Why believe in god? The theist perspective.

We start first with working to concur you and me, on the concept of God, namely, that God in concept is the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Dear readers here, notice that atheists will not concur on the concept of God, because from that concept of God we can together the atheists and me, go forth into the realm of existence to search for the presence of God, in concept as the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Sit back and wait with bated breath, they will say something like this:

"You are already presuming the existence of God by presenting your concept of God."

Or like this [which is the same]:

"Your concept of God is circular talking."

Anyway, dear readers here, let us wait to read the replies of atheists to my posting, which is into asking them to produce their concept of God, or work with me as to concur on a concept of God we both they atheists and me, agree to concur on, for the sake of talking about the same thing.

Otherwise, that is irrational on their part; because I have a concept and they don't, so they are talking without any concept at all of the thing I am talking about: that is irrational nay crazy from their part.

Or again that shows that atheists are always into evasiveness and they do not have the skill and habit of good thinking at all.

Anyway, dear readers, let us just sit back and await with bated breath to read their replies.

I believe in an uncaused first cause. That said because I abore the ideia of an infinite regression of causes my idea of a "God" is very very impersonal and unconventional. More, with some nuance, an infinite set of quantities is irrelevant when we NEED a finite ser of qualities to live in a Universe that makes sense. Repeated patterns are not a propper infinity!

Dear Fil Albuquerque, thanks for your reply, but you have not presented your concept of God, you just tell readers here, that "my idea of a 'God" is very very impersonal and unconventional.'"

You see, we humans are the entities talking about what is God and whether He exists, so please give your concept of God in relation to us.

Try to think of what a concept of God you will entertain, by comparing it, for example, with what I have for a concept of God, as follows:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

You see, dear Fil Albuquerque, I will not bother with any God at all, Who has done nothing marvelously impressive in regard to us mankind.

There is no logical reason to believe in G-d. Either you believe or you do not. All attempts to justify belief start and end with some form of "I believe".

There is no reason to justify belief in G-d to others. It is personal and need only be justified to ones self.

Dear kk4mds, please present your concept of God, from your very own self personal thinking, grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence - no quoting of outside resources, but all from your very own self personally thought out concept of God.

Here is again my concept of God:

"In concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

Dear readers, when men want to talk intelligently and thus productively, instead of going into evasion, and muddling up of the issue, and also bad faith nonsense verbiage, which are all indications of fake intellectual charlatanism, you demand that they define their concepts of the most crucially involved terms of an issue, like in the present context, the term: 'God'.

Krumple wrote


I agree. Anybody who demands 'facts and logic' in the case a hypothetical omnipotent entity is already locked into a naive idea of a socially (linguistically) independent 'reality' which tautologically produces the 'God' concept as a bi-product. At the expense of boring previous readers, I repeat, the word 'fact' originates from the Latin facere 'to make'. In short, facts boil down to useful contextual social constructions with negotiable and potentially transient lives. And 'logic' is an intellectual exercise which merely operates on those facts which are taken to be axiomatic.

Dear Fresco, you are scared to death i.e. non-existence and thus you are into evasiveness as always and everywhere with atheists, when the issue is God exists or not.

Produce your very own self thought out concept of what is God, or go away and never more talk about God not existing: because you are scared to death i.e. non-existence, for you know that when you have a valid concept of God and you have a concept of existence* you will inevitably come to the presence of God point blank face to face.

So, I will repeat for your shame as to move you to come forth with your concept of God this quote from my preceding post:

"Dear readers, when men want to talk intelligently and thus productively, instead of going into evasion, and muddling up of the issue, and also bad faith nonsense verbiage, which are all indications of fake intellectual charlatanism, you demand that they define their concepts of the most crucially involved terms of an issue, like in the present context, the term: 'God'."

Annex:
My concept of God: "In concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

I'd comment, but I'm so scared of this joker's imaginary friend, that I'm trembling and can hardly type.

Wrong! Like all concepts the meaning of the words 'existence' and 'reality' is confined to their utility. Thus for a believer . 'God' is a useful concept and hence 'exists' as a meaningful communicative token. But equally for an atheist the God concept is useless and hence talk of 'existence' is meaningless.
You don't understand the shallowness of your position which already assumes that concepts are independent of the human minds and language which creates them.

BTW The concepts of 'beginning' and 'cause' are equally embedded in their human contextual utility. They have little currency in the context of physics other than selectively perhaps in the now disputed 'Big Bang' model. The believer's final refuge in the face of this tends to be to brandish their catch-all clause that 'human minds are in the gift of the Deity'. But I suggest we can dispense with that insult to humanity here!

your are looking for truths, facts, and logic, when my post started with "There is no logical reason to believe in G-d."

Genesis starts with "In the beginning, G-d..... There is no introduction or explanation as to His nature or His beginning. In fact, there is no evidence as to whether or not He exists. Either you believe or you do not.

Yes, G-d is the creator. Other than that, we only know that He teaches us to be righteous.

Dear atheists here, blah, blah, blah nth times blah blah blah...

Just produce from your very own self thought out concepts of what is existence and what is God: no blah blah blah blah nth times blah blah blah...

Even though just your assumption of what is your assumed concepts of existence and God, but please no evasiveness and muddled up thinking with blah blah blah blah nth times blah blah blah nth times blah blah blah...

Oh yes!...Lets have a bit of repetitive chanting ! You could always try a bit of swaying and breast beating to enhance the experience !

See? You are not connected but stubbornly into evasiveness.

I ask you to produce your concept of God and also if you care your concept of what is existence.

Even just your assumption of what is your assumed concept of God and your assumed concept of existence.

Go away and save readers time and trouble to read your nothingness message.

This has got to be one of the most blatant example of cognitive dissonance we've had here. It even makes JTT/Camlok look rational . . . well, maybe that's going too far. Asking atheists for their concept of god . . . ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Setanta, in a race with farmerman, Olivier, and numerous other A2Kers, the champs when it comes to cognitive dissonance.

Seismic signals say you all are stunningly gullible, but we already knew that.

Somehow A2k seems to be a catch-all for the mentally ill. (of course I exclude myself)

Okay, here's my take on the word 'God':
A parochially aquired psychologocal palliative with connections to a picture of an all embracing caring yet strict parent who protects 'his children' specifically against fear of death or more generally against 'the void of insignificance'. There is a tendency for c0-believers to return to mentally 'his' embrace and communally bask together enhanced by a bit of ritual joint reinforcement. However, contrary to their altruistic hopes, such parochial communal basking often tends to reify that natural trait we appear to have inherited from other primates of prejudice against 'others', and allows the parochial in-group act in with 'divine authority' in their own interests, including securing their place in 'the next life'.
Simpletons connect the hope of a 'prime mover' to the word 'God' but more sophisticated believers who understand the futility of that infinite regress fall back on an 'accounting for morality' position.
Like all human concepts from 'rocks' to 'electrons' denoted by the use of persistent words , shallow thinkers tend to think that those words refer to persistent 'objects' independent of the shifting human contexts in which the words were coined and are differentially utilised, rather than for co-ordinating aspects of human prediction and control. The word 'God' is a prime example of such naive realism because the attribute of 'eternal' pushes its 'persistence' to the limit. Note too the association of uttering 'the name of God' with 'magical power' from the OT.

My take on the word 'existence'.
A word used by naive realists to denote their assumption of their separation as 'subjects' from an external world of 'objects' both of which persist in their own right.
But a word use by pragmatists to denote those concepts which have persistent utility in particular social contexts. For example 'phlogiston' existed (had value) in the context of earlier science but has now been discarded from scientific contexts. From the pragmatists viewpoint, 'thinghood' and 'thingers' are inseparable and embedded in the context of social interaction whose uniquely human currency is words[/i.]