If God is the Universe - are you still an Athiest?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Electrons don't have surfaces, as they are fundamental particles.

They have to have surfaces if elves are going to dance on them, which was Skywalker's claim.

And it's common practice to clarify what you are talking about before drawing conclusions.

[KrazyHorse]

That's my point. Elves cannot be dancing on the surfaces if the surfaces do not exist...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Agathon
It's simply impossible, on the traditional understanding of God as an infinite being, for finite beings such as ourselves to be able to investigate reality to prove or disprove the existence of such a being.

Bah. I have a decent understanding of aleph-null, aleph-one, and aleph-two. The problem with the gods-concept has nothing to do with infinity.

It does if you are relying on empirical evidence. Rationalist deductions are something else entirely. But they also fail

Agnosticism is the rational response.

In much the same way that solipsism is a rational response, yes. If it quacks like BS and walks like BS, I'd rather call it BS until it learns to quack and walk properly.

Solipsism is not a rational response. It is based on errors about the nature of mind and mental states.

Agnosticism about God is the only rational response as we simply have no conceivable way of proving God's existence one way or the other, and his existence or non-existence is not self evident.

But then again, we should be agnostic about a lot of things so what's the problem?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's my point. Elves cannot be dancing on the surfaces if the surfaces do not exist...

Then that's just a different way of making the same sort of point I made.

[KrazyHorse]

No it isn't.

Your argument was far less fundamental, and was based on things we're a lot less sure of.

i.e. that minds require a certain size...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No it isn't.

Your argument was far less fundamental, and was based on things we're a lot less sure of.

i.e. that minds require a certain size...

It is in principle. It's the same kind of argument.

I for one would argue that you can't have a mind that small because you can't have a brain or similar structure that small. But the details don't matter since the point was simply to point out that we don't have to rush to agnosticism when it comes to claims about the physical universe in quite the same way that claims about evidence transcendent entities require it.

That's my argument. If you don't like the brains example then think up another one. The point is quite general though.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Agathon

Agnosticism about God is the only rational response as we simply have no conceivable way of proving God's existence one way or the other, and his existence or non-existence is not self evident.

I agree, which makes both belief in God and Atheism irrational.

Of course, there are others who have no idea what this topic is really about who are keen to repeatedly display their stupidity.