Hey I’m an atheist and I love your stuff. I have to say, I’m still not convinced. I find the point that “authors are the gods of their world” similar to the watchmaker argument. Ie ‘the world is very complicated, like a story, so it must also have a creator’. Also I was disappointed when the only contradiction representation was omniscience. I think that the problem of evil is a much stronger and much more relevant example.
Thanks for the kind words. My point about "authors are the gods of their own worlds" was *not* that stories are complicated and are best explained by minds and since our world is complicated it's also best described by a mind. That was *not* what I was getting at. I was trying to show that godless worlds are inconceivable. Any world that you conceive of has a god and that god is you. Even if you think you have imagined a world that has no god, you are failing to take yourself into consideration. All you've done was slap a false label on that "godless world". The constituents and events of any world that you conceive of are the direct manifestation of your intellect. I also talked about supposed contradictions regard omnipotence in this video. The Problem Of Evil provides no justification for even doubting the existence of a god like the Christian God. ua-cam.com/video/FZmT5oJ-h08/v-deo.html Anyway, thanks again for the comment.
@@northeastchristianapologet1133thx for responding. My final thoughts are just that the way ontological theists describe possible worlds rubs me wrong. ‘All the possible worlds you could imagine have a god’ feels like it makes your imagination physical. Like, I would say that Sherlock Holmes has hands. He has that attribute, but I don’t think that he exists or materially has hands. In the same way I don’t see how these descriptions of god cross from imaginary to material.
@@beckhamjenkins4798 It’s just an illustration of how God relates to the physical world. The material stuff around us seems very “real” to us because we are inhabitants of the physical world and God wants it to be real to us. But on Christian theism, the physical world is just a manifestation of God’s intellect. If I imagine a world like the Harry Potter universe then everything about that world will seem very “real” to Harry Potter. Unless it was my will for him to think otherwise. That Harry-Potter-universe is a manifestation of my intellect but how I relate to that world is just an illustration or approximation of how God relates to our world. Nothing is more “real” than God.
If God is defined as the greatest conceivable being, and if me conceiving of a world without God, makes me the God of that world. Doesn't that mean that I am the greatest conceivable being, or are you using different definitions there?
I was using small “g” god in those illustrations. I’m saying that you’re the god of any world you conceive because anything about that world is the direct result of your will.
Hey I’m an atheist and I love your stuff. I have to say, I’m still not convinced. I find the point that “authors are the gods of their world” similar to the watchmaker argument. Ie ‘the world is very complicated, like a story, so it must also have a creator’. Also I was disappointed when the only contradiction representation was omniscience. I think that the problem of evil is a much stronger and much more relevant example.
Thanks for the kind words.
My point about "authors are the gods of their own worlds" was *not* that stories are complicated and are best explained by minds and since our world is complicated it's also best described by a mind. That was *not* what I was getting at. I was trying to show that godless worlds are inconceivable. Any world that you conceive of has a god and that god is you. Even if you think you have imagined a world that has no god, you are failing to take yourself into consideration. All you've done was slap a false label on that "godless world". The constituents and events of any world that you conceive of are the direct manifestation of your intellect.
I also talked about supposed contradictions regard omnipotence in this video.
The Problem Of Evil provides no justification for even doubting the existence of a god like the Christian God.
ua-cam.com/video/FZmT5oJ-h08/v-deo.html
Anyway, thanks again for the comment.
@@northeastchristianapologet1133thx for responding. My final thoughts are just that the way ontological theists describe possible worlds rubs me wrong. ‘All the possible worlds you could imagine have a god’ feels like it makes your imagination physical. Like, I would say that Sherlock Holmes has hands. He has that attribute, but I don’t think that he exists or materially has hands. In the same way I don’t see how these descriptions of god cross from imaginary to material.
@@beckhamjenkins4798 It’s just an illustration of how God relates to the physical world. The material stuff around us seems very “real” to us because we are inhabitants of the physical world and God wants it to be real to us. But on Christian theism, the physical world is just a manifestation of God’s intellect. If I imagine a world like the Harry Potter universe then everything about that world will seem very “real” to Harry Potter. Unless it was my will for him to think otherwise. That Harry-Potter-universe is a manifestation of my intellect but how I relate to that world is just an illustration or approximation of how God relates to our world. Nothing is more “real” than God.
If God is defined as the greatest conceivable being, and if me conceiving of a world without God, makes me the God of that world.
Doesn't that mean that I am the greatest conceivable being, or are you using different definitions there?
I was using small “g” god in those illustrations. I’m saying that you’re the god of any world you conceive because anything about that world is the direct result of your will.
As an igtheist I don't see any reason to accept that definition of God.
So, do you think this concept is inconceivable?