Sorry Atheists, But Gods Are Perfectly Possible!!

[Hermit]

The word god means different things to different people. There isn't one perfect definition. I certainly don't claim to posess one. It's a grey area.

So, why did you say: "the essentials for a god are immortality and magic"? On second thought, don't bother trying to explain. I have encountered your notion of what is logical just a day or two ago. That's quite enough, thanks.

[Coito ergo sum]

I should say fellow atheists, because I don't believe in any of the gods on offer, from any religion I've heard of.
But I think they are perfectly possible, and highly likely.

You don't believe in something that you believe is highly likely?

You have to define a god first. That's tricky, because every so-called god has different so-called powers.
I would say though, that the essentials for a god are immortality and magic.

Lots of gods are not defined as immortal. Example: the Norse gods, who themselves die at Ragnarok in the final battle against the Giants.

A mortal with magic powers would still not be a god.

So, the Norse gods, the Mayan gods, etc. are not gods?

An immortal being, that couldn't do magic, would be fairly impressive, but that would soon fade.

So why do I argue that gods are possible? Well, we ourslves are part of the way there. We can now do incredible magic. ( as a species ).
We can fly to the moon, re-create the sun with an H bomb or fusion reactor, cure illnesses, transplant hearts etc.etc etc.

Not magically.

If I could go back in time ten thousand years, with a few carefully chosen accessories, I could easily pass as a god.

Passing as a god doesn't require much. Blocks of wood and volcanoes have passed as gods.

Here's my list.
1) AK47 and huge supply of bullets
2) Flame thrower and various lighters
3) Torch
4) Medical kit
5) Hang glider

You could make up your own list, but any combination of the above would virtually guarantee that the people you met would regard you as a god.

Until, like the Man Who Would Be King, someone sees that you can bleed.

The one thing that would let you down would be your mortality.

Even that might not let you down. Jesus supposedly died, and he's still thought of as a god. All that's required is a myth that you came back or would be coming back, like John Frum.

If you think of the size of the Universe, and the age of it, I would say that there MUST be aliens out there that would qualify as gods, if they arrived here.

Given that we are unaware of any other aliens of even microscopic kind, there is no way to know if there are any aliens out there and whether they would appear to us as gods. The size of the universe provides no insight into whether there are alien civilizations out there. We have no idea what the odds are for their to be a world like ours. It's possible it is 1 in the number of planets in the universe. We just don't know.

How long will it be before medicine can make humans immortal? One thousand years? Ten thousand?

Maybe a few decades. There has been work in that regard.

That's nothing in terms of the universe.

The ratio of number of years until humans can make their bodies not die to the number of years in the universe is not relevant to anything you have said.

There could be aliens out there with a FIVE-BILLION-YEAR start on us.

There could be. Or, there might not be.

If that kind of alien arrived here, they would fully qualify as gods.

They might look quite magical. Or, not.

Not the Christian one ( or three? ) that supposedly made the Universe, but probably way ahead of the greek or norse gods in what they could do.

I'm not speculating here,

Speculate: to indulge in conjectural thought.

Ummm...yes, you are speculating.

I really believe that such aliens MUST exist, given the age and size of the Universe, and the number of planets we are finding, and the vast quantities of organic molecules that are turning up in space and other worlds.

Your certainty of belief does not render what you've been doing any less conjectural or speculative. The age of the universe is the age of the universe, we have no idea how long it takes for life to come to be in a universe, or how likely it is to come to be in a universe. Maybe it takes a universe to result in one Earth that lasts long enough for intelligent life to form upon it.

The only thing that is stopping them from saying hello is the vastness of the Universe, and the limiting speed of light.
.

[/quote]

Perhaps. Or, perhaps not. Such magically advanced beings may have advanced their knowledge of the quantum nature of the universe and are able to pop in and out of existence and from one place to another instantaneously. Why not? After all, look how far we've advanced in 500 years. A civilization that is 1,000 or millions of years ahead of us must have learned to get around the speed of light.

[Coito ergo sum]

Mistermack, you need to show that going back in time is possible. AND that your "gods" aren't just propped up by technology. I'm no god because I can fly through the air, cast lightning bolts at people and make visions appear on my TV.

So that's a fail for you. Sowwy.

You need to read my post again. You haven't understood much of it.
I'm not your teacher, so do it for yourself. It's perfectly clear.
.

[mistermack]

The word god means different things to different people. There isn't one perfect definition. I certainly don't claim to posess one. It's a grey area.

So, why did you say: "the essentials for a god are immortality and magic"? On second thought, don't bother trying to explain. I have encountered your notion of what is logical just a day or two ago. That's quite enough, thanks.

Why post, if you don't want the answer? I don't claim to be a god expert. Anyone who has a better idea than me is free to post, I'm happy to be helped along.
That was my initial go at defining what a god should be. By all means put me right, or improve my efforts.
As for the the other thread, the same applies. By all means argue it out, I'm happy to be put right. That's why I post.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

A god is any supreme being, supreme meaning either (a) supreme creator of all the universe, or (b) supreme over some portion or aspect of the universe. So, god might be the god of the Bible, one creator of the universe, or the god of thunder, god of war, god of mercy, god of kindness, god of lawyers, god penises, whatever. God may be a block of wood, or reside in a block of wood, and be god of the trees. The sun was a god. The moon was a god. Rocks were gods. Volcanoes were gods. Gods lived in the sea. Gods lived in the clouds. Gods blew the wind. Gods brought the snow and the rain. Gods brought the crops and the droughts and the floods and the locusts. Gods were other humans, even those known to be mortal, like Alexander the Great and the Pharoahs of Egypt.

[Hermit]

The word god means different things to different people. There isn't one perfect definition. I certainly don't claim to posess one. It's a grey area.

So, why did you say: "the essentials for a god are immortality and magic"? On second thought, don't bother trying to explain. I have encountered your notion of what is logical just a day or two ago. That's quite enough, thanks.

Why post, if you don't want the answer? I don't claim to be a god expert. Anyone who has a better idea than me is free to post, I'm happy to be helped along.
That was my initial go at defining what a god should be. By all means put me right, or improve my efforts.
As for the the other thread, the same applies. By all means argue it out, I'm happy to be put right. That's why I post.

My apologies. That was my irascibility coming out once again. It's a trait I fight with limited success.

Now, what about your intention to improve your efforts? If you are prepared to ditch your initial definition of what god is, why not simply acknowledge Ghatanothoa's reference to Clarke's third law (it's right underneath your opening post) and be done with this particular discussion? Or can you think of anything meaningful to add?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Mistermack,

If you intend to redefine the word 'god' to suit your argument, and include anything that can be mistaken for a god in your definition, you will (of course) always win. However, nobody will care that you win. They will merely and

You may as well point out that Hirohito was a god to many Japanese. Ergo, gods exist. No need for space aliens with ray guns and time machines. Meh.

[mistermack]

My apologies. That was my irascibility coming out once again. It's a trait I fight with limited success.

No need. So long as there's a bit of humour in it, I don't mind what get's thrown at me. Gawdzilla always has a go, and I try to throw a bigger rock back. It's a laugh.

Now, what about your intention to improve your efforts? If you are prepared to ditch your initial definition of what god is, why not simply acknowledge Ghatanothoa's reference to Clarke's third law (it's right underneath your opening post) and be done with this particular discussion? Or can you think of anything meaningful to add?

Someone always gets in first. Clarke's third law sounds ok to me. But I still talk about natural selection, even though Darwin got there first. Anyway, there's been some good posts, so as long as people post, it's rude not to answer. I might agree or disagree, but in the end, it's just an opinion. I'm always happy to change.
.

[mistermack]

Mistermack,

If you intend to redefine the word 'god' to suit your argument, and include anything that can be mistaken for a god in your definition, you will (of course) always win. However, nobody will care that you win. They will merely and

You may as well point out that Hirohito was a god to many Japanese. Ergo, gods exist. No need for space aliens with ray guns and time machines. Meh.

Well, I'm not really trying to win anything. And my definition of a god was just a stab in the dark, to start people off. I don't think you can redefine god, until there is a universally accepted definition to redefine.
If you ask ten christians, you'll get ten different versions for the SAME GOD!!
.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Mistermack,

If you intend to redefine the word 'god' to suit your argument, and include anything that can be mistaken for a god in your definition, you will (of course) always win. However, nobody will care that you win. They will merely and

You may as well point out that Hirohito was a god to many Japanese. Ergo, gods exist. No need for space aliens with ray guns and time machines. Meh.

Well, I'm not really trying to win anything. And my definition of a god was just a stab in the dark, to start people off. I don't think you can redefine god, until there is a universally accepted definition to redefine.
If you ask ten christians, you'll get ten different versions for the SAME GOD DELUSION!!
.

Start here.

God   [god]
–noun
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.
( lowercase ) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.
( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.
Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.
( lowercase ) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.
( lowercase ) any deified person or object.
8.
( often lowercase ) Gods, Theater .
a.
the upper balcony in a theater.
b.
the spectators in this part of the balcony.
–verb (used with object) god·ded, god·ding. ( lowercase )
9.
to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.
–interjection
10.
(used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?

[charlou]

Everything is natural, regardless of whether we know about it or can explain it ... there are no supernatural beings.

Thought of as gods by uninformed peoples of vastly lesser skills and techs DOES NOT EQUAL GOD Does it ?

Cargo cult, anyone?

[mistermack]

Start here.

God   [god]
–noun
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.
( lowercase ) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.
( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.
Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.
( lowercase ) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.
( lowercase ) any deified person or object.
8.
( often lowercase ) Gods, Theater .
a.
the upper balcony in a theater.
b.
the spectators in this part of the balcony.
–verb (used with object) god·ded, god·ding. ( lowercase )
9.
to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.
–interjection
10.
The essentials for a god are immortality and magic.

It's only fair. It's my thread!
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Start here.

God   [god]
–noun
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.
( lowercase ) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.
( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.
Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.
( lowercase ) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.
( lowercase ) any deified person or object.
8.
( often lowercase ) Gods, Theater .
a.
the upper balcony in a theater.
b.
the spectators in this part of the balcony.
–verb (used with object) god·ded, god·ding. ( lowercase )
9.
to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.
–interjection
10.
The essentials for a god are immortality and magic.

It's only fair. It's my thread!
.

Then there are no gods fitting your definition. There is no immortality, and there is no magic.

[mistermack]

Everything is natural, regardless of whether we know about it or can explain it ... there are no supernatural beings.

That's true, but it's just making the word "natural" equal to "that which exists".
You're saying if it exists, it's natural. So by definition, nothing supernatural can exist. It's right, but it's just messing with words.

Cargo cult, anyone?

Yes please. If you've got the chocolate ones.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Everything is natural, regardless of whether we know about it or can explain it ... there are no supernatural beings.

That's true, but it's just making the word "natural" equal to "that which exists".
You're saying if it exists, it's natural. So by definition, nothing supernatural can exist. It's right, but it's just messing with words.

Not precisely. If a deity existed that could alter the laws of nature at will, then that deity would be "supernatural."

Natural means "existing or formed by nature or natural processes." Magic is not natural, and divine intervention is not natural, because they are not existing or formed by natural processes. At present, there is no reason to believe that magic or divinity exists at all, though.

Cargo cult, anyone?

Yes please. If you've got the chocolate ones.
.

Is that a clutch cargo cult?