Posted: Aug 23, 2018 7:29 am
by Cito di Pense
zulumoose wrote:
Creationists don't bother to argue how divine creation of a visible universe with a hundred billion galaxies each consisting of hundreds of billions of stars was necessary to produce life on one measly planet, this one.


One plausible explanation is that this solar system is the cot that god plays in, and life is his latest toy. The rest of the universe is explained by his famous tantrums, which stopped somewhere around the year 0ALT (after last tantrum). This also conveniently explains the expanding universe.


That's a good attempt at imagining a theist's metaphor-riddled response to my question. The proposed rationalization is full of problems; for example, why does god need a 'cot' to play in, with 'toys'? This is definitely an anthropomorphic god, isn't it? The point is, the theist does not offer the rationale until you ask the question. See the pattern, there?

It forces the depressing view that humans are simply incapable of making characterizations of gods that are not obvious fabrications, leaving the only possibilities some skeptics won't dismiss out of hand as black swans no one has ever described, let alone observed. This is no less disingenuous than the crap we get from theists. See what aban has to say about all that:

aban57 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
But why the fuck would you call some unspecified entity a 'deity'?


I won't, theists will. Can't you get that in your fucking head ?


aban57 wrote:some entity could exist without us being aware of it right now, and interact with us in ways we can't imagine today.


Really, we should try to imagine the interactions that would lead anyone to call it a deity, because that is how deities are defined. Sadly for the above speculations, the definition is going to have to come from the Department of Tautology Department, or someplace smellier.

However, if we won't call it a deity, and theists won't call it a deity, who's going to call it a deity? I think I understand the point, though: As long as it's just a speculation, someone can call it a deity, even if we won't.

The real tragedy is that the following is not obviously a less-effective way of dealing with theists than my question:

felltoearth wrote:
You are being disingenuous, or you are a moron. Take your pick