The problem is, they have created the universe but are not omnipotent — EugeneW

So you are claiming that these gods are powerful enough to create a Universe and creatures such as us within it but they have no ability to physically manifest within it. Yet many of the ancient god stories have god manifesting regularly, all over the planet, by means of 'showers of gold' to 'burning bushes with booming sky voices.' Now they have lost such abilities? This is part of the tall tale you are trying to convince me is factual? Seriously?
The idea that every fantasy story told by Marvel comics is true is more likely than your theistic posits.
Your just 'havin a laugh!'

don’t understand how you can say some beings have ‘good reason’ without knowing what he reason is? — I like sushi

The reason was that they were fed up with eternal existence. Endlessly playing the game of love and hate. Let's hope they don't get fed up watching us!

So you are claiming that these gods are powerful enough to create a Universe and creatures such as us within it but they have no ability to physically manifest within it. — universeness

Precisely! They would disturb the natural order, their own creation. Once in a while they succeed but the message is mistaken always.

Your just 'havin a laugh — universeness

With you always! :smile:

The idea that every fantasy story told by Marvel comics is true is more likely than your theistic posits. — universeness

Except that Marvel characters are fantasies.

Thanks 'Universeness' - I don't think that we can write off an experience that seems to be very common among mankind. The experience is a psychological event which would suggest some kind of cause or trigger. What is it that people are susceptible to that would cause such experiences? I have no idea myself, but it would be churlish to simply say that they were all confused or mistaken.

Faith is not evidence of anything. The fact that somebody has faith does not imply the reliability of that faith. Faith might be closely related to trust. Some people take great reassurance from their trust in God. I don't think that we should necessarily disrespect that trust, even if we do not regard the object as reliable.

In your reference to the Higgs Boson particular you are confusing propositions that are held as hypotheticals and those that are held as a matter of faith. The validation of hypothetical propositions is certainly progress, but those of faith do not need such validation. They are different insofar as they are not held on the basis of any evidence.

The truth of philosophical propositions is not a matter of popular belief. Philosophy, like any other discipline, is not a matter of democracy. Those qualified to arbitrate on philosophical claims are those that have had some training in philosophy.

On the more general matter of 'faith' or trust in humanity I have always been cautious when it comes to the kindness of strangers. Human beings are equally capable of great intelligence and great stupidity.

That is just a story you made up.

That is just a story you made up. — I like sushi

That's a theology, or better, a theonomy. How do you know its not true?

I don’t understand what truth has to do with a story in the sense you seem to be framing it?

As a little story it is fine. As some comparison to lived experience it leaves a lot to be desired. As I ah e mentioned there is a lack of validity in referring to beings that are literally beyond your comprehension as they are ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ (concepts used by humans to express something outside of experiential comprehension).

It does not hold up as a reasonable argument for the existence of said ‘god/s’ if the definition is so abstracted from human experience that it makes it impossible to confirm or deny. What would intrigue me more is what it is that makes you believe in such beings. I cannot imagine infinite or eternal beings any more than I can imagine a square circle, a sound without pitch, a physical object without surfaces or a colour without shade. I can of course ‘make up’ some abstract approximation of each of this but they would all fall short of meeting the said requirements (for example I can imagine a square shape with rounded corners and convince others that it is fine ti call it a ‘square circle’ but in technical terms it would neither be a square or a circle in mathematical terms.

don’t understand what truth has to do with a story in the sense you seem to be framing it? — I like sushi

The story is the truth. What else we got?

I think you are making too much of a leap from story to reality. Telling a story doesn’t make it true. I could tell you a story about how I lived in a giant shoe for a year but it doesn’t make the story real. The ‘truth’ in the story is in the reason I may have chosen to express myself this way.

There can be powerful meanings in stories that are stories about actual events. The power of meaning is not the same as making something true. We can watch a movie and know it is a complete fiction yet take something profound away from it. That doesn’t make it ‘true’ just useful to us in a certain way.

I could tell you a story about how I lived in a giant shoe for a year but it doesn’t make the story rea — I like sushi

That's a fantasy, not a story about reality.

That doesn’t make it ‘true’ just useful to us in a certain way. — I like sushi

The theological story is true and thats the reason it gives meaning. Scientific stories are true also but lack meaing.

The obvious question is then what makes your story real and mine a fantasy? What if other people believe their story to be true and your’s fantasy? How do we judge between them?

There are many differing religious stories. I say they all carry something that makes them undeniably similar … they are human stories. I start from that point because it is true or we wouldn’t know the stories in the first place.

The obvious question is then what makes your story real and mine a fantasy — I like sushi

What's your story? That gods are a human invention?

Precisely! They would disturb the natural order, their own creation. Once in a while they succeed but the message is mistaken always — EugeneW

How convenient!
The trouble with your windup hat, is that you are in danger of becoming just another theistic guy who cries 'wolf'/god when no wolf/god, ever appears, after a while, your shouts are ignored.

How convenient! — universeness

For the gods, yes. How else would the universe be able to function. Besides, they have shown themselves! Just look around you! All of life, all organisms. Intruding destroys. And because they see their creation being destroyed by the human carbon copies of the homonid gods, they try to reach us. Hidden variables are good for that, but only when people dream.

My story is me I guess? In that sense the culmination of all human stories is ‘god’ (as I understand it in a religious sense), but I don’t believe many people who talk of this or that god see it in that way.

My view is more like the Jungian view of the collective unconscious - we create the world we live in as much as the world creates us. The idea/archetype of ‘god’ is more or less the Heirophant (the process that delineates between them.

Is what I just said ‘true’? No. It is a theory of why we have a such strong impulses to believe in things like ‘god/s’ as ‘real’ rather than as symbolic representations of humanity. I am not dogmatic about this just fascinated by human beliefs and various other things, and this is where it generally leads me.

The trouble with your windup hat, is that you are in danger of becoming just another theistic guy who cries 'wolf'/god when no wolf/god, ever appears, after a while, your shouts are ignored — universeness

I dont ask them to show up! It's you who's crying wolf about that.

My view is more like the Jungian view of the collective unconscious - we create the world we live in as much as the world creates us. The idea/archetype of ‘god’ is more or less the Heirophant (the process that delineates between them. — I like sushi

Physical reality is shaped by mental reality and vice-versa. We constantly mediate between the outer and inner world. We find ourselves in the middle, in between the brain and the world outside, tied to both we play along, like the gods.

Is what I just said ‘true’? No. It is a theory of why we have a such strong impulses to believe in things like ‘god/s’ — I like sushi

Im not sure I understand the answer to the "why".

It is a proposed and incomplete response the question. Answers are not really part and parcel of a phenomenological investigation.

I can make some sense out if that view. We just seem to differ in what we define as ‘god’. I presume to know beyond my limited senses, so the ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ are not for me to comment upon much.

so the ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ are not for me to comment upon much. — I like sushi

The gods are not eternal and infinite. Heaven is, like the universe.

okay, so we’re gods. No disagreement there tbh.

Thanks. Gotta go and get some food now.

. We just seem to differ in what we define as ‘god — I like sushi

Not just about the definition of god. Also about their existence. You see them as truly existent only in relation to the human endeavor and not as existing outside the universe. All this talk about gods...and I overlook the dog looking at me with asking eyes and wiggling tale.

okay, so we’re gods — I like sushi

Huh?

If they are not eternal and not infinite then they are just like us. So then what is the difference? We are effectively ‘gods’ in the sense you seem to have outlined.

Correct me if I’m wrong and I’ll read when I get back.

See you later :)

What is it that people are susceptible to that would cause such experiences? — Mike Radford

Primal fear, in my opinion, and hope against nonexistence/oblivion after death, and I believe it is for these reasons that we can dismiss the god posit. Human fear is never a good source of rationality.
Is it not a good thing to encourage our fellows to combat their primal fears and to boldly go......
Do you think that dependence on and deference to (nonexistent) supernatural will is commensurate with human progression and development? Science progresses, Theism has not progressed at all, in my opinion, in the last 10000 years of human civilisations.

Some people take great reassurance from their trust in God. I don't think that we should necessarily disrespect that trust, even if we do not regard the object as reliable. — Mike Radford

I applaud your sentiment here and if during debate, I see signs that I am damaging the psyche of a religious individual or even significantly upsetting them, then I will stop, apologise and desist but I will still make the same points if asked.

In your reference to the Higgs Boson particular you are confusing propositions that are held as hypotheticals and those that are held as a matter of faith. — Mike Radford

Well, I appreciate this 'traditional' viewpoint but I don't subscribe to the idea that the term 'faith' is the exclusive property of theists. I endeavor to change this. I want to claim the word for common use as a human measure of confidence level or belief level regarding an idea.
"I kind of accept/accept/support/believe/have faith that you are a good person/ that the Higgs boson exists. I think this is a perfectly valid use of the word faith, despite any perceived clash with 'propositional hypotheticals'

The truth of philosophical propositions is not a matter of popular belief. Philosophy, like any other discipline, is not a matter of democracy. Those qualified to arbitrate on philosophical claims are those that have had some training in philosophy. — Mike Radford

You further back up your position by what you correctly state above but I am not suggesting the overthrow or disregarding of philosophical academic authority. I just advocate for a stronger repurposing of the term 'faith.' Perhaps in a similar way the homosexuals repurposed the word 'gay.'

On the more general matter of 'faith' or trust in humanity I have always been cautious when it comes to the kindness of strangers. Human beings are equally capable of great intelligence and great stupidity. — Mike Radford

A wise position, especially if you have others who are dependent on your decisions but this is and probably always will be a judgment call. I have personally had a mixed success when initially giving others the benefit of my doubts, so I agree with your 'cautious' approach.

Besides, they have shown themselves! Just look around you! All of life, all organisms. — EugeneW

That's like you taking credit for a house I built.
Evolution and natural selection produced what you cite above not god.