Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Yes facts!What facts ?
Alex
Yes facts!What facts ?
Yes facts!
Alex
I'm not so sure.Jan believes there is a god that is real and exists and that will be the basis of his defence to all propositions.
I don't know whether he would even say he has faith in God. Not faith in the fact that God Is/exists, anyway. For a start, he thinks he knows that God Is, so he thinks that faith is not required. As far as I can tell.His faith has proved unshakable and I suggest facts will not change his faith in his god.
Forget proving him wrong. My aim is simply to get him to express whatever his view is in a coherent, consistent way. I think I'm fighting a losing battle on that.You can not prove Jan wrong in his view.
Then what are they expressing, when they say that? You need to explain yourself.
I didn't mention atheists. I said if there is no God, then theism is a false belief. Try responding to what I wrote.
If God Is for you, and there is no God for me, then aren't you saying that there is a God and there isn't a God, both at the same time? If not, tell me why not. Right now, you've got nothing.
You see no problem with it? Tell me why. Right now, you're offering nothing.
You just ignored some of the previous discussion. I comprehend your view that God is a fictional character like Peter Pan, and I recognise that fictional characters do not exist in the same way that bananas exist. I understand that you can't detect God any more than you can detect Peter Pan.
We're in agreement on this, as far as I can tell.
Until you tell me different, yes.
How do you identify theists then, Jan? Tell me what your criteria are.
What would you discuss?
I didn't ask whether it would be consistent. I asked whether it would be correct.
I already know what my position is, so you don't have to keep trying to tell me what I think.
Try telling me what you think.
The conversation will go more smoothly if you open up a bit.
Right now, I don't know why you're still having this discussion.
If you have nothing to say about what you actually think, and you only want to contradict and deny, it gets a bit boring and repetitive, and it's a waste of everybody's time.
Yes. Just like God. I get what you're saying.
No. We agree that Peter Pan is a fictional character, don't we?
Do you think that in some way, God is real?
according to you. God does not "occur in fact".
God is on the same footing as Peter Pan for you. That's right, isn't it?
So you accept that to believe that Paris is the capital of Spain is to believe something that is false?
If I refer to a person that is silly, is this not the same as referring to them as a silly person?
So you tend to give out random answers that you have no inkling about whether they are correct or not?
If you think you are giving the correct answer it is because you believe it is the correct answer.
Yes, there is a sliding scale of confidence in one's belief, but that doesn't negate it being a belief.
Thus when you say that Paris is the capital of Spain, because you think that it is the correct answer, it is because you believe (confidently or otherwise) that it is correct.
Rather than sidetrack the discussion with the semantics, why not answer their questions and arguments in light of how they understand the phrase?
So just accept what they mean by the term and respond accordingly.
Jan believes there is a god that is real and exists and that will be the basis of his defence to all propositions.
His faith has proved unshakable and I suggest facts will not change his faith in his god.
That is not news but we must all by now know these threads will go for pages and nothing will change.
You can not prove Jan wrong in his view.
Alex
He also says that Peter Pan is real in the same way that God is real.
But you clearly agreed that "false" may also refer to "not true".No. Unless you know that it isn't. Other than that, it is a simple error.
No, if you describe someone as a person who is silly then you are describing them as a silly person.It depends on the person.
Never said it had to be.Maybe you had one beer too many.
Maybe you saw billboard posters, about European holiday breaks.
Could be any number of reasons you made that error.
But it is not a belief, as in, a belief system, or something that is intrinsic in your life.
Given that it is quite clearly highlighting an issue between understanding as to what a false belief is considered to be, it seems to be a very good example indeed.The chances are, you won't make that mistake again.
All in all, it is a shyte example, and you should come up with something that is more apropriate, instead of wasting time over this.
You are sidetracking and continue to do so.I'm not sidetracking anything. I've told you it is a shyte example. So see if you can come up with a better one, move on.
So when they say that by "false belief" they mean "a belief that does not conform to fact", you can't accept what they mean?I don't accept it, so come up with another one.
But you clearly agreed that "false" may also refer to "not true".
Are you now retracting that agreement?
Beliefs come in all shapes and sizes, Jan, some important and upon which you might base your worldview, some frivolous as believing your team will win a match.
No matter the scale, if it is not consistent with fact then it is a false belief.
Basically you're just arguing this point for the sake of delaying, evading
Well good luck I certainly will be watching.. My aim is simply to get him to express whatever his view is in a coherent, consistent way.
Alex, is there a god that is real and exists?
jan.
No, I'm really not.A tupee, in and of itself, is neither false, or not true, but if you wear one, giving the impression that it is your real hair, then that is false.
If I believe that it is your real hair, I do not hold a false belief. The belief is true.
If I know that you are wearing a tupee, but believe that it is you're real hair, then I have a false belief.
You're mistaking the object of belief, with the belief.
Sure - but at least you now know what JamesR, Sarkus, I (and possibly others) mean when they refer to something as a "false belief".Then we should agree to disagree.
Whether you think it shyte or not, it has served its purpose.Nope. It's a shyte example.
Come up with a better one.
The fact that the bible is made up.What facts ?
It is very common for arguments about the Existence of God to start by the Believer being asked to define the God that they want to discuss. So, for example, God might be defined as..
"The Creator of the Universe"
Lots of other things are defined.
In the game of Chess, for example, the 'allowed moves' are defined.
In mathematics, the operators are defined.
But in the natural sciences, most things are described, not defined. You don't define an elephant, you describe it.
Even here, people like to define things, such as Species, Kingdoms etc. although such definitions are difficult because the natural world is not so clear-cut as one would like and is often fuzzy at the edges. A horse is not the same as a donkey, but what is a mule?
Once we define something, we tend to think it is a real thing. But it isn't. There is no such thing as a fish.
Suppose I define God as the Creator of the Universe, then ask the following...
Was the Universe created? If so, who created the Universe?
Answer = God. So I have defined God into existence.
You cannot describe God, because it isn't available for examination.
Suppose you claim that your god is a tree.
You may point at a tree and say, "That is Puliyidaivalaiyamman".
I say you are pointing at a tree.
I asked you a question. You didn't even attempt to answer it. Instead we see this attempt at deflection from you.Do you believe everything, you have written in this thread?
This is no longer about atheists. It hasn't been for some time. This is about basic logic.I'm mentioning atheists.
If God does not exist, then theism is a false belief. It's not "false" in the sense that you don't actually hold the belief, or something. It's false in the sense that it doesn't correspond to the fact that there is no God.Theism is false, as far as you're concerned.
Please confirm then, that you are not saying that there is a God and there isn't a God, simultaneously. Really, it's like trying to get blood out of a stone talking to you.No. I'm saying there are two positions, God Is, and without God.
No. I explained what I understand that term to mean earlier in the thread, as you will recall, and I stated my own position quite clearly back there.So you are a strong atheist?
I can see that.I've nothing to tell you James.
Why so vague? Please be specific.By the way they talk about, and discuss, God.
More stonewalling. Why am I not surprised that you went nowhere with that?I'm not a control freak, James. I would have to be engaged in a conversation before I know what will be discussed.
What's all this "for you" business?For you, it could be if you decided it was.
You're making yourself looking like a dogmatic, evasive, fool who also can't follow simple logical implications. If that gives you a blast, good luck to you. I think I've done rather a neat job of bringing out the real you for all to see. (Credit also goes to Sarkus and Baldeee.)I think the conversation is going really smoothly. You just need to stop trying to sum up what you can't comprehend.
You're not in the driving seat, James, and it bugs the hell out of you. I'm having a blast.
Never mind what I think; that's already on record earlier in the thread.For you, God is ficticious. This is what I've been saying all along.
Repetitive stonewalling. Do you think I don't notice when you continuously avoid answering direct questions that are put to you many times? Do you think other readers won't notice?God Is, and everything exist because of that.
That's how I define God.
Oh, have I made a mistake?Is that so?
Can you bring up the quote?
I asked you a question. Why don't you answer it? Then it will be your turn to ask me a question. See how this works?Based on what I have written about God, and Peter Pan, how do you arrive at this conclusion?
But its fun to watch.Anyone who tries to get a straight answer out of Jan is insane.