I am satisfied by the meaningless, mindless spark that no longer exists. That allows me to get rid of the whole god posit and all its flavors — universeness

What is the most disturbing thing about God which makes you think this way?

I am satisfied by the meaningless, mindless spark that no longer exists. That allows me to get rid of the whole god posit and all its flavors — universeness

There are many stories. I have the gods story, you the mindless spark. Who's right? Both of us! If the mindless spark comforts you, be my man! Who cares which is actually true? That's an old idea introduced in ancient Greece. That there is one absolute reality. An idea leading to misery and suffering, if taken seriously. There are a lot of these realities though. Yours, mine, the Christian's etc. Trying to impose one onto others, in the conviction yours is the only one, is wrong.

What is the most disturbing thing about God which makes you think this way? — SpaceDweller

Good question!
We are not free if god exists, we are tied to the will of an omnipotent creator. I find that offensive.
We exist based only on its whim? Yuk!
I then turn to the vile gods who are described in the religious books.
Christoper Hitchens put it very well when he said god made you flawed/sick and then commanded you to heal yourself and if you don't you will be punished for eternity. Such a god would be a moron.
Other serious issues I have are, god has no inherent purpose that I can perceive, god is an obvious response to human primal fear that we inherited from our evolution in the wilds, god allows human suffering of innocents, god seems unable to appear so it cannot be omnipotent and on and on it goes.
I really do appreciate your question but I will stop listing my complaints here as I think my laptop would give out before I could list them all. You asked me to identify the most disturbing thing about the god posit for ME in particular. I cant honestly apply much prioritisation to a particular entry in my list, they are all important to me and all add to my 99.9% level of confidence that god does not exist.

There are many stories. I have the gods story, you the mindless spark. — Hillary

That about covers it. :up:

That about covers it. :up: — universeness

That's why discussion and debating is always important. :up:

:smile: :up:

Good, provocative, OP. Well written, if mostly by Auken and Wittgenstein.

We are not free if god exists, we are tied to the will of an omnipotent creator — universeness

Pretty much what I thought. In a question on another forum, as part of a question I asked:

"I think it's a creepy thought that we live in a simulated world, just I think it's a creepy thought that we're made by (a) god(s) or by evolution for that matter"

The world described is a world of terror. And the world is heading for it.

Belief is a term I try to use carefully. I consider posits. Many worlds is a posit I personally consider to have a higher credence to the 0.1% credence I assign to the god posit. — universeness

You are coming up with percentages on claims that have never been proven possible.
Probability is a mathematical concept that demands a verified sample from a total number of cases.
As far as we can tell non of the ideas you do compare have ever been supported by Objective evidence..
How can you ever talk about probabilities when you don't have a single verified case proving its possible nature?

You are coming up with percentages on claims that have never been proven possible.
Probability is a mathematical concept that demands a verified sample from a total number of cases. — Nickolasgaspar

It's hard to confess, but here I actually agree!

lol........

Christoper Hitchens put it very well when he said god made you flawed/sick and then commanded you to heal yourself and if you don't you will be punished for eternity. — universeness

Except God didn't made people sick, he gave them free will (freedom) and they made their choice to trust the snake right?

I then turn to the vile gods who are described in the religious books. — universeness

Right, and even though those religious books show all the evil that come out of trusting the snake you choose to follow the same mistakes of Adam and Eve.

My point is that I don't see why would God have to be blamed.
But consider if God gave us no free will, wouldn't that makes us hopeless slaves of God, wouldn't such God be unjust God?

We are not free if god exists, we are tied to the will of an omnipotent creator. I find that offensive. — universeness

This would be true if God gave us no free will, which is not the case.

Except God didn't made people sick, he gave them free will (freedom) and they made their choice to trust the snake right? — SpaceDweller

Well you better prove first that such entities are real and then you can make up as many excuses you like for their screw ups.....as if "free will" in a biological organisms with tones of urges and drives and environmental influences could ever stick.
Its like listening to an auto company blaming a system in their cars for bad performance... they are the responsible factory and your god is responsible for adding a system that could be responsible for eternal suffering. That only makes you god a moral Thug that enjoys laying traps and see humans fall for them.

Hillary...its hard for you to put a sentence with three words together without including a logical fallacy.....we already know that it is hard for you to admit anything.

In science, evidence is very important. — Hillary

Evidence is essential for every single belief claim...only if you don't care to be reasonable you are willing to accept claims without evidence...

Hillary...its hard for you to put a sentence with three words together without including a logical fallacy.....we already know that it is hard for you to admit anything. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, we know that. And I don't intend to not include them. Logic sucks... :lol: Its mathematics and physics thats interesting.

Evidence is essential for every single belief claim...only if you don't care to be reasonable you are willing to accept claims without evidence... — Nickolasgaspar

Indeed. A sense of reason shines from you, dear Nickolas! Only, my proof is different from yours. Scientific evidence cannot be used in theological matters. Though it's impossible to investigate all physical phenomena.

Well you better prove first that such entities are real — Nickolasgaspar

the snake is from my understanding evil (the devil) embodied, ex. not literarily a snake.

But then even if one does not believe in God or the devil, one can not deny the presence of good and evil.

The point being, it's up to you (or anyone) to choose their side, not up to God\devil or good\evil.
That's the whole point of freedom or free will or the story of garden of Eden.

That there is one absolute reality. An idea leading to misery and suffering, if taken seriously. There are a lot of these realities though. Yours, mine, the Christian's etc. Trying to impose one onto others, in the conviction yours is the only one, is wrong. — Hillary

So there are lots of realities in terms of what is true in science, right? None is absolutely true, they are just pragmatically useful. Right?

So there are lots of realities in terms of what is true in science, right? None is absolutely true, they are just pragmatically useful. Right? — Joshs

Right!

the snake is from my understanding evil (the devil) embodied, ex. not literarily a snake . But then even if one does not believe in God or the devil, one can not deny the presence of good and evil. — SpaceDweller

-Τhis poetic remark is irrelevant to my comment. I asked you if you can demonstrate the existence of the entity you promote independent of the fact that good and bad things are part of our lives.
Can you provide Objective and independently verifiable evidence that such an entity exists?

The point being, it's up to you (or anyone) to choose their side, not up to God\devil or good\evil. — SpaceDweller

No no, its up to you do demonstrate that such malicious agents like god and devil exist.

-"That's the whole point of freedom or free will or the story of garden of Eden. "
Again you need to demonstrate that such things exist...not just assume them.
We already know what you believe in. The important question is Why. Why modern people with access to education still access iron age entities as real without evidence.

oh Hillary...you are damaged goods...

Yes! And badly damaged! :lol:

So there are lots of realities in terms of what is true in science, right? None is absolutely true, they are just pragmatically useful. Right? — Joshs

Which is to say, it depends on which level you look. At the fundamental level there can only be one truth, the ToE. There can only be one kind of stuff created which can lead to the universe that we observe.

Which is to say, it depends on which level you look. At the fundamental level there can only be one truth, the ToE. There can only be one kind of stuff created which can lead to atheuniverse that we observe. — Hillary

You’re no fun. Maybe we don’t just observe it, maybe we co-produce it in a partnership between conceptualization and the constraints and affordances. that the world presents to us. Maybe what we observe is already a newly changed product of our measuring devices and theories. That seems to be the direction that science studies is moving. Science not as neutral observation, representation , simulation, but as production and transformation.

Maybe what we observe is already a newly changed product of our measuring devices and theories. — Joshs

There are countless higher level realities produced by our mind and our experiments. We litterally bring them into existence. I do not doubt that. Science is an art. But at the fundamental level, there hides just one basic stuff. And that stuff is addressed by a ToE, and the name is quite misleading, I agree. It's only the lowest level that is addressed. There are infinite, loosely connected higher level laws of physics.

But at the fundamental level, there hides just one basic stuff. And that stuff is addressed by a ToE, and the name is quite misleading, I agree. It's only the lowest level that is addressed. There are infinite, loosely connected higher level laws of physics. — Hillary

If there is a single synthetic, law-governed truth of the universe and its laws, is this truth a description of something that exists independently of our theories about it? If the universe is continually changing , what about it is protected from relativity and contingency? Popper said that our theories are approximations of a reality that we approach asymptotically. This implies a reality independent of our theories. Kuhn, on the other hand , did not accept this idea of a lawful, deterministic reality. Laws are norms , and norms are contingent and relative. An authentic theory of everything would have to be self-reflexive,, a theory that reveals
its own contingency and relativity.

A theory of everything would trigger a new toe that transforms the previous There would be an endless stream of toe’s, such that it would be necessary to create a theory of theories of everything, one that no longer strives to nail down a single law-governed
scheme but instead describes the structure of self-transformation, how we continually changes ourselves and our world.

Such a god would be a moron. — universeness

:lol:

I haven't yet managed to develop a foolproof method to tell the difference between idiots, fiends & innocents ! Thus my predicament I suppose! :groan:

damaged goods — Nickolasgaspar

After Neo kicked my ass, I haven't been the same! :smile: