I think that the homonoid-gods should have been watched more carefully — EugeneW

I take it by homonoid god you mean those who looked like humans as opposed to being all animal or some hybrid of the two but who was 'watching them?'

What inconsistent relationship? — EugeneW

You typed sometimes yes, sometimes no when @baker asked you:
Are you grateful to your god/s?
Do you express submission to your god/s?
Your own answer suggests an inconsistent relationship with your gods.

I find your claim that you believe in god(s) less and less convincing.

Serves dollops of faith to whoever the comment was directed to — Agent Smith

Faith is merely a 'positive measure of confidence,' that an idea has merit.
The fact that some people see it as belonging exclusively to theists is their confusion not mine.

Connery? — Agent Smith

Well, if I was with Sean Connery Agent Smith then I would be dead!
Do you know something about me that I don't? :death:

Sometimes yes — EugeneW

Give me an example of your deference to them.

sometimes no — EugeneW

Give me an example of your defiance of them.

Explain your inconsistent relationship with that which YOU label god(s)

Many people claim to 'sense' the existence of a God. This is not the kind of formal empirical evidence used to justify scientific propositions but nevertheless it is perhaps some kind of psychological evidence of something. — Mike Radford

Some people claim to 'sense' messages from dead humans, or what your future will be, or where water is under the ground or who is really an alien lizard person passing themselves off as a human. Do you rationalise them as 'psychological evidence of something?'

Just because I don't see it does not mean that it does not exist. — Mike Radford

I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but it also follows that mere faith is poor evidence of existence.

If they were validated there would be no basis for faith — Mike Radford

This is normally called 'progress.' When faith becomes validated. Faith in the Higgs boson was validated at CERN's LHC.

Letting the readers act as arbiters might be a bit like letting the blind lead the blind! — Mike Radford

Perhaps you should try having a little more 'faith' in your fellow human beings.
You cite a good example of human tenacity and admirable if desperate altruism. When no one else is available blind humans will try their best to help each other. If their creator simply watches them bump into things then it does less than the blind at least trying to lead the blind.

I see no path forward for us on this topic.
There is no common ground to build on.

Sean Carroll made an interesting argument about God. He said suppose we lived in a world where children never suffered. The priests would be saying "look, clearly there is a God because we see how he protects the young ". Yet we don't live in that world. This argument for me takes down teleological arguments. What do you guys think? — Gregory

I thought I would attempt a more philosophical style response to your point Gregory rather that my two more emotive ones. If I understand teleology correctly. Sean is suggesting that if such a rule existed that children were 'spared suffering,' until they reached adulthood then this would be evidence that god existed as such as rule would be 'fit for purpose' and make sense and be necessary as a rule towards that which is surely innocent of sin. I would imagine that a god would have to also prevent Lions from eating Lambs as well, until they became fully grown sheep. The fact that no such rules exist, suggests god does not exist. Such rules would be teleological (I think) as they function from their purpose rather than being formed due to the causality of the creation of the children or lambs.
A dog is not 'given' sharp teeth 'by' evolution, the teeth themselves were 'caused' by evolution.
Children would have to evolve as impervious to any kind of suffering until they reached adulthood to match the evolution of sharp teeth in a dog.
As, I said, I'm with Sean so yes, he does 'take down' teleological arguments regarding god with such examples.

Likewise are the equations in physics, in the even more dramatically prose of math, said to be a universal language but only spoken by some, under the guise of the scientific clothes worn by the new priests......... — EugeneW

To me, you are just performing a sort of DJ-style mix of some labels used in science and some labels used in religion with the forlorn hope you will get a hit record. The resulting music hurts my ears.

I think though that your view of gods is pretty subjective here! With such a god (God!) I can understand turning atheist! — EugeneW

But you won't reveal any details of YOUR personal relationship with these entities you now claim to have a commlink with. Maybe you are talking to aliens or quantum fluctuations or just your own imaginings.
I suppose I will just have to wait in anticipation of your 'report.'
I personally think YOUR god(s) come from YOUR ID (as in Freud).
Your god playthings and your personal presentation of YOUR god(s) are harmless and at best, for me, 'entertaining,' but I was hoping for a more meaningful exchange with you on the premise of the OP.
I think there is no way to make progress for either of us on this subject.

Never forget Gregory the religious peddlers that will preach to you about the rewards you will receive AFTER YOU ARE DEAD!
Meantime you must comply with their instruction based on the claim that they are gods messengers.
Commandment number 1, their prime directive is your responsibility to support them, maintain their status/wealth/positions of power and be willing to give up your life in defense of them.
Also, you must donate some of your earnings to them, even if doing so means a poorer life for you and your family. Don't concern yourself with that! Your reward and your family's rewards will happen in f****** heaven!

Sean Carroll made an interesting argument about God. He said suppose we lived in a world where children never suffered. The priests would be saying "look, clearly there is a God because we see how he protects the young ". Yet we don't live in that world. This argument for me takes down teleological arguments. What do you guys think? — Gregory

I'm with Sean! I think if humans created what is badly labeled or proposed as a human goal, 'Paradise on Earth,' If there was no more poverty/war/racism/territoriality/economic or power-based elites etc.
The remaining theists or at least the remaining Christians would claim;:
"But all that good stuff has happened only because humans started to learn the lessons our good god has been trying to teach them since Adam and Eve fell from grace," After that, they would most likely sing some song that repeats the word god, jesus and hallelujah a lot.

The nudge to the gods is made to breathe the fire of love and hate into the matter — EugeneW

An attempt at dramatic prose, not evidence of god.

Matter alone can't explain. — EugeneW

I repeat again, give Science the time and resources required to do this, meantime your are just engaging in panto talk.

When you have a cosmological eternal model, one cannot do other than conclude intelligences created it. — EugeneW

Pure subject opinion, the atheist position rejects this so more panto exchange.

They were tired. So they created the universe. It looks like heaven! Now they watch us, laid back on the heavenly desserts... That realization gives true meaning. We're just acting like the gods. — EugeneW

Like imagery from a low budget theatre show, not evidence of god.

But we die. And get born again. In every new universe renewed. To please the gods with our plays, be it viral or humanoid... Ooookaaaay! — EugeneW

Purely from your entertainment mode.

It's not just the title. I have read the book and it's not very optimistic — EugeneW

I have listened to the audio version, it leaves optimism/pessimism to the judgment of the reader/listener. I found it factual and informative, not optimistic or pessimistic.

I just don't like the guy. It's not an insult to science or evolution but to his interpretation. Don't you insult theists? — EugeneW

Only on a comment by comment basis. People often assume I like/dislike someone on a personal level. I try not to slam the door shut on people I don't really know. But sure I have emotional prejudices as well, based on reports on someone or stuff I have read about them. I do hate Hitler/Thatcher/Paedo priests.
But I used to be a fan of Lenin until I read a lot more about him. Now I think he was just as bad as Stalin.

How do you know its woo woo? — EugeneW

Do you really enjoy the panto exchange 'How do you know it isnt?'

I completely agree — EugeneW

But you don't, therefore, retract the source comment. You don't further justify your claim that Dawkins is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Why do you think he argues against theism, for fame? for fortune? He was already a successful scientist with good pay. You think he revels in the BS he has to deal with from theists who make a living from their storytelling.?

Because it aint such a fable and the scientific fable (how interesting it might be, as we both know!) can't explain the universe, life, and consciousness. It can describe it at most — EugeneW

Ok, contemplate your gods for me. Tell me about your feelings? Compare them with your feelings for those humans and or animals in your life that are precious to you. Which do you prioritise and why?
Tell me about your personal relationship with YOUR god(s)
If you have no such perceptions of god(s), then your god means very little indeed to your existence.

That's what Dawkins has reduced it to! Genes variating in order to arrive at new proteins to give them a better chance to replicate. Which is no more than an unproven, god-like dogma in biology. Even called the central dogma of molecular biology... How close to religion can you get? — EugeneW

But you anthropomorphise what the genes demonstrate as part of their natural functionality and you arrive at the will of the god(s). Its YOUR theistic conflations that try to nudge towards the god posit not anything suggested by Dawkins.

Dawkins might have considered other titles but he didn't actually gave it another title. He might not mean litterally that genes are selfish, but he called them that. What you think people think if they hear about selfish genes? — EugeneW

He would agree with you that, in hindsight, he could have chosen a 'wiser' title for the book but I think you are over-stretching the significance of this shortfall.

He's a wolf in sheep clothes — EugeneW

This line of insult is beneath you EugeneW. It's open to easy returns such as 'The majority of religious preachers are wolves in sheep's clothing.' It's pointless panto talk.

Let's drop the discussion of the fabulous Richard Dawkins. I'm a big fan. you are not, who cares?
Let's talk about why YOU need the god posit. Why do you give it more credit than that of a lazy, boring, unlikely fable? Try to give me a response without engaging your entertainment mode on or your poetic prose mode or your storytelling mode. You 'hop' from your science mode (your best and most relevant mode), in my opinion, to your god posit in a surreal jump into a fantasy fog of non-thinking.
You throw away your empiricism and naturalism and replace it with woo woo!
Why do you need the woo woo?

They would be delighted to see us both pass out at the same time! — EugeneW

I wouldn't blame them!

I don't think you've understood the point of my post. I maybe stuck in a blind alley, but you're off on a tangent. Wanna leave the solar system? Be my guest. Send us pictures! — Agent Smith

Well between your blind alley's and my tangents and trips outside of the solar system, it's unlikely we will ever find ourselves on common ground. Hey ho, such is life.

Why you think impasse has been reached? — EugeneW

Because You had reduced the exchange to:

Can genes win? — EugeneW

So human genes stand on the top? Why? — EugeneW

Genes don't dominate — EugeneW

Most common? — EugeneW

You consider it bait? You think I'm out to getya — EugeneW

Not at all, you misunderstand. I am just being considerate of others. When Impasse has been reached, the exchange becomes fruitless. Face to face, over some beers, we could debate until one or both of us passed out from the beer. But on a public discussion website, I like to try my best to consider other readers, I can be completely blinkered and self-indulgent but I try to stop being so when I realise that's the direction of play.

:rofl: I am immune to such bait EugeneW.

Ok, thanks for the exchange EugeneW. :smile:

I hope you appreciate EugeneW that we are doing ourselves no favours here, in the minds of any readers of our current exchange! It has quickly became laboured and rather pointless. I can hear other members shout 'will you two just......' I think we should end it for the sake of their tolerance levels.

But there also viruses — EugeneW

So?

Genes don't dominate — EugeneW

So your happy with 'most common' then!

An explanation in scientific terms will be a vacuous attempt as it misses the necessary ingredient. — EugeneW

Let's get there first. The scientific explanation will come but I doubt it will happen in our lifetime.

So human genes stand on the top? Why? — EugeneW

I already told you, as did Darwin, natural selection.

Can genes win? — EugeneW

Become dominant or the most common if you don't like 'win.'

gods don't procreate — EugeneW

Many ancient writings would disagree. Zeus was forever shapeshifting to seduce mortal and immortal females. You have made many somewhat inappropriate suggestions of gods producing, shall we say 'the seeds of life'

They created the universe(ness) to watch us playing the game of life. The view that we make love to replicate genes (though this obviously happens) is a deceptive one. But it's precisely the view our friend want to impart on the world. — EugeneW

Now you are off again wearing your 'entertainer' hat. which is fine, but there remains nothing in your words that provide any evidence of the god posit.

Yes. But Dawkins-based evolutiin tries to explain them all in that context of replicating genes — EugeneW

Yes but not the resulting phenomena of human consciousness!
Those answers are still being sought.
Dawkins speaks towards how the brain formed genetically but he speaks little about its functionality and its demonstrated or potential ability.

On the contrary. The reason, according to our friend, about the emergence of life is the selfish gene gene wanting to replicate — EugeneW

The selfish genes are the genes that won through, within the rules of natural selection. To me, 'selfish' just points to the idea that our genes don't care about the fact that the genes of the neanderthals (for example) didn't take the top spot, that's all. It does not suggest our genes made a conscious decision to replicate and prevented any other competing genes from doing so. There is no suggestion that they have any such inherent cognitive ability (that would be panpsychist!). Replication of DNA/RNA happens because it can!

Yes. But how do they replicate? By procreation. Unless procreation means something different than I think — EugeneW

Procreation can be taken as 'producing offspring' or 'reproducing,' this is not the same as replication.
Would your clone be your offspring?, I think not!
You are trying to invoke the image of humans procreating, with god(s) procreating and conflate that to have an association with the natural mechanisms Dawkins writes about in the selfish gene.
You are trying to use this conflation as some kind of contrived evidence for the existence of god(s).
In my opinion EugeneW and with all due respect, the hypothetical paper you write such suggestions on is wet through and soggy and won't hold the words you want to write on it.

yep, atheism is an argument and ergo, can be valid/invalid unlike theism which isn't an argument and so is neither valid nor invalid, it's as Wolfgang Pauli put it — Agent Smith

Pauli's exclusion principle states that an atom cannot have the same set of quantum numbers in its electronic configuration. It has scientific rigor, why do you conflate it with your subjective opinion about whether or not the atheist or theist posits can be considered beliefs or arguments?
You have demonstrated many times in your postings that you have impressive analytical abilities but you also allow that ability to be fogged by taking the direction of exchange down wasteful blind alleys at times. This is just my opinion of course. You like to wear a coat of many colours Agent Smith.
I prefer you on 'straight up' mode. Not that I ever want to dent your sense of humour. Humour remains vital to all.

But these are the tactics used very often to declare opposing positions as something else going on (if taken seriously). You can say the same of Dawkins' "realization" that we are gene-driven machines... — EugeneW

So we each layout or claims EugeneW and let the readers of such be our arbiters!

He litterally writes that he was overwhelmed by the realization (which he calls an absolute truth) that organisms are machines made and ordered by genes with the purposes of procreating them, pass them on. Or memes, in the case of humans. Now what kind of meme is that? Can't he do better? The meaning, purpose of life is to pass on life. It's circular and devaluating. If you see people as machines programmed by selfish genes, what has gone wrong in your life? — EugeneW

I don't see your issues here. You quote the word 'machines,' which have mechanisms, which is what I typed, no reasons, just natural mechanisms. Dawkins does not talk about genes 'procreating.' I listen to his audiobook versions from time to time, they are free on YouTube. He talks about gene replication not procreation. You inserted the imagery of that word for your own purposes. You have to play fair EugeneW!

Meme just means fast replication. You use the term 'Passing on life,' to deliberately invoke an emotional response in others. You do this as an attempt to subtract from Dawkins's argument that there is no reason behind the EMERGENCE of life. He does not deny the emotional capacity of lifeforms such as humans, he celebrates it. You are using stealth to accuse him of things he is not guilty of. Play fair!
A human is more than the sum of its mechanisms due to the fact that consciousness demonstrates other aspects such as emotional ability.

The Magic Bullet Theory is the single-bullet theory. One bullet no magic needed — Gregory A

So how did it manage to stop and change direction in mid air?

You're not stupid. It's that arrogance has caused you to not think over your own position properly — Gregory A

Well, I appreciated your attempt to reduce your level of provocation.

is trying to indoctrinate children at the same time — Gregory A

You have conflicting standards Gregory A. Religions have been doing this for the whole of our past 10000 years of tears and you try to lay this accusation at Dawkins door! Shame on you. That is just outrageous, especially when he states at almost every opportunity that one of the most pernicious acts of religion is how they manipulate and terrify children. He is absolutely correct and you are wrong with equal intensity.

And, how could God submit 'himself' to scientific scrutiny and then still be a god. A god that submits to anything is not a god. If we knew there was a god what would that do for our freewill — Gregory A

Oh come on Gregory A, you forget your own claims, you claim it is omnipotent, it can do anything it chooses to, according to you. Your first sentence above completely contradicts the previous claims you have made about what omnipotence means. Your incoherence is on display!

Even if it turned out we are subject to a Natural universe where everything is decided by chance, these books would still have value. — Gregory A

Yes, as historical fables which were once believed by some to be the literal word of a (by then) debunked creator. As a TV series, the bible would be a bigger hit than Game Of Thrones, as the bible has much more sex, mindless violence, supernatural content and artistic license.

If the simple living of life was enough then people would not feel impelled to seek further meaning of significance. Simply living life is enough for some, but others seem to want more. No problem with that is there? — Mike Radford

No problem at all, I just have a problem with the theistic lazy, easy, and rather simplistic solution of a
supernatural superhero labeled god. I think to achieve the 'more' you are talking about we need to at least have the ability to leave our little pale blue dot nest and learn how to exist outside of it,
We are still at the infantile stage of territorial wars Mike! We are still impressed by celebrity! Most of our species are more interested in sports, immediate self-gratification and sex rather than global politics.
I do not reject sports or sex, they just need to be prioritised properly.
From the perspective of understanding the true origins of the Universe, we have hardly began!
Dont burden us with 'quick fix', fake solutions such as god.

Humanity, the thing responsible for global warming and offering an antidote in the form of nuclear winter should be trusted? — Gregory A

Yes, humans create the problems, humans can create the solutions, we don't need judgment or redemption from a fictitious character that we also created. God is like global warming, a problem human's created, atheism is a possible solution to that particular problem.

There is not one god. There are as many gods as there were, are, and will be creatures in the universe — EugeneW

Are you not really just saying here, that in your opinion, we are all gods?
There is a song by a great Canadian band called Arcade Fire, its called Wake Up.
Two Lines from the song are:

We’re just a million little gods causin' rainstorms, turnin’ every good thing to rust.
I guess we’ll just have to adjust.

Its one of my favourite songs, here it is:



Maybe this is where your gods truly exist, only in the lyrics of some good songs.

How you say that in Scottish? — EugeneW

I think we have some common ground between Oxford English and Glaswegian Dialect when it comes to oooookkkkkkaaaayyyyy! Perhaps the only difference would be how many plums you have in your mouth at the time you stretch out 'ok.'. I don't mean to mock you with any malice aforethought EugeneW. I mean that in earnest. As an atheist, I am 100% skeptical when anyone claims direct revelation from god, while awake or in a dream, and I assume that if they are serious, then something else is going on.

It's what happened in heaven. I was informed in a dream and by forum member Tom Storm, who the gods used to inform me — EugeneW

ooooookkkkkaaaaayyyyyy! Sorry, I can't do any better :halo:

it's difficult for the gods to reach us. They try and try and try... Attending us that also the human gods were involved in creation. They played their part in heaven but their endless mind squiblings didn't any good for their collective creation.... Take that — EugeneW

This is just wordplay, fun, but just prose and rather disjointed.

"From the outside, you can't see what's in a black hole..." — EugeneW

From the outside, I don't know what a particular human thinks, feels, wants etc.
They need to tell me and if they don't then I never will never know, unless someone else knows and they tell me.
Your god(s) are totally silent and are unable to manifest, We only have made up ancient stories and the promise of those who interpret their own dreams. Just not good enough!

Exactly! We could go on ages like this — EugeneW

Yeah but there is the residual hope that I may not get a light beam through your theistic fog but I may get a wee shard of light through the theistic fog of any reader, clouded by such.

Don't you F****** dare EugeneW, get your hands off that keyboard until you take that 'reversal' hat off!
:rofl: :lol: :rofl: