I get the impression you were expecting me to spring a gotcha on somebody? That's not my intention and I'd hoped that making this a discussion thread rather than a debate would set people's minds at ease on that front. I said I wasn't going to challenge people on their views and I've stuck to that.
Let me assuage you impression; I wasn’t expecting a “gotcha” nor did I think you were trying to trick anyone.
I took you at your word that weren’t going to challenge people on their views.
Nor did I challenge you on your views.
You suggested that you had seen some threads recently asking atheists about their perspective on gods……
I too have seen them and through about 5 decades have been asked about them myself and have witnessed many similar discussions.
I merely commented that I found it humorous that so often they start with a “poisoned well” fallacy, or in this case an “excluded well” (if you’ll allow).
I did give a heads up on the kind of reply I didn't want and tried to demonstrate why I didn't want it. You said you wouldn't worship the rubber ball because you don't worship trivial objects. That's the point of the scenario. It's an attempt to boil things back down to their basics by showing something utterly banal but demonstrably real. If the ball's simple existence (and the worshipper's claim that it is in fact a god) isn't sufficient to consider it a god, what qualities would have to be added to it for it to qualify?
The part I find humorous is that I believe most times the person who initiate theses discussions don’t perceive that they are engaging in this practice as it seems you don’t in this case.
Let me try again.
The problem in your scenario is you are attempting to compare a known object that is universally agreed to exist (the ball), with an object/entity that has never been shown to exist, (a god) at least in my perspective; apparently not yours.
In order to boil things down to the basics…..
how do you get more basic than a need to have demonstrated that something exists?
Gods have not been demonstrated to exist.
The quality that would need to be added, would be that they be shown to exist.
Of course I’ve been exposed to a dizzying array of attributes of what others have claimed to be gods, yet as you accept there is no consensus on what those may or may not be.
Yes, I could list many of the attributes that others have claimed…..
but that would not be my expectations of a god, it would be the expectations of the people who claimed a god/gods exist, such as yourself with the expectation that the god in question should have devine power and be worthy of worship.
I have no problem accepting balls exist and being able to bounce, because I’ve seen them and I’ve bounced them.
I have no reason to accept that gods exist or have any of the qualities that have been purported to me, because I’ve yet to see any reasonable evidence of them regardless of the many often contradictory claimed attributes of them.
How could I possibly know the attributes of something that doesn’t exist.
It appears to be completely unimaginable to you that someone (such as myself) could not have an expectation of a god and as result have no expectation of the qualities of that thing which I obviously don’t believe exists.
In the same way I would have no expectations of the china pattern on Russell’s teapot. (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot?wprov=sfti1 in the event you are unaware of the reference.)
Thus it seems only natural to me, in order to have a meaningful discussion on the subject, that one would seek to clarify what it is the person they are having the discussion with is talking about if there is a chance of misunderstanding.
Which, given the vast array of incongruous qualities attributed to the vast array of proposed gods, is almost inevitable.
For me, I find nature itself to be worthy of worship and find it useful to relate various bits of nature to some of the gods of European polytheistic religions. I'm particularly fond of the Greek primordial gods as I see them as most closely resembling forces of nature.
So, as a point of discussion,
you find nature worthy of worship, but apparently not a god unto itself.
Why the presupposition of “gods”, and not see the forces of nature as natural.
What makes “divine power” necessary over forces of nature, which are known to exist and are pretty reasonably understood?
