Support NeoGAF

[Henkka]

I claim three simple things.

We are a superior intelligence to other life forms we know from our interactions
There are inferior intelligences to ours and we are used to it . If you believe say an ants intelligence or an oysters compares to us that's another question
There is nothing to suggest something superior doesn't exist and in general lesser intelligences are on a lower size scale . The universe is on a much higher scale .

I know fully well how science works . These are my three postulates/theories/axioms/phyothesis go on why I'm illogical in acknowledging a higher being could exist ?

I'm an atheist and think that a "higher being" could exist. There's no contradiction.

 

[Melkezadek]

I claim three simple things.

We are a superior intelligence to other life forms we know from our interactions
There are inferior intelligences to ours and we are used to it . If you believe say an ants intelligence or an oysters compares to us that's another question
There is nothing to suggest something superior doesn't exist and in general lesser intelligences are on a lower size scale . The universe is on a much higher scale .

I know fully well how science works . These are my three postulates/theories/axioms/phyothesis go on why I'm illogical in acknowledging a higher being could exist ?

Do you accept the possibility that I'm actually a "higher being" assuming human flesh? Since you cannot disprove that, surely you accept it?

Where did your concept of a higher being come from in the first place? I could come up with a near infinite number of ideas, but just because you can't disprove them, doesn't mean that makes them valid.

 

[Melkezadek]

Could be . I thought of me as agnostic but it could be I'm atheist as I mentioned this has always been an iffy point in how I feel. On topic about ants and cats . It's very subjective and our interpretation of our superiority . Now that would in some sense boil down to why don't ants and cats achieve what we do? A very philosophical question IMO

Do you understand how Evolution works? I'm not saying that as a jab, I'm asking because the bolded isn't a philosophical question at all.

 

[A Link to the Past]

no, i think that is science's line. hence the "we don't see God so he must not exist" line.

there is a long history of questioning in religion. the fantasy that they have it all figured out seems to be strong among atheists. if they were more informed, more well-read about religion, they would know this to be demonstrably false.

there are rich histories of commentary and debate for every religion, there are famous conflicts that have sprouted new religions splintered off from the main ones (Catholicism -> Protestantism, Hinduism -> Buddhism). all it takes is a quick historical inventory to see first hand that it's not a monolithic thing, that internal debates have been doing on for millennium. this clashes with their convenient pigeonhole of what religion is so for many atheists chose to just remain ignorant and hold onto those convenient fantasies. ironically behaving like the people they detest.

What are you quoting in your first sentence? Is it fair to say that you're erecting strawmen, since science does not involve the denial of something due to absence of evidence, but rather skepticism over the validity of something? Science isn't out to prove God to not exist (mainly because there is nothing for them to disprove). It's basically the reason why creationism and cryptozoology are not real sciences, because they actively working backwards from a premise and trying to find evidence to justify believing in what they believe in.

 

[Ishan]

I think a logical scientific person would ask you to come up with a proper empirically falsifiable definition of a supreme being before even entertaining the question whether it exists.

Given that no religious person has tried to come up with such a definition (in fact throughout history was more likely to specifically oppose doing this), the discussion is moot before it started.

This is very hard . Given the definition of supreme . There is always the question of what supreme means . You can always ask what's beyond. The only recourse we kind of have is math and even in that there is the and I'm sorry if you aren't science/math bent the Godel incompleteness theorem ... I'll explain if you aren't if so you probably get my point . So essentially in some sense in math there was this surge for unifying and understanding logic and the basis of math and in laymans terms there are proofs which show there are certain facts about math that can't be proved or disproved . Now there are various ways of looking at this 1) we have math all wrong 2) were missing some higher logic which is incomprehensible to us 3) something's are just mysteries .4) no clue were just humans no idea wtzwkfafis were all idiots ).

Outside of a math perspective I can't think and please point me a scientifically provable way of addressing an "all supreme being" and if our most powerful tool to tackle it math currently fails we simply can't prove or disprove . CURRENTLY who knows in a few hundred years .

 

[Ishan]

I'm an atheist and think that a "higher being" could exist. There's no contradiction.

Agree with italicised could be just don't know .

Do you accept the possibility that I'm actually a "higher being" assuming human flesh? Since you cannot disprove that, surely you accept it?

Where did your concept of a higher being come from in the first place? I could come up with a near infinite number of ideas, but just because you can't disprove them, doesn't mean that makes them valid.

I don't think of you as one . Do I think you could possibly be? no . Am I going to treat you as higher till I have proof no . Does that mean I close the possibility you are ? No

 

[Ishan]

Do you understand how Evolution works? I'm not saying that as a jab, I'm asking because the bolded isn't a philosophical question at all.

The whole idea is dependant on evolution . I don't believe we are necessarily the upfront of evolution . There could be higher in the universe . I don't see any logical idea saying earth has somehow produced the supreme intelligence so far ,

 

[Melkezadek]

Agree with italicised could be just don't know .



I don't think of you as one . Do I think you could possibly be no .

How can you disapprove that with your limited human intelligence?

Since you can't, you must be open to the possibility.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Why do people keep making one off comments like this? Yes most people are aware that its possible for these two things to be true. Does it really have any context here?

Well, yes. Because Zuckerbergs statement is pretty vague and leaves things open for interpretation.

 

[Ishan]

How can you disapprove that with your limited human intelligence?

Precisely . I accept the limits of human intelligence . Even from a scientific background . There are only so many possibilities our neurons can compute . Doesn't mean we gain truth within those possibilities ?

 

[Melkezadek]

Precisely . I accept the limits of human intelligence . Even from a scientific background . There are only so many possibilities our neurons can compute . Doesn't mean we gain truth within those possibilities ?

So then do you accept the possibility that I am actually a higher being disguised in human flesh?

 

[Ishan]

So then do you accept the possibility that I am actually a higher being disguised in human flesh?

I do accept the small possibility yes ... Don't see the flaw in that .

 

[Melkezadek]

Agree with italicised could be just don't know .



I don't think of you as one . Do I think you could possibly be? no . Am I going to treat you as higher till I have proof no . Does that mean I close the possibility you are ? No

I do accept the small possibility yes ... Don't see the flaw in that .

You're contradicting yourself.

Surely there must be a reason you doubt the possibility.

The same doubt is in those that don't believe in a "higher power". There is just as much evidence as me being divine in human flesh.

There is a difference between acknowledging that there are beings in the universe that are superior to us. I think it's probably true, actually. But that is totally different than thinking there is a "higher power".

 

[Ishan]

You're contradicting yourself.

I don't close the possibility you are . There is no flaw in it ....


I don't believe it doesn't mean I am not open to the possibility ...

 

[Krowley]

Is it illogical to not be open to the possibilities of Zeus, fairies, leprechauns, Bigfoot, and others myths you probably don't even think about on your day to day?

Based on the evidence we've received thus far, I have no reason to believe a man walked on water, turned water into wine, or raised himself from the dead. Based on the evidence we've received, I have no reason to believe that this universe was set into motion by any cosmic entity. Why should I have to accept the possibility if there is no evidence for it? Should we all be open to the possibility of demons and angels just because we cannot technically disprove it?

Science works in the realm of probability. While we can't say for certain that something doesn't exist, we can still comment on the likelihood. Just because we can't speak with certainty, doesn't mean the odds are 50/50.

I think there is a distinction between accepting particular beings from particular religions, and accepting the idea of a hypothetical all-powerful being.

Furthermore, if we ever had contact with such a being, it could have represented itself to us in all sorts of ways, and or we could have made up stories and myths to explain the impossible things we saw during those encounters.

Suppose there was even one such encounter at some point in the distant past. Simple human nature means a million folk tales that would spring up as a result. We would make up dozens of stories, and then invent whole new characters to put in other stories. Religious cults would arise, and come up with their own unique interpretations, and add new stories.

It would become a huge mess. After a few hundred years, the truth would be totally lost in a sea of pure bullshit.

And it wouldn't even take "GOD" to make this happen. Anything sufficiently advanced would be perceived as god by primitive cultures. Hell, if there really were aliens, and they ever really landed, there would be huge swaths of modern people who would worship them. Guaranteed.

Which doesn't mean any particular religion has a basis in reality. I'm not even gonna go there.

But people instinctively grasp the possibility of a higher power, and will naturally look for some sort of spiritual truth. This has happened throughout history, and most religious stories are actually allegorical in nature. Some of them are attempts to explain experiences people had while experimenting with altered states of consciousness, either through drugs or deep meditation. Others are stories to teach some moral lesson. In most cases this was even understood back in the old days, at least among the elite - priests and scholars. Religious stories are meant to contain spiritual truth, which has only a passing relation to literal truth. Sometimes that gets twisted in certain religions, among literalists, but religion, at its core, has always been about symbolism. Religions attempt to explain things that are far beyond the normal experience of regular consciousness.

This has nothing to do with science, of course. Trying to understand religion with science is like trying to build a house with toilet paper. If you want to know the temperature that freezes water, ask a scientist. If you want to know the meaning of life, go elsewhere.

edit: Religion is about personal experience. It's about things you feel and see inside yourself. Find someone whose had a major near death experience that changed their life, and try to tell them there's no god, that the evidence just isn't there. Many will laugh in your face. They don't need to have their experience validated in a laboratory because they saw and experienced things that had a profound impact on their life, and they trust the experience.

Anyway, directly on topic...

I hope Zuckerberg has found a spiritual path that helps him find his way through life.

 

[Yoshi]

You can always ask what's beyond. The only recourse we kind of have is math and even in that there is the and I'm sorry if you aren't science/math bent the Godel incompleteness theorem ... I'll explain if you aren't if so you probably get my point . So essentially in some sense in math there was this surge for unifying and understanding logic and the basis of math and in laymans terms there are proofs which show there are certain facts about math that can't be proved or disproved . Now there are various ways of looking at this 1) we have math all wrong 2) were missing some higher logic which is incomprehensible to us 3) something's are just mysteries .4) no clue were just humans no idea wtzwkfafis were all idiots ).

Outside of a math perspective I can't think and please point me a scientifically provable way of addressing an "all supreme being" and if our most powerful tool to tackle it math currently fails we simply can't prove or disprove . CURRENTLY who knows in a few hundred years .

Gödel actually says there are certain facts about any (sufficiently large) axiomatic system that can neither be proved nor disproved using the axiomatic system. This is not a philosophical problem and no matter how much some intellect may be superior to ours, it still remains true. So for your four points:
1) We do not have math all wrong
2) There is no higher logic missing here, Gödel's theorem absolutely allows to prove anything about an axiomatic system using another "higher" axiomatic system. You can do that, but then you run into issues with that system if you want completeness of the proof technique
3) Some things are just mysteries, if you want to remain in the same axiomatic system. If you build an axiomatic system on top, these mysteries may be solved though.
4) Well, maybe we are idiots, but this has nothing to do with Gödel's theorem.

Gödel's theorem is completely unfit to discuss the existence of a superior intellect.

 

[Melkezadek]

Do I think you could possibly be? no .

I do accept the small possibility yes ... Don't see the flaw in that .

I really think you are coming into this with a lot of baggage from beliefs that you were probably raised in. I say this because you sound a lot like me when I was still transitioning.

You have to start with acknowledging that your preconceptions are probably wrong, and go from there.

 

[Ishan]

You're contradicting yourself.

Surely there must be a reason you doubt the possibility.

The same doubt is in those that don't believe in a "higher power". There is just as much evidence as me being divine in human flesh.

There is a difference between acknowledging that there are beings in the universe that are superior to us. I think it's probably true, actually. But that is totally different than thinking there is a "higher power".

The difference is semantic to me what is the difference from a being in "human flesh" to "a being superior to you" ? Nothing IMO after a certain level of tech intelligence genetic advancement it's all the same . I think you're confusing my thought process that there could be "superior beings" to the religious context of there are superior "moral beings" to us . I don't subscribe to that . I simply subscribe to the possibility of superior beings being possible . I don't think they would be necessarily be more or less moral than us if they do exist we would be insignificant to them IMO .

 

[Melkezadek]

The difference is semantic to me what is the difference from a being in "human flesh" to "a being superior to you" ? Nothing IMO after a certain level of tech intelligence genetic advancement it's all the same . I think you're confusing my thought process that there could be "superior beings" to the religious context of there are superior "moral beings" to us . I don't subscribe to that . I simply subscribe to the possibility of superior beings being possible . I don't think they would be necessarily be more or less moral than us if they do exist we would be insignificant to them IMO .

I don't think any atheist say that there is no possibility of there being superior life in the universe. In fact I think most will agree that it's highly probable.

If that is your point, then I'm not sure what you're arguing here. We're talking about the possibilities of the "higher being = center of morality" when talking about atheism. Not what you are referring to.

 

[Ishan]

Gödel actually says there are certain facts about any (sufficiently large) axiomatic system that can neither be proved nor disproved using the axiomatic system. This is not a philosophical problem and no matter how much some intellect may be superior to ours, it still remains true. So for your four points:
1) We do not have math all wrong
2) There is no higher logic missing here, Gödel's theorem absolutely allows to prove anything about an axiomatic system using another "higher" axiomatic system. You can do that, but then you run into issues with that system if you want completeness of the proof technique
3) Some things are just mysteries, if you want to remain in the same axiomatic system. If you build an axiomatic system on top, these mysteries may be solved though.
4) Well, maybe we are idiots, but this has nothing to do with Gödel's theorem.

Gödel's theorem is completely unfit to discuss the existence of a superior intellect.

Let me get this straight you just got into a complete recursive argument about axioms ? You want to prove completeness about any system you run into wanting further axioms . Then you keep wanting more . Are we going to have a logical or even mathematical discussion on this set of ever increasing epaxioms you describe ?

 

[Primethius]

That's good for him if he has found religion and finds it important. I know a few people who have gone from a state of "not caring about religion" to immersing themselves in it that have become better people (due to an added guidance or direction in life I suppose).

Don't know much about him personally, so maybe it was due to family. Regardless, he's free to believe what he wants.

--

I've never been in the boat where I've ever questioned finding religion again so I've always wondered how the process starts.

 

[Ishan]

I don't think any atheist say that there is no possibility of there being superior life in the universe. In fact I think most will agree that it's highly probable.

As I said I think of myself as agnostic if I'm mislabel myself as I've mentioned to an earlier poster I'm perfectly find being labelled atheist I was just going by my interpretation of it and I'm okay with either label doesn't bother me either way .

 

[Melkezadek]

As I said I think of myself as agnostic if I'm mislabel myself as I've mentioned to an earlier poster I'm perfectly find being labelled atheist I was just going by my interpretation of it and I'm okay with either label doesn't bother me either way .

I think you're confused here, honestly. When talking about atheism, we aren't talking about life more intelligent than ourselves. We're talking about the idea of a superior being being the creator of the universe and center of morality.

 

[Yoshi]

Let me get this straight you just got into a complete recursive argument about axioms ? You want to prove completeness about any system you run into wanting further axioms . Then you keep wanting more . Are we going to have a logical or even mathematical discussion on this set of ever increasing epaxioms you describe ?

If you want to, we may. But in principle, yes, this is what Gödel has proven, that in order to be able to prove or disprove any expression in one (sufficiently large) axiom system, you will need to build one on top and then, inductively, you run into the same problem with that system.

 

[Ishan]

If you want to, we may. But in principle, yes, this is what Gödel has proven, that in order to be able to prove or disprove any expression in one (sufficiently large) axiom system, you will need to build one on top and then, inductively, you run into the same problem with that system.

And yes that leads to the question of infinity then you get into countable then you get into the whole mess of cardinal numbers .

 

[Ishan]

I think you're confused here, honestly. When talking about atheism, we aren't talking about life more intelligent than ourselves. We're talking about the idea of a superior being being the creator of the universe and center of morality.

As I've said morality I don't so if don't believe in a superior being deciding if I'm right or wrong I don't . Creator of universe possibly . Multiverse maybe not . Extend to further abstractions who knows . That's my opinion as I've said I'm okay with either label as long as my view is clear .


Edit just to be clear is a higher being possible yes . Is the higher being concerned about my morality probably not , do I care either way not really . Do I disavow such a thing is possible however unlikely no .

 

[rambis]

Well, yes. Because Zuckerbergs statement is pretty vague and leaves things open for interpretation.

Its not vague at all.

He posted a Christmas message, prompting someone to ask: "Aren't you an atheist?"
Mr Zuckerberg replied: "No. I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important".

"Are you atheist?"

"No."

Whats the vague part? Why do I need to know that people can be atheists and celebrate Christmas?

 

[Melkezadek]

As I've said morality I don't so if don't believe in a superior being deciding if I'm right or wrong I don't . Creator of universe possibly . Multiverse maybe not . Extend to further abstractions who knows . That's my opinion as I've said I'm okay with either label as long as my view is clear .


Edit just to be clear is a higher being possible yes . Is the higher being concerned about my morality probably not , do I care either way not really . Do I disavow such a thing is possible however unlikely no .

I think the idea of a multiverse is far more likely than the possibility of a creator. I don't see any evidence that suggests the universe needs a creator, given what we DO understand about the universe. When one invokes the possibility, it's usually coming from a place of scientific ignorance. That isn't an insult, mind you. When I was a believer, I didn't accept evolution because I didn't know anything about it. When I was a believer, I didn't accept the age of the Earth because I didn't understand carbon dating. I assumed there were no real answers to these questions because I didn't research enough to realize that much of this stuff has already been solved. It took me doing honest research to come to my current conclusions. Fear in coming to the realization that there was no evidence of a creator at all prevented me from doing honest research and I feel like it's the case for many. It's actually really scary. It turns your world completely upside down.

 

[Ishan]

I think the idea of a multiverse is far more likely than the possibility of a creator. I don't see any evidence that suggests the universe needs a creator, given what we DO understand about the universe. When one invokes the possibility, it's usually coming from a place of scientific ignorance. That isn't an insult, mind you. When I was a believer, I didn't accept evolution because I didn't know anything about it. When I was a believer, I didn't accept the age of the Earth because I didn't understand carbon dating. I assumed there were no real answers to these questions because I didn't research enough to realize that much of this stuff has already been solved. That doesn't mean we "have it all figured out".

I'm personally inclined towards eternal inflation and a multiverse but I'm not a physicist I stick to comp sci . I personally do find the new ideas on holographic universes very fascinating partly because they seem to formalise a link between information and physics which while I'm not in the complexity theory part of comp sci is very interesting to me shows the deep inter connection of various fields.


Edit and I personally don't either neither have I ever believed in a creator ... As I said I'm open to a creator to one abstraction while unlikely an "overall" creator seems unreasonable to me but as I said I'm open to it just consider it highly highly unlikely am open to it tho .


Edit2 have you seen the world science festival videos on YouTube on these new advances very fascinating to me as a non physicist .

 

[boiled goose]

I'm personally inclined towards eternal inflation and a multiverse but I'm not a physicist I stick to comp sci . I personally do find the new ideas on holographic universes very fascinating partly because they seem to formalise a link between information and physics which while I'm not in the complexity theory part of comp sci is very interesting to me shows the deep inter connection of various fields.


Edit and I personally don't either neither have I ever believed in a creator ... As I said I'm open to a creator to one abstraction while unlikely an "overall" creator seems unreasonable to me but as I said I'm open to it just consider it highly highly unlikely am open to it tho .


Edit2 have you seen the world science festival videos on YouTube on these new advances very fascinating to me as a non physicist .

Creator as origins is the laziest, silliest none explanation ever. It's both a special pleading and argument from ignorance fallacy. It violates occams razor. It has tons of unexplained and unaccounted for baggage. Intelligence? Non physical? Intention?? It's just answering a question with a bigger less well explained mystery.

It's worse than just saying magic!

It's own premise also makes it completely self refuting. "Everything that exists needs a creator". Take that to its logical conclusion....

 

[Not]

He's basically akin to a President now.

He has to be a cipher, a symbol to drape over the dumb masses

 

[Bookoo]

I didn't know atheists weren't allowed to give holiday greetings and/or even celebrate holiday traditions.

I'm atheist, but I would probably celebrate Christmas traditions with my kids.

 

[Airola]

Well, yes. Because Zuckerbergs statement is pretty vague and leaves things open for interpretation.

Let's assume you are an atheist.
If someone asks you "aren't you an atheist", could you reply to him "no"?
If you would reply "no", would that be a vague reply? Would that mean something other than no?

Because that's what Mark replied.

There are two possibilities.
1. Mark lied. He said "no" even though is still is an atheist.
2. Mark told the truth, which would mean he isn't an atheist.

In both cases it's not a vague reply. It's very straight and it is either a lie or it isn't a lie.

 

[boiled goose]

Let's assume you are an atheist.
If someone asks you "aren't you an atheist", could you reply to him "no"?
If you would reply "no", would that be a vague reply? Would that mean something other than no?

Because that's what Mark replied.

There are two possibilities.
1. Mark lied. He said "no" even though is still is an atheist.
2. Mark told the truth, which would mean he isn't an atheist.

In both cases it's not a vague reply. It's very straight and it is either a lie or it isn't a lie.

Already been addressed. It's vague because atheist is a frequently misused label that people used differently and has stigmas.

He didn't say: i believe god exists. He gave vague answers about his upbringing and importance of religion.

 

[Wollan]

This whole story is very interesting.

Zuckerburg is visiting all 50 states before end of the year: http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/5/14175706/mark-zuckerberg-road-trip-challenge-politics

#Zuckerburg2024 ?

The worlds youngest billionaire.
Founder of the worlds biggest platform with over 1.2 billion members.
Software engineer.

That's a very strong ticket.

 

[Astral Dog]

Christmas has not been strictly Christian since quite a few years ;-)

 

[BKK]

How can you "no longer" be an atheist. What an idiot, unless there's been some recent scientific evidence which which showed that there might be a god.

 

[Airola]

Already been addressed. It's vague because atheist is a frequently misused label that people used differently and has stigmas.

He didn't say: i believe god exists. He gave vague answers about his upbringing and importance of religion.

He didn't say "i believe god exists" but he did say "no" when asked if he's an atheist. That means he doesn't believe god doesn't exist. He could be an agnostic or whatever else, but the question here is if he is atheist or not. And he said he is not.

Why on earth there is such a big need to twist that answer into something else?

It's two letters. N and O. That answer is right there. It might be a lie too, of course. But it's not a vague answer. Just because he says another sentence after the "no" doesn't mean you can make that "no" to mean whatever you want.

 

[Wollan]

How can you "no longer" be an atheist. What an idiot, unless there's been some recent scientific evidence which which showed that there might be a god.

It's political. You can't run in the US without it.
He might be the Trojan horse to undo it though!

 

[BKK]

It's political. You can't run in the US without it.
He might be the Trojan horse to undo it though!

I think so, Americans are lunatics when it comes to religion .... a bit like Islamist nutters.

 

[NastyBook]

I think so, Americans are lunatics when it comes to religion .... a bit like Islamist nutters.

Quoting this for maximum stupidity.

 

[BKK]

Quoting this for maximum stupidity.

Please do, let's call a spade a spade.

 

[Adam_Vania]

i was raised atheist, my parents ex-Catholic boomers into rock n roll and alt art. my mom went to school w Devo, had Subgenius books and underground comics (+ Bowie) around when i was a kid. i went to preschool at a Southern Baptist church but we never went to churches and used to talk about philosophy, Alan Watts, Zen, string theory, and all kinds of stuff, so i was raised to be inquisitive.

i was baptized Southern Baptist by extended family but only lasted a day in Sunday School when i was really into drawing monsters and decided to draw a demon. lol ive never been back to any church function that wasn't a funeral/wedding/just wanting to visit a church at random. i like to see different religious places. i have been to a number of Hindu madirs that were all quite unique experiences.

ive gone from not believing in any of the Bible (sins/judgement seemed like this weird arbitrary ruleset, God was awkwardly defined and weirdly limited, the texts had no answers only questions) to somehow finding my way back to religion via art history interests in Ancient Egypt, Greek, medieval, Renaissance, Classical High Art, etc. but it was mostly a surface interest, i was much the lolzy atheist i was in HS. in college i got in w the art crowd and thru them hipster film stuff like The Holy Mountain, Kenneth Anger, Maya Deren, etc which is very much mystical/occult in nature, one of my friends was into occult studies told me about The Secret Doctrine and Crowleyism for the first time. thru that i was kinda introduced to the New Age stuff and found the 60s/70s cult revival tracing its roots to all these "estoeric" readings of the original Bible stuff i always that was phony to begin with. felt pretty ironic. the OTO and Golden Dawn and those guys have a rep as frauds but they have translated some very old and very genuine magical texts that are physically in museums. maybe they weren't written by Noah himself but some crazy mystic in the 14th century but imo that's just as good maybe even more illuminating and revealing of religion as an evolving and continually growing thing. anyways i was amused to find demonology is rooted in quite orthodox Christian cosmology and that all the summoning and invocation and "black magic" i was told to fear by the Reagan 80s Silent Majority society that raised me was kind of Jungian experiments in cryptology, theoretical physics and linguistics, all sort of these Zen koan-like mind exercises to get people to think about God in these expansive ways. many atheists - i was one - know the Biblical God that is featured in cartoons as an old man w a beard on clouds etc and roughly based on artwork by the decadent last remnants of The Holy Roman Empire. maybe He can be that. supposedly He appeared as a burning bush to Moses, who he had just performed 10 miracles for and freed the Jewish slaves in Egypt. revealing his true nature was not possible, and this is stated repeatedly in the Bible, which makes it highly ironic when people think the Bible is a document to be read literally. He has quite the reputation of being bipolar in the OT. thing is, the OT taught to mainstream Christianity is an often misinformed Cliff Notes version of the OT as written in original Hebrew, which has words that have multiple meanings, and can in fact expand fractal-like into entire new sentences based on the numeric and contextual value of certain elements. imo a God should be able to do anything a human can do or conceive of, being the source of a human, so many questions that people use to "debunk" a God don't really apply. if a human can think of something God can't do, then God really isn't all-powerful, and couldn't be the source of that thought in the first place. could God lift a rock he was too powerful to lift? in that famous question's case i would say he can embody the entire Schroedinger's paradox, including not lifting it, lifting it, doing both at once, doing neither, every conceivable thing. this is a more transcendental idea of God, a more Eastern one, something that made me sense to me when i learned about Hinduism, Buddhism, and polytheism, that there is a great unseen mover that created us, that it may or may not have personal characteristics, that perhaps the physical avatars we may celebrate on earth are a 3D stand-in for an NthD abstract and incomprehensible force. many religious people have argued in fact against a personal God but in favor of a depersonalized void/energy field/state of being/etc. this sort of blurs the line between science and religion already blurred by having The Big Bang (a priest's idea) accepted as scientific consensus.

ultimately its up to people to treat each other right. what matters is not what you believe. an intolerant/ignorant atheist is as useful as an intolerant/ignorant zealot. i'm glad i continue to read about this stuff and the question of do i believe is less and less relevant. imo that is a loaded question that encouraged close-mindedness, a narrowing of definitions, and resorting to stereotypes. celebrate knowledge and keep an open mind to everything.