[Anselm]That God truly exists

I am in total agreement about believing in such creatures, I only spoke of their potentiality though, not that it is rational to believe them. In fact, I have absolutely no idea why you introduced the concept of believing something being logical, when I have claimed that it is not(by the way, logical and rational are not synonymous, I am very formalist when I discuss something being logical, i.e. it must be a deduction derived from rigorous applications of formal logic, hence your inductive explanation of not believing in god is not logical, maybe rational but not logical) I think the problem is precision of terms and sloppy argumentation. Your initial comment about being agnostic to unicorns made me think that you had little understanding about such an assertion, i.e. that it is somehow logically sound to refute the existence of (or conversely assert the existence of) a unicorn and that an agnostic empirical approach is irrational. You have made it more clear that this is not the case, but the way you word all of your arguments makes me think you are coming at something from an explicitly wrong way. It seems to be the case that it is only the wording that is making me think this, at least in most cases, so I suppose we aren't arguing about anything but: what is a clear exposition of an argument.

There are two forms of theism; monotheism and polytheism, and I am opposed to both for logical reasons.

Let's imagine for a second that I don't use the word theism. What about my argument against those attributes is illogical?

You are really testing my patience. The bible authors adopted most of their myths from earlier myths from the Middle East, and Egypt. Therefore, they are not the true originators of these myths, but adopters, and therefore, they could have believed these myths to be literal truths. These were very ancient, intellectually primitive men who believed in many things that we find unbelievable. We take the fact that we know where rain and lightening comes from for granted - lol.

Even if the authors were aware that what they were authoring were myths, they didn't seem to intend for the people to think so. Evidence for the fact that the followers of Judeo-Christian mythology, have since its inception, believed that the bible stories were literal, historical truths is undeniable.

'"Not all theists believe that God literally has the following attributes: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and benevolence."

Let's imagine for a second that I don't use the word theism. What about my argument against those attributes is illogical?'

He isn't saying anything about your refutation of that specific set of attributes he is saying that that specific set of attributes being logically unsound has no bearing on the logical validity of atheism over theism.

I'm sorry if some of my arguments were "sloppy", but I clarified it for you more than twice. I was not saying that the terms logical and rational/reasonable are synonymous, but they do overlap at times, and I still think that you got my point.

My argument against theism (the belief in a deity) was a logical argument, but it was not an empiricist or positivist argument, and maybe that's where you got confused. Maybe you thought that I was arguing against theism or the existence of deities from a positivist point of view, but I wasn't.

I can however give a positivist reason not to believe in deities or mythical creatures. There is no empirical evidence to support the existence of a deity, anymore than there is evidence to support the existence of unicorns, and these statements are infallible, so one cannot come to a positive conclusion regarding their existence, and therefore there is no sound reason to believe that they exist. Do you agree or disagree?

Didymos Thomas, are you saying that atheism is not logically valid at all, or are you saying that atheism is not logically valid over theism? Do you think that theism is logically valid over atheism, or do you think that both positions are logically valid?

(these questions are for Didymos Thomas, not Zetetic)

I can tell you again that for whatever reason either I am not properly getting my points across to you or you are misreading what I am writing just by looking at your comments. I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that it is logical/rational to believe in X whatever X may be, positivist, empiricist or misapplied logical tautology. I said that it is however, illogical to deny the potential existence of X. Two words which are different: Potential, actual. I think I know exactly what sentences of mine you are misreading to get to this point. When I say that it is not logical to not accept a possibility, I am not somehow implying that it is logical to believe an actuality. You need to understand this distinction, and how clear cut I view it to be. Also, I do not think that rationality and logic intersect at all. I see logic formally, as I said. It is a system of deduction, it can be rational to apply logic and rational to draw a conclusion, but it is not logical to apply logic, logic is separate from intent, it is just form. This is how I view logic. Here is my definition of it in the dictionary: logic - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Pure logic? In that case, agnosticism carries the day. Though, if we account for experience (empirical knowledge), then both atheism and theism are equally valid.

If we're going by experience (empirical knowledge) then how is theism valid? I take empiricism one step further with positivism.

So according to you, it is not logical to disbelieve in the existence of Zeus?

That's fine: but you have not presented a logical argument against manifestations of theism which fit your definition.

No glaring illogical argument: except that you argue against those attributes in a way that many theists do not identify - you are using a different understanding of descriptions of God which is alien to the understanding of many theists.

Your arguments rely on the assumption that descriptions of God are literally: most theologians reject literal descriptions of God.

I'm not sure why I'm getting on your nerves: all I'm doing is responding to your posts. If what I write comes off as personal, I'm sorry.

Now, as for the authors of the Bible: most Biblical myths are remarkably original. All mythology utilizes previous mythology, but this does not mean that the authors of the Bible are not the people who wrote the myths. For example: Dante relied on preexisting mythology, and yet he is the true originator of the Divine Comedy.

I'm going to ignore the baseless accusations about the intellectual capability of humans two thousand years ago - I guess Aristotle, Archimedes, Confucius, the architects who built the Pyramids, I guess all of those cats were intellectually primitive.

Considering that the history of theology suggests that religious scholars have almost unanimously, until modern times, read Old and New Testament scripture figuratively, I'd say the most likely truth is that the authors of the Bible were aware that the stories were not literally true.



Except that that is no evidence for your conclusion. If you check up on the history, you will find that literal readings of the Bible are modern developments and that theologians have always, and almost universally, asserted that scripture is figurative and allegorical.

Positivism also suggests that we derive that knowledge, not just from sense experience, but with the scientific method.

Experience of God.



Depends. The ancient Greeks were remarkable in that they seem to have typically literally believed their mythologies. If that is the case then belief in Zeus, a magical man living on top of Mt. Olympus, is not only illogical but demonstrably false.

"Experience of God"

No offense, but I am starting to take you less seriously as we continue. We do not have physical experiences with any Gods, and anyone who claims to have physical experiences with God can never prove it. If reading an ancient book and listening to your priest is experiencing God then you have a low standard for experience.

How is it logical to believe in the existence of Zeus?

Unless I'm wrong, positivism is the philosophy that regards 'real' knowledge as knowledge based on sensory experience. If anything, positivists are closer to theists in this regard. I mean, you can't really dispute someone else's experience, now can you? Therefore, the theist's experience with "God", regardless of notion, would be considered authentic.

Hue-man, I have the feeling you may be leaning to a more scientific definition of empirical. Maybe along the lines of empirical research or data produced through fixed experiments? Then again, if you're going 'one step further' with positivism, you're going one step closer to theism, not any logical progression.

Many theists do not identify with those attributes? Are you serious? The bible itself attributes these characteristics to God. Now theologians are saying "don't take it literal" because it is incompatible with modern advances in knowledge? You speak of theologians like they are objective scholars. Theology is the study of God or the Gods from a religious perspective. Religious studies is objective, but theology is certainly not. I have not met a theist or heard of a theologian who has said that their God was not all-knowing, all-powerful, and benevolent. After all, if God didn't possess these attributes why would he be worth worshiping?

So orthodox Jews and the first Christians weren't disputing over the divinity and literal interpretation of Jesus Christ? Really, so you just somehow exclude that important detail? You also exclude the fact that the Catholic Church believed that the bible was the literal word of God so strongly that they made blasphemy laws, authorized the persecution of Jews during the Middle Ages, used elements of the Noah's ark story to justify the African slave trade, put Galileo on trial for making a statement that they believed was in disagreement with the bible's view of the physics of the Earth, etc. etc.?

So the Catholic church no longer believes that Jesus was born of a virgin and walked on water?

By writing this you did not ignore my statement. I was talking about the bible authors, not Aristotle, Confucius, or the damn architects who built the pyramids. I admit that the word intellect may have been the wrong word to use, but I wouldn't say that the bible authors were great philosophers or intellectuals like Aristotle and Socrates. They were primitive in terms of their scope of knowledge, and ethics.

"Experience of God"

No offense, but I am starting to take you less seriously as we continue. We do not have physical experiences with any Gods, and anyone who claims to have physical experiences with God can never prove it. If reading an ancient book and listening to your priest is experiencing God then you have a low standard for experience.

How is it logical to believe in the existence of Zeus?

Since when do experiences have to be physical? I don't quite see how you can justifiably say another has a low standard for experience. Just because it may not carry a logical progression found in a scientific method, it appears less valid to you. Why?

It appears less valid to me because it is an argument used to try and support the existence of God. Singing in a church and quoting bible passages only means that you've experienced the idea of God, not the existence of God.

Some translations have "creation" rather than creature. In any case, the passage is referring to us: mankind.