God is defined, not described.

[DaveC426913]

Maybe it's a good time for a recap.

1] Jan has freely acknowledged, innumerable times, that God does not exist. I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?

2] He has replaced that initial assertion with a new belief that God just "is" - a phrase that means something to he and he alone. To the rest of us, it isn't even a complete sentence, so how can we expect to understand what it means to him? I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?

3] Jan asserts that atheists are without God. Indeed, it is just as valid to say theists are without God. Until and unless the issue of God's existence is forthcoming, both are equally, plausibly true. I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?

4] A theist saying I am "with" God is simply a restating of their initial personal, and as yet unfounded, belief. I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?

5] Jan has acknowledged (indeed, said so himself, explicitly) that atheists do not assert that "there is no god", they simply reject the claims that there is. I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?

6] Jan asserts that he believes "in" God. It doesn't have to objectively exist outside his mind for him to believe in it. I believe in the Power of Hope, but that doesn't in any way argue hope into existence as some free-floating objective entity that the rest of you are subject to. I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?


When it comes down to it, Jan's beliefs are quite capable of existing with internal consistency in a universe where there is no God. I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?


So, what's with all the fuss and folderol?

 

[Sarkus]

If Jan simply expressed his claims as beliefs, rather than as being objectively true, no one would have an issue. Everyone can hold whatever beliefs they like, whether stemming from an a priori assumption or otherwise. If those beliefs form, or are part of, a logically consistent worldview, even better for that person.
Discussions can then be held civilly around differences in belief, in why one person holds an a priori assumption, on interpretations of things etc. I.e. an exploration of each other's positions.
When one simply asserts what the other's position is, though, and almost demands that it be accepted - issues arise.
When one simply asserts what the base assumption should be prior to the discussion, without any ability to question that assumption - issues arise.

But, yeah, Jan can hold whatever beliefs he wants. Noone has an issue with him holding them. And yes, they are compatible with a universe in which there is a God, and in which there is not. Because they are simply beliefs, and beliefs don't determine objective reality.

 

[James R]

Maybe it's a good time for a recap.

1] Jan has freely acknowledged, innumerable times, that God does not exist. I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?

I object to Jan's weasel words "God does not exist for you", which imply that existence cannot be discussed objectively, but rather than existence is a purely subjective thing. I object to Jan's relativism when it comes to the issue of existence.

2] He has replaced that initial assertion with a new belief that God just "is" - a phrase that means something to he and he alone. To the rest of us, it isn't even a complete sentence, so how can we expect to understand what it means to him? I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?

I object that "God Is" is a smokescreen that Jan puts up to avoid discussing whether God exists.

3] Jan asserts that atheists are without God. Indeed, it is just as valid to say theists are without God. Until and unless the issue of God's existence is forthcoming, both are equally, plausibly true. I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?

I object to Jan's implication that atheists really acknowledge that "God Is" and just deny that God is real. I object to Jan's insistence that "atheism" implies that God is real.

4] A theist saying I am "with" God is simply a restating of their initial personal, and as yet unfounded, belief. I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?

I object to Jan's assumption that the fact that he believes in God somehow makes God real. I also object to Jan's assumption that the fact that other people believe in God, or that people have believed in God for a long time somehow makes God real.

5] Jan has acknowledged (indeed, said so himself, explicitly) that atheists do not assert that "there is no god", they simply reject the claims that there is. I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?

Actually, I don't think Jan has acknowledged that. Jan's position on atheists is "God does not exist as far as you're aware" or, equivalently, "God does not exist for you". In both of these statements, his implication is that God is real, nonetheless, and in the second we get a repeat of his relativism. He may agree to the form of words "atheists do not assert that there is no god", but I'll bet he won't agree to the form of words "atheists do not believe there is no god". Because he thinks that atheists believe that God doesn't exist. He thinks that, secretly, deep down, atheists know that God exists, but they refuse to admit this, and are, in fact, all in denial.

6] Jan asserts that he believes "in" God. It doesn't have to objectively exist outside his mind for him to believe in it. I believe in the Power of Hope, but that doesn't in any way argue hope into existence as some free-floating objective entity that the rest of you are subject to. I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?

I object to Jan's assumption that his "belief in God" implies that God is real.

When it comes down to it, Jan's beliefs are quite capable of existing with internal consistency in a universe where there is no God. I'm OK with that. Anyone have any objections?

I have no objection to that. Jan can believe whatever he wants and it will be consistent with a universe in which there is no God. As for internal consistency in his belief system, I think there are a few gaps there.

So, what's with all the fuss and folderol?

Mainly the fuss is with Jan asserting that he has more than a belief. He thinks his belief equates to knowledge. The rest of the fuss is about his arrogance in presuming to define "atheism" differently from the way actual atheists define it.

 

[DaveC426913]

I object to Jan's weasel words "God does not exist for you", which imply that existence cannot be discussed objectively,

He can imply all he wants; it is just as valid to say God does not exist for him. His belief in God does not make it exist objectively.
And until it steps out of the murky mystery that it is, it only exists in his mind.

I object that "God Is" is a smokescreen that Jan puts up to avoid discussing whether God exists.

Let him merely assert that God doesn't exist. What do we care how he thinks, as long as it stays in his mind? He's demonstrated that he'll change its meaning if anyone gets too close.

Just because Jan pretends like he's answered the questions put to him doesn't mean he has.

I think you're looking to get Jan to acknowledge his own illogic. He won't. You know that. He's had uncountable opportunities.
We have addressed and refuted and otherwise mismantled every irrational claim he's made.

What do yo expect to happen next? It's not like there's any reason for Jan to change his vexatious behavior.

Jan has acknowledged (indeed, said so himself, explicitly) that atheists do not assert that "there is no god", they simply reject the claims that there is.

Actually, I don't think Jan has acknowledged that.

It was Jan who offered up that definition in his own words. (see bottom half of post)

Mainly the fuss is with Jan asserting that he has more than a belief. He thinks his belief equates to knowledge.

You're still pretending he's arguing in good faith. He's not. He's out to get your goat.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

"To be, or not to be, that is the question"?

To exist (live), or not to exist (be no more).

If God merely "exists", then God can just as easily not exist. If that is the case, then we're not discussing God.

For God to be God, God cannot cease to be God. If we want to label God as "existing" then God must "necessarily exist. This means God cannot" not exist".
So I simply say "God (just) Is"

In the Bible, one of God's names is "I Am". Ordinarily it would seem incomplete, but it makes sense when you look into it a little more.

This appeals to essence, as opposed to existence. God is pure spirit, and we are part spirit. We are also "I am", and we "just are" like God. But we are also objects that can cease to be, like any other object.

So the point of the Shakespeare quote was to illustrate the two sides. On the one hand Hamlet thought it better to die, cease to exist, thereby get away from the problems that beseeched him, but at the same time he was afraid of what horrors may be with him in death (sleep). "To be or not to be, that is the question".

Now do I believe that God exist like other objects, or we exist? No.
Do I believe God necessarily exists? Yes.

But for the sake of argument I am defining God, as necessarily existent.
Because by all accounts, God is defined, as necessarily existent, and rather than keep writing that, I put simply, that "God Is". Does that make it clearer?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

He can imply all he wants; it is just as valid to say God does not exist for him.

I would be very surprised if you didn't think that.

His belief in God does not make it exist objectively.

Never said it did Dave.
What is objective existence Dave?

And until it steps out of the murky mystery that it is, it only exists in his mind

So let me get this straight. You're saying that if I cannot, produce God to you suitability, God is therefore a figment of my mind/imagination? I take it that applies to any theist who cannot produce God to your specific suitability. You may as well just come straight out with God does not exist, period. Because I doubt very much anyone will rise to that occasion.

We have addressed and refuted and otherwise mismantled every irrational claim he's made.

This statement cracks me up.

What do yo expect to happen next? It's not like there's any reason for Jan to change his vexatious behavior.

Vexatious?
Why do you think I'm vexed?

It was Jan who offered up that definition in his own words. (see bottom half of post)

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I object that "God Is" is a smokescreen that Jan puts up to avoid discussing whether God exists.

It doesn't matter that I have explained the difference does it?

I object to Jan's implication that atheists really acknowledge that "God Is" and just deny that God is real. I object to Jan's insistence that "atheism" implies that God is real.

On the contrary. I have maintained that atheists do not accept God.
But with regards to denying/rejecting God, you could do it for Australia.
It's that obvious.

Atheism literally means "without God", and we all know by now what it is to be without something.

I object to Jan's assumption that the fact that he believes in God somehow makes God real.

I've never said, nor have implied it.
It is something you need to invoke, so you can keep bringing it up.

I also object to Jan's assumption that the fact that other people believe in God, or that people have believed in God for a long time somehow makes God real.

Again, I have neither said, or implied this. You call me dishonest, but you are the one who is dishonest.

but I'll bet he won't agree to the form of words "atheists do not believe there is no god". Because he thinks that atheists believe that God doesn't exist.

It doesn't matter whether or not you say God does not exist. You are an atheist, therefore God does not exist as far as you're aware. Fact.

He thinks that, secretly, deep down, atheists know that God exists, but they refuse to admit this, and are, in fact, all in denial.

I think that you cannot possibly think any of your arguments, and objections, carry any weight. You show evidence of this in the way you discuss God. It seems you unashamedly distort what I say to keep your spurious position in tact.

You say you've gone through all my points and given refutation. But in truth you simply created a strawman, and argued against that.

I have no objection to that. Jan can believe whatever he wants and it will be consistent with a universe in which there is no God.

You think this because you are without God. And furthermore you need to apply that position to everyone. Truly remarkable.

Mainly the fuss is with Jan asserting that he has more than a belief.

Example please James.

The rest of the fuss is about his arrogance in presuming to define "atheism" differently from the way actual atheists define it.

It seems you're a control freak James.
The word "Atheist" exists, whether there are atheists present to explain it, or not.
If your version differs from official definitions, I am allows to object. Unless you think that I am somehow not.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

If we are talking about "god's" then we are talking about different aspects of God.

I was talking about other people's gods, which are sometimes separate beings rather than aspects of one being.

Plus when I say "God Is", I am not pertaining to a belief in God.

Like I said - no one can be "without" your God. So your claim that atheists are without your God is confused.
As, for those theists that have more than one of those beings that just "are", you cannot be without them.

 

[DaveC426913]

I would be very surprised if you didn't think that.

Yes. I'm known for being logical.

Until and unless the existence of God is granted, it is entirely valid that God does not exist for you or for anyone else, but that you simply think it does. i.e it is possible that you could simply be wrong.

"His belief in God does not make it exist objectively."
Never said it did Dave.

Nor am I claiming you did.

But it's interesting, because innumerable times you have said that "being without God" (i.e. not believing in God) does imply God's existence.
I guess atheists have the power to invoke God, but theists do not?

So let me get this straight. You're saying that if I cannot, produce God to you suitability, God is therefore a figment of my mind/imagination?

No, I am saying there is merely no evidence that it does exist outside your mind. So, not "is" a figment, but Occam's razor certainly suggests it "quite possible".

Your personal belief that God exists for you, is not inconsistent with everyone else's worldview, any more than my personal belief in The Power of Hope is inconsistent with everyone else's worldview.

Vexatious?
Why do you think I'm vexed?

You realize those aren't the same words, right?

I'll user a simpler example: If I said you were being annoying, you would ask why I think you are annoyed?

See the difference now?

 

[Sarkus]

A questionn for Jan:

If you define the term "atheism" as being "without God" etc, and thus, per you, implying that God exists/Is, what word would you use do describe those who do not have the belief that God exists/Is yet has no such implication that God exists/Is?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

The rest of the fuss is about his arrogance in presuming to define "atheism" differently from the way actual atheists define it.

^^^
It is not only a matter of the way the majority of actual atheists define it. It is a matter of THE current correct definition.
In another thread which, unfortunately, was closed partly, if not fully, due to Jan, we went over&over & thru the definition of atheist. Something was mentioned along the lines of allowing atheists to define the word atheist & I am somewhat sympathetic to that. Currently the word has a specific clear definition, regardless of how many agree with it. (Tho granting that when words are misused enough, the accepted meaning changes.)
While I am not very surprised at any nonsense people come up with, I think everyone defines theist as someone who believes a god or gods exist. From that, atheist, in current English, can mean only someone without that belief or someone who is not a theist. I cannot know how many theists or atheists understand & agree with this extremely simple clear point but I do know the vast majority of linguists agree. To try to make it anything else is absurd.
In order for atheist to mean anything else, 1st the word theist would have to change meaning and/or the a prefix would have to change meaning.
Jan recently said "I am a theist. Therefore I believe in god." Backward, of course but hopefully showing he understands the definition of theist. IF he does understand theist, he should be able to understand atheist. IF he wants to understand it.

I pointed out to Jan that if he wants to use the ancient definition of atheos, that is what Jan would have been called in the time & place of that definition but of course, he simply ignores it.

<>

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Before I reply to you again, I will wait for you to respond to the following posts, which it is appears you have ignored:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/god-is-defined-not-described.160014/page-8#post-3482940
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/god-is-defined-not-described.160014/page-8#post-3482944
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/god-is-defined-not-described.160014/page-8#post-3482952

 

[James R]

On the question of God's existence being "necessary", I think Jan is just repeating the Ontological argument for God. That is, Jan is arguing that God would not be sufficiently Great if he did not have existence as an attribute, because it is greater for something to exist than not to exist, and God is, by definition, supposed to be the Greatest Thing That Is.

I'm not really interested in delving into what's wrong with the Ontological argument in this thread. Suffice it to say that many philosophers have rejected it, for different reasons.

The argument that God must exist because he is defined in such a way that his existence is "necessary" or "required" is ultimately a circular one, and it fails for that reason. You can't just define things into existence.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

On the question of God's existence being "necessary", I think Jan is just repeating the Ontological argument for God. That is, Jan is arguing that God would not be sufficiently Great if he did not have existence as an attribute, because it is greater for something to exist than not to exist, and God is, by definition, supposed to be the Greatest Thing That Is.

I'm not really interested in delving into what's wrong with the Ontological argument in this thread. Suffice it to say that many philosophers have rejected it, for different reasons.

The argument that God must exist because he is defined in such a way that his existence is "necessary" or "required" is ultimately a circular one, and it fails for that reason. You can't just define things into existence.

^^^
We could just as well define Supergod as what created god thereby proving god was created.

<>

 

[Jan Ardena]

I asked you whether you care if God is real or not.

What do you mean by real?

Because your "without God" starts from the assumption "God Is", your claimed "observation" is really only that "God Is".

It doesn't start with any assumption, it obviously implies that God is, because you cannot be without something, unless the something is present.
We've been through this.

You avoided answering my direct question about how you make this observation. Why is that?

I didn't avoid anything.

Initially, you said God exists.

If I have ever mentioned God exist, I know what I mean by ''exist''.

And what of the first two options I put to you, that you have ignored? Why did you not address those?

What options?

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?

No, to both questions.

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?"

So I should reject ''God Is''. leaving only ''without God''?

You ask why atheists question the existence of God.

The underlying reason is because God does not exist, as far as they are aware. FACT.

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.

Read above.

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's plenty of evidence for the existence of God, quite sufficient that God Is, even if one cannot experience it directly. One only needs to google to become acquainted.

There are also explanations as to why an a-tasteist cannot experience taste, which have nothing to do with being in denial

Depends on if they accept those explanations or not.
Atheists do not accept God, or any explanation of God, so they either reject, deny, or do both.

I have asked you to explain how you make the "observation". You can't, or won't. Why is that?

I've already explained this James. I observe that there are theists, and atheists.

Indeed, and that's the problem. You want to preach to atheists about what they must be, based on your assumption of God.

It is a fact that there is no God as far as they are aware. How is that preaching?

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.

You need to elaborate on what you regard as ''real''.

Because if it isn't, it's just an assumption.

It's just an assumption to you anyways, because God does not exist as far as you're concerned.

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?

Why else would I ask?

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?

Is this meant to be an explanation?
Try again.

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.

No it doesn't. You're simply using that as a evasion tactic.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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?

Where did I use that as a reason for belief in God?

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.

I never said that it did.

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.

Maybe you should ask me to clarify things that you don't comprehend fully, before making wild assumptions.

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.

Why would someone believe that Hilary Clinton is the current President of the US?

No. It means they have failed to convince me that God is real.

If God does not exist, as God doesn't, as far as you're aware, how can you be convinced that God does exist?

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?

We have a different comprehension of God, which means we have different world views.
You need to lay your comprehension out, in detail, then we can talk on both terms.

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).

Why don't you answer the question?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

In other words, it's option 1: you assume it a priori.

Is not accepting an a priori assumption?

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.

You don't accept God, which is why you're atheist.
Anything you think after that initial big bang, is due to your not accepting.

See, you shied away from the question. You couldn't bring yourself to ask yourself, honestly.

What is ''real'' in this context James?
A proper account please. Thanks in advance.

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.

Read above.

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 don't know what you mean by real. But I know you're an atheist, and that God does not exist, as far as you're aware. That is a fact.
No doubt your perception of ''real'' does not include God. So let's have some fun unpacking that.

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.

You definitely like to pretend you are.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

A questionn for Jan:

If you define the term "atheism" as being "without God" etc, and thus, per you, implying that God exists/Is, what word would you use do describe those who do not have the belief that God exists/Is yet has no such implication that God exists/Is?

What do you mean by ''have no implication that God...''?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

What do you mean by ''have no implication that God...''?

What I mean by "no such implication that God exists/Is" is where there is no inherent implication in the word, or the words of its definition, that there is a God that exists/Is... i.e. neither implies God does exist/Is or that God does not exist/Isn't.

You have stated numerous times that you think "atheist" means "without God" and being "without" something is to imply that the something exists/Is.
So if "atheist" has the implication, as you keep asserting, that God exists/Is, what word is there for people who do not hold the belief that God exists/Is yet where the word also does not make any implication whatsoever as to whether God actually Is or Isn't.

Do you think there is a word? Or do you think all possible words will include the implication that God exists/Is?

For example, is there a word for simply "not holding the belief that God exists/Is" where the definition does not include "without" or any other word that, per you, implies God exists/Is?

 

[Baldeee]

It doesn't start with any assumption, it obviously implies that God is, because you cannot be without something, unless the something is present.

And by using the word "without" (if we are to accept your intepretation) it introduces the a priori assumption that God exists/Is.
I.e. By accepting the definition and all it means one must first accept that God exists/Is.

There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God, quite sufficient that God Is, even if one cannot experience it directly. One only needs to google to become acquainted.

Such as?

Is not accepting an a priori assumption?

No.
Not accepting an a priori assumption is not itself an a priori assumption.
Stating that the assumption is false, though, would be an a priori assumption.
E.g. If you assume from the outset that God does not exist (or Isn't) then that would be an a priori assumption.
But the simple non-acceptance that God Is is not an a priori assumption.
If one starts with no assumption as to the existence / non-existence of God (Is-ness / Isn't-ness) then one is starting with no such a priori assumption.