God is defined, not described.
- Thread starter Ted Grant II
- Start date
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
What does he have to learn?
He enjoys what he does how cruel would it be to take it away.
If he needs a God let him have it ...
Just because I think he is wrong that does not mean I need to destroy his universe...without his god he may become a drunk or worse.
The key is for all engaging him is to accept you will not beat him at his game so know that and do not get frustrated when he slips away from a well baited trap.
The discussions are great let them continue ...forever.
Alex
My question will lead up to the answer.
Do you believe every thing you have written in response to me, in this thread?
That is how an atheist sees it, not a theist, and from that perspective, you are correct.
A "false belief" is a belief that is false. That is to say that the belief one holds is false. Most people don't believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that Paris is the capital city of France. They either know it, or, couldn't give a monkeys.
You're trying to say that everything we know, think we know, consider, are beliefs. That we only operate by believing, or not believing. This is simply not the case. To believe something, takes time, and effort.
False beliefs tend to take hold in children, because children do not have the experience of life, to compare their belief to reality.
Beliefs aren't something we choose, they occur over time, and experience. Our beliefs are evident through how we live, and express our lives. Beliefs are intrinsic to our lives. Even an experienced yogi, or meditator, who is skilled in controlling the mind, cannot operate without, or not have a belief.
So this example given by Sarkus, does not hold, because nobody believes or even needs to believe correct, or incorrect capital cities.
It is not a realistic statement. It may be logical, but it is pointless. It shows what you mean by God, not what I mean by God.
You are trying to control the meaning of God. You want God, as understood by you, to be the standard understanding.
That is, if there is no evidence for God, it stands to reason that it is possible that God may not exist. That is how an atheist looks at it. Because the atheists, by default, is a materialist, and cannot comprehend anything outside of that.
The reality is, there is nothing g in your world view that comes close to a theist understanding of God. But the theist has everything in his worldview, the atheist has. Which is why atheist, meaning "without God", is such a precise meaning.
Of course you're going to say something like, "but what if there is no God blah blah blah!
And so the debate goes on and on.
So to summarise. Your belief that theism could be a false belief, is logically correct from a materialistic perspective, but holding that perspective as the whole of reality, is a false belief. If that perspective isn't the whole of reality, and it is possible that there could be more, such as the theist perspective. It begs the question; why are you arguing against me.
You don't have to say it. "There is no God" is the underlying statement in what you say. It is the reason you say what you say. There is currently no other way for you to perceive the world, or express yourself. It is the biggest of all deals, regarding you. So your statement is meaningless.
How do you think it is possible that God could not exist?
God Is, and there is, without God.
What do you mean?
Atheist.
Are you saying you're not an atheist?
What do you mean?
I have defined God as "God Is". This means, before everything "God Is" and after everything "God Is". Everything we perceive, including our perceptive ability, occurs because of God Is.
Peter Pan is a character borne out of the mind of James Barrie.
How, within what I have written, have you come to the point of asking if they are ontologically the same?
I won't know until you produce the quote.
Have you been paying attention?
I don't see the point if you're not paying attention to what I write.
Jan.
I'm glad someone gets the point of a discussion board.
Interesting.
What situations are those?
You feel?
What a pity.
Jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Some situations?
I said approaches.
Without God of course.
I am not sure what you mean.
Not literally.
Alex
We can try relating, who is or possibly can be scientifically creater of universe. Anticipated: Prime force of all 4 forces or anyone of 4 forces or 4 forces or anticipated prime particle or anyone ou of 4 elementary particles or 4 elementary particles. I think, nothing beyond it can be thought. God: entity or concept? God: Prime & secondary? Secondary: secondary entity having properties alike or part of Prime God.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Because you cannot define God and that makes it impossible for anyone else to imagine or identify your God, and that includes other Theists.
And your conclusion that Atheists are concerned only with the material world is false. There are many atheist philosophers, which are not fundamentally materialistic but logical and I take defined logic over undefined belief any day.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Personally I agree with you. But that's not where the problem lies. The problem is that committed Believers believe that anyone who does not believe in their God are evil. Apostates who must be converted or face hell, either created by their God in the afterlife or by the believer as messengers of God's Will during life.
Jan Ardena:
If you're asking whether my posts reflect my beliefs about the matters I am discussing, the answer would be yes, except where I have explicitly flagged items as hypotheticals or as attempts to explain what I believe your beliefs are. I hope that I have been clear wherever I have not been representing my own beliefs.
As a general thing, unless there is a specific indication to the contrary, either explicitly or by the context in which a statement is made, it's fairly safe to assume that unqualified statements made by any member of sciforums can safely be premised by something like "In my opinion..." or "I believe it is the case that..."
If this is not true for you, please let me know and explain what you are doing when you write something like "Paris is the capital of France." If you think this is not about a belief you hold, you need to explain why.
And yes, belief is a necessary part of knowledge. Knowledge, as you have been told repeatedly, is generally regarded as true, justified, belief. You can have belief without knowledge, but you can't have knowledge without belief.
How many posts will it take for you to answer the question, do you think? Here is it again, in case you've forgotten:
When somebody says "I think that Paris is the capital of Spain", what are they expressing, if not their belief in the facts about Paris and Spain?
If you're asking me whether I have knowingly told you lies in my responses to you in this thread, the answer is: no, I have not.
If you're asking whether my posts reflect my beliefs about the matters I am discussing, the answer would be yes, except where I have explicitly flagged items as hypotheticals or as attempts to explain what I believe your beliefs are. I hope that I have been clear wherever I have not been representing my own beliefs.
As a general thing, unless there is a specific indication to the contrary, either explicitly or by the context in which a statement is made, it's fairly safe to assume that unqualified statements made by any member of sciforums can safely be premised by something like "In my opinion..." or "I believe it is the case that..."
If this is not true for you, please let me know and explain what you are doing when you write something like "Paris is the capital of France." If you think this is not about a belief you hold, you need to explain why.
It's a belief in something that is not true. Belief in a falsehood.
Correct.
What do they mean when they say "The sun will rise tomorrow", according to you? What is this, if not an expression of their belief?
You're conflating belief with knowledge. They are not the same thing. This is an ongoing problem for you that I exposed previously.
It (sometimes) takes time and effort to gather information, but to form a belief takes very little effort. It can be done in a fraction of a second, as I showed you with the example of the car keys. "Where did I put my keys? I must have put them on the kitchen bench." There, now I have a belief that took virtually no effort to form. It could be true or false. If it's false, then I hold a false belief about where the car keys are.
And yes, belief is a necessary part of knowledge. Knowledge, as you have been told repeatedly, is generally regarded as true, justified, belief. You can have belief without knowledge, but you can't have knowledge without belief.
They can, but that's just one example.
You're right that we do not consciously choose most of our beliefs. Our brains do the work for us, behind the scenes, gathering and collating information, then deciding on a best-guess interpretation of what the world is like (for us). Beliefs are subjective, but the information they are based on cannot be purely subjective if you want it to count as knowledge.
Some beliefs are more important to our sense of self than others. Whether my car keys are on the bench or on the bed isn't something that is likely to alter my outlook on life, most of the time. But it's still a belief.
Everything you think you know about anything is a belief you hold, including your beliefs in capital cities.
We're talking about the God who appears in the bible or the Qur'an, or whatever, are we not? I think I'm sufficiently across what that God is supposed to be. If there is no evidence for that God, then it does indeed stand to reason that it is possible that God doesn't exist.
Wrong. I understand completely your metaphysical notion of an invisible God who is everywhere at once, blah blah blah. I understand the God in your head, who is a character like Peter Pan. I appreciate that your God is non-material. There's no comprehension problem here.
Are theists just smarter than atheists? Is that what you're saying? You're somehow better equipped to understand the notion of God than I am? Why? Does your belief give you magical cognitive powers that I don't have access to?
(continued...)
I understand that you've been waffling along splitting hairs, trying to argue that if something is real in your mind then that is all that matters. I'm not interested in that. I take it as given that your belief in God makes god real in your mind. I want you to consider the possibility that God is not real outside your mind - i.e. that God is not real, objectively. You don't seem to be able to get your head around the idea. You shy away from it consistently.
If we go back a bit in the thread, one reason why I am arguing with you is because of your silly implication that atheists can't be atheist unless your God is real (i.e. objectively real). For that argument, the issue of God's objective reality is actually irrelevant, because atheism is a belief, not knowledge. But you continuously conflate belief with knowledge, in the same way that you conflate subjective and objective notions of reality.
How can you think you're so perfect that you can have zero doubt about God's existence? Who gave you perfect knowledge? What makes you so special?
Please confirm that you are not saying that there is a God and there isn't a God, simultaneously.
Or, if this is incorrect, please confirm that you are saying there is God and there isn't a God, simultaneously.
Move away from the mantra and state your position in unequivocal terms.
You don't say what it is about the way theists talk about God that gives you this theist spidey-sense you claim to have. It's all just vague hand-waving.
Be specific.
Do you accept that "true for you" is not the same as "true"? Yes or no? Can you even see a difference between those two things?
Whenever I ask you what you think, or when I ask you to elaborate on your own views, you deflect and ignore, and you start to tell me what you presume my position is. Have you no ability to reflect on the reasons you have for adopting one position over another?
It seems to me that this God is merely a synonym for "everything". That's a far cry from the God who cares about human beings, who answers prayers, who sent his son to die on the cross, etc. etc.
You say that Peter Pan does not exist like pots and pans. In the same way, God does not exist like pots and pans.
You say God Is. I suggest to you that it is equally correct to say Peter Pan Is. There is no ontological distinction between the two. They "exist" or have Is-ness in the same sense, as far as I can tell from what you have written. The only difference is in particulars of the fiction surrounding the two characters.
Is there any meaningful distinction in your mind between God and Peter Pan, in terms of their respective "reality"?
It is just as logically correct to consider the possibility that your non-material God is not real.
I understand that you've been waffling along splitting hairs, trying to argue that if something is real in your mind then that is all that matters. I'm not interested in that. I take it as given that your belief in God makes god real in your mind. I want you to consider the possibility that God is not real outside your mind - i.e. that God is not real, objectively. You don't seem to be able to get your head around the idea. You shy away from it consistently.
If we go back a bit in the thread, one reason why I am arguing with you is because of your silly implication that atheists can't be atheist unless your God is real (i.e. objectively real). For that argument, the issue of God's objective reality is actually irrelevant, because atheism is a belief, not knowledge. But you continuously conflate belief with knowledge, in the same way that you conflate subjective and objective notions of reality.
I make no claim that there is no God. I need you to accept the logical possibility that there is no God - objectively, not just "for you". The uphill battle here is to get you to understand the difference between your subjective belief and objective reality, and that's what I'm spending most of my time doing in this thread at this time.
It's obvious to any rational person.
How can you think you're so perfect that you can have zero doubt about God's existence? Who gave you perfect knowledge? What makes you so special?
More stonewalling. Here's what I wrote again:
Please confirm that you are not saying that there is a God and there isn't a God, simultaneously.
Or, if this is incorrect, please confirm that you are saying there is God and there isn't a God, simultaneously.
Move away from the mantra and state your position in unequivocal terms.
I mean what I wrote. You're being vague and unhelpful. You claim to be able to identify True Theists from "the way they talk about, and discuss, God". You claim you can distinguish these true theists from false theists like you say I was.
You don't say what it is about the way theists talk about God that gives you this theist spidey-sense you claim to have. It's all just vague hand-waving.
Be specific.
More stonewalling from you.
Do you accept that "true for you" is not the same as "true"? Yes or no? Can you even see a difference between those two things?
I mean what I wrote.
Whenever I ask you what you think, or when I ask you to elaborate on your own views, you deflect and ignore, and you start to tell me what you presume my position is. Have you no ability to reflect on the reasons you have for adopting one position over another?
Is this the God of the bible and the Qur'an, or the gods of the Vedas or whatever? Does this God do anything?
It seems to me that this God is merely a synonym for "everything". That's a far cry from the God who cares about human beings, who answers prayers, who sent his son to die on the cross, etc. etc.
You say that Peter Pan exists, because there are stories about him. In the same way, God exists because there are stories about him.
You say that Peter Pan does not exist like pots and pans. In the same way, God does not exist like pots and pans.
You say God Is. I suggest to you that it is equally correct to say Peter Pan Is. There is no ontological distinction between the two. They "exist" or have Is-ness in the same sense, as far as I can tell from what you have written. The only difference is in particulars of the fiction surrounding the two characters.
Is there any meaningful distinction in your mind between God and Peter Pan, in terms of their respective "reality"?
My bad.
What approaches are those?
How do you know?
It's a pity you don't come forward with your crushing, whatever.
Comforting.
Jan.
Nonsense. A false belief, is, a false belief. The outcome may be correct or incorrect.
In a false belief test, the focus is on the decision the child makes, not whether the child is correct or incorrect.
It would depend on the context.
No one believes in Paris is the capital of Spain, and if they believe it did, they are mistaken.
If they continue to believe, despite being corrected, then you may have a point.
But I'm sure upon further analysis, there is a deeper problem.
If I wanted to ask you that I would have.
Do you believe everything you've written in this thread?
Not necessarily, as I have repeatedly shown you.
Nobody says that.
Unless atheists secretly do.
I'm not conflating anything.
I don't agree with you.
Do you believe this?
I'm talking about God.
I don't see any designations, or sects, mentioned in the title. Do you?
Then again, there is no God, as far as you're aware, so it's not surprising you have to consult written works.
Even then,you still come across as a person with a poor fund of informational knowledge about God,
Then tell me about God.
Let's see what it is you understand.
Who and what is God?
Who and what are we in relation to God?
Why? Is being smarter than theists, important to you?
Is that why you can't let this discussion go, because you feel you haven't been smart enough?
The fool doth say in his heart, there is no God.
From my perspective (though I can't call you a fool), that is the difference between the theist, and the atheist.
Jan.
Last edited:
Please explain how it is logically possible for God to not exist?
This is why don't respond to posts, or large sections of your posts.
You make stuff up, then respond to the stuff you made up as though I said it.
It's quite sad, and pathetic.
Sorry I can't remember saying that, perhaps a quote to jog my memory?
Interesting. In what way is it obvious to a rational person?
What makes you think you need to be "special", or have perfect knowledge to be a theist.
From my perspective it's the other way round. How is it that you can think that you're independent of God. Do you have other knowledge, or are you special?
You're the one who made the subconscious decision to be without God.
God Is, and there is, without God.
Deal with that, because it is my response.
It doesn't matter, you only need to know how I can tell the difference.
Use that, and move on.
Have I mentioned these scriptures?
No?
Why have you?
Where did I say this?
From your perspective, I agree.
There's no need to go that far, for the purpose of this thread.
Work with what you have.
Jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I would not point out anything in public that others may use to cause you anguish and of course I may or may not be right as to an assessment of what approaches could be appropriate for what I was suggesting nor am I necessarily correct in my assessment of how others may use the information you seek and I assess could possibly cause you anguish.
I hope my explanation settles the matter notwithstanding that I failed to answer your question.
I am sorry Jan this was my attempt at humour. I thought you would find my innocent attempt amusing but your question makes me think I should have avoided the attempt.
Why is it a pity Jan?
Do you feel confident that I could not do it?
Do you honestly believe you could survive me at my worst.
Well in one respect you are correct and it is because I could not be so cruel.
You argue very well I know that and I respect the fact that you can keep everyone at bay.
Certainly a different style to most.
Unique in my experience.
But even you have weaknesses and as with most folk you won't see your weakness, but you have them, exploitable weaknesses, I think I know yours, I really do.
Well I do know.
I was tempted to strike months ago as something you said irritated me to the point I felt like giving you a pasting, but that was wrong of me, and not like me.
I rationalised I was over tired and having rested realised how wrong it would be for me to give you a pasting.
You obviously enjoy yourself here and I am perhaps one of your biggest of many fans so I could never actually crush you and feel at all happy about doing so.
I don't need to teach you a lesson as suggested I need to extend understanding and help you attain enlightenment.
I could not do anything to hurt you Jan.
Good there were never any real baited traps I thought you would know that.
I do hope you find enlightenment although I do think including a God really takes away from true enlightenment. But starting with God is a fair start.
I understand how difficult it will be for you to cut the apron strings and I don't expect it will be anytime soon but that's OK as it can be very difficult to jump out of the nest and make your own way, for you at your stage, alone. it must seem beyond comprehension.
But in time you will be able to do it and I offer you my support if you need it.
Best wishes
Alex
It has nothing to do with confidence.
I would be interested in what you say.
I don't know what your worst pertains?
Of course I have weaknesses, as does everybody. I find it sad that you have to resort to terrible things to defend your position. Is your atheism really that important to you?
If you can teach me a lesson, why do you have to be nasty about it. Why not be civil? I would be very interested in what you have to say.
You're an atheist. It's understandable.
But you also have the problem of thinking your position is the standard default one, and anything else is plain wrong.
Why would you even think of that?
This is a discussion board, not some gang related crap.
I'm not the one who's designated title suggest I lack, am without, or missing something.
What I've realised is that an atheist cannot go beyond their designated title. No matter how smart they are.
Theists who aren't aware of that should become so.
Jan.
No, the outcome is necessarily false. The clue is in the phrase.
It usually focuses on whether a child understands that someone else may hold a false belief (albeit one that might be rationally held) due to incomplete information.
Typically child A will have complete information whereas they should know that child B does not. The test is to assess whether child A will be able to recognise that child B will hold a false belief - i.e. a belief that does not correspond to fact - in the tests it is usually due to incomplete information. Child B will be entirely justified in holding their mistaken belief. But it is still a false belief.
No, you have merely repeatedly stated your false belief about what a false belief is. Ironic, really.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Then you should get out more there must be something better to do than listen to me.
What weaknesses do you see in yourself and others?
Don't feel sad Jan as I said I have no intention of resorting to, you now call terrible things to do anything and I am not sure that I suggested that I would be defending a position of any kind in any way at all.
I don't know where that came from Jan what has atheism got to do with anything that I was talking about.
Did you miss where I said I had no intention of teaching you a lesson or words designed to convey that meaning. No matter I will repeat " I have no intention of teaching you a lesson" and also let me assure you again that I have no intention of being nasty and I must say I don't think I said anything to indicate I would be nasty Jan.
I really believe I am being civil why do you think I am not being civil?
Why?
Yet I acknowledge God is real which does not quiet fit your outdated definition of an atheist being without God.
Do you call me an atheist because I know that God does not exist?
Simple facts are generally understandable.
I have a problem? That is somewhat judgemental Jan and I can't really defend a position you can only claim that I take but I must ask you what do you think I see as "anything else" that is just "plain wrong" .
I see .myself as being most accepting of others and their beliefs and I recall saying something somewhere in this place how I was understanding of your belief in your God and how you must view the world in that context. But I don't recall saying that anything was wrong at all.
I was trying to assure you I am a peaceful tolerant person, and you know express myself to show I like you and respect you.
You could just accept it rather than forcing me to defend trying to be nice.
Your powers of observation seem so sharp in some areas and I find great hope for you having demonstrated at least some ability here.
I am at a loss to understand how you see gang activity.
You are you know.
But you are on the path to enlightenment so be patient for in time you will lack less and find peace. There is much to learn start with hope and patience explore their respective values.
Our individual abilities in fact our very being is not limited by the titles or qualification put upon us by others, our limitations mostly come from within.
Many need to focus upon others to turn their attention outside of themselves and not face the internal inconsistencies they could resolve if only they could face them.
I can't make you face the inconsistencies in your beliefs only you can do that and overcoming the fear that presents at the prospect I understand is most daunting.
I know the fear of recognising that you are actually very alone can seem impossible to overcome and its best not to even try if you do not feel capable.
Somewhat judgemental Jan.
There is virtue in resisting the desire to make judgement of others.
Things just are and become what we say they are, good or bad is a mere personal qualification based often upon values of folk we simply believe because we have always been told to believe them.
There is little need to comment but few can resist the urge to do so again driven by values of folk with no credentials other than a nebulous claim that their invisible friend told them what is good and bad.
I probably need to edit so if something seems odd please try and take the meaning I intended if possible.
I am typing one finger on a phone with a spell checker that I think is programmed to make me look more stupid than usual.
Peace to you Jan may your journey be fulfilling and your conscience unburdened.
Alex
Last edited:
I don't think I need to express that, in order to show that everyone has a weakness of some sort.
I may point it out as you do it.
Why do you feel the need to assure me you are peaceful, tolerant and respectful? Just say what you're saying.
I'm more inclined to take it for granted that you are as you describe yourself.
When people for no reason say they are not going to crush, hurt, or teach a lesson, it could mean that they want to, but try their best to resist.
It was more of a metaphor. I'm used to certain kinds of aggressive talk, which is probably why I am so curious.
But if you say you are peaceful, tolerant, and respectful, I will take your word for it.
I'm not an atheist, the original meaning of which is, appropriately, without God.
That applies to everybody.
I agree. But the designated title, is more than just a word. It defines our worldview. If you identify as atheist, then, there is no God as far as you're aware. You see.
Some don't do it to divert attention.
Some do purely out of interest, or to get a better understanding of themselves.
I don't have inconsistencies in my belief.
Maybe you do, as their seems to be anger in your responses, even though you try to conceal it.
Your fear may well be a problem to you.
Maybe a psychopath can go beyond his lack of compassion and empathy, but it won't be the same for thosewhom these aspects naturally occur.
Jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Well you probably need something if you are to "show" anything.
But I can understand that you would not wish to share your list of weaknesses, and I assume as you use the plural you are dealing with a list of weaknesses.
I don't think I have any weaknesses that I perceive, could that been thought of as a weakness.
I know that to be right because my first wife said often "you are just perfect aren't you".
In fact she would call me " Mr Perfect on many occasions ".
That would be helpful.
I become self conscious and sometimes feel I may come over as not peaceful, not particularly tolerant nor always respectful.
I was suggesting something else. Read what you said then consider my answer.
Dave pointed out generalisation he seems to think it is a bad thing...what do you think?
It could mean whatever you wish but I thought I was clear with all I said.
You need not read your concerns in at all.
Yes. I don't like being labeled really.
It is so limiting.
I recall a terrible joke.
For many reasons, I will present it and Lea e out the reference to race.
Old George was complaining.
"" I have built many houses but do people say " there goes George the house builder? "
"" I have built many boats but do people say "there goes George the boat builder"?".
"" I have caught many fish but do people say " there goes George the fisherman"?"
"No none of these things do they say.
...but you f..k one goat!!?!"
Sorry it is s rather crude joke but serves to illustrate how I feel to be simply called an atheist... It is such an insignificant aspect of who I am.
Yes but we are guessing I suppose.
Well that is fine belief will provide that answer every time.
So you have it all figured out that must be great.
You don't see any problems with that?
I knew it.
I come over that way and is not me at all.
I don't want to seem angry when I am not.
What do I do or say that gives this impression and what can I do not to come over that way.
Sincerely Jan it worries me.
The
I have no fear of being wrong about God being fictional, obviously, if I feared being wrong I would change my world view.
Sorry I miss your point entirely.
I can't marry your response to my proposition.
Thanks for sharing your views Jan.
You know it seems when two people talk respectfully to each other there is less friction.
I hope you feel comfortable taking to me at least as comfortable as I find talking to you.
Alex