God and existence

Before anyone can answer the question does God exist, you have to define what you mean by God.

Do that satisfactorily, and I'll give you a definitive answer.

Why the stupid emoticon? Steve's question is completely reasonable.

If you think so, answer it.

As i have never had any good reason to believe that there is a god, i would not be able to explain to him the nature of that which i haven't any reason to think exists. His question was posed to a theist. If any theist wishes to have their assertion about the existence of a deity to be accepted, they have the burden of proving the existence of said deity. Steve reasonably reserved comment until a definition of said diety were forthcoming. That is a pre-eminently reasonable position for him to take.

I disagree that only a theist can produce a definition of "God", and I disagree that the question was clearly asked only for a theist to answer. The reason I didn't offer whatever rudimentary description I might've mustered is twofold - first, because steve put the qualifier "satisfactorily" in his question. It seemed a prime way to just go round and round about the definition, and never get to an answer for the question the original post of the thread asked. Second, because I don't hold much to whatever anyone else thinks about whether there is a God or not, so that tapdancing before even offering one's opinion just seems pompous and contrived to me. It's just a frikkin opinion - why not just give it, and go on?

Why should anyone be bound by your conditions for offering an opinion? The titular question is whether or not there is a god. It is entirely possible that Moogly Bear is not a theist, so it is not reasonable for me to posit that Steve is asking a question of a theist. However, the titular question is begged if one does not have a statement of what a god is. In the circumstance, it is quite reasonable for Steve not to wish to be drawn into begging the question. If one asserts, as you have, that it's "just a friggin' opinion," one surrenders to the meaningless of two people saying: "Yes, there is a god!"--when one means the flying spaghetti monster and the other means the Destroyer of the Old Testament.

Failing to provide a description of "god" while demanding an answer is classic petitio principi--it is begging the question.

Ah, but why could the flying spaghetti monster not be the destroyer of the old testament Setanta? I have made my opinion in this matter clear, but, since it's you that phrases this question (gosh, I'm starting to sound like a fan), i'll respond.
I am pretty sure it's nigh impossible to define (which also adds boundaries to a term, after all, as in saying what it is not) that which is by it's very nature above and beyond human understanding. To define God, then, would be to define infinity, at least for me. Both concepts have me boggled, and both are used a lot on a day to day basis by numerous people.
Since no clear definition of God exists, chances are great that any two people talking about a God are 'miscommunicating' , in so far that they do not share the exact same image of what God would entail. One may, indeed, feel God is a flying spaghetti monster.

Naj.

Excellent--in that case, you have provided a definition, at least to the extent that you inferentially claim that god is the essence of the ineffable. You have, therefore, answered Steve's question. He would be in a position, at least with regard to your definition of god, to agree or disagree.

There is a thread by Coberst entitled Understanding by Social Osmosis. In that thread, Coberst asked if people examine their beliefs. I responded that, in my experience, both anecdotal and in my reading of history (a broader form of anecdotal evidence), people commonly hold their beliefs unexamined, and assume that others believe as they do themselves. There is a wonderful irony in Steve's question, as i would assert (and feel justified in doing so) that this conundrum was at the root of his question--to wit, that there are as many definitions of god as there are those who hold that a god exists.

snood wrote:
I disagree that only a theist can produce a definition of "God", and I disagree that the question was clearly asked only for a theist to answer.

Wrong! When one believes there is a god, it's up to them to show proof of their god. Others do not give a shet about the existence of god, because there is no proof. Trying to put the burden on nonbelievers of the existence of god is a foolish one with no logic.

Wrong? What's wrong? This thread asks whether or not we think God exists. Steve said he will answer if he gets a definition of God. Why can't a nontheist give a definition of God? there are plenty of things I think are foolish or poppycock, but that I can give a textbook definition for. No one's putting any burden of proof on anyone. I think the problem is that no one has anything to ridicule if a nontheist gives a definition.

I think the distinction is the weight one puts on the proposition of 'god'

An atheists reply here is meaningless as far as serious conversation goes as he would not believe such a thing as god exists in the first place!

Only the theist, who believes god to be real is in a position to try to explain their beliefs about said entity, if any meaningful dialog is to arise from it.

The unfortunate thing about it is very very few (if any) theists are able to define their own beliefs.

But this discussion is not exclusive of those who simply don't know, or have not formed an opinion on the existence or non-existence of God. I think it's crazy to say that only those who believe in God can produce a working definition of god. and that's all that was asked for.

Ok then.
God is a cheesypoof.
Let the meaningful dialog begin!

Hmm? In a debate, any party can take any point. It's actually a pretty good technique to defend something you oppose, and gradually chop down the foundation under your own structure.
Anyways, an atheist can VERY WELL, posit an argument a theist has given for the existence of God, then post the reasons why (s)he feels that argument is not valid, and challenge any theist to speak against him/her.

If you say an atheist cannot give an argument for the existence of God, does that not imply it's not possible in your reason for an atheist to become a theist, or vice versa?

I think it all hinges on the term 'meaningful dialog'. For me, any discussion/dialogue/debate which forces me to think about an issue and take several different POV's into consideration is meaningful.
What is yours?

Naj.

Well yes, anyone can define the terms of 'god' then proceed to argue the pro or the con.

However, it all seems like mental masterbation if nobody seriously accepts the possibility of said god being actual, don't you think?

Might as well be discussing what unicorns like best to eat.

Quote:
Might as well be discussing what unicorns like best to eat.

_________________

Now, that has some possibilities.

Say I do believe. As a theist, then, going in debate with an atheïst, what we want to do is convince the other they are wrong in their starting position. You can argue from your own point of view, or from the opposite side of the fence, and show why it's wrong. Both are valid ways to tackle an issue.
Granted, most people don't change their points of view based on a mere debate/discussion, but if one gains deeper understanding, which should reasonably be the case if all parties involved try to reasonably insert their points of view, it's hardly only a form of mental masturbation.

najmelliw:



Outstanding. The essence of useful exchange of thought.

Naj proposes:



There is a term for being able to argue a point of view which one does not necessarily hold, and that term is sophistry. You're taking simply a rhetorical view of the question. But the faithful don't consider their faith to be either rhetorical, or any less well-founded than any other point of view.

However, when it comes to issues such as religious belief, which have an unfortunate history of leading to the deaths of literally millions of people, i think sophistry simply for rhetorical purposes trivializes the significance of the issue.

You suggest that someone might wish to convince another that s/he is wrong in their starting position. My starting position is that there is no good reason to believe that there are any gods. Therefore, it is incumbent upon any theist wishing to convince me otherwise must offer compelling reason to believe. That means at the least a working definition of "god," if not actual proof (and any joker who hopes to convince me must move directly to proof, or they lose my interest, guaranteed). This particular line of discussion began with Steve asking for a definition of god prior to his offering his opinion. I continue to consider that a pre-eminently reasonable question--how is one to say unless one knows what any theist means by "god?"