They are all made up and none of them are real, so what does it really matter.There are far more interesting Things in life than god(s).

Agreed. But that doesn't stop the hocus-pocus. So it's best to find better control of the discourse.

By defining "God" the only thing you will do is give them a clear excuse to reject anything you say.

It's a debate no one needs any extra incentive other than a starting premise. However, by defining your identity of God, we get to see the degree of understanding you have. It prevents people from hiding behind vague screens.

You are just going to end up debating a shifting straw man.

Perhaps I should bite.

But how can I be sure that you are a fellow human being rather than a bot that will only waste my time?

Perhaps if you defined what you are through some assemblage of words, it would help.

Then again, how could this be of any use?

'I'll tell you if I'm an atheist, if you tell me what it is I'm supposed not to believe in' ~ Noam Chomsky.

Not just any strawman. Perhaps a jolly strawman named Bob as opposed to the clown strawman of many mocking faces.

But how can I be sure that you are a fellow human being rather than a bot that will only waste my time?
Perhaps if you defined what you are through some assemblage of words, it would help. — Mariner

'I'll tell you if I'm an atheist, if you tell me what it is I'm supposed not to believe in' ~ Noam Chomsky. — Wayfarer

That 'if' is my point.

Any further conditioning to an otherwise vague identity offers a volume of clues as to what the argument really is about. It paints a better picture for the context. Then again, a vague premise in the OP that would allow divergence into many different arguments might rack up more responses and/or address many related issues.
Choose wisely, grasshopper. :wink:

In time you'll understand.

Please prove that something as small as human reason would be able to meaningfully analyze something of such enormous scale as gods, should such a thing exist.

As example, please prove that squirrels are capable of understanding the Internet in even the most basic manner.

Please prove that something as small as human reason would be able to meaningfully analyze something of such enormous scale as gods, should such a thing exist.

As example, please prove that squirrels are capable of understanding the Internet in even the most basic manner. — Jake

I would argue that human reasoning isn't "small". So far, humans have the greatest capacity to reason than any other animal.

Also, our ability to reason says nothing about whether or not gods exist. Those are two separate issues.

Why would a god create beings incapable of understanding it and not being able to prove its existence like we prove the existence of so many other things? If that is actually how things are, I couldn't care less what this god wants as it has limited my freedom and capacity to think for myself.

Quoted from Alan Watts:
"... the central Self, let's call it God, it’s All of Us. It’s playing all the parts of All Beings whatsoever everywhere and anywhere. And it’s playing the game of hide and seek with itself. It gets lost, it gets involved in the farthest-out adventures, but in the end it always wakes up and comes back to itself"

That 'if' is my point. — BrianW

If (or perhaps when, to prevent a new riff on if) you read the rest of my post, you'll see that your point has no point.

I would argue that human reasoning isn't "small". So far, humans have the greatest capacity to reason than any other animal. — Harry Hindu

Apologies, but comparing ourselves to animals is a very common logical error, in regards to God questions.

As example, a 12 year old would be more capable of mathematics than a 3 year old. But that doesn't automatically equal the 12 year old being capable of advanced particle physics.

The God idea is a proposal about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere. And...

We don't know what "everything everywhere" refers to in even the most basic manner such as size and shape etc.

When it comes to ideas the scale of gods, we're like the squirrel who can see the computer monitor and the blinking lights on the screen, but simply doesn't have the ability to grasp the level of abstraction involved in the Internet.

Also, our ability to reason says nothing about whether or not gods exist. — Harry Hindu

Agreed. Our ability to reason is relevant in that it impacts our ability to do a meaningful analysis of questions the scale of gods.

Why would a god create beings incapable of understanding it and not being able to prove its existence like we prove the existence of so many other things? — Harry Hindu

An amoeba asks, "How could there possibly be something like this human being thing you are describing?? I don't see any!!!"

,Considering all this god crap is made-up human nonsense, then this means all gods are understandable by humans.

Considering all this god crap is made-up human nonsense... — Jeremiah

Aha! Proof!!! We have found God!! His name is Jeremiah!! All hail Jeremiah!!!!

I command thou to send me money.

Considering all this god crap is made-up human nonsense — Jeremiah

Yet again - i will be happy to argue against any set of premises that ends with the conclusion " therefore theism is unreasonable"

I don't really care.

I command thou to send me money. — Jeremiah

Oh no you don't. I refuse to comply because according to the all knowing 22 year old prophet Jeremiah, gods are just made up nonsense. So forget it! Nana nana na na! :smile:

Why would a god create beings incapable of understanding it and not being able to prove its existence — Harry Hindu

Well he did create squirrels.

I am 40.

I am 40. — Jeremiah

Oh dear, how sad. Hope you feel better soon!

Apologies, but comparing ourselves to animals is a very common logical error, in regards to God questions. — Jake

But you were the first to compare us to animals - namely squirrels. So, I'm not suppose to take you seriously now?

The God idea is a proposal about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere. And...

We don't know what "everything everywhere" refers to in even the most basic manner such as size and shape etc.

When it comes to ideas the scale of gods, we're like the squirrel who can see the computer monitor and the blinking lights on the screen, but simply doesn't have the ability to grasp the level of abstraction involved in the Internet. — Jake

The God idea is ONE proposal about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere. There are others that don't require the existence of a God and work just fine without it.

Hoof-prints in the sand could be caused by unicorns, but there are other better explanations for the cause of the hoof-prints. The same goes for the God idea. The existence of the universe is not necessarily evidence of the existence of God, nor is the God idea the only possible explanation.

What does it even mean to say that the "scale of gods" is beyond our understanding? What is the scale of the gods, and how do the gods know that there aren't "scales" beyond their understanding? How many gods are there? How do you know? What powers does one have that makes one a god?

Well he did create squirrels. — BlueBanana

...and cancer, AIDS, etc.

I am not the one playing with imaginary friends.

Yes?

We don't understand why that is for reasons that we don't understand, but can infer are the same reasons for which squirrels don't understand those things.

We don't understand why that is for reasons that we don't understand, but can infer are the same reasons for which squirrels don't understand those things. — BlueBanana

Sure we do. Squirrels and cancer weren't created. They evolved from prior, extinct species.

Most species that have existed are extinct and all of this empty space in the universe that is hostile to life is evidence that there is no reason for our existence. We just exist. There is no "why".