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Non believer in god here also
    Great believer in Physics

    My question would be - why not Physics as the ultimate and fundamental existent?

    Putting a god ahead of Physics seems to me just anthropomorphising a PROCESS for no reason and then having to give the created god powers in excess of Physics to make creation possible plus a personality

    Again the laws of Physics have no need to be created by a entity whose very presence would violate the laws of Physics

    With Physics being all there is we should be happy in playground Earth just working out how many gazillion gazillion butterfly wing flaps got us here
    But it appears some of those wing flaps brought along discontents who require
    • a Sky Daddy for security and
    • a Grand Plan
    So be it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    It’s all about the lizard in your head. If you smack the lizard it will disrupt consciousness. If you smack it hard enough consciousness goes away.

    Neuroscientists may have pinpointed the seat of human consciousness.
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...dy-decrypts-the-ancient-mystery-consciousness
     
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Thanks for the link and I have added it to my supplementary reading list

    I am not to far into the book so I don't know if the link information is in later chapters

    Thanks again

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    I wrote:

    I'm not a believer, nor have I read all 14 pages of this thread, but I'll take a shot at the question in the O.P.

    1. God (arguably) provides an ongoing answer for why reality exists at all. In other words, God might be the ultimate and fundamental existent that needs no additional ground or justification for its existence and serves to explain the reality of everything else.

    2. God (arguably) is what accounts for the order that we observe in reality, the 'laws of physics' along with mathematical and logical relationships.

    3. God (arguably) provides the connection between cause and effect. (I'm thinking of occasionalism here.) The Muslims in particular have long argued that what connects cause and effect is the Will of God, so that there is only one real (divine) cause. What we think of as physical causes are just 'occasions' for God to create new states of affairs in (usually, but not necessarily) predictable ways. (Maybe God got lazy on the quantum microscale, thinking 'Oh, they'll never notice anything this small', and fudged it with pixel-like probabilities.)

    4. And some might appeal to God in regards to the cosmological fine-tuning arguments.

    I personally wouldn't make those claims myself since I consider 1. through 4. to be unanswered metaphysical questions and don't think that we should be pretending that we've answered them by naming whatever the unknown answers might be, 'God'.

    But it would give God plenty to do, right now, moment to moment.


    JamesR writes:

    It seems to me that items 2 and 4 concern what happened 13 billion years ago rather than what is happening now.

    Maybe. I was kind of pulling #2 out of #1, in the sense that whatever keeps reality in existence, whatever keeps it real from moment to moment, is doing so in such a way that reality continues to be orderly (at least in part in the ways that physics seeks to describe). Physicists seem to assume that laws of physics remain unchanged, that they are as applicable in the very early universe as they are today and will be billions of years from now. (Cosmology is dependent on that assumption.) Logic and mathematics are believed to be constant in much the same way.

    So I'm just suggesting that we don't really seem to have any explanation for that at this point. Natural theology (and people such as Isaac Newton most likely) would attribute it the divine continuing to uphold and sustain reality in an intelligible fashion.

    Items 1 and 3 are similar to the idea of God being constantly behind the scenes pulling invisible levers to make things happen as they "should". Would God be rather bored doing that every second of the day? He's a smart guy. Couldn't he automate the process?

    I don't want to speculate about the psychology of a god (especially a god that I don't believe in). My intention in the post highlighted in red up above was to address the sort of metaphysical functions historically associated with divinity by 'natural theology'. None of that is dependent on personalizing divine principles and attributing human-like psychology to them.

    Even if we don't believe in the divinities (as I don't) the functions attributed to the deities seem to remain as unanswered metaphysical questions.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2018
    scifes likes this.
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    metaphysical

    Of or relating to t hings that are thought to exist but that cannot be seen

    of or relating to the transcendentor to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses

    Mirriam-Webster

    So in a real reality while we can think (conjure up in our minds) unlimited (collectively) ideas the vast majority of them will never exist in real reality and be forever beyond explanation

    god appears to fall into this group. Well to my mind more than just fall into the grouping, more like barge in and hijack the group and declare he's the boss of the lot

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Who said it did?
    Neither can deterministic interpretations be demonstrated as factual. Macro analogues do not suffice, unless you really really want them to.
     

Share This Page