(11-11-2012 07:16 PM)Elesjei Wrote: ...as an explanation.
I've been thinking, and it seems that using 'god' (small or large g, doesn't matter) as an explanation is treated too well. The word 'god' describes a complex, abstract idea. It varies widely, but in pretty much all modern uses, it refers to a human-like entity with a mind holding infinite knowledge, who also has limitless powers, who created humanity for a reason and who retains an interest in human affairs. Even the most basic deist god is equally irrational; an undefined 'blah' not of physical substance, which exists only to create a universe and then bum out. The very notion of a god is absurd, and creates more questions than it answers. Intelligence or action requires physical existence. To even allow for the existence of a god we have to create the idea of something that violates everything we have ever observed or understood about the universe. When people use the term 'god' as if it is a reasonable explanation, it bothers me severely. A god, no matter how you define it, is probably the least reasonable concept to explain the origin of the universe.
Saying "a god did it" is an answer for a fool, because what you are really saying is "a magical entity which violates every law of physics and has no basis in observed reality, and which has always existed but outside our dimension, decided for no reason to create this universe". I could, in a similar manner, propose the idea of an invisible rock which spits out other particles into parallel dimensions, and call that a queeglegip. Now, we may disagree on the particulars of queeglegips, some saying it affects ten dimensions, others saying five, some saying it popped into existence on its own, others saying it was always there, but we can all agree that the universe could not have formed on its own or always existed, and must have been created by a queeglegip.
My point is, the word 'god' wraps up an absurd concept in a neat little package that lends unwarranted legitimacy to it. There is no reason to give the notion any more respect than you would give to queeglegips.
I can tell this is going to be fun.
Your first paragraph seems to be based on the Judaic (and it's off-shot) gods, wherein the deities are given human-like attributes, which are then inflated beyond human capacity, and I agree that those gods are given far too much room to move or exist as an answer to anything. However, the deistic conception of god that you mentioned I feel does not hold sway to some deistic conceptions, such as pantheism, which describes all being contained within god, or that all is god itself, not that god simply "bummed out" after kick-starting. Not that this is an answer to anything but at least it has a slightly
higher probability of existence than traditional Judaic Theist gods that you described. And as such I think it would be good to advise you to have a look at Evid3nc3
's videos on YouTube, several of which go into depth on various concepts of "god" (if you've not done so in the past).
However, I must say that I love the Queeglegips analogy, when I next get the opportunity, I think I might just use it.
Frankly, I like your point, and agree with it.
The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.