The Testable Gods

The difference between gods that are potentially provable/disprovable, and those that are neither.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• god
• exist
• prove
• atheist
• atheism
• religion
• deist
• testable
• non-overlapping
• magisteria
• stephen
• gould
• Apollo
• Creator
• deity
• Recognize
• the
• Paradox

[benhulletthere]

To RecognizeTheParadox: Besides all fictional gods, do you believe that it is possible that an actual God who created all things could exist?

[RecognizeTheParadox]

@benhulletthere I find the idea incredibly illogical. The sort of god you're speaking of is a deist god, one whose only taken action was to create everything. The problem with the deist god--or any god--is the question of where it came from. A "being" with conscious creation capabilities would have to be incredibly complex.  Where did that complexity come from? If it evolved from simpler origins, then it's natural: just a very advanced species, not a "god."

[leconfidant]

Posted a video in response to this - NOMA and the Irrelevance of Testability.

[benhulletthere]

A god that must evolve is no God at all. I never said that God evolves in order to create ex nihilo. You seem to hold that God must be made of matter, which has never been suggested by Christian theologians or Deists. It seems that you are a materialist.

[benhulletthere]

This God transcends Nature and time, yet can intervene when He chooses to. I disagree that the problem for any god is where it came from. If other gods existed, they would all come from a single source which is God. No created god would be worth worshipping (we agree), but do you believe that a God infintely greater than yourself (being either simple or complex in nature) should fully fit into your capacity to reason?

[benhulletthere]

To RecognizeTheParadox: Thank you for replying. First, I made no statement implying that God was bound to be the god of the Diests; however I believe that it is plausible for God to reveal Himself solely as Creator of all things if He chose. I find the god of Deism to be a very unloving God and therefore not worth worrying about since He just views His creation as it dies off. I am referring to the God of Christian Theism.

[leconfidant]

The idea that religion's relevance is based on truth rather than virtue is a manipulation of the terms of argument into a scientific question and answer. Prove it.

Here in Japan, the idea that science does factual truth, whereas religion accounts for ethics, values, teleology and teleology is just normal common sense. They are unaware of alternative positions

Eastern religion often has no gods

A many-god model matches modern systems theory pretty well and could be tested scientifically.

[Chuck1863]

My favorite is a god that's said to be beyond our understanding and yet people then claim to somehow know that it not only exists but that they know exactly what it wants us to do and not do.

[orcodrilo]

I love how you start by suggesting a definition of god before speaking of it.

If your definition of god is, "everything that exists" I rather use the term universe or nature instead of "god" and I wouldn't argue or speak about that god in particular.