Jobar

I have often heard theists condemn us for our overweening pride- but I have often thought that we atheists are in truth more humble than god-believers. You see, we are willing to say that *we don't know.* Our stand- agnostic, weak or strong atheist- is that the knowledge our young race possesses is insufficient to make any final or absolute statements concerning ultimate meanings. Oh, some of us are quite convinced that the knowledge we do have, is sufficient to deny the reality of all the descriptions of God which men have come up with over the last few thousand years. We are comfortable stating that there is no Yahweh, no Allah. (I ask the theists reading this, are you comfortable saying there is no Odin, no Zeus, no Shiva? That is *exactly* how we feel about the God you may believe in.)

stewbster

I suppose for the sake of argument i am going with a christian version of God or god... the uppercase letter dosen't mean anything for me... it is all the same.

Why?

and i don't know if we even have a creator... sure the big bang or inflationary view of the universe may allow for such an occurance. although it is still just at most a conjecture... and then there is chaos theory...................

stu

Liquidrage

I never have denied the possibilty.
To deny a possibility would IMHO be absurd.

Though I don't find it very likely.

Philosoft

Not until it can be shown that "kick-starter," "creator of the universe," "God," etc. actually represent conceivable things.

Philosoft

But it does mean something for many people, myself included. I can say without hesitation that 'gods' exist. The sun is a 'god' for example. It is a material thing that was worshipped as if it had supernatural powers. However, "God" is a name for a particular god. I maintain "God" represents neither an existing thing nor a thinkable concept.

stewbster

true, language has no inherent meaning. words can be redefined with reletive ease. but you have to work off something. and you would be supprised how some people (especially fundamentalists) will carry their defintions!!! and to me all gods seeable or not are just gods.

stu

Philosoft

Right, they are all 'gods.' 'God,' however, is a specific 'god.' It must be, according to the capitalization rules set forth by users of the English language.

Automaton

I'm sorry, "Creator" does not fulfull the definition requirements of "God". Insofar as you can consider humans finite creators, the Creator could only be considered finite, just vastly more powerful than humans. This was pointed out by Hume. But, if something has such complete and utter control of the universe, this being might as well be God to us, even if it lacks omni- characteristics, infinitude, ethereality, necessity, etc. Simply a very powerful human would certainly seem to fit in with Yahweh.

Answerer

You can called Einstein the creator of relativity but he is not God, haha.

Vic

Not quite sure what you mean.
Surely when an "unknown" exists all probabilities must be considered. To require proof for the idea of a "kick-starter" is as illogical as insisting on proof of its non-existence. I submit that in the end it boils down to what is more plausible when one compares the mathematical probabilities of each theory.