Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Daniel's avatar

"The label is unimportant if we agree on the phenomena that need to be explained."

I would argue the label is very important- this entire discussion started because you said that atheists were rejecting a straw man version of God when they said they didn't believe in God. You are now arguing that whatever phenomena you attribute to "god" could in fact be attributed to anything else not usually designated "god". To go with just one, if these phenomena were caused by aliens, you would no longer be making supernatural claims. Aliens, presumably, exist as biological entities that can actually be measured in some way. While I am sure you're going to tell me that it's not actually very common to believe this and I am wrong to assume that any religion teaches God is not so bound by natural laws, that is a belief about God I have encountered religious people holding.

"A lot of humans have experienced contact with an agency which they felt was benevolent and, if not omniscient, definitely possessed with superior knowledge of themselves and others."

Right. Why does that mean that entity is "god"? This is why I need you to explain what definition of God you are working from.

"Does it matter what name you give this agency if, having made contact with it, you accept it exists?"

Yes.

Expand full comment
JD's avatar

Someone said that Trump was God's test for America's evangelical Christians...and they failed.

Expand full comment
500 more comments...

No posts