Proof There Is No God

[rotting bones]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m5_G8M ... 36&pp=iAQB

[Travis B.]

For some reason I followed that link, expecting it to be some atheism apologetics.

[rotting bones]

For some reason I followed that link, expecting it to be some atheism apologetics.

Theism is motivated by the belief that this world looks like a benevolent creator is responsible for its existence. Watch that video, and tell me this assumption survives detailed scrutiny.

[Travis B.]

For some reason I followed that link, expecting it to be some atheism apologetics.

Theism is motivated by the belief that this world looks like a benevolent creator is responsible for its existence. Watch that video, and tell me this assumption survives detailed scrutiny.

That assumes a creator that follows human morals w.r.t. their creation, where there is no real reason why a God or Gods should. After all, do you treat Conway's Game of Life simulations according to some morality believed in by the entities made up by those on-or-off cells?

[rotting bones]

For some reason I followed that link, expecting it to be some atheism apologetics.

Theism is motivated by the belief that this world looks like a benevolent creator is responsible for its existence. Watch that video, and tell me this assumption survives detailed scrutiny.

That assumes a creator that follows human morals w.r.t. their creation, where there is no real reason why a God or Gods should. After all, do you treat Conway's Game of Life simulations according to some morality believed in by the entities made up by those on-or-off cells?

It is unclear to me that the creators of Conway's Game of Life care about the wellbeing of gliders by glider standards. If the creator of the universe had the same attitude towards us, all traditional theism would be false. That would be even worse than deism: God is not benevolent, He does not refrain from interfering in nature, He doesn't always let nature run like clockwork, and there is no such thing as living in accordance with natural law. There is no unmolested natural law.

This is not theism. It's the simulation hypothesis: We're in a simulation run by amoral alien scientists.

[Travis B.]

Theism is motivated by the belief that this world looks like a benevolent creator is responsible for its existence. Watch that video, and tell me this assumption survives detailed scrutiny.

That assumes a creator that follows human morals w.r.t. their creation, where there is no real reason why a God or Gods should. After all, do you treat Conway's Game of Life simulations according to some morality believed in by the entities made up by those on-or-off cells?

It is unclear to me that the creators of Conway's Game of Life care about the wellbeing of gliders by glider standards. If the creator of the universe had the same attitude towards us, all traditional theism would be false. That would be even worse than deism: God is not benevolent, He does not refrain from interfering in nature, He doesn't always let nature run like clockwork, and there is no such thing as living in accordance with natural law. There is no unmolested natural law.

This is not theism. It's the simulation hypothesis: We're in a simulation run by amoral alien scientists.

Okay, so by theism you're not referring to just the idea that "God exists" but rather the monotheistic omnipotent-omniscient-omnibenevolent theism. Of course, there many conceptions of Gods which do not fit this model in the first place.

[Raphael]

I'd thought for a while that I'd probably find an organized debate between an atheist and a religious person who would be a follower of a Trickster God pretty fascinating.

[rotting bones]

That assumes a creator that follows human morals w.r.t. their creation, where there is no real reason why a God or Gods should. After all, do you treat Conway's Game of Life simulations according to some morality believed in by the entities made up by those on-or-off cells?

It is unclear to me that the creators of Conway's Game of Life care about the wellbeing of gliders by glider standards. If the creator of the universe had the same attitude towards us, all traditional theism would be false. That would be even worse than deism: God is not benevolent, He does not refrain from interfering in nature, He doesn't always let nature run like clockwork, and there is no such thing as living in accordance with natural law. There is no unmolested natural law.

This is not theism. It's the simulation hypothesis: We're in a simulation run by amoral alien scientists.

Okay, so by theism you're not referring to just the idea that "God exists" but rather the monotheistic omnipotent-omniscient-omnibenevolent theism. Of course, there many conceptions of Gods which do not fit this model in the first place.

It's unclear to me that a more sophisticated version of a glider praying/sacrificing/... to or reasoning with the creator of its universe would reliably cause the person running the simulation to help it or engage with it in any meaningful sense. There is no traditional God or gods who are all uncaring sociopaths who want nothing from humans and give nothing to humans. At that point, such deities wouldn't be meaningfully different from the laws of nature in terms of psychological fulfillment. It would just mean some uncaring laws of nature have an agentic component that cannot be reasoned with. Consider:

A head sometimes appears inside a whirlwind. If you try to communicate, it stares at you. Sometimes it pokes you or does things that have an unpredictable effect on your quality of life. Then it goes away.

This would be a spirit of nature, but any cult following would be misguided: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFairFolk

[rotting bones]

I'd thought for a while that I'd probably find an organized debate between an atheist and a religious person who would be a follower of a Trickster God pretty fascinating.

The closest thing I've seen to a trickster theology is Prometheism by Jason Reza Jorjani. (Dude's a fascist.)

Why does he believe in the supernatural? Miracles. Often the same miracles theists are obsessed with. He just happens to think the "benevolent God" is fooling us to make us behave like slaves.

[linguistcat]

There have been and are plenty of peoples and religions who have believed that gods are not inherently good, or all powerful, or all knowing. Or at least if some god is one of these, they are not all of these. Or they might believe the gods have different sides that can be appealed to in different situations, or assuaged to go from wrathful to benevolent.

And then there are the folks who believe in one God but either we shouldn't worship it (maybe it doesn't want us to or maybe it just doesn't deserve worship), or can't in any meaningful way. So good job disproving one form of theism, now you have about 8 million more to go.

[rotting bones]

There have been and are plenty of peoples and religions who have believed that gods are not inherently good, or all powerful, or all knowing. Or at least if some god is one of these, they are not all of these. Or they might believe the gods have different sides that can be appealed to in different situations, or assuaged to go from wrathful to benevolent.

And then there are the folks who believe in one God but either we shouldn't worship it (maybe it doesn't want us to or maybe it just doesn't deserve worship), or can't in any meaningful way. So good job disproving one form of theism, now you have about 8 million more to go.

My point is that gods may not be all-merciful, almighty or all-seeing. However, the one thing they cannot be is fundamentally uncaring, more uncaring than a deist god. An uncaring god is not a god but a spirit. See my subsequent posts.