No, you can describe entire classes of entity, kinds of Gods rather than individual definitions, as extraordinary claims. For example, the real existence of anything a theologian in the Christian tradition would be willing to call "God" is an extraordinary claim.
If God is simply a concept, and as such is not used in any discipline, then God is defined as a concept which cannot be found anywhere. If one does not have a concept of the law, and does not know one does not have a concept of the law. One would certainly act as though one does not have that concept. Does that mean the law does not exist? Or does it mean the law does not exist for that individual? The truth is, the law exists despite ones acknowledgement of it. If you believe there is no evidence of God within the universe, then you reveal your concept of God, as a material entity. This is a false conception. Otherwise define God. I doubt you get the full picture of what I'm saying. jan.
I asked you to define 'belief in God', and your definition was wrong. I don't see why you have a problem with that. So you take the word of others with regards your spiritual life? Isn't that faith? Blind at that? A word of advice, you should try and understand it yourself. jan.
How do you know if it is an extraordinary claim, if you have no definition of it? Why is it an extraordinary claim? jan.
DaveC's Post #87 - Rule of Definitions An object/entity/concept need be defined in only as much as is required to support a given assertion - and no more. Assertion: Stars are hot You must define stars or you cannot talk about them. Definition: Stars are gravitationally-compact masses that undergo fusion That is not enough of a definition. There are many colours of stars. The definition given is all that is needed to support the assertion. All stars undergo fusion: all stars are hot. Assertion: The universe appears to operate on natural laws alone, without invocation of a supernatural force such as a god. You must define God or you cannot talk about it. Definition: God is supernatural That is not enough for a definition. There are many flavours of God. The definition given is all that is needed to support the assertion. All Gods are supernatural: all Gods are unnecessary to explain the natural world. Let this argument be refuted once and for all time. The next time someone uses the 'Define God' argument, you need only link here.
Because it is, by definition, supernatural. That is sufficiently defined to refute it, since we see no reliable evidence of supernatural occurrences in our universe.
Okay. Earlier you said... Your definition of God (man made concept) is integral in this statement. It is because God is a man made concept, why it is not necessary to define something beyond a basic criterion in order to be able to categorize it. This isn't a definition of God, it is a denial of the definition of God. The definition which lies at the heart of both belief and disbelief. jan.
No. That it is a human made concept is not part of the definition of God. That is the assertion. It follows from the definition, which is that God is supernatural.
It was your question. I'll recap. You asked why God is extraordinary, requiring extraordinary evidence. The answer is that, since defined as supernatural, we'll need extraordinary evidence of a supernatural occurrence in a world that seems to operate just fine on natural laws.
So the object of your disbelief, God, does not exist as far as your concerned. I have no argument with that. jan.
I don't actively disbelieve - I just can't put much faith into what people say Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
