The argument of irrelevance

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Why does the argument for an absolute objective reality become incomprehensible?

I didnt say that. Reread my post

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

1) We only have one universe to measure. We don't have a set of atheistic and theistic universes to compare and contrast.
2) Granted, certain scriptures make very measurable claims. A god may have little or nothing to do with religious scriptures, though.
3) This kind of goes back to point 1- we don't have an atheistic and a theistic universe to compare and contrast. It might be argued that existence is only here in the first place due to a god existing.
4) This seems to have been addressed in my statements for 1) and 3).
5) Irrelevant is kind of subjective. Some people find the concept irrelevant while others do not. Those curious and interested about the major aspects of existence might find it to be relevant.

This was a very interesting argument and my response actually was also in your post:

You define god in an unusual and uncommon way and then..

I will grant you 1 although i do not see any connection to my argument as i mainly was concentrating on things within the universe.
Point 2 is the essential one. IF the scriptures make claims about things that should be measurable then God not just "may or may not" have something to do with that scripture but actually if we do not measure the claimed effects (while able to do so) we could discard the God of that scripture as well as the scripture.
So it would rather be a "God has nothing to do with any of the scriptures".
What could remain ( i guess that was what you were talking about) is some "God" that is unrelated to the religions we have. That God ... well obviously is not known to us through any means, neither demanding anything from us, nor rewarding us or punishing us. If he would do so, then at least he hasn't told us (after ruling out all scriptures).
Again however in my view we would end up with irrelevance.
What difference does it make to have a God of whom we might not know anything at all and whos workings are (therefore?) not even visible to us and the nonexistence of such a God? Most ideas about "God" (except perhaps for deists) deal with an interacting God who expects behavioural patterns and rewards/punished us or interacts with us.
Your point 5 is a claim i would not agree with.
Relevance is a term to describe how connected something is to something else. If (as stated in my argument) there is no measurable connection although that has been claimed then it is irrelevant.
Thats unrelated to the personal opinion about the importance of something that they believe in regardless of whether it actually exists ;-)

 

[yankaussie]

To the OP (let me know if you think this is hijacking and I'll open a new thread),

Is a god that is not worshiped and does not interfere in the daily affairs of humanity relevant? A "deistic" god, I suppose. There has never been a religion that can prove the existence of a god, or any other supernatural power, so we can't look to a god to add any meaning outside of what we purport to give the god.

If we don't worship a god, believing or not believing in it's existence doesn't seem to make any difference at all to anything. Religious believers of most major religions really mean you must *worship* the god, rather than just believe that it exists to reap whatever rewards or avoid whatever punishments their doctrines subscribe to.

This line of thinking has led me to wonder why religious people are trying to fill the gaps with a god as it tends to diminish the god as the gaps get smaller and smaller and, in many ways, less and less significant (relevant?) The smaller the god gets, the less worthy of worship it becomes and as result, the less relevant. If I'm arguing with scientists about where my re-defined god fits into quantum theory, do I really feel like it's deserving of my worship? If it's just a semantic difference with "nature", does it even care?

In my own opinion, god is very much irrelevant, and getting more so.

Cheers,
YA

 

[joea]

5) It therefore is (for now) safe to assume that the question of Gods existence is actually irrelevant and it is safe to treat it as not existing.

Quite the opposite -you are existing... that is proof enough of this very existence which you are a part of.