I have always felt being absolutely certain about most anything can make an absolute fool out of any of us.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/god-is-a-question-not-an-answer/?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&moduleDetail=inside-nyt-region-1&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT;.nav=inside-nyt-region&_r=0
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for damn sure, that just ain’t so.” (attributed to Mark Twain)
So in my old age, as I approach the damn surety, that nothing supernatural exists, perhaps I am inviting trouble. But I am inclined to accept whatever trouble that surety may bring, because I think that believing in anything supernatural is believing in a lie. (And I think that believing in lies, ultimately, causes more harm than good.)
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for damn sure, that just ain't so." (attributed to Mark Twain) So in my old age, as I approach the damn surety, that nothing supernatural exists, perhaps I am inviting trouble. But I am inclined to accept whatever trouble that surety may bring, because I think that believing in anything supernatural is believing in a lie. (And I think that believing in lies, ultimately, causes more harm than good.)In the post when I used the word god I was not referring to just a supernatural god but for most any entity, feeling or concept that one may use the word god. I too totally reject the supernatural in any form but maybe, just maybe there is something that a ration human would call "god" but never with the G capitalized. But god as a creator, savior etc. Their ain't no way.
If you redefine “god” you can make it anything you want so, yes, there could be a small “g” god. The odds against it are overwhelming, though, so until this little god starts showing some evidence for its existence I’ll go about my life without worrying about it.
I hope I live to see the day when the New York Times catches up to, what to me, is some very beginner level philosophy. I would love to hear from 20 or 30 credentialed, respected, philosopher, crossing the spectrum of beliefs. My bet is, they’d all, yep, Philosophy 101.
If you redefine "god" you can make it anything you want so, yes, there could be a small "g" god. The odds against it are overwhelming, though, so until this little god starts showing some evidence for its existence I'll go about my life without worrying about it.There are thousands of small g gods. There is no evidence that either small g gods or the big kahuna exist. Lois
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for damn sure, that just ain't so." (attributed to Mark Twain) So in my old age, as I approach the damn surety, that nothing supernatural exists, perhaps I am inviting trouble. But I am inclined to accept whatever trouble that surety may bring, because I think that believing in anything supernatural is believing in a lie. (And I think that believing in lies, ultimately, causes more harm than good.)In the post when I used the word god I was not referring to just a supernatural god but for most any entity, feeling or concept that one may use the word god. I too totally reject the supernatural in any form but maybe, just maybe there is something that a ration human would call "god" but never with the G capitalized. But god as a creator, savior etc. Their ain't no way. what gods are not supernatural Money.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for damn sure, that just ain't so." (attributed to Mark Twain) So in my old age, as I approach the damn surety, that nothing supernatural exists, perhaps I am inviting trouble. But I am inclined to accept whatever trouble that surety may bring, because I think that believing in anything supernatural is believing in a lie. (And I think that believing in lies, ultimately, causes more harm than good.)In the post when I used the word god I was not referring to just a supernatural god but for most any entity, feeling or concept that one may use the word god. I too totally reject the supernatural in any form but maybe, just maybe there is something that a ration human would call "god" but never with the G capitalized. But god as a creator, savior etc. Their ain't no way. what gods are not supernatural Money. Ooh. Good one. I love the way you think.
Let me make it as simple as I possibly can.
Mankind develops the ability to compare. Thus we have what is known as knowledge.
Mankind believes all knowledge has answers. There is no such thing as unknown knowledge. This is a very key point.
At one time in pre-history, mankind made the statement; that everything is made from matter. Matter comes from star dust. Star dust comes from the universe. Where the universe came from, mankind may never know. That was a mistake. Because the next thing we have in history is god. God knows everything, and has no beginning and created the universe. So the problem of unknown knowledge is taken care of by having a god. And history has shown that the most successful gods were believed to control vast knowledge.
Science will never be able to answer every question of mankind. So god may be needed for some time yet. And of course we have the atheists. But I bet the synopsis of atheists don’t agree with the unknown knowledge patterns of the general population.
And if you don’t like this answer, ask god, he knows. 
Science will never be able to answer every question of mankind.How do you know that?
Simple, your thinking inside the box, like an atheist. Not of all of mankind thinks that way. Example, tell me when Spock is reincarnated, will he work again for the Federation? Only god would know that answer. You probably think that the answers would have to be the correct answers too. That is not the case. For thousands of years RA gave the answers by sunlight to one of the greatest and longest lasting civilizations we know of. And it looks like to me that he used saints. Or what we think of as lower gods for questions about life and love. Or the knowledge that had a good chance of failure was passed on to lower gods. The system, from what I have seen is still being used today somewhat. Example, the Buddha monks are not deities, yet they are expected to possess knowledge and answers for the people. I have seen very educated people look past science and follow the advice of the monks. I attributed those actions to superstitions, but it is still about the search and control of knowledge.Science will never be able to answer every question of mankind.How do you know that?
There is no evidence that can disprove God, just evidence (like suffering) that seems to run contrary to the presence of a certain type of God (omnibenevolent). You can’t disprove an immaterial being.
Let me make it as simple as I possibly can. Mankind develops the ability to compare. Thus we have what is known as knowledge. Mankind believes all knowledge has answers. There is no such thing as unknown knowledge. This is a very key point. At one time in pre-history, mankind made the statement; that everything is made from matter. Matter comes from star dust. Star dust comes from the universe. Where the universe came from, mankind may never know. That was a mistake. Because the next thing we have in history is god. God knows everything, and has no beginning and created the universe. So the problem of unknown knowledge is taken care of by having a god. And history has shown that the most successful gods were believed to control vast knowledge. Science will never be able to answer every question of mankind. So god may be needed for some time yet. And of course we have the atheists. But I bet the synopsis of atheists don’t agree with the unknown knowledge patterns of the general population. And if you don't like this answer, ask god, he knows. :-)I know there is stuff that I don't know. I have no reason to call the stuff I don't know god. In fact all the stuff I do know suggests there is no such thing as the supernatural. So the stuff that I don't know is probably not god.
Let me make it as simple as I possibly can. Mankind develops the ability to compare. Thus we have what is known as knowledge. Mankind believes all knowledge has answers. There is no such thing as unknown knowledge. This is a very key point. At one time in pre-history, mankind made the statement; that everything is made from matter. Matter comes from star dust. Star dust comes from the universe. Where the universe came from, mankind may never know. That was a mistake. Because the next thing we have in history is god. God knows everything, and has no beginning and created the universe. So the problem of unknown knowledge is taken care of by having a god. And history has shown that the most successful gods were believed to control vast knowledge. Science will never be able to answer every question of mankind. So god may be needed for some time yet. And of course we have the atheists. But I bet the synopsis of atheists don’t agree with the unknown knowledge patterns of the general population. And if you don't like this answer, ask god, he knows. :-)I know there is stuff that I don't know. I have no reason to call the stuff I don't know god. In fact all the stuff I do know suggests there is no such thing as the supernatural. So the stuff that I don't know is probably not god. Tim, I think you missed the point. So maybe I relayed by thoughts poorly. I should have said there is an all knowing god. And god knows everything so there is no such thing as unknown knowledge to god in the minds of the religious believers. As far as the atheists, there is a world of unknown knowledge waiting to be discovered. The bible does not state this fact of god knowing all knowledge. Just search “god's knowledge vs man's knowledge" on the internet and you will get the jest. To me, and that is because of my studying of the subject. The term “god" does mean knowledge from the time of the Rig Veda. Gnostic also means knowledge. It is what I understand how things evolved in history.
There is no evidence that can disprove God, just evidence (like suffering) that seems to run contrary to the presence of a certain type of God (omnibenevolent). You can't disprove an immaterial being.That's true to the extent that you can't prove anything. So, I can't prove that anything can be proven at all, including that claim. It's about degrees of proof. So there is evidence that can contribute to how truthful any particular god claim is. You would have no problem looking at all the evidence for many thousands of gods that have been claimed throughout history. But you have some definition of god, because you are using capital "G", so I you're right, I can't disprove your undefined thing. But I've never seen a god claim that couldn't be disproven, TO A REASONABLE DEGREE.
How does anyone know which god is the right one?
Or whether there are many gods.
There is no evidence that can disprove God, just evidence (like suffering) that seems to run contrary to the presence of a certain type of God (omnibenevolent). You can't disprove an immaterial being.That's true to the extent that you can't prove anything. So, I can't prove that anything can be proven at all, including that claim. It's about degrees of proof. So there is evidence that can contribute to how truthful any particular god claim is. You would have no problem looking at all the evidence for many thousands of gods that have been claimed throughout history. But you have some definition of god, because you are using capital "G", so I you're right, I can't disprove your undefined thing. But I've never seen a god claim that couldn't be disproven, TO A REASONABLE DEGREE. Prove to me that an invisible flying Spaghetti monster didn't create the universe and answers prayer every once in a while. Give me one shred of evidence against the existence of the invisible flying spaghetti monster.
Prove to me that an invisible flying Spaghetti monster didn't create the universe and answers prayer every once in a while. Give me one shred of evidence against the existence of the invisible flying spaghetti monster.To the first part, the burden of proof is not on me to prove something didn't happen. To the second, the first bit of evidence was already given by you, you can't see it. There are other things that can't be seen by the naked eye, but we have devised ways to see them, I assume you can't see FSM with a telescope or microscope either, right? Then there's things like wind, but that has an effect, what effects has FSM had on anything? The evidence against FSM is that there is no evidence for it.
Prove to me that an invisible flying Spaghetti monster didn't create the universe and answers prayer every once in a while. Give me one shred of evidence against the existence of the invisible flying spaghetti monster.To the first part, the burden of proof is not on me to prove something didn't happen. To the second, the first bit of evidence was already given by you, you can't see it. There are other things that can't be seen by the naked eye, but we have devised ways to see them, I assume you can't see FSM with a telescope or microscope either, right? Then there's things like wind, but that has an effect, what effects has FSM had on anything? The evidence against FSM is that there is no evidence for it. Theists can't wrap their minds around that. Lois
Prove to me that an invisible flying Spaghetti monster didn't create the universe and answers prayer every once in a while. Give me one shred of evidence against the existence of the invisible flying spaghetti monster.To the first part, the burden of proof is not on me to prove something didn't happen. To the second, the first bit of evidence was already given by you, you can't see it. There are other things that can't be seen by the naked eye, but we have devised ways to see them, I assume you can't see FSM with a telescope or microscope either, right? Then there's things like wind, but that has an effect, what effects has FSM had on anything? The evidence against FSM is that there is no evidence for it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.