Atheistforums.com

Extraordinary Claims => Religion General Discussion => Other Religions => Topic started by: SGOS on April 23, 2015, 09:33:55 AM

Title: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: SGOS on April 23, 2015, 09:33:55 AM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2015/04/23/401643807/a-god-that-could-be-real-in-the-scientific-universe

Well, I guess you have to read her book to get to the meat of her argument.  It might be an interesting idea, or not.  I probably won't read it, as I don't think it can contain anything an atheist hasn't considered.  It seems to me this was written for those who want to have a god, but who are willing to discard their definition of an inherently fictitious God in exchange for something that might be real so that they can fulfill a spiritual need.  I think some theists are already at that point.  But as an atheist, I have at most a mild curiosity about her philosophy.  I don't need to rethink anything so I can have a god.  I don't need a god.

From her blog, which she apparently uses as a place to advertise her books:

QuoteDoes God have to be part of our understanding of the universe? No. But if scientists tell the public that they have to choose between God and science, most people will choose God, which leads to denialism, hostility to science, and the profoundly dangerous mental incoherence in modern society that fosters depression and conflict. Meanwhile, many of those who choose science find themselves without any way of thinking that can give them access to their own spiritual potential. What we need is a coherent big picture that is completely consistent with â€" and even inspired by â€" science, yet provides an empowering way of rethinking God that provides the human and social benefits without the fantasy. How can we get this?

Science can never tell us with certainty what's true, since there's always the possibility that some future discovery will rule it out. But science can often tell us with certainty what's not true. It can rule out the impossible. Galileo, for example, showed with his telescope that the medieval picture of earth as the center of heavenly crystal spheres could not be true, even though he could not prove that the earth moves around the sun. Whenever scientists produce the evidence that convincingly rules out the impossible, there's no point in arguing. It's over. Grace lies in accepting and recalculating. That's how science moves forward.

What if we thought this way about God? What if we took the evidence of a new cosmic reality seriously and became willing to rule out the impossible? What would be left?

We can have a real God if we let go of what makes it unreal. I am only interested in God if it's real. If it isn't real, there's nothing to talk about. But I don't mean real like a table, or a feeling, or a test score, or a star. Those are real in normal earthbound experience. I mean real in the full scientific picture of our Double Dark universe, our planet, our biology and our moment in history.

These are characteristics of a God that can't be real:

1. God existed before the universe.

2. God created the universe.

3. God knows everything.

4. God intends everything that happens.

5. God can choose to violate the laws of nature.

I explain in my book, A God That Could Be Real, why physically each of these is impossible, but I don't think the scientific readers of this blog need that. The point I want to make here is that this list pretty much agrees with most atheists' reasons for dismissing the existence of God. But this is no place to stop. We've merely stated what God can't be. We haven't considered yet what God could be.

We've all grown up so steeped in some religious tradition or other, whether we've accepted it or rebelled against it, that it's hard to grasp that the chance to redefine God is actually in our hands. But it is, and the way we do it will play a leading role in shaping the future of our planet.

To me, this is the key question: Could anything actually exist in this universe that is worthy of being called God?  My answer is yes, and in my next blog post I'll explain what I mean by "a God that could be real."


Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on April 23, 2015, 09:55:13 AM
QuoteThese are characteristics of a God that can't be real:

1. God existed before the universe.

2. God created the universe.

3. God knows everything.

4. God intends everything that happens.

5. God can choose to violate the laws of nature.
She goes in to state some shit about some shit, doesn't really matter. What matters is could I call a being that doesn't fit these criteria a god? I'd call it an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence, but hardly a god. It may be my western mind at work, but a god manipulates reality rather than works within it.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: drunkenshoe on April 23, 2015, 10:11:14 AM
It's not an interesting idea. It's the same idea she thinks she can replace.






Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: stromboli on April 23, 2015, 10:59:17 AM
Meh. I can think of several ideas fielded here on the forum, such as the universe itself being intelligent, that might well fit into her god paradigm. Jury's still out, regardless. "That could" isn't the same as "that is".
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: GSOgymrat on April 23, 2015, 11:02:40 AM
I'm open to reading more. I put her book on my reading list.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: SGOS on April 23, 2015, 12:20:28 PM
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on April 23, 2015, 09:55:13 AM
She goes in to state some shit about some shit, doesn't really matter. What matters is could I call a being that doesn't fit these criteria a god? I'd call it an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence, but hardly a god. It may be my western mind at work, but a god manipulates reality rather than works within it.

I would doubt that most theists could accept the idea of a God which can't have those basic, but impossible, characteristics either.


Quote from: stromboli on April 23, 2015, 10:59:17 AM
Meh. I can think of several ideas fielded here on the forum, such as the universe itself being intelligent, that might well fit into her god paradigm. Jury's still out, regardless. "That could" isn't the same as "that is".

My guess is she will be proposing a form of Pantheism.  A real universe as a God, but not necessarily having supernatural abilities.  Maybe she has other suggestions.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 23, 2015, 11:02:40 AM
I'm open to reading more. I put her book on my reading list.

She's got my curiosity too, and I'm considering reading more, but maybe I'll wait to hear your synopsis.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: Solitary on April 23, 2015, 12:41:14 PM
Without any evidence how could anyone think a God, or gods are real in any shape or form. It's still God, or gods in the gap of our knowledge. Solitary :wall:
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: Termin on April 23, 2015, 12:48:06 PM
QuoteDoes God have to be part of our understanding of the universe? No. But if scientists tell the public that they have to choose between God and science, most people will choose God, which leads to denialism, hostility to science, and the profoundly dangerous mental incoherence in modern society that fosters depression and conflict.

   Umm no, you simply cannot make a satisfactory claim of knowledge God exists without sufficient evidence, you don't need proof to have "Faith" in God. Science does not state You must choose.

QuoteMeanwhile, many of those who choose science find themselves without any way of thinking that can give them access to their own spiritual potential.

  Well she needs to define what she means by  spiritual potential here. She's speaking of science as it's an all encompassing philosophy.

QuoteWhat we need is a coherent big picture that is completely consistent with â€" and even inspired by â€" science, yet provides an empowering way of rethinking God that provides the human and social benefits without the fantasy. How can we get this?

  First you have to determine which God , and I don't think she wants top start a Holy war.

QuoteScience can never tell us with certainty what's true, since there's always the possibility that some future discovery will rule it out.

   You just said you wanted to use science, but now you are saying Science cannot say something is true...

QuoteBut science can often tell us with certainty what's not true. It can rule out the impossible. Galileo, for example, showed with his telescope that the medieval picture of earth as the center of heavenly crystal spheres could not be true, even though he could not prove that the earth moves around the sun. Whenever scientists produce the evidence that convincingly rules out the impossible, there's no point in arguing. It's over. Grace lies in accepting and recalculating. That's how science moves forward..

If science can rule out something as being impossible.... She likes to gamble doesn't she ?

   
QuoteWhat if we thought this way about God? What if we took the evidence of a new cosmic reality seriously and became willing to rule out the impossible? What would be left?

   Hopefully there would still be some chocolate.

QuoteThese are characteristics of a God that can't be real:

1. God existed before the universe.

2. God created the universe.

3. God knows everything.

4. God intends everything that happens.

5. God can choose to violate the laws of nature.

  If God can't choose to violate laws of nature, that means God must abide by them.


   
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: Hydra009 on April 23, 2015, 12:58:49 PM
QuoteDoes God have to be part of our understanding of the universe? No. But if scientists tell the public that they have to choose between God and science, most people will choose God, which leads to denialism, hostility to science, and the profoundly dangerous mental incoherence in modern society that fosters depression and conflict. Meanwhile, many of those who choose science find themselves without any way of thinking that can give them access to their own spiritual potential. What we need is a coherent big picture that is completely consistent with â€" and even inspired by â€" science, yet provides an empowering way of rethinking God that provides the human and social benefits without the fantasy.
Ah.  I've heard of this.  I believe it's called wishful thinking.  Yep.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: Aroura33 on April 23, 2015, 01:01:06 PM
Looking over her blog, I think her book will propose Spinoza and Einstein God. I personally struggle with that concept, it seems to me they just redefine the natural universe and the laws that govern it to mean God, although Spinoza seemed to also propose there was a consciousness there as well, Einstein did not.
I would not be unhappy if more people were to embrace this kind of natural idea as God. It is a giant improvement from any current religions. It embraces scientific ideas and has no dogma.

So yeah, it still doesn't make sense to me to call the universe and natural laws god, but if it helps people get away from other retardo dogmatic religions, then great!
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: SGOS on April 23, 2015, 01:29:55 PM
QuoteWhat we need is a coherent big picture that is completely consistent with â€" and even inspired by â€" science, yet provides an empowering way of rethinking God that provides the human and social benefits without the fantasy.

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 23, 2015, 12:58:49 PM
Ah.  I've heard of this.  I believe it's called wishful thinking.  Yep.

Having spent far too much time in my life trying to mash God together with facts that are consistent with reality, I suspect I've already searched through her solutions and found them wanting.  I don't want to relive that futile search.  There are other things to learn, other problems to solve.  Let me die in peace, content with reality and the limits of my own understanding.  It's not all that bad.  In fact, I kind of like it.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: Hydra009 on April 23, 2015, 01:42:44 PM
Quote from: Aroura33 on April 23, 2015, 01:01:06 PMI would not be unhappy if more people were to embrace this kind of natural idea as God. It is a giant improvement from any current religions. It embraces scientific ideas and has no dogma.

So yeah, it still doesn't make sense to me to call the universe and natural laws god, but if it helps people get away from other retardo dogmatic religions, then great!
I suppose, but I'd rather people get off the whole God stuff entirely.  Going from a very harmful superstition to a mildly harmful superstition isn't much of a win for rationalism in my book.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: Aroura33 on April 23, 2015, 01:56:21 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 23, 2015, 01:42:44 PM
I suppose, but I'd rather people get off the whole God stuff entirely.  Going from a very harmful superstition to a mildly harmful superstition isn't much of a win for rationalism in my book.
Well, if her book proposes Einstein's God, then there is no superstition at all.  But really, I don't know if what she proposes included the supernatural, or not.  It could still just be redefining the word God to mean the natural universe.  You may not like people using the word God for that, but at least it is a coherent and working definition (if still meaningless to us).
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: PickelledEggs on April 24, 2015, 12:15:51 AM
That is one long, drawn out way of saying "buy my book"...
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: NakedTracyBlack on July 28, 2015, 07:44:37 PM
I'm not sure why a god who created the universe couldn't exist or a god who existed before the universe.  That's all supposing that our universe is the only thing there is.  There's no evidence of anything more, but it's imo at least a possibility.

Of course my beliefs would be considered weird by most.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on July 29, 2015, 12:08:34 AM
And I suppose nobody has considered that I could be a God? I rain down pestilence from the sky, create earthquakes and floods to millions of ants in my backyard and they happily rebuild their little temples for me to destroy at my leisure.
See?  We can ALL be a God!
I'm ok, you're ok and that there's what it is. :lol:
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: SGOS on July 29, 2015, 06:35:34 AM
Quote from: NakedTracyBlack on July 28, 2015, 07:44:37 PM
I'm not sure why a god who created the universe couldn't exist or a god who existed before the universe.  That's all supposing that our universe is the only thing there is.  There's no evidence of anything more, but it's imo at least a possibility.

Of course my beliefs would be considered weird by most.

I think the exact same thing, and I don't think it's weird:  "There's no evidence of anything more, but it's imo at least a possibility."

Tell me why that's weird.  You know what's really weird?  People who believe some cracker headed bullshit on the basis that there's no evidence for it.  Now that's fuckin' weird.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: SGOS on July 29, 2015, 06:46:43 AM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 24, 2015, 12:15:51 AM
That is one long, drawn out way of saying "buy my book"...

It's a nakedly obvious cheap pitch.  It's about like a yahoo news head line:  "See What this Woman Does When She Thinks She's not on Camera", "Do You Know How this Doctor Cures a Secret Disease?"

I wouldn't buy her book, specifically because of her way of promoting it.  It's appeal is for the disappointed new ager seeking for something that isn't there.   
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: NakedTracyBlack on July 29, 2015, 04:39:33 PM
Quote from: SGOS on July 29, 2015, 06:35:34 AM
I think the exact same thing, and I don't think it's weird:  "There's no evidence of anything more, but it's imo at least a possibility."

Tell me why that's weird.  You know what's really weird?  People who believe some cracker headed bullshit on the basis that there's no evidence for it.  Now that's fuckin' weird.

Well most of my beliefs come from when I'm in an altered state.  So most people consider them weird.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: _Xenu_ on July 29, 2015, 04:52:55 PM
A fictional story about an atheist that meets a much more probable god than the Christian one. Also has a nice explanation of the Fermi paradox.

http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: Mike Cl on July 29, 2015, 05:17:45 PM
Quote from: NakedTracyBlack on July 29, 2015, 04:39:33 PM
Well most of my beliefs come from when I'm in an altered state.  So most people consider them weird.
Hey, NakedTracyBlack......................I'm hoping Tracy is a woman. 
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: Solitary on July 29, 2015, 05:35:27 PM
Not matter how my mind has been altered by a drug, or by many at the same time, they have never made me believe in a God accept myself. Without myself I am not created, and without myself I don't exist. And me, myself, and I agree!  :eek: :pidu: :weed: Shrooms did make me believe in hell though when I could see a rainbow halo around my hands while looking at the bones inside my hand glowing red. And one time on Quaaludes, pot, cocaine, I went to France during world war two and had sex with a French prostitute while bombs were going off and speaking French fluently. She never liked wine bottles after that.  :eek: When I woke up I had a coyote in bed next to me. APA, please explain what a Coyote is for the youngsters here.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: Mike Cl on July 29, 2015, 07:22:52 PM
Quote from: Solitary on July 29, 2015, 05:35:27 PM
Not matter how my mind has been altered by a drug, or by many at the same time, they have never made me believe in a God accept myself. Without myself I am not created, and without myself I don't exist. And me, myself, and I agree!  :eek: :pidu: :weed: Shrooms did make me believe in hell though when I could see a rainbow halo around my hands while looking at the bones inside my hand glowing red. And one time on Quaaludes, pot, cocaine, I went to France during world war two and had sex with a French prostitute while bombs were going off and speaking French fluently. She never liked wine bottles after that.  :eek: When I woke up I had a coyote in bed next to me. APA, please explain what a Coyote is for the youngsters here.
If you have two arms Sol, then you must not have been with a coyote. :)
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: Baruch on July 29, 2015, 11:13:20 PM
Solitary ... for real dream, or just making fun of one of my posts?  I like it when people make fun of me ;-P

AllPurposeAtheist ... I agree ... only everyone is a demigod/angel/demon ... because reality is irrational and supernatural (as atheists call it).  I find the rationality of rationalists to be irrational ... and the naturalism of naturalists to be supernatural.

NakedTracyBlack ... I agree ... lots of people have altered states, with or without substance assistance.  Such states tell me that reality is more than materialists think it is.  But if you get over confirmation bias ... everyday experiences are much more accessible and just as weird.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: Blackleaf on August 30, 2015, 08:15:55 PM
If God can't break the laws of nature, then what's he good for? Who needs a god who just sits there and watches silently? And if he didn't create the universe to begin with, did he even contribute anything to the universe at all? If this kind of god exists, I don't see any reason to care.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: aitm on August 30, 2015, 08:20:34 PM
Quote from: Blackleaf on August 30, 2015, 08:15:55 PM
If God can't break the laws of nature, then what's he good for? Who needs a god who just sits there and watches silently? And if he didn't create the universe to begin with, did he even contribute anything to the universe at all? If this kind of god exists, I don't see any reason to care.

good start, but a REAL god does not have to break the laws of nature because it does exactly what he wants them to do. He does not interfere with humans because he knows the end of the story before he started it so it is of no importance to him. He started it and then left to do other things, why would he need to watch it, he already knows what happens. Do you watch any movie expecting the ending to be different?
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: stromboli on August 30, 2015, 09:14:11 PM
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-sun-worship-is-fairly-simple-there-s-no-mystery-no-miracles-no-pageantry-no-one-asks-george-carlin-55-90-59.jpg)
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: jonb on August 30, 2015, 09:34:39 PM
Quote from: aitm on August 30, 2015, 08:20:34 PM
good start, but a REAL god does not have to break the laws of nature because it does exactly what he wants them to do. He does not interfere with humans because he knows the end of the story before he started it so it is of no importance to him. He started it and then left to do other things, why would he need to watch it, he already knows what happens. Do you watch any movie expecting the ending to be different?

That would be a gawd without a future, everything dictated by its actions in the past, those actions having been set in motion the gawd has no further purpose. A pointless gawd.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: Baruch on August 30, 2015, 10:47:37 PM
Deism is a pointless god, as is a predestination god.  And a predetermination god (no free will) would be the ultimate monster.  See the clergy do this "Om" thing and then nobody is willing to break the mood by laughing.

Blackleaf ... there are no laws in nature ... that is an old theology by theistic scientists trying to boost their reputation (look at me, I can read the mind of G-d, and I ain't even a Jewish prophet) ... there are recurring patterns, like in a cellular automata version of Life.  And it is inductive ... the pattern holds until it doesn't.  It is optimism that gravity won't suddenly stop working, because we don't yet know the off switch in quantum gravity theory (thankfully).  Induction is relative, not absolute.  Even deduction is weak soup.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: peacewithoutgod on August 31, 2015, 03:36:45 PM
Quote from: NakedTracyBlack on July 28, 2015, 07:44:37 PM
Meanwhile, many of those who choose science find themselves without any way of thinking that can give them access to their own spiritual potential.
Because those who choose science find no sense of wonder in it? I will likely struggle with depression for my entire life, but I was never so down as when I lived through the futility of trying to find anything positive and wonderous in never-changing religious woo.

The fuckers who sell their woo like this are no different from those who would tell one who is suicidal and standing on a bridge to go ahead and jump! Dope dealers deserve some leniency, but those who sell the spirit woo need to be scrubbed off the streets, scrubbed off the Internets, and isolated completely.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: aitm on August 31, 2015, 03:52:20 PM
Looky here….gawd is not some mysterious magical wizard of immense intellect and power,,,,god is hymie around the corner at the jewish deli, makes a great sammich.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: jonb on August 31, 2015, 04:27:27 PM
Even so, just because he might provide your lunch, that is no excuse for worshiping him.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 04:36:43 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 24, 2015, 12:15:51 AM
That is one long, drawn out way of saying "buy my book"...

And isn't that what most the TED talks are about? Just one long, drawn out way of saying "buy my book, buy my product, visit my website"?
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: jonb on August 31, 2015, 04:50:22 PM
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 31, 2015, 04:36:43 PM
And isn't that what most the TED talks are about? Just one long, drawn out way of saying "buy my book, buy my product, visit my website"?

It is true that for a while a pope or two did not want people to read their book, just give the money, but lets face it 'buy my book, buy my product, visit my website' is how religion finances itself.
Title: Re: A God That Could Be Real
Post by: Baruch on August 31, 2015, 07:18:29 PM
History doesn't repeat ... it rhymes.  But if it rhymes, then it is poetry.  So what people are fighting about (and the Quran is poetry for example) is why e e cummings didn't use any capital letters ;-)