Hey Ambercab,
... but have also met some (a whole church full in one case) who maintain that their belief is not a religion because they know that God exists; it is obvious (to them) that God exists. To me it is double-speak since it requires a redefinition of words to fit their group world-view.
See
Message 185 and
Message 186.
Modulus doesn’t say how we could falsify the proposition about the scientist. If it can only be believed as a matter of faith then why isn’t it just another new religion? What is the essential difference between 'knowing' that God exists and proposing that the scientist exists, when no objective tests are possible in either case?
Yes, it's called "intelligent design" and it is (ultimately) a version of deism (even though most people embracing it don't understand that little implication).
As for testing between a god/s created universe, a scientist/s made universe, and a naturally developed universe, see Rrhain on
Message 127 and his proposition for a "perfect theory" that is actually true vs the "other theory/ies" that is/are true for all known evidence.
For the record "creation of the universe" qualifies one as a god, imho:
God Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
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.
They would certainly qualify if
Pan qualifies as a god.
Not all gods are megalomaniacs after all.
Enjoy
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
™ Version 4.2
