[Anselm]That God truly exists

@Zetherin,

zetherin,

Taking your viewpoint "prove" to me Timbuktu exists

And if we dismiss God as a silly delusion, can you accept that somewhere out in the vastness of the universe are life forms so superior and advanced relative to we humans , that they might not even consider us as intelligent sentient beings.

But Tinker Bell does exists in a way, as a thought or "meme" of the creator of these stories. Likewise who knows we might just be a thought in the mind of some colossal entity

If they were to visit us Ahh!! there are gods in our midst. :perplexed:

(of course highly advanced being are too intelligent to visit earth) :sarcastic:

Alan

3 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

I think it to be the case that at best god could be shown to be unprovable, though I doubt that very much. As god is such a slippery idea, it would be impossible to reach a consensus by any definition.

Alan, I think that Zetherin was simply saying that if you wish to ponder the nature of philosophy, that is to consider metaphilosophy, such a topic belongs in the forum on metaphilosophy. I don't see how that quote pertains to the issue at hand and originality is not the point. You are free to write as you wish, of course.

I actually have an essay to post here as well, more a collection of thoughts really;

1)If the mind is only a physical macrostructure and thus bound by not only its input data but the same as its input data in nature, then any conception of god cannot relate to god anymore than god relates to the physical universe as the thought is only manifest as a result of the mechanics of the mind organizing data relating solely to the physical universe(for if there were a schism between that which comprises the mind and that which it experiences there would necessarily be a medium of interaction which is not perceived, but rather an aspect of perception, thus discluded from any contemplation of a higher being).

As the mind is solely physical, so is the perception of god, thus any perception of god is incomplete if we are to consider god to be a non physical entity. Since any definition is going to necessarily be incomplete a fortiori, any consideration of said definition, logical or otherwise, will be inconclusive as to the nature of god. At best we could hope to consider an interaction, as this would indicate a medium by which a non physical being could interact with a physical one. The problem with such a medium is that it should be physical in its interactions with man, thus indistinguishable from a natural phenomena and within the realm of scientific inquiry.

I would deduce that it is necessarily the case that the only realm of interaction between god and man could be mental. If the mind is not solely physical, as is conjectured by the Cartesian dualists, it would necessarily be the medium of interaction between something metaphysical and something physical. As the mind's rational lens will always fail to entirely turn on itself, we can only speculate as to the possibility. Science has in some sapects recognized possible psychological limitations caused by perspective. When we attempt to measure that which we are measuring with,e.g. particle collision, e.g. human psychology we hit an area of potential inaccuracy and bias. In particle physics we try to compensate by a posteriori approximations and logical systems with insufficient evidence outside of their mathematical soundness. So to is and conjecture of the nature of reality an approximation, we do not know that the mind is solely physical. If we define the physical to be that which can be measured, then it certainly is up in the air as to whether the mind fits into this parameter. I think that the appropriate bounds should be the ones which cut off that which cannot be measured, which cannot be put into concrete terms.

Wittgenstein spoke most clearly of mysticism in the Tractatus:

"6.432
How the world is, is completely indifferent for what is higher. God does not reveal himself in the world.

6.4321
The facts all be long only to the task, and not to its performance.

6.44
Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.

6.45
The contemplation of the world as a sub specie aeterni(from the viewpoint of eternity) is its contemplation as a limited whole.

The feeling of the world as a limited whole is the mystical feeling."
The numbers indicate the importance of each part with respect to the last, so 6.4321 is a sub proposition of 6.432. 6.44 and 6.45 are sub propositions of 6.4 which is a subpropositon of 6. which gives the general form of the truth function. You can view his dense logical reasoning in this section of the Tractatus. It is essentially an exposition on basic model theory applied to arithmetic and used to generalize the logic of propositions. It is one hell of a book and I would recommend it to everyone, even if no one understands it fully. A few pages are used to say a great deal.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Interesting conversation guys. Keep it up.

I've been busy with family events recently, hence my absence, but I think I should go back a few pages and make one last note regarding th Merton passage: Merton is not trying to prove God's existence. Merton was something of a mystic, and from what I can tell, he would suggest that believing in God is not a matter of logical proof but a matter of experience. In that same book Faith and Violence Merton discusses atheism and even says that an atheists may very well be closer to God than many theists given the fact that so many theists tend towards idolatry. One of the book's chapters is "Thich Nhat Hanh is My Brother" - and Buddhists are atheists.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

zetherin,

Taking your viewpoint "prove" to me Timbuktu exists

And if we dismiss God as a silly delusion, can you accept that somewhere out in the vastness of the universe are life forms so superior and advanced relative to we humans , that they might not even consider us as intelligent sentient beings.

But Tinker Bell does exists in a way, as a thought or "meme" of the creator of these stories. Likewise who knows we might just be a thought in the mind of some colossal entity

If they were to visit us Ahh!! there are gods in our midst. :perplexed:

(of course highly advanced being are too intelligent to visit earth) :sarcastic:

Alan

Proving Timbuktu exists is just the same as Mickey Mouse; cities don't inherently exist, nor do countries, governments, etc., etc. These notions exist to us, as we are the gods constructing. "God" attaches with it profound meaning, bred by our emotions and ego. Saying "God" is the universe, is just as much saying timbuktu is the universe - two concepts we have defined, can never be *proven*, but do exist to us. The only difference than the word I just made up, "Zetherinism", and "city", is that more people agree "city" exists. And of course, no one would say the city Timbuktu is the universe as it isn't plagued by the mystical preconceived notion "God" is. I know I may not be making clear here, but I'm trying my best to articulate this thought.

I truly hope one day that a species greater than us WILL come visit; this will help do exactly what I'm saying. It will place us in a neutral context, force us to humble, and with it the provide the understanding that we are unique but not special.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I truly hope one day that a species greater than us WILL come visit; this will help do exactly what I'm saying. It will place us in a neutral context, force us to humble, and with it the provide the understanding that we are unique but not special.

Isn't this exactly what religion at it's best does?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Interesting conversation guys. Keep it up.

I've been busy with family events recently, hence my absence, but I think I should go back a few pages and make one last note regarding th Merton passage: Merton is not trying to prove God's existence. Merton was something of a mystic, and from what I can tell, he would suggest that believing in God is not a matter of logical proof but a matter of experience. In that same book Faith and Violence Merton discusses atheism and even says that an atheists may very well be closer to God than many theists given the fact that so many theists tend towards idolatry. One of the book's chapters is "Thich Nhat Hanh is My Brother" - and Buddhists are atheists.

It seems to me that atheists and theists as actually quite similar from a certain perspective; one believes in "God", the other denounces "God", but both share the meme of "God" existing, creating separateness! Atheism and theism are just further concepts dividing humanity as I see it.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Atheism and theism divide humanity no more than musical preference or taste in food. It's excessive ego that pushes people to divide themselves based on religious belief, to believe that only one spiritual path is right and that the others are all wrong.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Isn't this exactly what religion at it's best does?

Many teachings may preach this, but the mere conjuration of the religion itself creates division. Many religious undertakings do advocate a stagnant mind, and there is still a disparity between "God" and "everything", even at the very end of the spectrum aseity, as I've described.

Again, the mere conjuration of yet another label, yet another elusive notion, concerning the meaning of our existence drives another stake into our hearts.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Atheism and theism divide humanity no more than musical preference or taste in food. It's excessive ego that pushes people to divide themselves based on religious belief, to believe that only one spiritual path is right and that the others are all wrong.

I would argue that that excessive ego is more readily shown through religion, as there is profound meaning attached to the notions. Food preference does not drive people to kill in the name of as often as religious undertakings have - tacos will not provide meaning to many, so instead they arm themselves with mystical, elusive notions. Religion itself, not the inherent teachings, appears to be very dangerous to those that attach this ego, and many do!

0 Replies

@Arjen,

So guys if I read you correctly it is all about subjective perception

Like when a person dies unseen and unperceived really is he really dead?

So if I stop perceiving existence, to my subjective reality so does everything else

Ego and time are the enemies of humanity (my quote)

Alan

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

So guys if I read you correctly it is all about subjective perception

Like when a person dies unseen and unperceived really is he really dead?

So if I stop perceiving existence, to my subjective reality so does everything else

Ego and time are the enemies of humanity (my quote)

Alan

"The strange reality is that we construct time internally, by taking sequential experiences and noticing that they are different. We thus, literally, create time internally, making it a unique experience for each of us. Yes, we can look at a watch, but time is still the collation of the sequential images of looking at the watch." - from a website I wander

But yes, you're correct, I am saying it's about subjective perception. Quantum thought will help advance us towards an understanding of time, I hope. Maybe even ways to alter it as we perceive.

I enjoy your quote, and I'd very much agree ego is a problem, but we cannot remove our ego entirely. Even as open-minded as I try to be, I'm only open-minded because that's the desire I have... it's the person I wish to be, it makes me feel good, emotionally, to consider things. I suffer from self-interest just the same, I just chose a different path. Not better. Different.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Well, either my posts are being ignored, no one understands them or no one can see them.

It is of course the case that atheism has the very same 'illogical' tendencies as religion if we assume one to be an atheist in the true sense of the word. The Richard Dawkins type is really an agnostic who thinks that religion is evil or damaging in and of itself rather than one who would deny the possibility of a god totally.

Richard Dawkins and his ilk are rather philosophically disinclined by my judgment, Bertrand Russell give a much more insightful, albeit flawed view. I feel that Wittgenstein speaks of religion and mysticism at the end of his Tractatus with unparalleled clarity and sublime understanding. I have not seen a better exposition. You can in fact actually read the text online at this address: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus I would suggest that to gain insight into this matter that one read the book.

ZETHERIN: I would agree with DT that the true value of religion, spirituality and mysticism is in fact to keep us humble. This aspect of religion is one that has a strong presence in much pure philosophy, especially existential philosophy. That science at best says how and never can explain why paired with the lack of absolutes and 'correct' purpose should be enough to make any man humble as it conclusively shows that there is no intrinsic value in specific achievements or actions. No action is necessarily any worse nor any better ,it is at best instinctually preferable to another.

Because this is the case, our position is akin to that of Sisyphus; we are doomed to perpetually push a rock up a hill, and we do so blind to our reality, striving for fulfillment by a sense of purpose which will not come. We strive and our toil is absurd and necessary. We all share this. This is where I feel that compassion stems from. This is where ego is potentially lost, if only for a moment.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Zetectec1135,

[QUOTE]1)If the mind is only a physical macrostructure and thus bound by not only its input data but the same as its input data in nature, then any conception of god cannot relate to god anymore than god relates to the physical universe as the thought is only manifest as a result of the mechanics of the mind organizing data relating solely to the physical universe(for if there were a schism between that which comprises the mind and that which it experiences there would necessarily be a medium of interaction which is not perceived, but rather an aspect of perception, thus discluded from any contemplation of a higher being).

As the mind is solely physical, so is the perception of god, thus any perception of god is incomplete if we are to consider god to be a non physical entity. Since any definition is going to necessarily be incomplete a fortiori, any consideration of said definition, logical or otherwise, will be inconclusive as to the nature of god. At best we could hope to consider an interaction, as this would indicate a medium by which a non physical being could interact with a physical one. The problem with such a medium is that it should be physical in its interactions with man, thus indistinguishable from a natural phenomena and within the realm of scientific inquiry.[/QUOTE]

We are not ignoring your post it is deep and profound, but unfortunately also a little ambiguous and hard to fathom.

I see the mind as nonphysical and the brain as the physical part of our thinking being. It is the mind that communicates with the greater non physical mind or God if you like

I see God as a sort of Super-consciousness of all thinking entities in the universe.

Quantum mechanics have found that all fundamental particles have a sort of non locality and entanglement.

Thus one particle seems to know what another particle separated from it by billions of light years at exactly the same moment, in disobedience to Einstein theory of relativity (of course no longer a theory but an accepted fact

This idea of a mind separate from the brain is given serious credence by many physicists today.

Alan

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Unfortunately, I have nothing more to contribute to this conversation. I'm going to read what Zetectec suggested, and further my thought.

Thanks for the conversation guys,

Z

0 Replies

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

Well, either my posts are being ignored, no one understands them or no one can see them.

It is of course the case that atheism has the very same 'illogical' tendencies as religion if we assume one to be an atheist in the true sense of the word. The Richard Dawkins type is really an agnostic who thinks that religion is evil or damaging in and of itself rather than one who would deny the possibility of a god totally.

Richard Dawkins and his ilk are rather philosophically disinclined by my judgment, Bertrand Russell give a much more insightful, albeit flawed view. I feel that Wittgenstein speaks of religion and mysticism at the end of his Tractatus with unparalleled clarity and sublime understanding. I have not seen a better exposition. You can in fact actually read the text online at this address: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus I would suggest that to gain insight into this matter that one read the book.

ZETHERIN: I would agree with DT that the true value of religion, spirituality and mysticism is in fact to keep us humble. This aspect of religion is one that has a strong presence in much pure philosophy, especially existential philosophy. That science at best says how and never can explain why paired with the lack of absolutes and 'correct' purpose should be enough to make any man humble as it conclusively shows that there is no intrinsic value in specific achievements or actions. No action is necessarily any worse nor any better ,it is at best instinctually preferable to another.

Because this is the case, our position is akin to that of Sisyphus; we are doomed to perpetually push a rock up a hill, and we do so blind to our reality, striving for fulfillment by a sense of purpose which will not come. We strive and our toil is absurd and necessary. We all share this. This is where I feel that compassion stems from. This is where ego is potentially lost, if only for a moment.

What are the illogical tendencies of atheism, and please name the specific brand? I am an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in any human conception of a personal God/creator of the universe. I am opposed to theism (belief in deities or personal Gods), which is why it's called A-theism. I also don't believe in any of the deistic or mystic concepts of God, and even if the deistic God did exist it would be inconsequential to the events in our lives.

My logic and observance of nature leads me to believe that there is no personal God (a supreme personal creator with the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and benevolence), and that even if there was a personal God with all of these attributes he would have to be a cruel son of a *****, and does not deserve to be worshiped!

Theistic agnosticism is irrational, because being a true agnostic to theism is the same as being an agnostic to imaginary friends or other mythological creatures. Being an agnostic to deism is another issue.

1 Reply

@hue-man,

There are at least two types of atheism: Strong and Weak

Strong atheism generally means that one doesn't believe in any god or is generally indifferent. Strong atheism denies the existence of god, that this is the same thing as denying the existence of a unicorn is of no consequence, both denials lack proof. Both denials presume to assert that there is some way to make an ontological deduction through speculation. You cannot say that X does not exist. You can show that by definition something cannot exist, but if there are multiple shifting definitions of X or X does not have a logical inconsistency in its definition, then there is no proof that can be written(any proofs are subject to uncertainty as well) that can refute the existence of a god. Hence "Theistic agnosticism is irrational, because being a true agnostic to theism is the same as being an agnostic to imaginary friends or other mythological creatures. Being an agnostic to deism is another issue." is not a sound deduction. You cannot be certain a unicorn does not exist. Take a look at how many brilliant ontological arguments took place over the existence or non existence of a unicorn. Quine had a very interesting piece titled "On what there is" I believe, which was devoted totaly to this sort of problem.

"My logic and observance of nature leads me to believe that there is no personal God"
Belief itself is necessarily illogical, as it does not rely on absolute proof. This is not necessarily negative, as nothing relevant has absolute proof. We rely on faith in everyday activities. Induction certainly is not proof, for observance is coincidental, that you see a pattern and deduce from it something says nothing about the future that is necessarily the case.

"and that even if there was a personal God with all of these attributes he would have to be a cruel son of a *****, and does not deserve to be worshiped!"

This has so many presumptions about the nature of god I don't know where to start. It is the most general, silly absurd refutation that I have ever seen, not to mention that ti is the most stereotypical one. You have your own definition of what god is that does not even necessarily coincide with anyone else's conception of god. That god is responsible for evil and good makes god a neutral implicitly. That god supposedly is the creator of everything and above human means implicitly that god is not an entity which necessarily is an any sense anthropomorphic i.e. god is not human and not subject to human attributes by definition. by the same token god is not necessarily bound by logic, by definition, so any proof of or against god is absurd as it assumes some aspect of the nature of god.

Finally:
"I also don't believe in any of the deistic or mystic concepts of God, and even if the deistic God did exist it would be inconsequential to the events in our lives."

This is the same sort of speculation on the nature of deities that the religious engage in. If that is not clear to you then I am not sure what to say here. You have asserted something about the nature of a deity, applying human conceptions to it and thereby making something that is necessarily consequential to our lives. That you could speak of it in any sense implies its potential interaction with us, so there is an embedded contradiction in that statement.

So, I hope that was specific enough, I'm sure you will make it apparent if there is anything you disagree with or don't understand completely. I think that you represent a good portion of the atheist community so I look forward to debating you. It will surely result in a mutual gaining of insight.

2 Replies

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

That god supposedly is the creator of everything and above human means implicitly that god is not an entity which necessarily is an any sense anthropomorphic i.e. god is not human and not subject to human attributes by definition. by the same token god is not necessarily bound by logic, by definition, so any proof of or against god is absurd as it assumes some aspect of the nature of god.

This is exactly how I feel regarding the matter. That is, we have constructed the very nature from which we then draw a conclusion about what "God" is. To draw any conclusion is absurd, as it predicates a flaw that philosophers centuries ago, such as Pyrrho, hinted at: Mortals suppose that "God" is born as themselves; they attach human foibles, and attempt to apply logical understanding. Additionally, many notions assume "God" constructs reality as we do, a culmination of sequential events, and then eventually judging (a human trait). It's just silly, really.

Both the theist and the atheist have determined their personal nature of "God", both implying an interaction with humans, both believing. It seems the only difference is one denies, and one accepts. And from my experience, the majority of self-proclaimed atheists suffer from the same lack of critical thought; they deny "God" because he hasn't 'helped' them! An application of the nature and then a judgment on the nature they've constructed! It's so insane, I sometimes want to take an icepick to my right eye!

Personally, this is why I'm more inclined to approach an understanding that the universe just is; we are the gods constructing - this is similar to Plato's theory on the physical realm and the ideal realm (the realm that is only intelligible by the intellect).

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

There are at least two types of atheism: Strong and Weak

Strong atheism generally means that one doesn't believe in any god or is generally indifferent. Strong atheism denies the existence of god, that this is the same thing as denying the existence of a unicorn is of no consequence, both denials lack proof. Both denials presume to assert that there is some way to make an ontological deduction through speculation. You cannot say that X does not exist. You can show that by definition something cannot exist, but if there are multiple shifting definitions of X or X does not have a logical inconsistency in its definition, then there is no proof that can be written(any proofs are subject to uncertainty as well) that can refute the existence of a god. Hence "Theistic agnosticism is irrational, because being a true agnostic to theism is the same as being an agnostic to imaginary friends or other mythological creatures. Being an agnostic to deism is another issue." is not a sound deduction. You cannot be certain a unicorn does not exist. Take a look at how many brilliant ontological arguments took place over the existence or non existence of a unicorn. Quine had a very interesting piece titled "On what there is" I believe, which was devoted totaly to this sort of problem.

"My logic and observance of nature leads me to believe that there is no personal God"
Belief itself is necessarily illogical, as it does not rely on absolute proof. This is not necessarily negative, as nothing relevant has absolute proof. We rely on faith in everyday activities. Induction certainly is not proof, for observance is coincidental, that you see a pattern and deduce from it something says nothing about the future that is necessarily the case.

"and that even if there was a personal God with all of these attributes he would have to be a cruel son of a *****, and does not deserve to be worshiped!"

This has so many presumptions about the nature of god I don't know where to start. It is the most general, silly absurd refutation that I have ever seen, not to mention that ti is the most stereotypical one. You have your own definition of what god is that does not even necessarily coincide with anyone else's conception of god. That god is responsible for evil and good makes god a neutral implicitly. That god supposedly is the creator of everything and above human means implicitly that god is not an entity which necessarily is an any sense anthropomorphic i.e. god is not human and not subject to human attributes by definition. by the same token god is not necessarily bound by logic, by definition, so any proof of or against god is absurd as it assumes some aspect of the nature of god.

Finally:
"I also don't believe in any of the deistic or mystic concepts of God, and even if the deistic God did exist it would be inconsequential to the events in our lives."

This is the same sort of speculation on the nature of deities that the religious engage in. If that is not clear to you then I am not sure what to say here. You have asserted something about the nature of a deity, applying human conceptions to it and thereby making something that is necessarily consequential to our lives. That you could speak of it in any sense implies its potential interaction with us, so there is an embedded contradiction in that statement.

So, I hope that was specific enough, I'm sure you will make it apparent if there is anything you disagree with or don't understand completely. I think that you represent a good portion of the atheist community so I look forward to debating you. It will surely result in a mutual gaining of insight.

Once again, I am an atheist, because I am opposed to the concept of theism. I did not come up with these attributes for God. These attributes of character were imagined way before I started sucking air. What I am doing is taking this conception of God and saying that it is incompatible with what we know about reality; in other words, I am stopping at the point where empiricism ends and using my reason to come to a conclusion, but the conclusion is not a positive one. I never claimed to disprove the existence of any deities, because you can't prove a negative. What I am saying is that I am as certain as I can be on this subject when I say that I don't believe that any man-made deities exist. I am not proposing to have scientific proof against the existence of deities. The statement for the existence of a deity is not falsifiable.

"Belief itself is necessarily illogical, as it does not rely on absolute proof. This is not necessarily negative, as nothing relevant has absolute proof. We rely on faith in everyday activities. Induction certainly is not proof, for observance is coincidental, that you see a pattern and deduce from it something says nothing about the future that is necessarily the case."

Belief is not necessarily illogical or unreasonable, but it's not positivistic. My statement against the existence of a personal God is more of a statement of disbelief rather than a belief in itself. If anything it is a belief in a paradoxical sense.

"This has so many presumptions about the nature of god I don't know where to start. It is the most general, silly absurd refutation that I have ever seen, not to mention that ti is the most stereotypical one. You have your own definition of what god is that does not even necessarily coincide with anyone else's conception of god. That god is responsible for evil and good makes god a neutral implicitly. That god supposedly is the creator of everything and above human means implicitly that god is not an entity which necessarily is an any sense anthropomorphic i.e. god is not human and not subject to human attributes by definition. by the same token god is not necessarily bound by logic, by definition, so any proof of or against god is absurd as it assumes some aspect of the nature of god."

I am not the one who is making the presumptions about God. I did not invent theism or any of the other conceptions of God. What I am doing is taking the tradition presumptions/conceptions of God and showing you why they are illogical and incompatible. If you refuse to understand that then you are being unreasonable and intellectually dishonest.

You say that my refutation is silly and absurd, but this refutation of the concept of God is much older than me. Have you ever heard of the problem of evil? The problem of evil is a legitimate argument when you are speaking of the theistic concept of God (an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, benevolent creator of the universe).

"This is the same sort of speculation on the nature of deities that the religious engage in. If that is not clear to you then I am not sure what to say here. You have asserted something about the nature of a deity, applying human conceptions to it and thereby making something that is necessarily consequential to our lives. That you could speak of it in any sense implies its potential interaction with us, so there is an embedded contradiction in that statement."

I believe we agree on more than we disagree on when it comes to this issue. Your misunderstanding seems to stem from the fact that you believe I am the one attributing these characteristics to the concept of God (a concept I don't even believe in mind you), and that is completely untrue. I am simply taking the traditional concept of a theistic God and saying that it is incompatible and illogical. You seem to have your own conception of God; what is it exactly?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

This is exactly how I feel regarding the matter. That is, we have constructed the very nature from which we then draw a conclusion about what "God" is. To draw any conclusion is absurd, as it predicates a flaw that philosophers centuries ago, such as Pyrrho, hinted at: Mortals suppose that "God" is born as themselves; they attach human foibles, and attempt to apply logical understanding. Additionally, many notions assume "God" constructs reality as we do, a culmination of sequential events, and then eventually judging (a human trait). It's just silly, really.

Both the theist and the atheist have determined their personal nature of "God", both implying an interaction with humans, both believing. It seems the only difference is one denies, and one accepts. And from my experience, the majority of self-proclaimed atheists suffer from the same lack of critical thought; they deny "God" because he hasn't 'helped' them! An application of the nature and then a judgment on the nature they've constructed! It's so insane, I sometimes want to take an icepick to my right eye!

Personally, this is why I'm more inclined to approach an understanding that the universe just is; we are the gods constructing - this is similar to Plato's theory on the physical realm and the ideal realm (the realm that is only intelligible by the intellect).

I don't know where to start here. We humans do not merely constructed the nature of what God is, but we also construct the word itself! The word God, unlike most of our words, is not a linguistic symbol for anything in the physical universe (phenomena or epiphenomena). The word itself is completely a result of our imagination. The way in which you use the word implies that you have a concept for it, no matter how vague it may be. If you don't have any conception for the word then the word is meaningless, and therefore should not be used.

"Both the theist and the atheist have determined their personal nature of "God", both implying an interaction with humans, both believing. It seems the only difference is one denies, and one accepts. And from my experience, the majority of self-proclaimed atheists suffer from the same lack of critical thought; they deny "God" because he hasn't 'helped' them!"

Atheists have not determined what the nature of God is. Theists are the ones who determine the nature of their deities. Atheism is simply a response to their claims. Atheism is, because it disagrees with the theistic conception, and atheists do not claim to have a conception of God, and would prefer that the word and the conception no longer be taken seriously, due to its supernatural, mystical, and ambiguously meaningless applications. Your presumption that atheists deny God because he hasn't helped them is ridiculous. You are making a very presumptuous generalization by saying that most atheists deny the concept of God because of personal suffering; but even if that were so, and it's not, that in no way invalidates their position.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

Once again, I am an atheist, because I am opposed to the concept of theism. I did not come up with these attributes for God. These attributes of character were imagined way before I started sucking air. What I am doing is taking this conception of God and saying that it is incompatible with what we know about reality; in other words, I am stopping at the point where empiricism ends and using my reason to come to a conclusion, but the conclusion is not a positive one. I never claimed to disprove the existence of any deities, because you can't prove a negative. What I am saying is that I am as certain as I can be on this subject when I say that I don't believe that any man-made deities exist. I am not proposing to have scientific proof against the existence of deities. The statement for the existence of a deity is not falsifiable.

"Belief itself is necessarily illogical, as it does not rely on absolute proof. This is not necessarily negative, as nothing relevant has absolute proof. We rely on faith in everyday activities. Induction certainly is not proof, for observance is coincidental, that you see a pattern and deduce from it something says nothing about the future that is necessarily the case."

hue-man wrote:

Belief is not necessarily illogical or unreasonable, but it's not positivistic. My statement against the existence of a personal God is more of a statement of disbelief rather than a belief in itself. If anything it is a belief in a paradoxical sense.

"This has so many presumptions about the nature of god I don't know where to start. It is the most general, silly absurd refutation that I have ever seen, not to mention that ti is the most stereotypical one. You have your own definition of what god is that does not even necessarily coincide with anyone else's conception of god. That god is responsible for evil and good makes god a neutral implicitly. That god supposedly is the creator of everything and above human means implicitly that god is not an entity which necessarily is an any sense anthropomorphic i.e. god is not human and not subject to human attributes by definition. by the same token god is not necessarily bound by logic, by definition, so any proof of or against god is absurd as it assumes some aspect of the nature of god."

hue-man wrote:

I am not the one who is making the presumptions about God. I did not invent theism or any of the other conceptions of God. What I am doing is taking the tradition presumptions/conceptions of God and showing you why they are illogical and incompatible. If you refuse to understand that then you are being unreasonable and intellectually dishonest.

"and that even if there was a personal God with all of these attributes he would have to be a cruel son of a *****, and does not deserve to be worshiped!"

You have assumed one specific view of god in saying that if he did exist, then he must have this human attribute. If this isn't assuming the nature of god, I don't know what is. Also, that the concept existed before you repeated it doesn't give it any credence. My point is that you are prejudging an entity whose existence is in question using nothing but popular conceptions of it. You haven't once cited a religious scholar and look at his/her conceptions, which will undoubtedly have much more sense to them that the common one.

hue-man wrote:

You say that my refutation is silly and absurd, but this refutation of the concept of God is much older than me. Have you ever heard of the problem of evil? The problem of evil is a legitimate argument when you are speaking of the theistic concept of God (an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, benevolent creator of the universe).

Again, this comes from a single concept of god, it is an old Arabic paradox which is sometimes explained away with free will. To say that god is necessarily evil is assuming that god has human flaws when god is defined to be flawless. To say that god is evil by necessity, in the way that you did, indicates that you have assumed gods nature to necessarily be your concept or concept X, so you have effectively made a judgment on

The problem here is that on other issues, people cite experts, you might cite Descartes for a concept of dualism or Kant for a concept of ethics, but few people cite modern religious scholars and rabbinical texts to understand the philosophy behind those who truly have faith. Even though I would consider myself a weak atheist, in that I refuse to speculate on the nature of anything which has not been established to exist outside of the mind, I would cite the experts rather than criticize the uneducated semi faithful in-it- to- save- their- own- superstitious- butts-more-often-than not crowd. You will find it quite a bit more difficult to dissemble a Rabbi's opinion than some fool-on-the-street's.

1 Reply

[Anselm]That God truly exists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know