Definition of God - one thread to rule them all

Michael 345 said:
Not exactly a definitive of god but a definition of STUDY of god

godgapology - the attempt to study a god which is beyond the limits of
  • human technology and
  • human view and
  • human knowledge
but is said to exist
Click to expand...

You seem to be describing the philosophy of religion.

As far as I know no godgapolist has ever published any paper detailing their findings
Click to expand...

Far from there being nothing to say, there's a vast literature, far larger than an individual could ever read in their lifetime, extending from the present back into ancient times.

These are just small fragments of it:

https://philpapers.org/sep/natural-theology/

https://philpapers.org/sep/philosophy-religion/

One needs to pay close attention to the 'natural theology'/'revealed theology' distinction, which addresses Paddoboy's "hearing voices" jibe. Here's one of the best articles that I know of on the subject of this thread, or at least where the thread ended up after veering away from JamesR's original question:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-theology/

And what's more, one would have to say that the reality of, and knowledge of God, are subsets of the larger subjects of Ontology (what kinds of things exist) and Epistemology (how human beings can know about them). Each of these has its own vast literature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Those writings, which in retrospect could be works of godgapolist must be considered works of fiction
Click to expand...

I should probably point out that these kind of ontological and epistemological issues arise in science too.

What about 'dark matter'? Is it really matter? Or is it more along the lines of a fudge factor, introduced because astrophysicists see astronomical behavior that seems to suggest the action of more gravity than the amount of visible matter would produce, hence the assumption of some mysterious invisible "matter" producing gravity as well? It should be obvious that there's a chain of inference there that might arguably be kind of shaky in spots.

What is 'energy'? What kind of existence does it have? Is energy just a human conceptual construct that refers to abstract quantities that supposedly are conserved during the course of physical events? Or does energy exist in some more substantial way? What's up with 'mass-energy equivalence', it certainly seems to suggest that energy is something more than a calculating convenience. How can we even know about energy? Can we observe it directly, or do we only observe what we take to be its effects on observables when they change?

One could make (and people have made) arguments that many/most of the concepts of modern physics are conceptual constructs, invented and employed by human beings, in hopes of making better sense of observations.
 
Last edited:
Yazata said:
What about 'dark matter'? Is it really matter? Or is it more along the lines of a fudge factor, introduced because astrophysicists see astronomical behavior that seems to suggest the action of more gravity than the amount of visible matter would produce, hence the assumption of some mysterious invisible "matter" producing gravity as well? It should be obvious that there's a chain of inference there that might arguably be kind of shaky in spots
Click to expand...

At least scientists are observing effects which indicate something there which appears to be matter. Dark matter is as been said a place marker name. Perhaps it will turn out to be a large gathering of souls who while not having mass can do a effective mimic. Name changed to Souls Mimicking Mass

Yazata said:
energy
Click to expand...

Energy - the ability to do work ie affect change to matter in various ways. It's a PROPERTY of mass not a INGREDIENT

Yazata said:
One could make (and people have made) arguments that many/most of the concepts of modern physics are conceptual constructs, invented and employed by human beings, in hopes of making better sense of observations.
Click to expand...

And you would replace these concepts with what? guesstimates?

:)
 
Here's my definition of modern day God.

God is who we want to haul into the dock, in the court of scientific opinion, and show he/she doesn't exist.
Note the irony there.

We also have to choose a judge who can decide, based on the evidence, that God is a no-show, hence guilty.
But we can't choose who can be such a judge (I've yet to see this, although I have seen people stand up and say they are, but that seems to be about fooling other people into giving them money).
 
arfa brane said:
God is who we want to haul into the dock
Click to expand...
Think have mentioned this before

Billy Connolly made a film years ago, in the period when insurance policies had Act of god clauses

As I recall lighting damaged his boat and the Insurance Company refused his claim under the Act of god clause

So he sued the Church on the grounds they claimed to represent god here on Earth

This put the Church in the position of having to prove god didn't exist and how they were not liable for damages to his boat

I recall he withdrew his claim before it got to Court but unsure why

Act of god clauses no longer exists but don't think because of movie

:)
 
I think I can say that the pandemic is going to be worth a few books, up ahead.

In terms of how modern people deal with it, I have to say that it does seem to bring out certain aspects of mythical, or wishful thinking.

The president of the US, for example, is someone who got where he is via mythical thinking. He seems to have realised something about how people think, how to make them believe things that aren't true. Really they just want to believe. That's about all there is to it.

But why just believe? It depends, it seems, to some extent on how much faith you have in a government and what it can do to help. If you don't have much faith then someone like Donald Trump can make it sound like something will be done to restore your faith, if you just trust him and believe.

Even if that trust is betrayed and the man you trusted starts to look like he isn't doing much for you after all, it's hard to admit you were wrong. Most people have a deeply-held fear of looking stupid, of being ridiculed. Being able to handle it, to stand up to being "roasted", is meant to be part of the process of growing up, and some people just never do this, I guess.
 
Yazata said:
What about 'dark matter'? Is it really matter? Or is it more along the lines of a fudge factor, introduced because astrophysicists see astronomical behavior that seems to suggest the action of more gravity than the amount of visible matter would produce, hence the assumption of some mysterious invisible "matter" producing gravity as well? It should be obvious that there's a chain of inference there that might arguably be kind of shaky in spots.
Click to expand...
Correct, so? We see its gravitational influence, but we cannot observe it, or feel it via any other aspect...that's why we call it dark...it is greatly unknown, until experimental results finally tell us more.
Yazata said:
One could make (and people have made) arguments that many/most of the concepts of modern physics are conceptual constructs, invented and employed by human beings, in hopes of making better sense of observations.
Click to expand...
Correct on many counts again...again, so?
You seem to forget that science is always an open book, and that any scientific theory can always be refined, modified, built upon, or scrapped.
Science has also explained much of the evolution of the universe and life at least back to t=10-43 seconds, making god superfluous and to a large extent, redundant scientifically speaking.
 
paddoboy said:
Science has also explained much of the evolution of the universe and life at least back to t=10-43 seconds, making god superfluous and to a large extent, redundant scientifically speaking.
Click to expand...

That's clearly contradictory. Saying science can't explain prior to t=10^-43 seconds literally leaves the question of a creator God wide open. But your blind faith in scientism won't allow you to countenance that fact.
 
Vociferous said:
That's clearly contradictory. Saying science can't explain prior to t=10^-43 seconds literally leaves the question of a creator God wide open. But your blind faith in scientism won't allow you to countenance that fact.
Click to expand...
Only contradictory nonsense is your own evangelistic driven crusade against us evil atheists and your well worn, tiresome and childish smart arse scientism remarks. What science cannot yet explain is well known and not hidden in some damn ancient book, or fabricated by goons that prefer to accept some unsupported, unscientific myth.
cue: Accusations now of ad-homs and repeated atheist and scientism rhetoric. :rolleyes:
 
Vociferous said:
Saying science can't explain prior to t=10^-43 seconds literally leaves the question of a creator God wide open.
Click to expand...
Yes wide open but heck scientism has not left him much room to move...but go ahead fit him in ..he was the big bang creator no doubt.
And given scientism has worked all this out using science why should we give any credence to some invention, unauthored, from the superstitious past...why?
Alex
 
Vociferous said:
That's clearly contradictory. Saying science can't explain prior to t=10^-43 seconds literally leaves the question of a creator God wide open. But your blind faith in scientism won't allow you to countenance that fact.
Click to expand...
OK, so Vociferous is a believer in the God of the gaps.

"... those who point to the things that science cannot yet explain— gaps which they will fill up with God"

"... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they call God."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
 
DaveC426913 said:
OK, so Vociferous is a believer in the God of the gaps.

"... those who point to the things that science cannot yet explain— gaps which they will fill up with God"

"... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they call God."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
Click to expand...

Problem

If there is more than one gap do they resort to increase the number of gods or does one god act like The Flash filling all the gaps?

:)
 
dumbest man on earth said:
"An ad hominem attack against an individual, not against an idea, is highly flattering. It indicates that the person does not have anything intelligent to say about your message. "
- Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Click to expand...
Good work dmoe and nice to see you still active! :D The adhoms, subtle and otherwise, has been well practised by at least three crusaders on this forum of late, namely Jan, Seti and this Vociferous character, that likes to wear his questionable "qualities"as a badge of honour.
The substances of all their mythical arguments have been addressed again and again and again over many pages, and the lies, innuendos, misinterpretations continue from this trio.
I will at this time give a pat on the back to another who has not been around of late...Tomoko? or similar handle from memory.
At least he and he alone did have the intestinal fortitude and the balls to admit that creationism, IDers etc are all faith based.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Yes wide open but heck scientism has not left him much room to move...
Click to expand...
Yeah about .000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds! :D:D:D
Hold your horses though! He'll be in shortly again on his white charger, doing his overlord's bidding, and condemning all us atheists, and scientism supporters. :rolleyes:
 
paddoboy said:
Only contradictory nonsense is your own evangelistic driven crusade against us evil atheists and your well worn, tiresome and childish smart arse scientism remarks.
Click to expand...
Even if true, how would any of that be contradictory? So you're only comeback is "uh-uh, you are!"

What science cannot yet explain is well known and not hidden in some damn ancient book, or fabricated by goons that prefer to accept some unsupported, unscientific myth.
cue: Accusations now of ad-homs and repeated atheist and scientism rhetoric.
Click to expand...
What, exactly, that the Bible can't explain do you imagine is somehow hidden? Is it a big secret that the Bible has nothing about science? How silly.


Xelasnave.1947 said:
Yes wide open but heck scientism has not left him much room to move...but go ahead fit him in ..he was the big bang creator no doubt.
And given scientism has worked all this out using science why should we give any credence to some invention, unauthored, from the superstitious past...why?
Click to expand...
Only if you ignore all the branches of knowledge that cannot be addresses by science. But you seem pretty adept at ignoring what doesn't affirm your bias.


DaveC426913 said:
OK, so Vociferous is a believer in the God of the gaps.

"... those who point to the things that science cannot yet explain— gaps which they will fill up with God"

"... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they call God."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
Click to expand...
Actually, those things most attributed to God predated science. So science is then science-of-the-gaps, filling in what precious little of the human experience is left unexplained by a primitive book. But it's cute how you think God is the one filling the gaps it always inhabited. Free will, the soul, the creation of the universe and life....all things science has come nowhere near explaining nor explaining away (scientism aside).
 
paddoboy said:
Hold your horses though! He'll be in shortly again on his white charger, doing his overlord's bidding, and condemning all us atheists, and scientism supporters. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
But I am sincerely impressed I got a straight answer re extinction of species and damn credible it was...I am starting to think this God of his can do anything....it's just a pity his god is so shy and only calls by to answer the odd prayer with a miracle now and then.
Alex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top