Identifying false religions.

And who get's to decide what is or is not ridiculous?You?

Then what exactly did you mean in the following discourse? You seem here to be accepting of the idea that any concept which is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable must have arisen as a product of human imagination.No? If both god and GOD are immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable I fail to see what distinction is necessary in this context? Both are necessarily products of the internal workings of the human mind.How can it possibly be otherwise?

Yes there are. But what has this to do with whether or not the concept you have described as being immaterial, empirically undetectable and unimaginable as necessarily being a concept that has arisen in the human mind? Where else could this idea possibly have originated from?Why do you think labeling your concept of God with the attribute "unimaginable" and writing it in upper case makes any difference to this? I didn't say it did. I am saying that with no reason to think it does exist any conclusion that it does, or even might, exist is indistinguishable in terms of reliability as to guessing what might exist. As long as there is no evidenced reason for you to think GOD might exist I fail to see how you are doing anything other than guessing that it does or even might.

You can of course internally define your internal concept of GOD in any way you find personally appealing.However your concept of GOD - This immaterial and undetectable "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" - is necessarily a product of your own internal mind. It has not been perceived. It can not have been perceived. So it's conception must be the product of internal imagination alone. Just as is the case with any other undetectable concept. Yes - It is philosophically possible that it may actually exist. It is philosophically possible that your imagination may have hit upon some great truth of reality by virtue of random chance alone. But there is no more reason to suppose that this GOD does actually exist than there is any other un-evidenced and un-falsifiable concept the human mind can concoct. Concoct so as to satisfy very human internal needs. Why worship or oppose any concept that we know must have been made-up?

Actually the farting cow hypothesis is Bluegenes baby not mine. Maybe you should direct your ire at him?Anyway - Why exactly do you consider some unfalsifiable hypotheses as being "ridiculous" or "absurd" and is that subjective judgement alone enough of a basis on which to dismiss them as invalid?Bluegenes point is that he has a logical and evidential basis for dismissing these possibilities. Reasons that do not just rely on what he subjectvely finds "ridiculous". But that exact same reasoned argument also applies to the god hypothesis. Whether you, he or anyone else finds that particular hypothesis "ridiculous" or not.Subjective notions of "ridicuousness" are irrelevant.That is the point.

Which part of "philosophically possible" or "random chance" was unclear to you?Your GOD - This immaterial and undetectable "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" - Is identical in this regard to any other such unfalsifiable and empirically imperceptible entity. Same to you. Indeed. So, if you are going to bother opposing anything, oppose the belief. Not the invented god concept. Anyone who thinks that writing a word in BIG letters changes it's evidential validity is promoting personal appeal at the expense of evidential and logical consistency.Which is fine if that is your want. But let's not pretend it is anything other than that.

And how might this detection occur?Do you accept that there is no more reason to elevate this possibility above the possibility that any other such unfalsifiable and empirically imperceptible concept that can be plucked from the arse of humanity might also exist? Beliefs lie behind behaviours. Subtle difference. But other than that - OK I agree. And I see little point in opposing entities that (philosophical possibility and random chance aside) are necessarily the products of human invention. As all empirically imperceptible entities must be. How could it be otherwise? The chances of Buz's god turning out to actually exist are so ridiculously unworth worrying about that our concerns would be better spent opposing the potentially dangerous beliefs and actions of those that follow this almost certainly false concept. Then could you clarify what you think the evidential and logical difference (if any) is between your GOD and any other unfalsifiable and empirically imperceptible concept?

I think we can all see why many might find that belief personally appealing. Then I see little disagreement between us. Maybe you could try explaining the reasons for this to RAZ. And would you also agree that ones definition is derived from what one finds personally appealing?

Then what?

Your evasiveness, ambiguity and refusal to answer straight questions is depressingly familiar and wholly expected.Are the god concepts under discussion empirically imperceptible or not? Then it is empirically detectable and able to be investigated empirically. And how we go about this will very much depend on whether or not you are talking about empirically detectable gods or not.

Something doesn't have to make you warm and fuzzy to meet the very human need to feel that there is "something more". Why? Why cannot "the creator of all that is, seen and unseen" be a bored depressed and perfectly emotionally comprehensible entity who invented a method of universe creation for a bit of light relief?Seriously. Why not?You seem very determined to invoke this mega incomprehensible super superior GOD being.But why that concept rather than any other?

But you have said quite a lot.

You have indicated that this GOD is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable.

You have told us that GOD is "the creator of all that is, seen and unseen"

You have told us that this GOD is incomprehensible - "GOD is further from a human than a human is from slime mold. A human has about as much a likelihood of knowing or understanding that GOD as slime mold has of knowing or understanding a human."

You have told us that this GOD is completely unimaginable - "GOD by definition would be far beyond anything we can imagine"

​

So we have an incomprehensible, unimaginable, obviously very powerful, immaterial and empirically undetectable creator of all that is seen and unseen.

​

I'll grant you that you have attempted to make your GOD concept pretty vague. But not withstanding that attempted ambiguity this concept is quite clearly the product of your internal mind. As it cannot have been perceived your conception of this empirically imperceptible entity must be derived from your internal mind.

​

Philosophical possibility and blind random chance aside there is no reason to think this GOD of yours exists anywhere but in the minds of men.

​

Is there?

​

jar writes:

​

I can say more about God and even more about god.

​

So what?

Aside from wholly internally derived personal conviction or personal appeal what reason is there for anyone to believe in this GOD? You seem to think that increased ambiguity justifies some sort of significant distinction between this concept of GOD and any other immaterial and empirically imperceptible God/god concept.You can apply the labels "unimaginable" and "incomprehensible" to your concept of GOD if you like. But it remains the case that your conception of this unimaginable, incomprehensible, immaterial creator of all that is, seen and unseen (i.e. GOD) is just as necessarily a product of human imagination as any other empirically imperceptible concept.(Random chance and philosophical possibility aside)

But it does address the question of whether or not the god in question could have been conceived of as a result of perception or, necessarily, as a product of the internal human mind alone.If the latter then, whilst it might actually exist, the chances of someone randomly but correctly imagining some aspect of an imperceptible reality that may or may not exist is rather remote would you not agree? But belief in gods and where this belief is necessarily derived from is wholly relevant to identifying gods that are (random chance and philosophical possibility aside) necessarily the products of human creativity and imagination. Huh? So believing in the existence of a god that we know must have been imagined does not constitute a false belief?You do know that even the existence of fat jolly magically undetectable Santa has not actually been falsified in the sense of being disproven don't you? Yet the overwhelming evidence favouring human invention of this concept makes this entirely irrelevant to all but the most philosophically pedantic. And you agreed that where there is evidence of human invention this is sufficient grounds upon which to consider a concept refuted. E.g. Santa.So how can an empirically imperceptible concept be the result of anything but human invention? Wrong. See above.

And these distinctions demonstrate nothing but your attempt to internally differentiate your own self defined GOD from your definitions of God or god by means of increasing ambiguity. Not irrelevant at all. The chances of your imagined concept of GOD actually existing are no more or less than any other concept humanity can pluck from it's collective arse.So in answer to the question of whether or not your GOD exists it seems fair to say - Almost certainly not.Which in turn makes belief in the existence of this GOD almost certainly false.