Is a Hidden God the Same as No God?

[TomC]

A belief in "something more" is a very rational belief.

[citation needed]

Belief in something undefined is the epitome of irrationality.

I disagree.
I prefer my beliefs. They're unevidenced, but there's no evidence against them either. There's just no evidence.
The difference between me and theists is mainly that I don't care what anyone else believes on the subject. I barely talk about it outside Internet discussion forums.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

A belief in "something more" is a very rational belief.

[citation needed]

Belief in something undefined is the epitome of irrationality.

While I know what you mean, belief that there are undefined things is different from belief in something undefined. Once defining characteristics of a thing are observed and not otherwise ascribed to a cause, it is hypothetically reasonable to start defining it, thereby removing it from the “undefined” category.
Which reminds me, since I’ve not been keeping up - has any theist offered differentiating qualities between no god and hidden god? (other than the income discrepancy I observed earlier)

 

[bilby]

While I know what you mean, belief that there are undefined things is different from belief in something undefined.

It's rational to believe in "something more", if by "something more" you mean "a more refined model of reality than the one we already have". Clearly Quantum theory and relativity, as we currently understand them, are at odds; To believe that one day our understanding might include an overarching Grand Unified Theory is perfectly reasonable.

But that's not what is meant by "a belief in 'something more'". To duggest that it could be is a popular equivocation, intended to conceal the "woo" hiding in the phrase.

"Something more", in this context, almost invariably imples "sonething supernatural"; It's a way of invoking the supernatural without the embarrasment of admitting a belief in the supernatural.

It changes a statement we know to be false, into a statement that is both duplicitous and false, and that this is seen as a positive step says nothing good or generous about the intentions of the person saying it.

 

[Jarhyn]

I wager there is NO difference from the perspective of the simulation between a hidden god, no gods, and all God's that are possible, and so my conclusion is "act as if there is a not a god, insofar as improving the world around you; if you wish to hope there is a god for whatever simulation you find yourself in, expect to find one substantially similar in motive to the sorts of people you might meet today making simulations, and expect to answer to the sorts of things you would expect of any life form asking kindly to be re-instantiated as an agent in our own physical system, but don't be surprised if the result is far weirder."

In short, keep your mind open, be ready to forgive, be something that wishes to be better than you were the day before, be something that seeks to build whatever world you find yourself living in for the good of yourself and your fellows living with you in that world, and barring that you will likely be something that will be promptly be made innocuous in some way.

 

[Elixir]

It's rational to believe in "something more", if by "something more" you mean "a more refined model of reality than the one we already have"

That would be imprecise, as every individual develops their own ‘model’ of reality. Science isn’t a compilation of models. It’s a method for converging on facts that explain and predict stuff that happens.
We believe there’s “stuff” out there … like dark matter, dark energy or whatever, maybe antimatter and perhaps all kinds of other forms of massive or energetic focii or conglomerations.
But there’s also configurations of all that stuff that we have never yet considered, except in the abstract. And that is a thing I do believe in with some conviction, though by definition I could not define it.

 

[Thomas II]

Man has always found patterns, balances, and intricate mechanisms in nature -- and then assumed there must be agency behind them. But we now understand what causes eclipses, moon phases, comets, planetary orbits, rainbows, salt crystals, parallel ripples in seabed sand, the Northern Lights, and wonders of nature like the 1931 version of Greta Garbo. No one today would have to create a designer who, with an impulse of creation, made those things appear. If you understand moon phases, you'd laugh at a supernatural explanation. (I could almost see a religion based on Garbo, tho'.) Yet the pre-scientific faiths persist, because the story elements are compelling. (Unless you focus on the crazy parts, as I do.) There's going to be a demand for 'em for generations to come, but perhaps a tapering-off demand.

Fractals https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-are-fractals/#:~:text=A fractal is a never,systems – the pictures of Chaos.

A fractal is a never ending pattern...

 

[Janice Rael]

You're all wrong! The actual answer to any argument that uses the words "Intelligent Design" is that ID is just a marketing term for Creationism, a theological doctrine. Those ID/Creationists are just a bunch of cdesignproponentists, I can prove it in a court of law. Oh wait, someone already did prove it in a court of law, in 2005, in Dover, DE.

I just had an event a decade later to commemorate the decision.

Yeah, just that one event that one time, not - ohh wait, have you folks heard my "I fought ID and I won" stories? OH did I DO it.

Was I right? I mean,"Dr" Michael Behe did slam his laptop shut, and stormed out of the hearing,; and the bill that intended to insert ID into science classes in Pennsylvania did not pass at that time. But what else did I do to display my authority over ID/Creationism? OH there are some stories.

Let's table that one to address this one: "Belief in something undefined is the epitome of irrationality."

Nuh uh! *here we go, yo* How is it irrational to have a belief? We know what we know the way we know it. Right?

I don't have reason to believe I'm wrong about this. Wanna try to prove me wrong here? Ok, please try. Do you have reason to believe I may be mistaken regarding reasons to believe? Do you have reasons why or why not? Do you have Reason?

ooh! Where'd ya get your Reason from?

Am I being ... unreasonable? Are you sure? How do you know? Prove it. Claims require evidence.

My claim is that having a belief in a thing, regardless of definition, is not irrational. I claim that beliefs can be rational, and that human people who posses beliefs in the undefined and unknowable are rational people with sound logic, barring a phobia.

Prove me wrong until I win. You can't.

*pause*

I am wrong. How do I have or "win" this debate or discussion without using an Appeal to Authority?

In a lot of my "I am right" discussions and debates, I believe, and/or state or assert, that I am "right," or, accurate, or correct. A reason why I feel justified to make an assertion about my accuracy in argument may be because an authority is a source of information about a topic. Am I right about authority? What if I myself, personally, am an actual authority? How about if I feel I am *THE* authority on a topic?

 

[Janice Rael]

oh the Enter Key is my new enemy on this platform, absolutely. OK, well, I look forward to being right.

 

[Jarhyn]

How about if I feel I am *THE* authority on a topic?

I shall recognize no gods, masters, nor kings.

You're going to have to rely on the weight of your words, I'm afraid, no matter how you flatter.

I don't believe that humans ought believe if they can help it. Rather, "Trust, but verify".

 

[TomC]

oh the Enter Key is my new enemy on this platform, absolutely. OK, well, I look forward to being right.

Heh
I'm remarkably tech stupid.
I still remember the Star Trek level of communications technology when my Mom got a phone in the laundry room. It was a TouchTone!
My sisters keep trying to drag me, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

How do I have or "win" this debate or discussion without using an Appeal to Authority?

We each serve as our own authorities, don’t we? We deem this person’s or that person’s belief rational or irrational based on the authority of our own perceptions.
I don’t think that’s a valid reason to forego debate. Nor do I think “winning” every debate serves the interest of truth.

What if I myself, personally, am an actual authority?

Then you will cite your credentials, which will be subjected to each audience member’s authority to determine your credibility as an authority in the realm claimed.

How about if I feel I am *THE* authority on a topic?

IMHO your feelings about the level of your own authority have little effect upon others’ perception of the validity of that authority. It’s good to be confident and sincere - that will at least encourage good faith discussion. But it’s best if your authority is self-validated, having provided new and applicable facts or explanations.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Janice Rael]

Oh I like this, thank you both, @Jarhyn and @Elixir. Oh, @TomC , hugs, may your mother's memory be a blessing (or benefit, as the case may be).

So, I "have to rely on the weight of my words" if I feel I am an authority (or, I suppose, if I were to assert that an authority existed, and [oh that's a fun one]), and I would need to "cite my credentials" in order to express or explain the authority - or awareness? (or are these so separate that they have different requirements?) - that I felt or believed I had, or that may exist at all.

ooh this is a great thought exercise, as well as writing prompt. I appreciate that we can have this conversation here; this is why I wanted to come back to IIDB. For these kinds of "debates;" and no, I am not debating, not really.

So, the weight of my words would necessarily entail that I possess literacy, and... knowledge? Yes? I would need to be gnostic about my topic? Hmm. Since claims require evidence, then, I'd need to either provide the evidence, or... is an explanation enough?

Would an explanation of some sort be enough for me to use to cite the credentials I feel I have?

Oh, hmm. I suppose that I might accept an explanation, but, would I be right to do so? Would the person using an explanation instead of any other evidence be accurate or "right" (correct) to do so?

OH crap, I deleted the "authority" paragraph. I hate my Chromebook.

So, the OP asked if a Hidden God is the same as No God. I think I need to go back to the OP to learn the specifics about this question. What does the OP mean? Who is being asked, and, whose answers are acceptable? Upon what authority could a question about God or gods be answered?

I'll ask about authority again later. Your answers and this discussion are great.

 

[Janice Rael]

haha @Thomas II - my dead husband mocked me by calling me "Helpy Helperton" with all the derision I deserved. It was and is funny as fk. Your classic clip, omg, I love this one thank you!

 

[Thomas II]

haha @Thomas II - my dead husband mocked me by calling me "Helpy Helperton" with all the derision I deserved. It was and is funny as fk. Your classic clip, omg, I love this one thank you!

Welcome back!

 

[Elixir]

So, I "have to rely on the weight of my words" if I feel I am an authority (or, I suppose, if I were to assert that an authority existed, and [oh that's a fun one]), and I would need to "cite my credentials" in order to express or explain the authority - or awareness?

Optimally, no, it would be more like:

the weight of my words would necessarily entail that I possess literacy, and... knowledge?

Weight would be proportional to the influence the words have upon the audience, no? It’s not an attribute of the words alone.

Since claims require evidence, then, I'd need to either provide the evidence, or... is an explanation enough?

If the claim explains a thing or phenomenon better than other, existing claims, that can be its own evidence. Not proof, of course, but support. Agree?

 

[Jarhyn]

Upon what authority could a question about God or gods be answered?

I think only "on claim of repeatable experiment" really holds any real weight.

For instance, I maintain my authority on the subject by virtue of easily made observations rendered while running simulations; it seems to me evidence of some claim of the relationship on the boundary of simulation and host would be readily observable by running a simulation. It seems so apparent to me it really shouldn't need to be said.

Then, after you do that, after you study the simulation, you might be able to make observations about the nature of time across the different "perspectives" of the system, when viewed in different ways!

My claims are rather something the reader can directly observe and test, learn about, and exercise for themselves.

The issue here is that few people see tinkering around with a video game to be a valid path to understanding metaphysics.

 

[unapologetic]

Voluntary self control.
The choice is always yours.

That is cult propaganda, because out of the other side of it's mouth your cult threatens eternal damnation. That is no choice at all. It's a threat.

You're presented with a choice to live a happy life living happily with your fellow humans.

Bullshit. Your god doesn't have that authority. I already do that without your god's 'generous' offer.

Its when you reject that choice that words like sin and disobedience arise.

The ONLY 'sin' is disloyalty to gawd. Everything else is forgiven in you profess loyalty to god's hippy son.
Even if/when I live "a happy life living happily with (my) fellow humans", I'm still going to
Hell^TM because I don't suck up to god or jesus.

Live moral lives because it's the best thing to do. Yes, God wants us to. But more importantly He wants us to want to do so.

I DO. But more importantly, god/your cult wants us to give credit to him, (or jesus).

My 'cult' doesn't teach that.

Then you are not paying attention.

 

[unapologetic]

A belief in "something more" is a very rational belief.

If you believe that. Then you ARE a 'believer'.
Why do you insist you are atheist? Do you even know what "atheist" means?
Did you look at the chart I posted?
I am guessing you might be closer to 'agnostic' if not theist.


As for 'personality traits'; 'atheists' are less gullible than theists. More skeptical than the faithful. About most things, not just religion.
The other 'traits' you mention are not relevant.

 

[Learner]

Voluntary self control.
The choice is always yours.

That is cult propaganda, because out of the other side of it's mouth your cult threatens eternal damnation. That is no choice at all. It's a threat.

If people are 'dammed in hell' then a choice was made, IOW the threat of damnation didn't phase anyone.

You're presented with a choice to live a happy life living happily with your fellow humans.

Bullshit. Your god doesn't have that authority. I already do that without your god's 'generous' offer.

It's not just about YOU who's already doing that. Its about every single soul needing to do it also...live happily with each other.

Its when you reject that choice that words like sin and disobedience arise.

The ONLY 'sin' is disloyalty to gawd. Everything else is forgiven in you profess loyalty to god's hippy son.

I suppose so putting it that way...
...disloyalty is doing evil things, doing the opposite to living happily together, etc & etc.

Even if/when I live "a happy life living happily with (my) fellow humans", I'm still going to
Hell^TM because I don't suck up to god or jesus.

Choosing to live under Jesus in his domain...everyone is happy.

Live moral lives because it's the best thing to do. Yes, God wants us to. But more importantly He wants us to want to do so.

I DO. But more importantly, god/your cult wants us to give credit to him, (or jesus).

By your idea above - why would Jesus want credit for your 'moral life' if you're rejecting God etc.? Not that's what it's all about.