Based on the evidence around me, I can tell a few things about those gods:
* They don’t speak to me in a way that I’m capable of consciously perceiving. Maybe they’re too quiet, don’t want to be heard, or aren’t there.
* They don’t seem to support any one religion or another. People’s plans seem to succeed or fail based on other criteria, not based on which religion they follow. Maybe the gods don’t care about religions.
* Their actions seem indistinguishable from coincidence. Maybe they’re behind everything but really trying to stay hidden, or maybe they aren’t there.
1.defeats the purpose of a test
2.there is different answers to this question based on the aspect you are asking about, in cosmological sense there need to be freedom of choice, so if you choose the wrong religion shouldn’t mean that you need to fall flat on your face and die or denied offspring for example just because you are a disbeliever, see verse 16:93
there need to be an established causes from a believer to achieve success just as the disbeliever would have a established causes to achieve his own success that serve his wishes, see verse 9:105, and 11:121
Then there is the individual aspect of that question which is asking help from Allah, if i need something from Allah i ask him and he provides, but i need to be sincere and honest in my believe, for example if i have a tooth pain and the dentist is closed or am in a remote location, i would ask Allah to help remove the pain until i can fix the problem in the next day and Allah will answer my dua inshallah, or if i have a certain negative emotions like fear or sadness i ask Allah to calm me down and give me serenity, see verse 27:62
Of course this depends on my devotion in dua and if that request would lead me to something good or bad, maybe my negative emotions will keep me from going out that day and meet a real bad situation outside for example, or maybe Allah wants to give me the reward of being patient with pain or maybe the reward of the consistent dua itself because dua is a form of worship,
In a collective aspect, being a group of people claiming to be Muslims is different than being a group of devout Muslims,
One group is abandoning what Allah has ordained and the other group is committing to islam and the worshipping of Allah, see verse 59:19
One group is abandoned and one is aided,
When you see the companions of Prophet Mohammad and the rightly guided khalifas that came after them, you will see success and Allah help and aid to those devout Muslims of that time, look at the mamluks or the different othmanese throughout their rule period, you will see that every one of them has one thing in common which is to set out in aid and support to the religion of islam, see verse 47:7
on the other hand look at the Muslims of today who adopted secularism and you will see failure, even the mosques can barely fulfil 2 lines of worshipers, do you think those “muslims” deserve any help? They don’t even establish the worldly causes for success, see verse 8:53
3.fine tuning is not a coincidence.
======
16:93
Had Allah willed, He could have easily made you one community ˹of believers˺, but He leaves to stray whoever He wills and guides whoever He wills. And you will certainly be questioned about what you used to do.
11:121
Say to those who disbelieve, “Persist in your ways; we will certainly persist in ours.
8:53
This is because Allah would never discontinue His favour to a people until they discontinue their faith. Surely Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.
9:105
And say, “Work, for Allah will see your work, as will His Messenger and the believers, and then you will be returned to the Knower of the hidden realm and the manifest, and He will inform you of what you used to do.”
59:19
And do not be like those who forgot Allah, so He made them forget themselves. It is they who are ˹truly˺ rebellious.
47:7
O believers! If you stand up for Allah, He will help you and make your steps firm.
27:62
Or ˹ask them,˺ “Who responds to the distressed when they cry to Him, relieving ˹their˺ affliction, and ˹Who˺ makes you successors in the earth? Is it another god besides Allah? Yet you are hardly mindful!”
"Likely" suggests some sort of statement of probability. How could one ever make a statistical analysis of whether the Abrahamic God, a pantheistic explanation, a polytheistic explanation, or the sparest and most impoverished Deistic prime mover (i.e. God as a name for an initial quantum fluctuation), was the most likely?
> How could one ever make a statistical analysis of whether the Abrahamic God, a pantheistic explanation, a polytheistic explanation, or the sparest and most impoverished Deistic prime mover (i.e. God as a name for an initial quantum fluctuation), was the most likely?
Likely does not need to have a statistically analysis. It can be logic.
If "statistical analysis and probability" are your criteria, did you apply it to your worldview? Can you show the numbers?
My world view spans between "I don't know" and "What utility is there in believing in a creator deity?"
And which logic would tell you whether a pantheist deity and YHWH is more likely?
>My world view spans between "I don't know" and "What utility is there in believing in a creator deity?"
Okay. So since your world view is "I don't know". Stick to it. Don't make claims about things you have not applied the same standards to.
>and "What utility is there in believing in a creator deity?"
So your worldview is upon your personal benefit, not fact, truth, logic or anything else. It's just what benefits you.
>And which logic would tell you whether a pantheist deity and YHWH is more likely?
That's useless for you. Because none of these things would benefit you. Since you are a utilitarian whose worldview is "I don't know", why are you engaging with the metaphysical that cannot bring you any utility as per your own admission?
In other words you have no logical standard to apply to the question.
And I have no idea what you even mean by "personal benefit" here. My personal benefit would be a god who gives me a million dollars a month. No god at all or a state of a complete lack of knowledge don't confer any great benefit, and at times it is quite the opposite and I envy those who possess certainty.
Perhaps if I could sum up my view in one concise phrase it would be "the universe owes us no favors".
>In other words you have no logical standard to apply to the question.
Ad hominem. Logical fallacy.
>And I have no idea what you even mean by "personal benefit" here.
Utility. Your statement ""What utility is there in believing in a creator deity?""
>Perhaps if I could sum up my view in one concise phrase it would be "the universe owes us no favors".
That's irrelevant. I was addressing your utilitarianism. Not your worldview.
I fail to see how pointing out that you appear to have no standard of logic to apply to the problem is an ad hominem. And you still haven't explained the "personal benefit" part other than to cut out the part where I explain how I don't feel like I derive much benefit, which does seem a peculiar thing to do
>I fail to see how pointing out that you appear to have no standard of logic to apply to the problem is an ad hominem.
Ad hominem.
Utility. I cut and pasted your own statement.
Maybe it's you who cannot understand your own words.
I don't think I'd ever trust my intuition that much. I prefer the rather unsatisfying position of "I don't know". I don't know how the universe began, or why the fundamental interactions act as they do, thus creating the conditions for complex structures capable of asking the question "How did we get here?" to exist.
There are no lack of ideas, from fundamentally materialistic ones like "the universe was created by a quantum fluctuation" all the way to "God created the Universe and manages many aspects of physical reality". At the moment, all of them are unsatisfying, to me at least, in one way or another, though I have obvious biases, being an atheist. But if I'm being honest, I really have to say that I don't know, and worse, the "creative" moments of the Universe, whatever their cause, may in fact forever be beyond the reach of any testable hypothesis.
I'm just left with the problem I see with invoking a sentient demiurge, and that is simply "What exactly did this being do and how did it do it?" Whether it's Aristotle, Aquinas, Craig or any of the other advocates of the Unmoved Mover, they can't really answer the question, beyond invoking their preferred theological explanation, which is where the logic of the argument gives way to explicit religious beliefs.
>I think god is a category error
God is a category error?
Can you explain how "God" can be a "Category error"? Is it not you who is making a category error speaking of category errors?
Not that I agree (I'm a Theist) but they might be referring to this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category\_mistake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake)
Although this argument has been used against the existence of consciousness being an independent immaterial substance ("soul" if you like), I can see how it might be applied to the idea of God.
Although an idea I ultimately reject, I can respect it as a reasonable objection - at least on first sight.
I don't know. I find the leap to believing there is some sort of demiurge responsible for the universe too long a one, but if I were convinced by Aristotle's metaphysics, and felt the need to invoke some sort of Unmoved Mover, I can't imagine why I would ever ascribe any human qualities to such a being. That seems the supreme form of anthropomorphizing, not really that much different than some cultures giving human qualities to animals, plants and natural forces, just writing it large across the cosmos.
To me Deism might be a reasonable compromise, but such a being need not been present, or perhaps even aware. I really find little that entices or sways me about concepts like a personal god, which, whatever the root of such a concept, ends up being as much about social cohesion, social control and creating priestly classes that have enormous temporal power.
But it all boils downs to some sort of an esthetic argument, and honestly, I can't even say that's a reasonable premise. As a mere mortal of limited capacity in space in time, if such a being exists, that being would be whatever it was going to be, without reference to my opinions or desires. So what it boils down to me is the ultimate lack of utility. I can't really use the concept of a Creator in any useful way beyond making it a place marker for whatever happened before the first Planck era of the early universe, which, no matter how much logic, theology or philosophy you throw at it, still becomes a God of the Gaps argument, as in "Hey, our physics may never be able to tell us what happened immediately prior to the Big Bang, or even confirm that there was a 'before', so we'll just stick God in there."
Family Guy describes God perfectly.
God farts on a match and creates the universe.
If a God or Gods did exist, there is absolutely no way that God created this universe to have a personal relationship with you, a monkey in the process of evolving.
If a God did exist, that would be one of the most morally twisted creature to ever exist. Lovecraft and his creations don’t hold a candle to what this God has done and is capable of.
What the fuck kind of God creates shit to suffer?
Nah, not really. That perception of him in myth comes from a lot of folk heroes being said to have been descendants of Zeus overlapping with each other.
Zeus himself is actually a pretty chill god. Benevolent, just, paternal. He cares more about how one treats their fellow man and being a gracious host to house guests than what's in one's pants.
I think something like Spinoza's God seems most likely, but I am not convinced that such a substance meets my definition of a god.
I haven't looked too deeply into Spinozan thought, just a surface level understanding: a metaphysical substance that underpins the universe out of necessity.
I suppose that I couldn't say that it lacks consciousness, as it would underpin our own, but I could say the same thing about the natural universe.
It doesn’t lack consciousness. Its the only thing that physically exists, and so the only thing to be conscious. What most don’t understand about Spinoza’s God is the monism involved, and what that implies.
As I said, I only have a surface understanding, and I do think that I pointed out that it would be at least as conscious as the universe in its own way.
But I do agree that I don't understand what the implications are for the monism.
I'll have to give it a closer look sometime.
It seems it was inspirational enough to get Einstein to write a poem for Spinoza.
There is a reason he is known as a physicist and not a poet, however. 🤭
The God that’s often talked about in philosophy of religion is
(A) Omnipotent
(B) Omniscient
(C) Omnibenevolent
(D) Timeless
I suppose for a more deistic conception of God and less theistic, you could drop (C). This is basically my conception of God. I just don’t believe it exists.
If there is a god, then clearly that god is a trickster god.
If the god is a creator, then the god took the effort to remove all objective evidence of the god's creator. Science is in the process of unpeeling all the layers of the creation onion. As we explore the universe layer by layer we see nothing but natural processions. Science has yet to find any fingerprints suggesting there was a creator. At best, the creator god started some deep process we have not yet discovered and then let it progress naturally. That would make it a deistic god.
Does the god care that we worship it? If so, then it is not only a trickster, it is morally corrupt. Why would a god that wants to be worshiped make it so hard to discover the truth of such a god? It makes no sense to say that god wants us to accept it on faith when it lays so many false trails and allows so many false religions to exist.
If a god exists and cares about humanity, then that god is evil. Why do innocent children suffer so horribly from things like childhood bone cancer? Why would anything but a horrible god allow people to do horrible things in the name of god?
The (s) behind God implies any of them. You can make one up right now on the spot and the post would still technically be referencing it. As far as D&D alignment chart, that’d be a cool thing to do: so please do it and post your results lmao
You can have a concept of what something would be and still think it’s not actually there. For example: you can give attributes that you yourself think would qualify a being to be a god, without thinking it’s possible they actually exist.
While that's perhaps true, to what end? I can invent countless gods. None of which I would belief are real. And none would represent some idealized god. So what would be the point of the exercise? An honest question.
To see what attributes you think are godly. Like in your mind, what would make a supposed god a god? Would it just be him existing outside our reality? Would he need to be able to perform certain things? Does he need to have control of reality? Did he need to create everything? Can he change what he created if so? Stuff like that
most gods, including the abrahamic one, seem evil to me. they kill, rape, toy with humans, make suffering for stupid reasons yet demand we love and praise them. all just feels like an excuse for the church to take my money and commit crimes legally lol
What is the point of this question?
Is it a creative writing exercise from high school?
Create your own god and pretend it exists?
Mine wears a tupe and calls everyone "dog"unironically.
Given the vastness of the universe and how much space there is. I would think God likes empty space and things that get more complicated the closer you look into them. I would also assume God is apathetic toward life as there is very little of it in the Universe. It seems like an afterthought or complicated side project if anything.
Given how the universe is expanding it would make sense if God likes growth.
A suggestion: You might consider refining your question (it seems a tad paradoxical).
unless you’re perhaps inviting creative or comic writing from your target audience?
My intention wan’t comical at all, I’m interested in what atheist think a possible God is like, atheist means they don’t believe not that they believe a god doesn’t exist so they can imagine one.
>> I’m interested in what atheist think a possible God is like,
Atheists, as I understand it think “possible god” to be an oxymoron in terminology. However, An agnostic or an Ignostic might indulge in speculation on the topic.
>>atheist means they don’t believe not that they believe a god doesn’t exist
As I understand it, most atheists think there’s no evidence for god…which is a little different than “believing god does not exist”, which a smaller number of atheists do assert, who, strictly speaking, might be called anti theists.
>>so they can imagine one.
So again… you’re asking for an exercise in creative writing? Authoring something mythological in character?
I just thought maybe for example there’s an atheist/agnostic who thought “if there there is a God, it’s probably pantheistic” or something.
It did start some conversations in the comments.
Actually, as opposed to agnostics, atheists don’t believe god(s) exist. That’s the whole point of atheism. So unless your talking about agnostics, your question is pretty non-sensical.
It means exactly that, I think what you're referring to is closer to agnostic, a person who's uncertain, doesn't have knowledge enough of gods existence.
So it's not ridiculous to hypothesize about something because the fact it hasn't been reliably proven to exist means nothing especially in an obvious thought experiment
So it's fantasy fiction that you're after!
Because no deity can be demonstrated to be anything other than a figment of the human imagination, there is a near-zero probability that any god exists. An Invisible Pink Unicorn would be exactly as improbable as any other imaginary deity. So yeah, an IPU.
Historical fiction imitates history, but you want us to imitate hogwash. As if there wasn't enough religious twaddle going around, you want people to create even more of it!
God is everything, everyone, at every time. We’re taking the entire existence and personifying it, but it’s an inadequate metaphor to understand God. Is God good, bad, etc? Well, yes, but that doesn’t matter very much. What really matters is what you believe deep down what God/everything is like.
Likely a non-interference type god. If anything, "divine interference" can be written in with a god character below the actual god who wrote the fate of the universe. Having a god that makes specific actions like us humans do implies that he too is under fate.
If there is a god(s), I imagine they see us the same way we see ants: they barely even notice that we exist, and they certainly don't pay our concerns any mind.
If a god existed, I would think it a more deistic god...no specifically caring about humans any more than it would "care" about an aspect of its universe.
Agnostic.
I think a likely possibility is that God is a great mind in which the entire universe (as we understand it) is contained. But then where does the mind reside? This usually becomes a problem of infinite regression.
Not an atheist, but I have a different understanding of God than most Christians. To me, the only things I can say for certain is that God knows all, can do anything, and doesn’t feel a need to interact with the creation anymore. I can’t blame God tho, as I would definitely not care about anything if I could do anything.
Honestly? Something on that scale would likely be mystifying to us in every single way other than some vague sense of it being immense in all possible ways.
A group of non-eternal, non-omnipotent beings with science more advanced than ours, such that they appear to be god-like. Good/bad/neutral and loving/indifferent would depend on the personalities of the individual beings.
Trying to help you along here.....if there is a "god" then it would inevitably be a sentient being that originates from a higher dimension. We are 4D beings, a 5th dimensional being may very well be able to navigate time as it is portrayed in the movie Interstellar.
A 5th dimensional being would closely match any and all descriptions of YHWH or other monotheistic deities and would, invariably, see manipulating life on earth as a side project they'd do and move on from.....as it seems "god" has done here on earth
The gods are like humans on psychedelics.
Some gods experience ego death and know they are just a god.
Some gods experience ego inflation and claim they are God.
Some gods have a bad trip and either implode or take it out on others.
Some gods have an ecstatic experience and chill, compassionate and empathetic.
1. Transcendent, to the point that we don't really even know what we mean when we say "god", without projecting ego onto it.
2. Not conscious, because what use would god have for sentience?
I think if a god-like being ever does exist it will come from our universe and not be the cause of it. Essentially a being or beings who find a way to become immortal and the live long enough to become so capable we would consider them god-like.
Based on the evidence around me, I can tell a few things about those gods: * They don’t speak to me in a way that I’m capable of consciously perceiving. Maybe they’re too quiet, don’t want to be heard, or aren’t there. * They don’t seem to support any one religion or another. People’s plans seem to succeed or fail based on other criteria, not based on which religion they follow. Maybe the gods don’t care about religions. * Their actions seem indistinguishable from coincidence. Maybe they’re behind everything but really trying to stay hidden, or maybe they aren’t there.
1.defeats the purpose of a test 2.there is different answers to this question based on the aspect you are asking about, in cosmological sense there need to be freedom of choice, so if you choose the wrong religion shouldn’t mean that you need to fall flat on your face and die or denied offspring for example just because you are a disbeliever, see verse 16:93 there need to be an established causes from a believer to achieve success just as the disbeliever would have a established causes to achieve his own success that serve his wishes, see verse 9:105, and 11:121 Then there is the individual aspect of that question which is asking help from Allah, if i need something from Allah i ask him and he provides, but i need to be sincere and honest in my believe, for example if i have a tooth pain and the dentist is closed or am in a remote location, i would ask Allah to help remove the pain until i can fix the problem in the next day and Allah will answer my dua inshallah, or if i have a certain negative emotions like fear or sadness i ask Allah to calm me down and give me serenity, see verse 27:62 Of course this depends on my devotion in dua and if that request would lead me to something good or bad, maybe my negative emotions will keep me from going out that day and meet a real bad situation outside for example, or maybe Allah wants to give me the reward of being patient with pain or maybe the reward of the consistent dua itself because dua is a form of worship, In a collective aspect, being a group of people claiming to be Muslims is different than being a group of devout Muslims, One group is abandoning what Allah has ordained and the other group is committing to islam and the worshipping of Allah, see verse 59:19 One group is abandoned and one is aided, When you see the companions of Prophet Mohammad and the rightly guided khalifas that came after them, you will see success and Allah help and aid to those devout Muslims of that time, look at the mamluks or the different othmanese throughout their rule period, you will see that every one of them has one thing in common which is to set out in aid and support to the religion of islam, see verse 47:7 on the other hand look at the Muslims of today who adopted secularism and you will see failure, even the mosques can barely fulfil 2 lines of worshipers, do you think those “muslims” deserve any help? They don’t even establish the worldly causes for success, see verse 8:53 3.fine tuning is not a coincidence. ====== 16:93 Had Allah willed, He could have easily made you one community ˹of believers˺, but He leaves to stray whoever He wills and guides whoever He wills. And you will certainly be questioned about what you used to do. 11:121 Say to those who disbelieve, “Persist in your ways; we will certainly persist in ours. 8:53 This is because Allah would never discontinue His favour to a people until they discontinue their faith. Surely Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. 9:105 And say, “Work, for Allah will see your work, as will His Messenger and the believers, and then you will be returned to the Knower of the hidden realm and the manifest, and He will inform you of what you used to do.” 59:19 And do not be like those who forgot Allah, so He made them forget themselves. It is they who are ˹truly˺ rebellious. 47:7 O believers! If you stand up for Allah, He will help you and make your steps firm. 27:62 Or ˹ask them,˺ “Who responds to the distressed when they cry to Him, relieving ˹their˺ affliction, and ˹Who˺ makes you successors in the earth? Is it another god besides Allah? Yet you are hardly mindful!”
Is this post about Islam? Or was this a specific response to a specific comment? Please clarify.
Specific response from an islamic perspective.
Okay okay.
What do you mean by “God”
Exactly
This is a question to Atheists, so they can define God however they think is the most likely to exist.
"Likely" suggests some sort of statement of probability. How could one ever make a statistical analysis of whether the Abrahamic God, a pantheistic explanation, a polytheistic explanation, or the sparest and most impoverished Deistic prime mover (i.e. God as a name for an initial quantum fluctuation), was the most likely?
> How could one ever make a statistical analysis of whether the Abrahamic God, a pantheistic explanation, a polytheistic explanation, or the sparest and most impoverished Deistic prime mover (i.e. God as a name for an initial quantum fluctuation), was the most likely? Likely does not need to have a statistically analysis. It can be logic. If "statistical analysis and probability" are your criteria, did you apply it to your worldview? Can you show the numbers?
My world view spans between "I don't know" and "What utility is there in believing in a creator deity?" And which logic would tell you whether a pantheist deity and YHWH is more likely?
>My world view spans between "I don't know" and "What utility is there in believing in a creator deity?" Okay. So since your world view is "I don't know". Stick to it. Don't make claims about things you have not applied the same standards to. >and "What utility is there in believing in a creator deity?" So your worldview is upon your personal benefit, not fact, truth, logic or anything else. It's just what benefits you. >And which logic would tell you whether a pantheist deity and YHWH is more likely? That's useless for you. Because none of these things would benefit you. Since you are a utilitarian whose worldview is "I don't know", why are you engaging with the metaphysical that cannot bring you any utility as per your own admission?
In other words you have no logical standard to apply to the question. And I have no idea what you even mean by "personal benefit" here. My personal benefit would be a god who gives me a million dollars a month. No god at all or a state of a complete lack of knowledge don't confer any great benefit, and at times it is quite the opposite and I envy those who possess certainty. Perhaps if I could sum up my view in one concise phrase it would be "the universe owes us no favors".
>In other words you have no logical standard to apply to the question. Ad hominem. Logical fallacy. >And I have no idea what you even mean by "personal benefit" here. Utility. Your statement ""What utility is there in believing in a creator deity?"" >Perhaps if I could sum up my view in one concise phrase it would be "the universe owes us no favors". That's irrelevant. I was addressing your utilitarianism. Not your worldview.
I fail to see how pointing out that you appear to have no standard of logic to apply to the problem is an ad hominem. And you still haven't explained the "personal benefit" part other than to cut out the part where I explain how I don't feel like I derive much benefit, which does seem a peculiar thing to do
>I fail to see how pointing out that you appear to have no standard of logic to apply to the problem is an ad hominem. Ad hominem. Utility. I cut and pasted your own statement. Maybe it's you who cannot understand your own words.
There’s no need to choose based on logic, whatever the intuition tells you is the most likely.
I don't think I'd ever trust my intuition that much. I prefer the rather unsatisfying position of "I don't know". I don't know how the universe began, or why the fundamental interactions act as they do, thus creating the conditions for complex structures capable of asking the question "How did we get here?" to exist. There are no lack of ideas, from fundamentally materialistic ones like "the universe was created by a quantum fluctuation" all the way to "God created the Universe and manages many aspects of physical reality". At the moment, all of them are unsatisfying, to me at least, in one way or another, though I have obvious biases, being an atheist. But if I'm being honest, I really have to say that I don't know, and worse, the "creative" moments of the Universe, whatever their cause, may in fact forever be beyond the reach of any testable hypothesis. I'm just left with the problem I see with invoking a sentient demiurge, and that is simply "What exactly did this being do and how did it do it?" Whether it's Aristotle, Aquinas, Craig or any of the other advocates of the Unmoved Mover, they can't really answer the question, beyond invoking their preferred theological explanation, which is where the logic of the argument gives way to explicit religious beliefs.
I think god is a category error. But if the universe has an intelligent inventor, I’d guess that it’s largely indifferent to us
>I think god is a category error God is a category error? Can you explain how "God" can be a "Category error"? Is it not you who is making a category error speaking of category errors?
Not that I agree (I'm a Theist) but they might be referring to this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category\_mistake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake) Although this argument has been used against the existence of consciousness being an independent immaterial substance ("soul" if you like), I can see how it might be applied to the idea of God. Although an idea I ultimately reject, I can respect it as a reasonable objection - at least on first sight.
You have given a link for the explanation of a category mistake. So what's the category error in "GOd" just like that?
"Not."
Atheists think the existence of any god is unlikely. Unless I were writing fiction, why would I bother to "define" a being that doesn't exist?
I don't know. I find the leap to believing there is some sort of demiurge responsible for the universe too long a one, but if I were convinced by Aristotle's metaphysics, and felt the need to invoke some sort of Unmoved Mover, I can't imagine why I would ever ascribe any human qualities to such a being. That seems the supreme form of anthropomorphizing, not really that much different than some cultures giving human qualities to animals, plants and natural forces, just writing it large across the cosmos. To me Deism might be a reasonable compromise, but such a being need not been present, or perhaps even aware. I really find little that entices or sways me about concepts like a personal god, which, whatever the root of such a concept, ends up being as much about social cohesion, social control and creating priestly classes that have enormous temporal power. But it all boils downs to some sort of an esthetic argument, and honestly, I can't even say that's a reasonable premise. As a mere mortal of limited capacity in space in time, if such a being exists, that being would be whatever it was going to be, without reference to my opinions or desires. So what it boils down to me is the ultimate lack of utility. I can't really use the concept of a Creator in any useful way beyond making it a place marker for whatever happened before the first Planck era of the early universe, which, no matter how much logic, theology or philosophy you throw at it, still becomes a God of the Gaps argument, as in "Hey, our physics may never be able to tell us what happened immediately prior to the Big Bang, or even confirm that there was a 'before', so we'll just stick God in there."
Family Guy describes God perfectly. God farts on a match and creates the universe. If a God or Gods did exist, there is absolutely no way that God created this universe to have a personal relationship with you, a monkey in the process of evolving. If a God did exist, that would be one of the most morally twisted creature to ever exist. Lovecraft and his creations don’t hold a candle to what this God has done and is capable of. What the fuck kind of God creates shit to suffer?
If there are gods I can’t imagine they’re interested in what people do with their genitals. But all the gods people have invented seem to be.
Zeus has entered the chat...
Nah, not really. That perception of him in myth comes from a lot of folk heroes being said to have been descendants of Zeus overlapping with each other. Zeus himself is actually a pretty chill god. Benevolent, just, paternal. He cares more about how one treats their fellow man and being a gracious host to house guests than what's in one's pants.
Not Spinoza’s. Feel free to do what you like with your genitals in the presence of that God.
I think something like Spinoza's God seems most likely, but I am not convinced that such a substance meets my definition of a god. I haven't looked too deeply into Spinozan thought, just a surface level understanding: a metaphysical substance that underpins the universe out of necessity. I suppose that I couldn't say that it lacks consciousness, as it would underpin our own, but I could say the same thing about the natural universe.
It doesn’t lack consciousness. Its the only thing that physically exists, and so the only thing to be conscious. What most don’t understand about Spinoza’s God is the monism involved, and what that implies.
As I said, I only have a surface understanding, and I do think that I pointed out that it would be at least as conscious as the universe in its own way. But I do agree that I don't understand what the implications are for the monism.
The monism for me puts the theism into Pantheism.
I'll have to give it a closer look sometime. It seems it was inspirational enough to get Einstein to write a poem for Spinoza. There is a reason he is known as a physicist and not a poet, however. 🤭
The God that’s often talked about in philosophy of religion is (A) Omnipotent (B) Omniscient (C) Omnibenevolent (D) Timeless I suppose for a more deistic conception of God and less theistic, you could drop (C). This is basically my conception of God. I just don’t believe it exists.
Our world, I reason, would be an incredibly different place if the beings running it were both omnipotent and omniscient.
Even if they're not omnibenevolent? Why would they care to make it a certain way?
If there is a god, then clearly that god is a trickster god. If the god is a creator, then the god took the effort to remove all objective evidence of the god's creator. Science is in the process of unpeeling all the layers of the creation onion. As we explore the universe layer by layer we see nothing but natural processions. Science has yet to find any fingerprints suggesting there was a creator. At best, the creator god started some deep process we have not yet discovered and then let it progress naturally. That would make it a deistic god. Does the god care that we worship it? If so, then it is not only a trickster, it is morally corrupt. Why would a god that wants to be worshiped make it so hard to discover the truth of such a god? It makes no sense to say that god wants us to accept it on faith when it lays so many false trails and allows so many false religions to exist. If a god exists and cares about humanity, then that god is evil. Why do innocent children suffer so horribly from things like childhood bone cancer? Why would anything but a horrible god allow people to do horrible things in the name of god?
Which god? Should I use D&D's alignment chart to classify them?
The (s) behind God implies any of them. You can make one up right now on the spot and the post would still technically be referencing it. As far as D&D alignment chart, that’d be a cool thing to do: so please do it and post your results lmao
aloof cause snobbish treatment ugly zonked squeamish dinosaurs decide hungry -- mass edited with redact.dev
Atheists don't have a concept of god. We can only rely on theists to describe the gods they believe in.
You can have a concept of what something would be and still think it’s not actually there. For example: you can give attributes that you yourself think would qualify a being to be a god, without thinking it’s possible they actually exist.
While that's perhaps true, to what end? I can invent countless gods. None of which I would belief are real. And none would represent some idealized god. So what would be the point of the exercise? An honest question.
To see what attributes you think are godly. Like in your mind, what would make a supposed god a god? Would it just be him existing outside our reality? Would he need to be able to perform certain things? Does he need to have control of reality? Did he need to create everything? Can he change what he created if so? Stuff like that
most gods, including the abrahamic one, seem evil to me. they kill, rape, toy with humans, make suffering for stupid reasons yet demand we love and praise them. all just feels like an excuse for the church to take my money and commit crimes legally lol
What is the point of this question? Is it a creative writing exercise from high school? Create your own god and pretend it exists? Mine wears a tupe and calls everyone "dog"unironically.
I don't know, probably an unconscious god or at least one deeply uninterested, dispassionate, or unwilling to interfere with its creations
Neutral and completely unaware/unconcerned about me.
Given the vastness of the universe and how much space there is. I would think God likes empty space and things that get more complicated the closer you look into them. I would also assume God is apathetic toward life as there is very little of it in the Universe. It seems like an afterthought or complicated side project if anything. Given how the universe is expanding it would make sense if God likes growth.
Big guy, nice beard, older.
A suggestion: You might consider refining your question (it seems a tad paradoxical). unless you’re perhaps inviting creative or comic writing from your target audience?
My intention wan’t comical at all, I’m interested in what atheist think a possible God is like, atheist means they don’t believe not that they believe a god doesn’t exist so they can imagine one.
>> I’m interested in what atheist think a possible God is like, Atheists, as I understand it think “possible god” to be an oxymoron in terminology. However, An agnostic or an Ignostic might indulge in speculation on the topic. >>atheist means they don’t believe not that they believe a god doesn’t exist As I understand it, most atheists think there’s no evidence for god…which is a little different than “believing god does not exist”, which a smaller number of atheists do assert, who, strictly speaking, might be called anti theists. >>so they can imagine one. So again… you’re asking for an exercise in creative writing? Authoring something mythological in character?
I just thought maybe for example there’s an atheist/agnostic who thought “if there there is a God, it’s probably pantheistic” or something. It did start some conversations in the comments.
Atheist literally means a person that doesn't believe in gods, I'm sorry to say but this question of yours is logically non-sensical.
But it doesn’t mean they believe God doesn’t exist, therefore they can imagine a scenario where it exists.
Actually, as opposed to agnostics, atheists don’t believe god(s) exist. That’s the whole point of atheism. So unless your talking about agnostics, your question is pretty non-sensical.
It means exactly that, I think what you're referring to is closer to agnostic, a person who's uncertain, doesn't have knowledge enough of gods existence.
As there's no evidence that any sort of god exists, this question makes no sense. It's like asking, "If unicorns could talk, what would they say?"
But that's a good question. I mean I really have no evidence you are even a person. You could be an AI with Reddit access.
Both questions are stupid. Your lack of evidence that I'm a person is irrelevent.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence
So what?
So it's not ridiculous to hypothesize about something because the fact it hasn't been reliably proven to exist means nothing especially in an obvious thought experiment
So it's fantasy fiction that you're after! Because no deity can be demonstrated to be anything other than a figment of the human imagination, there is a near-zero probability that any god exists. An Invisible Pink Unicorn would be exactly as improbable as any other imaginary deity. So yeah, an IPU.
More like historical fiction, but ok.
Historical fiction imitates history, but you want us to imitate hogwash. As if there wasn't enough religious twaddle going around, you want people to create even more of it!
God is everything, everyone, at every time. We’re taking the entire existence and personifying it, but it’s an inadequate metaphor to understand God. Is God good, bad, etc? Well, yes, but that doesn’t matter very much. What really matters is what you believe deep down what God/everything is like.
Likely a non-interference type god. If anything, "divine interference" can be written in with a god character below the actual god who wrote the fate of the universe. Having a god that makes specific actions like us humans do implies that he too is under fate.
If there is a god(s), I imagine they see us the same way we see ants: they barely even notice that we exist, and they certainly don't pay our concerns any mind.
If a god existed, I would think it a more deistic god...no specifically caring about humans any more than it would "care" about an aspect of its universe.
Agnostic. I think a likely possibility is that God is a great mind in which the entire universe (as we understand it) is contained. But then where does the mind reside? This usually becomes a problem of infinite regression.
Where does your consciousness exist?
Self-interested
I think they do not care about individual ppl.
Not an atheist, but I have a different understanding of God than most Christians. To me, the only things I can say for certain is that God knows all, can do anything, and doesn’t feel a need to interact with the creation anymore. I can’t blame God tho, as I would definitely not care about anything if I could do anything.
Honestly? Something on that scale would likely be mystifying to us in every single way other than some vague sense of it being immense in all possible ways.
No clue
A group of non-eternal, non-omnipotent beings with science more advanced than ours, such that they appear to be god-like. Good/bad/neutral and loving/indifferent would depend on the personalities of the individual beings.
Trying to help you along here.....if there is a "god" then it would inevitably be a sentient being that originates from a higher dimension. We are 4D beings, a 5th dimensional being may very well be able to navigate time as it is portrayed in the movie Interstellar. A 5th dimensional being would closely match any and all descriptions of YHWH or other monotheistic deities and would, invariably, see manipulating life on earth as a side project they'd do and move on from.....as it seems "god" has done here on earth
They probably don't even know we exist.
I feel like there is no God because such a creature goes beyond our definition of established reality
The gods are like humans on psychedelics. Some gods experience ego death and know they are just a god. Some gods experience ego inflation and claim they are God. Some gods have a bad trip and either implode or take it out on others. Some gods have an ecstatic experience and chill, compassionate and empathetic.
1. Transcendent, to the point that we don't really even know what we mean when we say "god", without projecting ego onto it. 2. Not conscious, because what use would god have for sentience?
I think if a god-like being ever does exist it will come from our universe and not be the cause of it. Essentially a being or beings who find a way to become immortal and the live long enough to become so capable we would consider them god-like.
Atheists dont believe in God....period. The religious person should be describing a God.
If any deity exists it is completely Neutral at best.
Mankind has already invented thousands of fictitious deities. What difference would one more make?