God and existence

Setanta:



Kind of strange coming from someone who loves to trivialize the beliefs of theists ("imaginary friend", etc.)

Because i describe someone's belief in that which they cannot demonstrate as an "imaginary friend" simply means i have no reason to believe your "friend" exists. I've read far too much history to trivialize the horrendous damage that organized religion has always done to human society. That's a big chip you've got on your shoulder.

Setanta,

You say you've spent too much time in discussion regarding the excistence of a God to even consider said existence unless someone offers you proof. I doubt any theïst will ever be able to provide any, and this is probably the reason why they call it 'believe' in the first place.
But, I have to wonder, why do you even participate in this thread? Not that I mind, on the contrary, yet your reason, if I have to go by the arguments you listed so far, quite frankly eludes me.

Even if the slate of Christianity were crystal clear, I'd still not want to trivialize these questions, because they have the capacity to undermine the foundation of a person's believes. I am fond of discussions for their own sake alone(mental masturbation indeed) but I will not engage in any with people who place high personal value on the topic discussed.
Rhetorics was the verb I was looking for indeed, but I think it's a tool rather then a means in itself. I would never want to trivialize the significance of these types of questions, all the more because I keep on struggling with them myself over the years.

It seems to me, Setanta, you want there to be clarity. Before we can argue about the existence of God/atoms/potatoeheads, we need to have a common definition of said God/atoms/potatoheads, so we start without any chance of miscomprehension or miscommunication.
The definition of a God would of course be more logical and perhaps slightly more valuable if it came from a theïst, since the theïst believes in a God. However, the atheïst can be challenged by asking 'when you considered the existence of a God, before you rejected the idea of his/her existence, what was your working definition of what such a God would entail?' It's true I suggested that someone tries to convince another their starting position is wrong, but that can work both ways. Since it would be your claim that there is no good reason to believe there is/are any God(s), you must also be able to provide good reasons why you believe so yourself.

At least it would force atheïsts to cede some ground in order to form a foundation for a meaningful discussion. There are many out there who don't come further then: "There ain't no God, I don't believe in one, and if you do, you'd better gimme good proof." or somesuch hollow phrases.

Naj

Did you mean believed? Mr Setanta is quite capable of answering this point himself but I would just say that before one can ask for a definition of something one used to believe in, it presupposes one used to believe. Its like asking a Muslim what image he had of Father Christmas as a kid.

Actually, i did not say what you allege i've said. I've said that i would at the least need a definition of god, if not actual proof. If somone provides a sufficiently plausible definition of god, i'd be willing to discuss it. However, the essence of the ineffable is "undicussable," and it is unlikely that any definition which is not subject to proof would be worth discussing, because of a priori assumptions. So, i don't categorically state that i need proof, but just that it is unlikely that i'd see any point in a discussion absent proof--and that is not the same position as you state i hold.

Technically, many people would say that i am agnostic. But i point out that as i have no reason to believe in a deity, i'm an atheist to the extent that i am without god. However, i'm not an "ideological atheist"--i don't deny god, i just don't accept it.

Good point, Steve. I was never a convinced theist. For me as a child, the concept of god was received, not innate. (Many ideological atheists have justifiably pointed out that children need to be taught about god--they do not necessary come equipped with the belief.) As i grew older, and more critical, i simply rejected the concept which had been foisted on me.

small brown dog him speak heap big sense

I'm sorry guys, I can't seem to form coherent sentences atm. due to a rather brutal headache.

Let's just say that an atheïst, who doesn't believe in the existence of god, should have some idea of what a god is. Otherwise, how could he deny it's existence?
I'm sorry of I misinterpreted what you wrote, Set. I am not a native english speaker, and you don't write the most simple posts.

Naj

Your English is quite good, Naj, so don't denigrate yourself. I submit to you that all atheists do not necessarily deny that there is a god, although the most common definition holds that to be true. Many who think as i do simply do not accept a contention for a diety, because not plausible definition has been advanced.

Which is the point of this whole train of discussion, beginning with Steve's resonsable request for a definition.

Naj:




exactly.

Most think of "god" as the one described in the bible, and the various rhetoric by the christian community.

Yeah. Even when I was religious, I find that my view of God is kinda different from the bible's.

Thank you snood

As for seeing a 'god' as the God from the bible, on't forget that most people know only that beliefsystem they were reared in. That's part of the reason for the (in my eyes unjustified) Islam hysteria nowadays.

Naj

Wow, Ive never seen so much argument over something so little. (Define god). Its funny as how Snood got set upon by stating the following:
.
My understanding is that god is an "omnipotent being". If anyone get us to define 'being' then thats just sad.

I'm absolutely outraged at this very thread. How dare you? How dare you make a thread like this? It is an insult, I tell you. It is an offensive insult and you know why?

You forgot to include a "Maybe" option.

Maybe he does exist. Maybe he doesn't. I don't know. There's certainly not enough evidence to suggest one option or the other.

All the palaver taken aside (and as much of it is self-serving, it ought to be taken aside) Steve's question continues to be both appropriate and à propos--without a definition of god, how is anyone supposed to give a reasonable answer. I submit that no two believers in a god believe exactly the same thing about that deity--so how can you expect others to understand and provide a rational answer? Naj has offered the simple minded contention that to deny god means that one has a notion of something which they are denying--fair enough, but this ignores that those who deny might well be responding to a concept of god which has been proposed to them.

It further ignores that there are many who don't believe in any god, but don't deny it either. In such a case, Naj's simple-minded retort is meaningless.

I propose that nobody really believes in God. They only believe in their personal ideal concept of a God.

If the real God were to come down and lay the law, and if the real God were to differ from their personal ideal, they would claim that God is not theirs despite having worshipped him for as long as they can remember.

As a simple fellow, simple solutions come easiest to me.
Basically, then, Setanta, I take it you feel that by denying the existence of a god, one need not bother to have a concept of what a god entails. Only in discussions regarding this issue would a definition of a god be required, in which case the atheist can and should ask for a definition of a god from the person the discussion has been started with. Then, having a mutual image of what a god should entail, can one discuss its possible existence.
Fine. There is absolutely merit in what you say, I won't deny it. I don't believe it has to hold necessarily myself, which I explained in my previous posts. Be that as it may, we are now discussing the groundwork on which a valid discussion regarding the topic of this thread can be held.
This is leading us nowhere, as my apparently simpleminded post & your reaction towards it have shown, so I'd like to ask the author of the thread, moogly-bear, to give the requested definition.

Naj.

Naj, showing an stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge what i've written, stated:



No, i have made no such contention. I have pointed out repeatedly that i don't deny that a god exists. I have pointed out repeatedly that Steve's question, asking for a definition of god before providing an answer, is a reasonable question. You are the one who keeps harping on those who deny that a god exists. You also continue to ignore the pointed objection that if there were three billion believers in god, there might well be three billion definitions of god.

I don't deny that a god exists. I have pointed out carefully that i am a functional atheist, in that, having no reason to believe that there is a god, i am without one, and therefore, atheist. I don't deny that a god exists, i just have no reason to believe that a god exists. Those two positions are not identical. Your arguments are meaningless in such a context.

Yes, you are right. You did state this several times. Apparently, I have some huge blind spots when it comes to interpreting the posts of others. Not a good sign indeed. Thank you for being so patient.
Lets wait for that definition.

Naj