To say that God is being completely misses the point, as now your problem is to explain what this abstract concept of a non-contingent being is.

I don't know if God exists. What I do know is that the word god has been traditionally used as a sort of rational cop out. When all other explanations fail, blame it on God (or the devil, depending on the situation) What people don't understand is that as soon as you start explaining God you're no longer talking about God, you're talking about things you say you understand.

Primitive peoples think God controls everything in nature. In our scientific society natural phenomena have more rational explanations, but it's obvious that there will always be something behind those rational explanations which we can't understand. When we got to a point where math describes the entire known universe, people started asking the why of that. "Sure, God no longer makes thunder but he sure makes the math that makes the thunder". Until we discover something more basic that makes math, then people will place God behind that too. When people say God is beyond the reach of science, they sure know what they mean, for they are the ones who hid God there.

I think it's time we realize this God is a human fabricated concept which thousands of years of investigation have failed to materialize. To make mistakes is to be human, to insist 10,000 years on one is to be a blind human.

• stop fooling yourself... - elegantuniverse - October 29, 2001 - 16:53 UTC
  • who's fooling who? - thom_cl - October 29, 2001 - 17:26 UTC
    • But we don't live in a vacuum... - elegantuniverse - October 29, 2001 - 17:47 UTC
    • There are holes in the antirealist perspective - harvey1 - October 29, 2001 - 17:56 UTC
      • well thought response! (nm) - elegantuniverse - October 29, 2001 - 18:02 UTC
      • There are holes in ANY perspective - thom_cl - October 29, 2001 - 18:44 UTC
        • Then your point contradicts your position - harvey1 - October 29, 2001 - 18:56 UTC
          • My position is a fact and cannot be contradicted - thom_cl - October 29, 2001 - 19:22 UTC
            • Well who has final say here? - harvey1 - October 29, 2001 - 21:19 UTC
              • Harvey, there is a difference: natural (=mathematically - alexander - October 29, 2001 - 21:45 UTC
                • Please clarify - harvey1 - October 29, 2001 - 22:15 UTC
                  • Clarification (for Harv) - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 10:16 UTC
                  • If-thenism - harvey1 - November 5, 2001 - 21:30 UTC
                    • Ooooh I think I see it clearly now... - smartguy - November 6, 2001 - 16:22 UTC
                      • You got it! (nt) - harvey1 - November 6, 2001 - 16:46 UTC
                • Determinism or manipulation of uncertainty? - elegantuniverse - October 29, 2001 - 22:21 UTC
                  • Any example of act of god? - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 10:19 UTC
• What do you mean? - harvey1 - October 29, 2001 - 17:40 UTC
  • I mean "it's not out there" - thom_cl - October 29, 2001 - 19:08 UTC
    • God is an ontological belief - harvey1 - October 29, 2001 - 22:01 UTC
      • Harv, what do you mean? - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 10:24 UTC
        • Observation is appearances only - harvey1 - November 5, 2001 - 21:49 UTC