Atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods, but theists possibly can KNOW there is a GOD.

What do you see as defective in my reasoning here, Frank...or do you just like to second insults?

Sorry you won't read this...or that you will pretend not to have read it, Edgar...

...but you are so quick to feel insulted.

If we only knew what we were discussing.

This is for anyone willing:
Is there a definition of 'god' which cannot also be construed to include Blue Fairies?

Atheists absolutely cannot know there are none, gods, if they aren't informed as to what gods are or aren't. So.

And this:
If "theists possibly can know there is a GOD(sic)", can they also know what stones, trees, waters and humans are holy?

If they can know that, are they then entitled to protect those stones, trees, waters and humans against any person's derogatory remarks or actions?
~
If enough people to come into my backyard to see the Blue Fairy sitting on the Holy Cinderblock, how many puppets would she have to make into real boys before we get tax exempt status?

Joe(Commemorative gifts are available from the trunk of my car.)Nation

I think you know what is being discussed, Joe Nation.

You just can't think of a reasonable argument in refutation of the proposition: Atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods.

You also seem to be having trouble with the proposition: Theists possibly can KNOW there is a GOD.

Why don't you try discussing that instead of using the evasion of "we need a definition of god."

There is absolutely no way any atheists can KNOW there are no gods.

If there are certain gods you are certain do not exist...mention them--I will consider your reasons and perhaps we can eliminate them from this discussion.

But have enough personal dignity not to go into the "blue fairy" or "unicorn" nonsense.

Just discuss what is being discussed.

Are you in disagreement with either of the two propositions?

Those questions were addressed to anyone who was willing to answer them.
If that's not you, so be it.

Joe(Maybe atheists cannot be told)Nation

My questions were addressed to you.

If you are unwilling to answer them, so be it.

I asked you first, you said that wasn't the way it worked.

I understand if you can't answer the question "What is a god?"
Maybe someone else can.

It's a legitimate question, one that is at the heart of what you are trying to say and the consequences of what I take as its meaning.

I'm hoping someone will come forward.

Joe(though I don't have eternity to wait)Nation

Actually it used to be a brutal life for the religious before religious freedom was enacted, I don't know if it still is. I have heard of this guy (St. Tarcisius) protecting a few thin wafer bread (body of Christ) until he quickly ate it and was martyred for it. All he had to do was give it up to the assaulting fanatics who wanted to desecrate the wafer bread.

Joe Nation wrote:





Fact is he does not need a definition of "GOD" or "gods" to understand the proposition I am proposing here any more than I need a definition of "question" or "consequences" to understand what he is saying in response.

His tactic is an evasion...not an especially good one, but an evasion, nonetheless.

I guess the charitable thing for me to do is to allow him to play this farce to the hilt without unnecessarily calling him further on it...

...and I will.

For now, I'll just enjoy the performance...even laugh at it...here in my den.

Ok I'll come to your defense Frank APisa.

So if there is a God, the simplest definition that seems to work is:

God: (n) A being than which none greater can be conceived.

I appreciate the thought, Val, but no need to come to my defense. I am not under siege from anyone here.




Thank you, Anselm of Canterbury. Of course that is a definition. So is the definition of a god given in the Bible--the god of Abraham.

Joe Nation is not truly looking for definitions of god...or he would be giving them and shooting them down. He is stalling...and diverting.

An atheist cannot logically say he/she KNOWS that the god of the Bible does not exist. At best, he/she could call into question the accuracy or logic of the description.

But thanks for trying.

I was joking around, but with the sincere intention of giving this thread momentum.

God: (n) A being than which none greater can be conceived.
You meant to say ..that which... right?
God:(n) a being that which none greater can be conceived.
No good,
No good, because Frank's statement is
"Atheists Atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods, but theists possibly can KNOW there is a GOD."
Your definition would limit Frank to only one god and we cannot compel him to do that. Unless he wants to..... .

"a being"? Um, no. that would imply a natural physicality wouldn't it, rather than a deity?
We are discussing the supernatural, right?
Otherwise the "god" would just be the toughest dog in this junkyard.

...'greater than' is a bit mushy too. Isn't it?

Joe(so far all you've is someone who can whip up on the blue fairies )Nation

It is "than" rather than "that," due to comparative reasons.
And I think there can be a general concept of such a being rather than the toughest dog in this junkyard

Let me give you a good example.
No finite mind, like ours, can have a complete understanding of a natural number that is the largest, however, we have a general concept of numbers and infinity to helps us understand that such a number exists. If a concept of something is coherent, even if there is only a minimum level of understanding about the concept, it is sufficient enough to make a definition. Therefore, the definition can hold with a limited understanding on the concept of God’s maximal greatness in all his properties.

I appreciate the joke...and I like the fact that you gave one possible description of a god.

It is going to go nowhere, because a "stall" will never allow for that to happen.

God: (n) A being than which none greater can be conceived.
I think it's 'than' rather than 'that' due its age, the language may have changed a bit since Anselm was writing. Whatever.

So, what about the "gods" problem? There are more than one, according to Frank, that atheists cannot know whether they exist.
This is fun. Do you think I'm stalling? I think I am trying to learn.

Um. Question: How did we get to KNOW (I think that's how you are supposed to type that word in this thread.) all the properties of this "being than which none greater can be conceived?" Did we look around and say" It's taller, wider, wetter, drier (no, wait, that would be a paradox) erm, smarter, most loving, able to smite really, really well and well, you get the general concept,...... we still would end up with just the idea of a being.

I adored Sherlock Holmes, but I bet I can't visit either his address on Baker Street nor his grave.
You can conceive what a god might be, but, unless you are a better conjurer than the rest, it won't make that being become something we can know exists, except in our imaginations.

I appreciate your input, Vall.

Joe(i know nothing)Nation

I like Anselm's definition though if there was a God. This definition does not require a religion, and a particular type of vengeful God. This God has all quantities of good to maximal level (so not a God of contradictions as you suggested). A God that is empathetic and will forgive your unethical behavior if you regret it and try to make up for it, although you'll miserably fail at times, a God who is fair to everyone no matter what religion or no religion (atheism) they profess. A God who will forgive a human's ignorance on subject matters and the humans who act on such ignorance with justification.

The more and more years pass by, the more and more I think about death and after life, and the more and more I hope if there is a God, that the God is an empathetic one.

This definition understands the limits of our thinking. We humans boast of our intelligence, but even the most intelligent mind won't able to comprehend entirely a a being of the proportions of a deity of maximal greatness. My closest analogy would be trying to fit the whole ocean inside a swimming pool.

Man can only guess until death, after death can he truly know, or at least I hope.

Afterlife and soul.... a mystery.....similar to the subject of God.
All three matters interconnected.

<sigh> <a nice sigh, not an irritated one>
Well, if there are any gods that atheists know do not exist it's the one you just described. It sure doesn't fit the narrative from the Torah of Abraham, that burning bush-mountain dweller was forever smiting both the his enemies (kind of odd for a god, ya know?) and the pathetic Israelites.
(How many times between Genesis and Chronicles did they did get their butts whipped? A bunch.)
To say nothing about it drowning all humankind except for Noah and his folks. Whew.

I am trying to think of a religion which has a non-judgmental god. Maybe Henry met him at Walden Pond, but not at the nearby Congregationalist steepled building.

There are many of my friends who have given up, as I have, on the idea that a god or gods exist, they like the idea that that whole universe has a consciousnesses, a being. It's a nice thought, but I see the Universe as it is, a blind, deaf, speechless, unfeeling, unthinking space where we see, hear, speak, feel and think. And how do I fit in? My closest analogy would be the reality that I am one infinitesimally small being on this pale blue dot,


a fact with which I am completely at peace.

As for death, it doesn't matter, didn't I say I was completely at peace?

Joe(Thanks for listening, I hope I listened as well.)Nation

Nonsense!

At best, you can say you think or guess that kind of god does not exist.



I have lots of theist friends...and they all seem to be "completely at peace." In fact, give 'em a chance...and they will bore you to death about how completely at peace they are...and about how their "belief" in a GOD is an essential part of the reason they are.

I do not have the slightest idea of the true nature of the REALITY of existence...I do not know if gods exist or if there are no gods--and I will not insult myself by pretending there are logical reasons for including them or ruling them out.

And I am pretty much at peace...although when I miss a putt of less than three feet, most people would not be able to tell.



I'm gonna die soon...we all are. I do not have to make guesses that a GOD exists or that gods do not exist to make me "at peace" or to make me recognize that impending death without undue apprehension.

I do suspect this will be a better world when people get off the nonsense that they KNOW there is a GOD or KNOW there are no gods...so I attempt to promote that idea.

I acknowledge that the people who are stuck in guess mode are not especially receptive.

Yes. I probably do get some joy out of agreeing with an 'insult' I find amusing. Nothing personal and probably not a positive trait of mine.

I think that all these gyrations you seem to enjoy have nothing to do with god or no god, rather you like to see how twisted you can make the logic and find out if you can catch someone up in it.

This all may be appropriate for a second level college class in logic, but it's kind of tiring here.

If you are really trying to find an answer here, I don't think this is the way. You either chose to believe something that cannot be proven or you don't. That's the faith part. I don't find fault with those that have it, it seems to provide some comfort and satisfaction. I'll admit I don't like it when they try to apply that faith to others (me). I don't find fault with those that don't, I tend to agree with their 'logic'. I don't like it when they act superior and belittle those that do believe.

I don't think you are after an 'answer'. I think you just enjoy the logical arguments.