Why the theory of god the creator is so silly and trivial.
God as a theory is precisely illogical.
life is such a simple thing compared to the great mysterious claimed god,
and if the great intricate god could come without a creator, then why the simple in comparison life, can't exist without a creator? This is illogical!
Why not to replace the term god with the life, and rather say life came without a creator or life created itself. At least existence of life is indisputable!
God is an imaginary conflicted idea and it was tucked into our thoughts which was not innovative in a dark period of the history. I regardless call it misconception!
In conclusion, chances of this theory to be right are equal ZERO, as long as there's no plausible evidence about its authenticity and this is the final judgement in that case, ladies & gentlemen.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Exactly !
Ummm..... There is no "THEORY" of God the creator.
In order to get to a "theory" you need to have a body of evidence. I have never seen any good evidence that can lead to a theory of God. YES! A "Theory of God" should it exist, which it does not, based on the evidence we have, would be completely silly. I think you are looking for the Christian "Assertion" or "Supposition" that a god exists. I am not even sure we can get to a God Hypothesis.
Even a Hypothesis is based on "KNOWN FACTS." How does the theist assertion of a God existing supported by "Known Facts?" No hypothesis, no facts, no theory.
Life can't exist without a creator? Sounds perfectly logical to me. My parents had sex and created me. (Using the word "created" loosely. Their bodies created the sperm and the eggs. They chose to have sex - engage in an act of creation - and POOF! Here I am. Not illogical at all.
Life came without a creator? My parents created me. That is a fact. I am assuming you are moving on to an origin of life argument here. I think you want to change the word "creator" to "cause. " Things that are created have creators, that is true by definition. Things that are caused may or may not have creators. A creator is one option for a cause. If you think life had a creator, you must demonstrate where you got that information from. If you state life had a cause, well that seems fairly obvious. It is even obvious if life itself is the cause of life, but you do not get to magically assert a creator done it. WHY USE THE WORD GOD AT ALL?
God is an imaginary being or idea, unless Tin Man is my god and then he is very real. Case in point, there have been many Gods. Some more real than others. Modern Sun Worshipers are worshiping something quite real. Their attributes to the deity may be extreme but the Sun does exist, it's not imaginary.
THE CHANCES FOR THE THEORY TO BE RIGHT? There is no theory. NONE It's only a theist assertion.
Your parents created you, but as you mentioned i meant the origin of life. We cant assume that there is a creator of it because simply this creator must have another creator and so on, that's why the idea of the creator as a start is paradoxical!
Things that are created, have creators. If anyone is going to assert life, the cosmos, or anything else had a creator, there must be evidence for that creator. Some things are created and other things occur naturally. The way we know the difference is by comparing those things that occur naturally with those that are created. Creators take things that occur naturally and manipulate them to make something new. Things that occur naturally are described by the laws of physics. This is all superfluous as there is NO THEORY OF GOD. IT DOES NOT EXIST.
I have been re-reading some Joseph Conrad.
I didn't read the foreword to The Shadowline last time around, but I found the following selection from it very satisfying and it does provide an answer, in part, to the question put by the OP.
Conrad wrote the foreword, or rather author's note, after the story had been published in 1916, in New York. In it he answers the claim of some reviewers that he had purposely included a supernatural theme.
"...all my moral and intellectual being is penetrated by an invincible conviction that whatever falls under the dominion of our senses must be in nature and, however exceptional, cannot differ in its essence from all the other effects of the visible and tangible world of which we are a self-conscious part. The world of the living contains enough marvels and mysteries as it is; marvels and mysteries acting upon our emotions and intelligence in ways so inexplicable that it would almost justify the conception of life as an enchanted state. No, I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvellous to be ever fascinated by the mere supernatural, which (take it any way you like) is but a manufactured article, the fabrication of minds insensitive to the intimate delicacies of our relation to the dead and to the living, in their countless multitudes; a desecration of our tenderest memories; an outrage on our dignity."
"an outrage on our dignity." That really gets me.
Life was "caused" by certain molecules being exposed to energy, under specific conditions. From that point forward, that simple life "created" other life.
I always attempt to work with the scientific definition of "theory" because it is specific and not prone to misinterpretation when one applies the word "theory" to common discourse. There can never be a "theory of god" because it fails in every level.
vendetta, if you are going to make a grandiose statement, please get your terms correct.
Despite the confusion in terminology, this is not trivial. People have devoted their entire lives to this stuff, wars have been waged, and it has a profound influence on society and government.
Silly yes, trivial no.
I can't find the right term for this absurdity which called god. For sure it's not even a theory, I agree. About if it's trivial or not, i think you mean "religion" was not trivial because of its criminal exploitation of that misconception to control people and lands!
@vendetta
Any religion requires one or more supreme entities. Most call it god(s). Those two concepts, of god and religion, are firmly bound together.
When it is painfully obvious that (whether or not criminality is involved) god/religion completely dominates the lives of millions of people, it can not be considered trivial.
I agree the god concept is silly. But what comes from that, religion, is not trivial and impacts just about every facet of out lives.
@David Killens: I agree. If you use the word "theory" in a non-scientific sense it allows the theist to sneak in the God idea as a "theory," The theist does not distinguish between common usage, (Theroy = I have an idea.) and (Theory used scientifically to explain an entire body of evidence.)
Never allow a theist to get away with the inane assertion that there is a "Theory of God." There just isn't/
@Cognostic
"Never allow a theist to get away with the inane assertion that there is a "Theory of God."
I fully agree. It is just a pathetic attempt to legitimize their beliefs as valid theories, or the reverse, that theories carry no valid weight. Either way, it is an attempt to place their god beliefs on the same level as legitimate scientific theories.
Which of course leads one to utter "bollocks" many times.
First of all, "God the Creator" IS NOT a theory. Hell it does not even qualify as a hypothesis. Foremost, a hypothesis must be testable AND falsifiable. Otherwise, it is just a delusional fantasy.
Thus, "God the Creator" or whatever else you wish to call it is nothing more than a scam of lazy bums with megalomaniacal psychoses.
These megalomaniacal psychotic sociopaths found that it is much easier to control the masses by offering believable lies that the masses "wanted" to be true.
Thus, yes. Belief in any lies (that which cannot be proven to be true) is already inherently irrational and evil.
rmfr
You will have to differentiate between the concepts of God as the judeo-christian supreme being and God as a generic supreme being. If the claim is that the judeo-christian god (and hence also the islamic god) did it (created life, the universe, and everything), then it is quite clear that it is b.s. You only have to look at the evidence for the evolution of Elohim/YHWH/God to see that this god is an amalgam of tribal gods from the arabian deserts (see e.g. The Invention of God by Thomas Römer https://www.amazon.com/Invention-God-Thomas-R%C3%B6mer-ebook/dp/B01985ZGGA/) that changed over time. This in itself precludes this god from being THE supreme being. Similar arguments can probably be used against other specific gods.
If, on the other hand, the claim is a generic or non-specific god, then the question is purely abstract and hypothetical. There is very little to argue against, like trying to fasten wet paint to a wall using nails.
@Get off my lawn
Excellent! Welcome aboard the Good Ship AR! Very nice first post, I must say. Come on in and make yourself at home. No doubt others will be along soon to greet you as well. Or, for a more proper welcoming, I suggest you start your own thread in the Atheist Hub. That way we won't end up clogging this thread. Hope you hang around. With a first pitch like that, we could use more like you around. We have a great crew here. Hope to see you around more. By the way, those are my two favorite Muppet characters. Use to watch The Muppet Show most of the time just to see them... *chuckle*...
Thank you for the kind words. I started a thread "over there" like you suggested.
A lot of african traditional religions have some sort of supreme being, although we may be cautious as to not study them with the lens of an abrahamic faith.
The generic supreme doesn't even have to be conscious or have an intellect so really, no one can say anything about the concept, even in a first cause argument use.
I'm not suggesting you should use an abrahamitic lens on other kind of religions, like traditional african ones. My point was that if one study those religions more deeply, one would probably find a similar evolution of the deity - its name has probably changed slowly over time, it has probably lost some abilities/properties and gained some, and has maybe even being merged with other deities. I don't claim to have any proof for this, it's just something I suspect would be reasonable and natural after having read Thomas Römer's book.
@Get off my lawn
Of course, i agree 100% with you, you just have to study religion to see that. It just that a lot of us here come from a religious background of theses faiths.
Yes. Religion must evolve just like life. Else it dies. I feel it is this knowledge that drives such a draconian hatred towards science and atheism.
rmfr