"Being godless might be good for your health - study shows

[mentalgymnast]

If there is no God, there is nothing to “explain away” or “poke holes” in.

Well, I’d have to agree with you there.

Regards,
MG

[mentalgymnast]

Beyond the point in which we die. Who has said that deep purpose and meaning cannot be found in the here and now? I think we can agree that if there is purpose and meaning after death that even now we are a part of that continuum.

Possibly even an integral part.

Regards,
MG

You described the "beyond" as an anchor to your evaluation of evidence, which would imply that, at least for you, evaluating "the here and now" without a "beyond" would be anchorless.

Would you like to clarify?

The ‘beyond’ is an anchor to possibilities. One of the most important being the likelihood that there could be a creator/God. Not that there has to be, but could be. If I didn’t choose to have a hope in some form of an afterlife I would still find as much deep meaning and purpose as humanly possible. I mean, think about love of family and/or significant other.

That’s a calling to meaning and purpose right there.

Regards l
MG

[mentalgymnast]

I know this fit your preferred narrative, but it isn’t true. I’ve been around the block a few times or more. Believe me, I’ve tried to explain away God many times throughout my life experience/journey. But to be honest, I can’t.

I’ve mentioned to other atheists on this board that I’m sympathetic to your worldview up to a point. I’ve been there. But I can’t find enough evidence to disprove God’s existence and I’m more of the opinion that the evidence points towards a creator/God.

And no, it’s not simply wishful thinking...although as I’ve mentioned before...I do have a predisposition towards hoping/thinking that the ‘universe’ has purpose and meaning beyond that which we can come up with on our own. Something beyond the here and now. That I will admit is an anchor, if you will, to the way I evaluate evidence, etc.

God fits in pretty well with purpose and meaning beyond the here and now.

Regards,
MG

The point is, you haven’t been “there.” Do you really think I’m an atheist because I sat around trying to “explain away” God? Its comments like that that leads me to conclude you know nothing about atheism or being an atheist. Even the way you describe your experience shows your assumption that God exists is your default assumption. If there is no God, there is nothing to “explain away” or “poke holes” in. You may have done some questioning of your assumption that God is real, but there is nothing in the description you wrote that indicates a willingness to seriously consider a universe without God.

It’s one thing to hope the universe has purpose and meaning, Its another to assume that’s true. All that does is lead you to where you wanted to go in the first place.

Hey Rep Ipsa, we’re going in circles. That’s what I would expect. The conversation is worthwhile and even interesting up to a point. When you think we’ve arrived there, let me know.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

What is my definition/construction of God? Spell it out. Be specific. And if , as you say, I am redefining God ‘on the fly’, what rubs you the wrong way? Is there anything that I’ve said that goes against established doctrine of the LDS Church?

I've specifically described your construction of God a couple of times. Scroll up. You construct your God to be convenient depending on whatever you happen to be responding to. And it coincidentally results in this being the best of all possible worlds. Or even the only possible world. That's what your God is: whatever is convenient to MG at any given time. You generate the characteristics of your God procedurally, not based on randomness, but out of convenience.

As for whether your God is the same as LDS God, not my circus, not my monkeys. LDS church gets to figure out who are faithful and who are heritics.

Apparently something I’m saying about God REALLY catches in your craw.

I thought we'd done the "offended" routine. This is just more of the same.

If you've paid attention to what I post here at all, you realize that what REALLY catches in my craw is stupid arguments. On any subject. Go take another look at my posts on global warming. Or holocaust denial. Or conspiracy theories.

And what did I say that makes you think I have a chip on my shoulder?

Reread your recent posts to me. You'll see it.

Sheesh.

Sheesh, indeed.

You’re right, I don’t know where you’re sitting...exactly. But you sure get irritated when folks are discussing God in such a way that seems to make you uncomfortable.

This is where, one more time, you show that you do not understand atheism. Claiming that a discussion about your God makes me uncomfortable is just like claiming that a discussion about Odin makes me uncomfortable. Or Shiva. Or Rainbow Woman. Or Gaia. Or the undefined greater power.

If there is a God, you turned away from Him a long time ago. I’d be/feel a bit uncomfortable too.

See, another really good example. You wouldn't. You wouldn't feel uncomfortable at all for not believing in El or Yaweh or Jesus or Elohim or Apollo or Odin or Hades or Loki or Kali or Allah or Rainbow Woman, or Mars or Kokopelli (although I am partial to him) or Osiris or Raven or Coyote.

I'll admit that Yog Sothoth makes me a touch nervous.

It is pretty refreshing, though, when the real MG peeks out from behind all his smilies and regards and onwards and upwardses and shows his teeth: you should be uncomfortable because my God is going to Screw you up.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Hey Rep Ipsa, we’re going in circles. That’s what I would expect. The conversation is worthwhile and even interesting up to a point. When you think we’ve arrived there, let me know.

Ah, we've hit the conversation ending cliché already. For the record, I see no circles.

Look, you set the rules of engagement. You get to say whatever you want to say, and you never have to back it up with anything ever. You are also free to end participation in a conversation with me at any time. I can either live with that or not engage with you. My choice. I generally prefer different rules, but I'm generally fine as long as the rules apply equally to us both.

You don't need my permission to end a conversation with me. Just stop talking.

Regards,
MG

[DrW]

Hey, Oh thou great and smart one, you may enjoy enjoy this series of programs. I’ve been through a bunch of them. Even for an ignoramus like me I find them quite interesting.

https://www.closertotruth.com/tv-episodes

I know I’ve mentioned them before...but nonetheless...someone might be unaware of this treasure trove.

Regards,
MG

So, if I watch 240 hours of television, will it give me a single reason why I should seriously consider the existence of MG’s God? A God that that MG defines on the fly, giving it whatever characteristics are convenient from moment to moment. Or is there some subset of TV shows in which I can find that one reason?

Taking MG up on his invitation to Res Ipsa, I picked one of the Closer to the Truth videos to watch (the one on "Philosophy of Fine Tuning in Cosmology" https://www.closertotruth.com/episodes/ ... -cosmology ), I was not surprised to find that there is really no real faith promoting evidence for a divine creator there, unless one has already partaken of the KoolAid in generous measure.

This video consisted of the host narrator wandering around the Island of Crete during a scientific conference on cosmology describing the big questions in cosmology to the viewer and then and talking with various scientists participating in the conference. His main interest was in the "fine tuning" of our universe, mainly in reference to the cosmological constant and dark energy. The implication of Kuhn's between interview narrative was that this fine tuning must be the work of a creator because, well, you know - fine tuning.

The various scientists interviewed provided good lay descriptions of findings in their areas of expertise. The video presented a wealth of accurate information, as now understood by mainstream science, regarding cosmic inflation, the big bang, multiverse formation and the fact that our universe with its various physical constant parameter values could well be a rarity in the multiverse. At the end of the scientific descriptions of the universe, the narrator (Kuhn) stated that he was "troubled". Oh-oh.

The Cosmos episode series series includes interviews with physics literary luminaries such as Carroll, Tegmark, Wineberg and Krause. Its not until one gets toward the end of the Table of Contents so to speak - past the Consciousness section to the Meaning episodes, that the series goes full Goddidit. Paraphrasing now, questions such as, 'Assuming that God created the universe, how can I understand his interaction with it?' or 'How should we understand Gods relation to the universe and his actions it it?' are supposedly answered by eminent religionists. Gobbledegook abounds here and nothing worthwhile, to me anyway, follows.

Taking MG at his word as to how valuable and faith promoting the scientific information in this series is to the religionist, I would invite MG to explain how any fact, described or stated in the Cosmology Video cited above, is better explained by a supernatural creator cause for the universe as opposed to a natural cause.

[Res Ipsa]

Taking MG up on his invitation to Res Ipsa, I picked one of the Closer to the Truth videos to watch (the one on "Philosophy of Fine Tuning in Cosmology" https://www.closertotruth.com/episodes/ ... -cosmology ), I was not surprised to find that there is really no real faith promoting evidence for a divine creator there, unless one has already partaken of the KoolAid in generous measure.

This video consisted of the host narrator wandering around the Island of Crete during a scientific conference on cosmology describing the big questions in cosmology to the viewer and then and talking with various scientists participating in the conference. His main interest was in the "fine tuning" of our universe, mainly in reference to the cosmological constant and dark energy. The implication of Kuhn's between interview narrative was that this fine tuning must be the work of a creator because, well, you know - fine tuning.

The various scientists interviewed provided good lay descriptions of findings in their areas of expertise. The video presented a wealth of accurate information, as now understood by mainstream science, regarding cosmic inflation, the big bang, multiverse formation and the fact that our universe with its various physical constant parameter values could well be a rarity in the multiverse. At the end of the scientific descriptions of the universe, the narrator (Kuhn) stated that he was "troubled". Oh-oh.

The Cosmos episode series series includes interviews with physics literary luminaries such as Carroll, Tegmark, Wineberg and Krause. Its not until one gets toward the end of the Table of Contents so to speak - past the Consciousness section to the Meaning episodes, that the series goes full Goddidit. Paraphrasing now, questions such as, 'Assuming that God created the universe, how can I understand his interaction with it?' or 'How should we understand Gods relation to the universe and his actions it it?' are supposedly answered by eminent religionists. Gobbledegook abounds here and nothing worthwhile, to me anyway, follows.

Taking MG at his word as to how valuable and faith promoting the scientific information in this series is to the religionist, I would invite MG to explain how any fact, described or stated in the Cosmology Video cited above, is better explained by a supernatural creator cause for the universe as opposed to a natural cause.

Thanks for the summary, Dr W. Always good to hear from you.

[mentalgymnast]

Taking MG at his word as to how valuable and faith promoting the scientific information in this series is to the religionist, I would invite MG to explain how any fact, described or stated in the Cosmology Video cited above, is better explained by a supernatural creator cause for the universe as opposed to a natural cause.

You’re not going to like this and I’d predict that you and others will see it as a cop out, but I haven’t seen any evidence that would demonstrably show that goddidit. What I do see is quite a few ‘openings’ and cracks where the doors can be opened and show possibilities of higher intelligence in the cosmos.

What we refer to in our language and within Christian parlance as God, or our Father in Heaven.

If there were very few or no doors that could be cracked open with possibility on the other side for belief then I’d be right there with you bud.

But that’s not the way I and many others are viewing the world/cosmos.

What’s amazing to me is that we live in a universe where we can actually go either way. Belief or non belief in a God, and we can sleep at night knowing we are being reasonable human beings. Although, I must say, I think believers...for some obvious reasons...might sleep a bit better.

Regards,
MG

[mentalgymnast]

I've specifically described your construction of God a couple of times. Scroll up. You construct your God to be convenient depending on whatever you happen to be responding to. And it coincidentally results in this being the best of all possible worlds. Or even the only possible world. That's what your God is: whatever is convenient to MG at any given time. You generate the characteristics of your God procedurally, not based on randomness, but out of convenience.

And there we have it. You don’t like the fact that I think about God and make an effort to try and understand Him. You would have me march lockstep according to some predefined version of God that YOU have in mind. OK.

I’m glad we got that straight.

You’re the judge, jury, and executioner.

I can’t go up against that!

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

I've specifically described your construction of God a couple of times. Scroll up. You construct your God to be convenient depending on whatever you happen to be responding to. And it coincidentally results in this being the best of all possible worlds. Or even the only possible world. That's what your God is: whatever is convenient to MG at any given time. You generate the characteristics of your God procedurally, not based on randomness, but out of convenience.

And there we have it. You don’t like the fact that I think about God and make an effort to try and understand Him. You would have me march lockstep according to some predefined version of God that YOU have in mind. OK.

I’m glad we got that straight.

You’re the judge, jury, and executioner.

I can’t go up against that!

Regards,
MG

As you would say, "sheesh."

Think about whatever you want. No skin off my nose. March lockstep or do the Watusi, it's all the same to me. If you have an issue with whether your God is the same as LDS God, take it up with your bishop. I don't care.

I'm not judging your argument based on some sect's orthodox version of God. I'm judging the argument you make for your God based on your own words. And you're simply getting huffy (heading towards butthurt) because you can't provide any good reason why I should give any consideration to whether your God exists.

And, again, you just keep showing that you don't understand atheism. I have no interest or incentive in forcing you to accept a definition of something that I don't believe exists. I don't care whether your definition matches Joseph Smith's, Brigham Young's, Jersey Girl's, Physics Guy's or anyone else's. I'm interested in why I should give serious consideration to the existence of your God. And so far, I've got bupkis.

I judge your argument to be trivial. I don't purport to be a jury. And no one's been executed. Although one could make a good argument that bad arguments deserve to die.