Could the theist versus atheist alternative be a false dilemma?

[Boojatta]

The most common theist position asserts the existence of an entity who is: creator of the physical universe, producer of miracles, judge of each person's life, being who knows everything that can be known, being who has all possible powers, being who loves people, etc. Those are a variety of characteristics or roles. What if there exists a being who has some of those characteristics, but not others?

[bananas]

1. Yes, it is.

As Albert Einstein said, "The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer."

[EvolveOrConvolve]

2. Have any proof for this mysterious being?

Is not, how is it/he/she any different from the theistic position?

Make believe is so much fun!

[bananas]

3. The proof is easy.

The OP asked is there a being which partially has these characteristics: "creator of the physical universe, producer of miracles, judge of each person's life, being who knows everything that can be known, being who has all possible powers, being who loves people"

Do you create things in the physical universe?
Have you ever produced a miracle?
Do you judge other person's lifes?
Do you know some things?
Do you have some powers?
Do you love people?

If you answered yes to any of those, the proof is complete.
If you answered no to all of them, I feel sorry for you.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

4. Answers

1) Do you create things in the physical universe? - no, matter can neither be created or destroyed.
2) Have you ever produced a miracle? - nope, since by definition they can't be explained using real tools of measurement.
3) Do you judge other person's lifes? - the question is too vague
4) Do you know some things? - not as much as there is to know.
5) Do you have some powers? - mentally and physically, yes. But those are pretty mundane human abilities.
6) Do you love people? - sometimes

So, don't keep me in suspense - do my answers qualify me to become a super +1 level 14 mage/dwarf/grand wizard/pope?

[bananas]

5. You've never created anything?

You've never created any artwork?
Not even a finger-painting in kindergarten?
You've never created a computer program or spreadsheet?
You've never created a mathematical proof in high-school geometry class?
You've never created an electrical or mechanical device?
You've never created a snarky response on this message board?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

10. "You've never created a snarky response on this message board?"

I think that question answers itself. :)

Are any of those actions really "creating" something? Or is it purely manipulation of things that already exist?

[Occam Bandage]

12. Certainly you can create things through manipulation of preexisting things.

If I build a birdhouse out of pine, I have not created the matter that constitutes the birdhouse. I have, however, created the birdhouse. For though I have not created matter, I have created birdhouse-ness where birdhouse-ness did not exist. And though birdhouse-ness is not a thing at the most fundamental levels of realty, it certainly is at our level of existence. On a cognitive level, hen I say "I built a birdhouse," you are able to picture and understand approximately what I mean. If I were to explain other things I did (sanded and added a half-inch-diameter, two-inch-long perch; painted the roof fire-engine red) during what I would call the period of creation, it would increase your understanding of both the birdhouse's form and functionality. On a practical level, a birdhouse has use (especially for a bird) that a pile of wood, or a few hundred moles of carbon and nitrogen, or an enormous amount of light would not, and this is a use tied inexorably to its birdhouse-ness, which was brought into the universe with my act of what I contend is creation.

[Nihil]

18. I'm glad Boojatta kicked this old thread ...

... as I'd missed your reply first time around!

Very nicely phrased. :toast:

[ZombieHorde]

8. "level 14 mage/dwarf/grand wizard/pope?"

In D&D 3rd edition, there was a supplement which included a new blood feat for Dwarves called, "short". This blood feat was perfect for Dwarven wizards, it bestowed all of the bonuses and penalties for being size "small", +2 AC, +1 to hit, +4 to hide, etc., and the weapon penalties were meaningless for a wizard. I highly suggest "short" for all Dwarven wizards, but not necessarily for Dwarven clerics (or the AD&D Pope).

Although "educated" and "free!" were great as well.

[rrneck]

14. Mind if I take a stab?

Do you create things in the physical universe?

Conceptual artists do.

Have you ever produced a miracle?

No.

Do you judge other person's lives?

Every damn day. Including my own. But I try only to act on judgments regarding my own life.

Do you know some things?

Yes. I also have at least a few doubts about all of the things I know.

Do you have some powers?

Yes. I can have an impact on the world around me. But only through the use of my body. If I could project my consciousness to another place I'd be in Venice right now.

Do you love people?

People yes. A person, not many of them.

Does the above make me a god, a demigod, or just plain human?

[saltpoint]

6. The Greek pantheon, for example, did contain divine entities who

could fulfill some roles but not others.

The gods and goddesses in that belief system interact with mortals as a matter of course and share many of their emotions and jealousies and allegiances, etc.

A psychoanalytic assessment of archetype projection is recommended, but bring popcorn and iced tea because with the hard work comes significant delight.

Recommended.

[cosmik debris]

7. When you create a god you may assign any attributes you wish

The list of attributes makes no difference to the question of validity or existence.

Would Superman be more real if he lacked X-ray vision? Or if he were not vulnerable to Kryptonite?

The existence of a deity is dependent on the evidence for existence, not the wish list of those who believe in its existence. Your list of attributes is a red herring.

[Boojatta]

16. "The existence of a deity is dependent on the evidence for existence"

I agree that being able to support the claim that a deity exists depends upon evidence. However, I don't see how mere existence of a deity depends upon evidence any more than, for example, the past existence of a particular Triceratops depends upon fossil remains of that particular Triceratops. On the contrary, a few fossil specimens indicate that the species existed, and that species consisted of more than just one animal for each fossil Triceratops that has been discovered.

[Uncle Joe]

9. I look at it from a mathematical standpoint, using what we know of the universe

can any number be propagated from the number zero?

To my knowledge nothing can and yet the universe must represent a number or value, some number any number unless we don't exist.

How would a fetus regard an adult human, would it even be aware of any existence beyond that of the uterus?

Apparently at this stage nobody can tell for sure because we can't remember from the time that we were fetuses.

So I imagine to a fetus, the uterus would be the entire universe, but does that mean adult humans don't exist?

While adults may create a fetus, they have limited ability and or will to affect it's development.

The way I understand String Theory, there are many different realties or dimensions and the universe endlessly loops upon it self, our reality is just one of many.

[Occam Bandage]

11. You've just created a false dilemma, but that isn't the grand argument at hand.

Rather, the grand argument is between on one hand the acceptance of beliefs regarding objective existence for which no objectively verifiable evidence for or against exists or could possibly exist, and on the other hand the denial of such beliefs.

[rrneck]

13. Of course there is.

There are exactly as many gods as there are people to imagine/create them.

There are exactly as many religions as there are groups of people willing to agree on the nature of god.

It might well be argued that to know the mind of god is to know thyself.

on edit

I just noticed that this is my 666th post.

Just sayin'

[Silent3]

15. This sort of idea was behind my "So many gods to not believe in" thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=200672&mesg_id=200672

Any answers to the questions "Is there a god" or "Are there gods" have to depend on what you mean by "god".

The more vague or redundant with other concepts that you make your definition of god, the more likely that something exists that matches the watered-down definition. At the same time, it matters less if that thing exists too.

I'd answer more fully here what I mean, but I already had an idea for a new thread brewing and I'll save the rest of what I have to say for the OP of that thread.

[Boojatta]

17. Kick