Then I apologise for giving you too much credit for recognising it as the rhetorical device it was.
I shall endeavour not to give you that credit in future.
God is defined, not described.
- Thread starter Ted Grant II
- Start date
I shall endeavour not to give you that credit in future.
So it's my fault now.
FYI, it doesn't even work as a rhetorical device.
I've never protested real logic.
I just don't consider randomly throwing in, any unrelated factor, to give one one self more wiggle room, as logical.
Jan.
No, all mine - for giving you too much credit.
Your opinion, not mine.
Strawman, as that's not what they did.
You just couldn't follow it, or weren't able to refute it, and so were/are trying to latch onto any excuse to ignore it.
Nothing that one should not expect from you, I guess.
What? More insults?
Do you really apologize?
Are you sure it's not also yours?
It is pretty obvious.
Follow what? The pretence of categorizing the non-existent, for the purpose of sneaking it in?
Jan.
That isn't so. There are many theists whose gods do not partake in your "Is", and whether if God "Is" anyone can be without that God is far from a settled question.
If they are theist, they accept God, because God Is.
They may highlight different aspects of God, but it is still God.
For example, deists only accept God as a creator, and disregard the idea of a personal God. But it is still God, and the notion of God the creator, was already set in place before deists came about.
Jan.
They don't, though. Their gods are not like that.
And there is still the problem of the impossibility of being without your God.
So you see the two categories are insufficient and muddled.
If we are talking about "god's" then we are talking about different aspects of God.
That's a different subject matter.
Plus when I say "God Is", I am not pertaining to a belief in God. Just the notion of the two positions, which are reflected in human society.
Not when you look at them carefully.
Jan.
So when looked at them carefully , what are your conclusions ?
Theist, and atheist.
In what context did you ask the question?
How do you define, and/or describe "God"?
Jan.
A being rather than a god .
A being that is gathering knowledge outside its self , imagining the possibilites .
In the context of abrahamic religions , god is enlil , he is mean and nasty against Humanity
, lord is enki , kind and enlightens Humanity . Wants Humanity to survive .
Saun Karon
Registered Member
You shouldn't end a sentence with Is.
Oops, I just did, but I had to do it, to make my point.
My problem with your "God Is" proposition is that it is incomplete.
"God is love" is complete.
"God" is the subject and "is love" is the predicate.
"Is" is not a predicate. It's just a joining word.
What does this change ?
It's just Jan's way of avoiding admitting that he thinks that God exists.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I have addressed every one of them, exhaustively. You choosing to be unresponsive - and simply reiterating your chant - that's on you.
And, again, the dodge. You are not personally being attacked. Your arguments, that you have freely put forth are being attacked.
We will take your silence as acknowledgement that you've been successfully called out as dishonest. It may be an admission by omission, but it's the best we can expect from you.
Jan Ardena:
I asked you whether you care if God is real or not.
Because your "without God" starts from the assumption "God Is", your claimed "observation" is really only that "God Is". But it isn't really an observation at all - that's just a smoke screen you're putting up. What you have is an a priori assumption that "God Is". Your attempt to redefine atheism on the basis of that assumption fails, because you have not established that the assumption - your starting point, you premise - is valid.
All this is a distraction. I assume you think you're making your God belief a small target by trying to redefine it until it is empty of any content that can be interrogated. But all you're really achieving is showing just how far you're willing to go to try to protect your own belief, even if that means throwing away logic and reason and your integrity in the process.
So let me see if I can understand what you're saying here. You wouldn't describe theists as having magical powers, but... There's an implied "but" in there, isn't there? Does that mean I'm on the money with the idea that you think theists have a kind of "God sense" that atheists lack, separate from the normal senses? Or does your implied "but" mean something else?
But if you don't start from the unfounded assumption that "God Is", then you can start instead at a more sensible, open, position, like "Could it be that God is real?" or "Is there a God?" You ask why atheists question the existence of God. This is why. It is a logically prior question to your assumed starting point. If the atheist arrives at the answer "God probably doesn't exist", or "There's no reason, as far as I can tell, to believe that God exists", then the question is not closed forever and ever. Instead, the atheist simply does not believe that God exists, provisionally. If more evidence or convincing argument comes along in future to change his mind, then so be it.
You think that the only way atheists can be "without God" is to be in denial of the a priori "truth" that you believe, without your ever having considered the prior question. And you don't seem able to admit as a possibility that atheists could be "without God" simply because God doesn't exist. If that is the case, in fact, then you, despite your belief and your assumption, are as a matter of fact, equally "without God" in that simple sense.
Note that when I discuss this matter, you can assume I'm always interested in objective truth, first and foremost. I do not equivocate and obfuscate like you do, saying "God does not exist for you" and things like that. If I wanted to say that, I'd say "You do not believe that God exists", which is unambiguous. I clearly distinguish belief from fact. You, on the other hand, either can't tell the difference, or else you seek to deliberately muddy the waters.
Think about Greek myths. Or Harry Potter, for that matter. Fantasy and myth works its way into culture, regardless of its truth. But you know that already. Don't you?
Our point of disagreement is that you think that the fact that some people - yourself, as the most pertinent example - believe in God, it means God must therefore be real. Not just subjectively real (real "for you") but also objectively real for the atheists who are "without God". That is a fallacy. That is your ongoing error.
Why did you avoid answering my question?
I asked you whether you care if God is real or not.
I'm not distorting it. I'm just unpacking your statement and exposing it for what it is.
Because your "without God" starts from the assumption "God Is", your claimed "observation" is really only that "God Is". But it isn't really an observation at all - that's just a smoke screen you're putting up. What you have is an a priori assumption that "God Is". Your attempt to redefine atheism on the basis of that assumption fails, because you have not established that the assumption - your starting point, you premise - is valid.
You avoided answering my direct question about how you make this observation. Why is that?
Initially, you said God exists. When holes were picked in that idea, you moved the goalposts and started claiming instead that "God Is". And when holes were picked in that assumption, you started denying that it is simply your belief or assumption, and started claiming it is an "observation".
All this is a distraction. I assume you think you're making your God belief a small target by trying to redefine it until it is empty of any content that can be interrogated. But all you're really achieving is showing just how far you're willing to go to try to protect your own belief, even if that means throwing away logic and reason and your integrity in the process.
And what of the first two options I put to you, that you have ignored? Why did you not address those?
So let me see if I can understand what you're saying here. You wouldn't describe theists as having magical powers, but... There's an implied "but" in there, isn't there? Does that mean I'm on the money with the idea that you think theists have a kind of "God sense" that atheists lack, separate from the normal senses? Or does your implied "but" mean something else?
This is my problem with what you are saying. I keep thinking "No, wait, Jan's got this completely backwards." And I understand why. It's because you start from "God Is", and then you assume "without God" implies implicit acceptance of "God Is". Therefore, "God does not exists for atheists", and therefore atheists deny God.
But if you don't start from the unfounded assumption that "God Is", then you can start instead at a more sensible, open, position, like "Could it be that God is real?" or "Is there a God?" You ask why atheists question the existence of God. This is why. It is a logically prior question to your assumed starting point. If the atheist arrives at the answer "God probably doesn't exist", or "There's no reason, as far as I can tell, to believe that God exists", then the question is not closed forever and ever. Instead, the atheist simply does not believe that God exists, provisionally. If more evidence or convincing argument comes along in future to change his mind, then so be it.
You think that the only way atheists can be "without God" is to be in denial of the a priori "truth" that you believe, without your ever having considered the prior question. And you don't seem able to admit as a possibility that atheists could be "without God" simply because God doesn't exist. If that is the case, in fact, then you, despite your belief and your assumption, are as a matter of fact, equally "without God" in that simple sense.
Note that when I discuss this matter, you can assume I'm always interested in objective truth, first and foremost. I do not equivocate and obfuscate like you do, saying "God does not exist for you" and things like that. If I wanted to say that, I'd say "You do not believe that God exists", which is unambiguous. I clearly distinguish belief from fact. You, on the other hand, either can't tell the difference, or else you seek to deliberately muddy the waters.
We've had this discussion before. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of taste - quite sufficient for any a-tasteist to accept that taste is a real thing, even if he personally can't experience it directly. There are also explanations as to why an a-tasteist cannot experience taste, which have nothing to do with being in denial.
I have asked you to explain how you make the "observation". You can't, or won't. Why is that?
Indeed, and that's the problem. You want to preach to atheists about what they must be, based on your assumption of God. But they do not accept your assumption of God. And for you, that assumption is not up for debate. So we end up with this head-in-the-sand stance from you, where you pretend to have a conversation but all you really do is go around in circles.
I use the word "real" to encompass existence and Is-ness. Take it as a catch-all term, if you like. It saves me time and effort dealing with your distractions about the supposed difference about God being an "Is" and God existing.
Because if it isn't, it's just an assumption.Jan Ardena said:
Explain how it is that people could have just made up stories about God that somehow stuck? Do you really need me to explain that for you, Jan?
Think about Greek myths. Or Harry Potter, for that matter. Fantasy and myth works its way into culture, regardless of its truth. But you know that already. Don't you?
If that was the case, then I'd have no problem accepting it. But it isn't. It is a theist assumption, as far as I can tell. Your assumption.
Theists are people who believe in God. Atheists are people who do not believe in God. We agree on that, I believe.
Our point of disagreement is that you think that the fact that some people - yourself, as the most pertinent example - believe in God, it means God must therefore be real. Not just subjectively real (real "for you") but also objectively real for the atheists who are "without God". That is a fallacy. That is your ongoing error.
Last edited:
Jan Ardena:
And then we have this in your next breath:
And please don't start talking about "real for you" vs "real for me". I'm interested in objective reality, not your equivocal relativism.
Put simply: a false belief is a belief in something that is not true. For example, if I believe that Hillary Clinton is the current President of the United States, then I hold a false belief. Similarly, if I believe that "God Is", when really God Isn't, then I hold a false belief.
You're adding more and more to Jan's God Game as we go along, so that in the end the only thing that will be left is Jan's Impregnable God Fortress, in which God is whatever Jan declared God to be (not that we're allowed to use the word "be" any more in reference to God).
Then what was all that talk about how we know God is real because human beings have believed in God over multiple generations? How is that not an argument from tradition?
You missed the point, which was that just because a particular belief is held across generations, it does not mean the belief reflects a fact about the world.
Again, I have to ask: what was the point of all your talk about belief across generations, then? It sounded like you were saying that the fact that so many people have believed in God across generations somehow implies that God is real.
And then we have this in your next breath:
You can't have it both ways, Jan. Either you are saying that God is real because people believe God is real, or you're not. Which is it?James R said:
And please don't start talking about "real for you" vs "real for me". I'm interested in objective reality, not your equivocal relativism.
Are you serious? That is a problem you really need to remedy, Jan. I urge you to take that Logic 101 class, ASAP.
Put simply: a false belief is a belief in something that is not true. For example, if I believe that Hillary Clinton is the current President of the United States, then I hold a false belief. Similarly, if I believe that "God Is", when really God Isn't, then I hold a false belief.
No. It means they have failed to convince me that God is real.
Is this a further step away by you? From "God exists" you went to "God Is", and now ... what? Suddenly you want start claiming that it is not permissible to talk about God in any way that questions God's reality?
You're adding more and more to Jan's God Game as we go along, so that in the end the only thing that will be left is Jan's Impregnable God Fortress, in which God is whatever Jan declared God to be (not that we're allowed to use the word "be" any more in reference to God).
Jan Ardena:
To summarise briefly:
Rule 1. To play Jan's God Game, all players must assume a priori that God Is.
Rule 2. Theists may then believe in God, while atheists must play the role of denying God.
Rule 3. Any player questioning the existence of God is in breach of Rule 1 and is hearby excluded from the game.
One reason I take time to talk with you is that I think there is hope for you. I can see you have the capacity and the potential. Besides that, you're not the only person reading this.
That's what I thought.
Well, I'm glad we finally cleared that up, Jan.
I am open to belief in God for some other reason than an unjustified a priori assumption, though. If any good reason ever comes to light.
To repeat, the question was "How do I know that my God is real?" You don't start contemplating that by assuming that your God is real a priori. That's not being honest with yourself.
Bear in mind, I'm not asking you to put on a show for my benefit. I'm asking you to spend some time by yourself and think it over. Running away because the question is too fearful to face shows both a lack of confidence and a lack of courage on your part.
I have explained in some detail what I take to be the rules of your God Game. Please review the previous posts. Please ask questions if I have not been clear.
To summarise briefly:
Rule 1. To play Jan's God Game, all players must assume a priori that God Is.
Rule 2. Theists may then believe in God, while atheists must play the role of denying God.
Rule 3. Any player questioning the existence of God is in breach of Rule 1 and is hearby excluded from the game.
Nobody likes being bullied, Jan. I refuse to play Jan's God Game, in which your "literal" sense obliges me to accept Rule 1. I reject your Game.
I fully recognise that there are many people who do not live by the standards of rationality and clear thinking that I aim for. It would be nice if they did, but I realise that it's too much to expect.
One reason I take time to talk with you is that I think there is hope for you. I can see you have the capacity and the potential. Besides that, you're not the only person reading this.
The perspective of somebody who cares about what is true. There is no "real for you" and "real for me". There's just reality, for both of us, and then there are our respective beliefs. I want you to appreciate the difference.
In other words, it's option 1: you assume it a priori.Jan Ardena said:
That's what I thought.
Well, I'm glad we finally cleared that up, Jan.
You mean I don't "accept", by which you mean I refuse to assume; I refuse to join you in your a priori assumption. Correct.
I am open to belief in God for some other reason than an unjustified a priori assumption, though. If any good reason ever comes to light.
Probably you are perceiving my frustration with you as anger. That is understandable, but mistaken. I'm not angry at you, Jan. I understand exactly where you're coming from.
James R said:
See, you shied away from the question. You couldn't bring yourself to ask yourself, honestly.
To repeat, the question was "How do I know that my God is real?" You don't start contemplating that by assuming that your God is real a priori. That's not being honest with yourself.
Bear in mind, I'm not asking you to put on a show for my benefit. I'm asking you to spend some time by yourself and think it over. Running away because the question is too fearful to face shows both a lack of confidence and a lack of courage on your part.
You're back to your relativism. You're thinking God was never real for me. I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with whether God is really real, for both of us.
I think that my terms - that it should be reasonable to accept God - trump your terms, which appear to be that one ought to just believe, for no good reason. But admittedly, I seem to be much more wedded to reason than you are.
Last edited: