Originally posted by Agerg
I disagree. "God" or gods in general I take to be entities that create universes (that may contain advanced aliens). I see no reason why one should prefer that a god can do absolutely anything logically possible over a god that has the minimum set of abilities and power to bring about the creation of some universe (possibly with assistence from other entities).

What you are describing is a God of the gaps who has dominion over one gap; snapping his fingers to initiate the big bang; and then effectively ceasing to exist. What is the reason to posit that God's existence?

Originally posted by JS357
What you are describing is a God of the gaps who has dominion over one gap; snapping his fingers to initiate the big bang; and then effectively ceasing to exist. What is the reason to posit that God's existence?

I'm not positing it's existence at all (I'm an atheist), I'm merely contesting that the only valid description of a god should be one that can do absolutely everything.
The idea that if X is the set of all things that can be done, x is in X implies God can do x, if Y is the set of all things that can be known, y is in Y implies God knows Y, and so on... to be rather childish. Why can it not be the case there might exist z in A such that god cannot do z, or w in Y such that god does/will not know w???

Philosophically speaking I see such an omni-awesome god as no more sophisticated or valid than one who can do the absolute minimum to create a universe

Originally posted by Palynka
How is that not what this thread is about? You asked what you should do if you didn't believe anymore, so how is what you thought was God's impact on the world not relevant for that?

Or was this thread some more trolling?

I've not been trolling, perhaps you are though.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Or perhaps as an imaginary number. Invented to fill an inconvenient gap but opening up an astonishing panoply of perspectives.

One could argue that the negative numbers were also invented. Once upon a time one would have said x+1=0 had no solution.

Originally posted by divegeester
I am a theist and I would like to be an atheist; or more accurately, I would like to revert to being an atheist.

The arguments put forth in this forum by atheists, has convinced me that this is the rational place to be.

What should I do next please?

Thanks.

Edit: this is a theoretical question of course.

You don't really want to be rational about it, do you?
Is there any advantage in being an atheist, like everlasting life?
With all that time you could master chess and the harp too.
Christianity is the way to go for you will have a mansion in heaven
waiting for you. You probably want get any virgins like the Moslems,
but that would get old after a time anyway.

Originally posted by Soothfast
One could argue that the negative numbers were also invented. Once upon a time one would have said x+1=0 had no solution.

One could, but that would be to detract from the awesomeness of the imaginary numbers.

- If you were a lozenge, you'd be Soothefast.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't really want to be rational about it, do you?
Is there any advantage in being an atheist, like everlasting life?
With all that time you could master chess and the harp too.
Christianity is the way to go for you will have a mansion in heaven
waiting for you. You probably want get any virgins like the Moslems,
but that would get old after a time anyway.

As the OP states its a theoretical question not some personal plea for salvation from my theism. The point of the thread is to consider the premise that a convinced theist cannot give up being a theist through rational reasoning. It is a state of being (or mind or soul) that is not reversible. For me this premise also carries a spiritual parallel, as I mentioned earlier. Also I am not a theist because I want to escape some hell or judgement.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I will advise you to wait,have patience,as it may be that you are passing through a bad patch when every single thing that you felt was the sign of existence of God was a "Delusion". This Angst often comes over every believer that he/she can't just believe that in a God's world such and such a cruelty,injustice,misery is possible.Many lesser mortals than ...[text shortened]... d on and then stopping without any clue/aim/reason,then you should give up believing in God.

The absence of a god does not mean that the cosmic ballet cannot go on forever. In a multiverse there is no ending, and all states of being can be realized and explored. A god (at least in the Western version) is an unwelcome device that acts as something like a "main switchboard" or "central hub" that subsumes all souls to its own desires and commands. That I find to be a depressing prospect, even if the "Dear Leader" claims to love us. In short: an omnipotent dictator is still a dictator, and if such existed it would be Man's first duty to overthrow the tyranny or perish in the trying.

With a god free will becomes a mockery, but that is not why I oppose the concept of a god. And you may note that I, for one, have never once claimed that when we die, we're gone forever. That is because I do not have a clear preconception of what constitutes the "self," and if the multiverse is infinite and eternal then it stands to reason that each of us, in a sense, exists again and again, sometimes the same, other times different.

I apologized to you in the "Your Soul" thread, by the way. It was the least I could do.

Originally posted by divegeester
As the OP states its a theoretical question not some personal plea for salvation from my theism. The point of the thread is to consider the premise that a convinced theist cannot give up being a theist through rational reasoning. It is a state of being (or mind or soul) that is not reversible. For me this premise also carries a spiritual parallel, as I mentioned earlier. Also I am not a theist because I want to escape some hell or judgement.

But being a Christian is much better than being a theist, too.

Originally posted by divegeester
As the OP states its a theoretical question not some personal plea for salvation from my theism. The point of the thread is to consider the premise that a convinced theist cannot give up being a theist through rational reasoning. It is a state of being (or mind or soul) that is not reversible. For me this premise also carries a spiritual parallel, as I mentioned earlier. Also I am not a theist because I want to escape some hell or judgement.

Do you contend that those who admit to having rejected such a previously held belief were not actually convinced theists then?

Originally posted by divegeester
As the OP states its a theoretical question not some personal plea for salvation from my theism. The point of the thread is to consider the premise that a convinced theist cannot give up being a theist through rational reasoning. It is a state of being (or mind or soul) that is not reversible. For me this premise also carries a spiritual parallel, as I mentioned earlier. Also I am not a theist because I want to escape some hell or judgement.

Your premise about the "convinced theist" needs rescue from sounding like the "no true Scotsman" argument, which would say in this case, that if an a theist DOES give up being a theist through rational reasoning, then your premise is preserved by saying that theist is by that fact, not a "convinced theist." That argument is empty of content.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But being a Christian is much better than being a theist, too.

Everyone knows their their own blanky is the best.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But being a Christian is much better than being a theist, too.

I'm not going to disagree with that am I, but the discussion could include all faiths.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Do you contend that those who admit to having rejected such a previously held belief were not actually convinced theists then?

Yes I do, good point.

It's difficult not to respond through my own glass, but broadly speaking yes that is what I'm saying. There are some quite deep spiritual (Christian) doctrines related to this point: the sovereignty of God and eternal salvation being the two most obvious.

Originally posted by Agerg
I'm not positing it's existence at all (I'm an atheist), I'm merely contesting that the only valid description of a god should be one that can do absolutely everything.
The idea that if X is the set of all things that can be done, x is in X implies God can do x, if Y is the set of all things that can be known, y is in Y implies God knows Y, and so on... to b ...[text shortened]... no more sophisticated or valid than one who can do the absolute minimum to create a universe

I think that the word "god" like all words can be defined descriptively (how people use it) or prescriptively (how people should use it). So can the word "God" which you also use in the this post. It sounds like you are proposing a prescriptive definition of god and God, to include any entity that can do one thing, that thing being "the absolute minimum to create a universe."

I buy that you aren't making an argument for existence of this entity, but I have seen arguments like this "first cause" argument: "Everything in this universe has a cause, but to avoid an infinite regress we must posit a first cause that is not in this universe. We call this first cause God."

Why do they call it God? Because that word has baggage that can be checked in at the door while we aren't looking. You can't get away from that by trying to prescribe how to use the word.

So I suggest that you choose another word for the entity that ONLY creates the universe and then departs the scene. To me it might as well be "BB."