God is defined, not described.

[DaveC426913]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Jan is so wedded to his belief/ view that he's incapable of seeing any different view as valid.

I'm not convinced of that. I think Jan knows perfectly well he's not arguing in good faith. He does not speak like someone who believes what he says, he speaks like someone who's trolling and enjoying the attention. There's no consequence to him simply repeating his mantras over and over while ignoring refutations. And we are enabling this abysmal behavior.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

How so?



I believe that God exists, is not a claim that God exists. It is what makes me a theist.
God Is, and there is without God. It follows that some accept God Is, and as such believe in God.
It stems from the fundamental position we find ourselves in, Sarkus.
The second quote is a no brainer, as I said ''If God is the...'', not God IS the creator. That's what you would have liked me to say.



Atheists don't. They ask for evidence of God's existence, because they think God is an object that can and should be observed by anyone. They currently have no idea of how God could just be, irrespective of belief.



No I'm not. I merely observing the situation we find ourselves in. God Is, and there is without God.



I know that you're not referring to God IS, because if that were the case, there would be no need to talk of God's existence.
You are referring to God's existence as in the way anything exists. If I talk to another theist, we don't need to talk about whether or not God exists. Even if we theistically disagree.



No it's not. The game is; God Is, and there is ''without God''.
The question of God's existence, is due to being without God. Nothing more.



I have also stated that 'God Is' here also. As has been explained to you, there is no claim that God exists.
Being a theist, it means that I accept God Is, and in doing so, inevitably believe in God.



And you require evidence to verify what you term as God's existence, then you imply that God does not exist (hence the need for evidence). This become amplified when you reject evidence of God, as not being strong enough.



I neither have to believe or not believe. What makes you think I do?
Why would I need to believe it?



The field we find ourselves in allows that we can have friends, and if their name happens to be Felix, then we can have a friend named Felix. I already accept that. So if you tell you have a friend named Feliex, I accept it whether it is true or not.



They're not examples.



That's okay, I don't mind talking about God's existence. But that is not what I'm talking about now. I'm talking about the reason for why there are theists, and atheists. God Is, is the reason. Because there are atheists that accept being without God, and require some kind of proof, or evidence, in order to accept God, we talk about existence. But existence isn't the first point of call, no matter how much you would like it to be.



Assuming these are a priori assumptions regarding God.
An a priori assumption perhaps?



That you need evidence, is enough to know that God does not exist currently, as far as you're aware.
If I cannot see, or sense the invisible dragon in your garage, then the invisible dragon does not exist as far as I'm aware.
If I ask for evidence of the invisible dragon, it does not lessen my ''the invisible dragon does not exist as far as I'm aware, because the fact is, it doesn't.



That's not the thing to accept, Sarkus.
You only think it is because there is no God for you.
Acceptance has already taken place, and you are simply playing it out.



You assume that God Is, is an a priori assumption. Why?
I didn't make it up. That's just the way things are.
The fact that you don't accept God Is, is consistent with being an atheist.





Firstly, please show that I am making an a priori assumption, and while you're at it, please show how it is you are not,
I do allow for God Isn't in my observation, by including ''there is without God''. For you God Isn't, and I accept that. So again you are mistaken.



Every time you ask for evidence, it implies that God does not exist, that you are aware of.



''Direct revelation'' requires you to accept God Is. You don't, so you're currently, not.



Yeah! You sound real convincing.

...

^^^
Saying atheists ask for evidence of god is foolish. You should stop it if you can stop any of your misguided mantras.

It is not that atheists ask for evidence. It is that you are making a claim which you are obligated to give evidence for.
We did not go to you asking for evidence. Most atheists are not looking for evidence of gods & we certainly are not sitting around waiting for it.

<>

 

[Jan Ardena]

Most obvious is the simplest of claims, which I would consider the foundation of theism: "God exists", or equivalently "God is real".

That is irrelevant.
The foundation of theism is belief in God. You already know I'm a theist, so there's nothing more to say.
The less I say about myself, the less likely you are to digress. Unfortunately, you still digress, by keep coming back to what I personally think. It's not important. You only need to know what words mean.

No. Having your life predetermined (like karma) before you were born is mystical. Knowing what you will choose before you are born is mystical.

Actually I was being sarcastic.
But why do you regard such things as ''mystical''?

The fact is, I have elegantly unpacked what you're saying, and laid out its flaws for all to see.

That fact is, you're not even close to what I'm saying. You're too busy trying to mock.
Focus on what I'm saying.

I know you want to dictate the rules of Jan's God Game to us, again and again.

Why don't you cut this crap out, James?
This is why I miss out two thirds of what you write.

The only two positions we can rely on on are that you believe that "God Is", and you believe that anybody who does not accept that, for any reason, is "without God". Your positions are based, like everything else you say, on your unproven assumption.

It is an observation. State why you think my observation is unfounded.

Perhaps you think that God is somehow immune to discussions of "existence", so that asking whether God exists is a contradiction in terms - like asking what is north of the north pole.

Existence of God, is something an atheist questions, because God does not exist for them.
I never think of God as 'existing', like things exist.

Maybe you think "Is-ness" is superior to mere "existence". If so, then tell me what else, other than God, has this "Is-ness", combined with the indeterminate existence that your God is supposed to have.

Irrelevant.

If there is nothing else - if your ad hoc invention of Is-ness only applies so that your God is exempt from all discussion of its existence, then you're making a special pleading, as well as your usual begging of the question of whether your God is real.

Whatever!

So, stop with the transparent claims that I'm not using what you say. I'm directly quoting you. I'm summarising what I honestly believe your position to be.

Don't summarise. You're always way off. Then you accuse me of not responding.

The second possibility is that you're only talking about what people believe about God. And if that is the case, then "God Is" reduces to "some people (theists) believe that God exists", and "without God" reduces to "some people (atheists) don't believe that God exists".

Would you say that being born in Australia, you were born into any political situations that were present, irrespective of what you think now?

We are all born in an atmosphere, where we must make a choice, either to accept, or deny, God.
The parameters are therefore ''God Is'' or, one can be ''without God''.
Not that we make up stuff, and then believe in it. You don't seem to apreciate how integral 'God' is, in the lives of humans, across all time. It seems as though you want to deny that, and reduce God to, some people who made it up, and it has somehow stuck.

Reject, and deny. That's what your mind is set to do.

Nobody can be born into a logical contradiction, so I can only assume that you're talking about being born into an atmosphere in which some people profess belief in God, while others do not.

Why do they profess belief in God? Why are there people who are without God?
Did they make it up, or was it already present?
How far back do you want to go?

It is very clear that your claim that "God Is" has everything to do with your belief. That, as you say yourself, is your starting point. Everything else you say follows from that.

Don't proceed to tell me what I mean. I'm clearly expressing to you that ''God Is'' needn't be a statement of belief, and I am expressing it as an observation, not a belief. If you want to carry on, you must accept that, because it is first hand. If I want to express the belief that God Is, then I will. But I'm not, so work with it.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

There is nothing mystical about being born.

I was being sarcastic.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Saying atheists ask for evidence of god is foolish.

I would say that telling yourself, there is no God, is foolish.

It is not that atheists ask for evidence.

Who then, asks for evidence?

It is that you are making a claim which you are obligated to give evidence for.
We did not go to you asking for evidence.

What claim have I made?

Most atheists are not looking for evidence of gods & we certainly are not sitting around waiting for it.

Most theists (if any) do not go around making claims that God exists.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

We are all born in an atmosphere, where we must make a choice, either to accept, or deny, God.
The parameters are therefore ''God Is'' or, one can be ''without God''.

If you can't see how this is an a priori assumption on your part by now then I guess you never will.
It will forever mean that you are limited to discussions where "God Is" is assumed by all parties as a truth from the outset.

Not that we make up stuff, and then believe in it. You don't seem to apreciate how integral 'God' is, in the lives of humans, across all time. It seems as though you want to deny that, and reduce God to, some people who made it up, and it has somehow stuck.

Why do you deny this possibility?
What we are born into, and what people "across all time" are born into, is simply the pervasiveness of belief in God.
Why are you equating this to "God Is" being the truth, if not through your a priori assumption?

Why do they profess belief in God?

You tell us, Jan.
You profess a belief in God, do you not?
Why?
Or do you simply assume that what you believe is true?

Why are there people who are without God?

Given the definition of "without" that you insist upon, this assumes a priori that God Is.

Did they make it up, or was it already present?
How far back do you want to go?

Pervasiveness of a meme is no arbiter of its truth.
The reality is that we do not know who first came up with the notion, nor whether that notion is based on a reality or not.
Do you?

Don't proceed to tell me what I mean. I'm clearly expressing to you that ''God Is'' needn't be a statement of belief, and I am expressing it as an observation, not a belief.

Expressing it as an observation IS a statement of belief.
You are stating that you believe your interpretation of that observation to correspond to reality.
You can't simply say "this is an observation" and expect your interpretation, your claim of what you think you have observed, to be taken as unquestionable truth.
All you have is your belief, your claim, that God Is.

If you want to carry on, you must accept that, because it is first hand.

What you are doing here, Jan, is simply asserting your a priori assumption, and then insisting others accept it.
All you have is a first-hand interpretation based on your a priori assumption that God Is.
That doesn't make it true.
But it does make it your belief.

If I want to express the belief that God Is, then I will. But I'm not, so work with it.

So you state it as observation, what you hope will be accepted as the unquestioned truth.
This is nothing but rule 1 of your game, Jan.

Suppose I say that it is an observation that you are utterly dishonest, and your posts are riddled with inconsistencies and a woeful understanding of logic.
Well, I guess that's that, then, right?
If you want to carry on, you must accept that, because it is first hand. If I want to express it merely as the belief that you are utterly dishonest etc, then I will. But I'm not, so work with it.

Somehow I think you dispute the notion that you are dishonest, right?
How can you possibly do so when I have clearly stated it as an observation!
Or are you finally going to realise that stating something to be an observation is simply stating one's belief that one's interpretation of what they have observed is correct?

 

[Sarkus]

At what point did this website become so lax that someone feels that they can simply assert something and insist that everyone must accept it?

 

[James R]

At what point did this website become so lax that someone feels that they can simply assert something and insist that everyone must accept it?

To be fair, I don't think Jan is exactly getting away with that.

What has happened here is that Jan has dug himself a very deep hole that he feels he can't back out of without losing face. It's a pity that he feel it necessary to go to such lengths to try to make his belief as small a target as possible. As I said previously, what is starting to puzzle me the most is Jan's unwillingness to own the basic kinds of beliefs that most theists would happily admit to. After all, it's not like anybody can prove that his God doesn't exist. And yet, Jan is now going out of his way to avoid so much as saying that his God is real in any meaningful sense.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you can't see how this is an a priori assumption on your part by now then I guess you never will.
It will forever mean that you are limited to discussions where "God Is" is assumed by all parties as a truth from the outset.

If I stated ''God Is'' in accordance with my belief, you would be right. I also state ''without God'', as an equal part of that situation.
Obviously atheist aren't going to assume that ''God Is'', they are going to be ''without God''.

Why do you deny this possibility?

No trend lasts throughout all time.

What we are born into, and what people "across all time" are born into, is simply the pervasiveness of belief in God.
Why are you equating this to "God Is" being the truth, if not through your a priori assumption?

This is the non acceptance of God, and coming up with a landscape based on that.
''God Is'', is merely the situation we find ourselves in. You observe it from your perspective, I observe in from mine.

You tell us, Jan.
You profess a belief in God, do you not?
Why?

Because I accept God. I didn't make God up, and theism is, and was not pervasive.
The circumstances for acceptance, were already there. I only needed to pay attention.

Given the definition of "without" that you insist upon, this assumes a priori that God Is.

You're evading the question.
The answer is that you do not accept God.
Why don't you accept God?

Pervasiveness of a meme is no arbiter of its truth.

Is this a claim?

The reality is that we do not know who first came up with the notion, nor whether that notion is based on a reality or not.
Do you?

Why do you think someone came up with it?

Expressing it as an observation IS a statement of belief.
You are stating that you believe your interpretation of that observation to correspond to reality.

People have always believed in God, and people have always been without God.
Unless you can show that it is a mere trend that happened to last forever, I think the common denominator is God.

You can't simply say "this is an observation" and expect your interpretation, your claim of what you think you have observed, to be taken as unquestionable truth.
All you have is your belief, your claim, that God Is.

I have my belief, that is correct. Before I came to believe, ''God Is', and ''without God'' were still present, just as it is as I type this response.
All that has happened is that I accept God, and my understanding has increased to the point where I believe in God.

What you are doing here, Jan, is simply asserting your a priori assumption, and then insisting others accept it.
All you have is a first-hand interpretation based on your a priori assumption that God Is.
That doesn't make it true.
But it does make it your belief.

It's not ''a priori''. I t is an observation based on the fact that people have always naturally believed in God.
In that way, I'm not asserting that ''God Is'' as a theistic statement, even though I could have come to understand how and why God Is.
I'm saying it is the backdrop as to why this is so.

So you state it as observation, what you hope will be accepted as the unquestioned truth.

I was hoping that you would try and counter it, but the spirit of denial and rejection seems pervasive with you.

This is nothing but rule 1 of your game, Jan.

It's interesting how quickly you accept JamesR's notion, then work it into your dialogue.

Suppose I say that it is an observation that you are utterly dishonest, and your posts are riddled with inconsistencies and a woeful understanding of logic.

I'd say those false accusations are what it takes for you to remain blissfully ignorant of God.

Or are you finally going to realise that stating something to be an observation is simply stating one's belief that one's interpretation of what they have observed is correct?

I realise that. I believe that the two situations are always present. We simply choose to accept, or reject, and carry on with our lives.
I accept. You reject.

Your assumption is that God is a made up fantasy. This simply shows that my observation is quite possibly true.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What has happened here is that Jan has dug himself a very deep hole that he feels he can't back out of without losing face. It's a pity that he feel it necessary to go to such lengths to try to make his belief as small a target as possible.

Why is my personal belief so necessary James?
How will it aid these discussions?

As I said previously, what is starting to puzzle me the most is Jan's unwillingness to own the basic kinds of beliefs that most theists would happily admit to.

Care to give some examples of what MOST theists would happily admit to?

And yet, Jan is now going out of his way to avoid so much as saying that his God is real in any meaningful sense.

I'm a theist. Draw from that what you will.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

If I stated ''God Is'' in accordance with my belief, you would be right. I also state ''without God'', as an equal part of that situation.
Obviously atheist aren't going to assume that ''God Is'', they are going to be ''without God''.

You do state it as part of your belief.
Only you think it is not just your belief but reality, and as such should be accepted by all.
This is just part of your belief, though.
It all comes from your belief.

No trend lasts throughout all time.

So an argument from longevity?
It is an unprovable claim/belief, so as long as it gives some people hope it will last.
Longevity of an unprovable belief is not a measure of its veracity, only of how willing people are to maintain it as a belief.

This is the non acceptance of God, and coming up with a landscape based on that.

So you believe due to your a priori assumption.

''God Is'', is merely the situation we find ourselves in.

So you believe due to your a priori assumption.

You observe it from your perspective, I observe in from mine.

Yet you want your observation to be taken as the objective truth of the situation.
No one can differ with you,
It is your interpretation or the wrong interpretation, right?
And you believe your interpretation is correct... due to your a priori assumption.

Because I accept God.

Yes, you accept your a priori assumption to be true.
Why do you accept your a priori assumptions to be true?

I didn't make God up, and theism is, and was not pervasive.

It doesn't matter if you made God up or not.
It is what you believe.
You seem to also believe that the notion of God is not man-made?
Why do you believe this?

What do you mean by "...and theism is, and was not pervasive?" - your grammar is throwing me a tad.

The circumstances for acceptance, were already there. I only needed to pay attention.

What circumstances were there that were not begging the question, that did not rely on the a priori assumption?

You're evading the question.

I am highlighting that your usage of the word "without" makes it a loaded question, loaded with the a priori assumption that God Is.
As such it is not a question that needs answering, until you can remove that a priori assumption.

The answer is that you do not accept God.

From your position of holding the a priori assumption that God exists/Is, I can see why you think that.

Why don't you accept God?

Because I do not hold the a priori assumption that God Is, and without that I am unsure of the veracity of the claim that God exists/Is.

Is this a claim?

Yes.
Superstitions are a meme, many of which have lasted a significant time.
Unless you believe that they are all true, you necessarily must accept that longevity is no arbiter of their truth.

Why do you think someone came up with it?

Because to think about something, first the notion must form.
If you are thinking about God, first there must be the notion of God.

People have always believed in God, and people have always been without God.
Unless you can show that it is a mere trend that happened to last forever, I think the common denominator is God.

Argument from longevity again.
The common denominator is people, and the human propensity for belief.
It is undeniably a powerful belief, capable of lasting, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.
Also I don't need to show you that it is a mere trend for that to be a possibility.

I have my belief, that is correct. Before I came to believe, ''God Is', and ''without God'' were still present, just as it is as I type this response.

So you believe.
Your belief doesn't make it true.

All that has happened is that I accept God, and my understanding has increased to the point where I believe in God.

So you believe.

It's not ''a priori''.

Yes, it is.
It is the very definition of an a priori assumptions: that which you want people to accept without further proof or argument.
You have stated that much explicitly.
Calling it an observation doesn't change it.

I t is an observation based on the fact that people have always naturally believed in God.

Natural propensity to believe in God does not mean that the belief is true.
It merely means that people are born with the propensity to believe.

In that way, I'm not asserting that ''God Is'' as a theistic statement, even though I could have come to understand how and why God Is.
I'm saying it is the backdrop as to why this is so.

And you are confusing the propensity for belief with the veracity of what is believed.
Yes, the backdrop is that we are mostly all born into a society where belief in God is pervasive.
That is irrelevant to the truth of what is believed, irrelevant to whether God Is or God Isn't.
You need to distinguish between the pervasiveness of belief and the veracity of what is believed.

I was hoping that you would try and counter it, but the spirit of denial and rejection seems pervasive with you.

The countering has been done through the this thread and others.
The immediate issue is that you are now trying to assert it as an a priori assumption that we must all accept.
Yet you can't see it as an a priori assumption.

It's interesting how quickly you accept JamesR's notion, then work it into your dialogue.

If you find it interesting then perhaps you should start a thread in the psychology forum as to why people might pick up analogies and lines of argument from other people and run with them.
Personally I find it rather common.

I'd say those false accusations are what it takes for you to remain blissfully ignorant of God.

Ah, but they're not false accusations, as I've clearly expressed them as statements.
Thus they must be accepted.
Etc.

I realise that. I believe that the two situations are always present.

Woohoo!
Breakthrough!
You finally accept that your statements are merely statements of what you believe rather than statements of objective truth.
I do believe we're getting somewhere, Jan.
So does that mean you will now stop with the claims as fact, the statements as objective truth?

We simply choose to accept, or reject, and carry on with our lives.

With your a priori assumption, it certainly would seem that others are rejecting that which you think you know to be the case.

I accept. You reject.

With your a priori assumption, it certainly would seem that others are rejecting that which you think you know to be the case.

Your assumption is that God is a made up fantasy.

Back we are to you and your strawman, Jan.
Where have I indicated that God is a made up fantasy?
Where have I ever assumed it?
Where have I said anything that could imply as much?

This simply shows that my observation is quite possibly true.

No, it is not any assumption on my part that shows your assumption could be true.
It is accepted that it could be true, Jan, for the simple reason that it can't be shown to be false.
But few here argue that your view is necessarily wrong.
Most here would accept that "God Is" is a possibility, but they also accept that "God Isn't" is a possibility.
Most do not have an a priori assumption that one or other is correct from the outset.
And most do not merely beg the question of that a priori assumption to reconfirm their own position.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So an argument from longevity?

Is that a fallacy?

You seem to also believe that the notion of God is not man-made?
Why do you believe this?

Because man has never created trends that lasts generateration after generation. Also, once you accept "God Is", you understand that man does not have that capability.

Yes, it is.
It is the very definition of an a priori assumptions: that which you want people to accept without further proof or argument.

a priori relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.

Natural propensity to believe in God does not mean that the belief is true.

That's a different topic.
The fact that belief, or lack of belief in God is natural to humans, mean God is more than a concept, or the result of paltry human imaginations.

And you are confusing the propensity for belief with the veracity of

How so?
All I'm suggesting is that belief in God is natural to human beings. That makes it important to our self-realisation and spiritual development. Instead of seeking every which way I can, to repress, suppress, and oppress it, like you do.

Yes, the backdrop is that we are mostly all born into a society where belief in God is pervasive.

That's how you see it now, because you didn't accept God. Now you're atheist, which means "without God".

Why don't you accept God?

That is irrelevant to the truth of what is believed, irrelevant to whether God Is or God Isn't.

Said like a true atheist.

You need to distinguish between the pervasiveness of belief and the veracity of what is believed.

Why?

You finally accept that your statements are merely statements of what you believe rather than statements of objective truth.

Yes. Just as you've had time to not accept God, and as a result, increased your rejection, denial, and ignorance of God.
I've come to the conclusion that God is, and without God are the two positions all humans find themselves in.

Where have I indicated that God is a made up fantasy?
Where have I ever assumed it?
Where have I said anything that could imply as much?

It is implied in your denial and rejection of God.

Most here would accept that "God Is" is a possibility, but they also accept that "God Isn't" is a possibility.

Which is my point.

If you're an atheist, but hold out that God could be a possibility. That notion is based on God, not theism. It is because the two position exist, why you hold on to that possibility.
A theist doesn't hold the possibility that God Isn't, because there is no need. That is why atheists are without God.
The two positions in a nutshell.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Is that a fallacy?

Appealing to anything other than the actual argument itself is a fallacy, yes.

Because man has never created trends that lasts generateration after generation.

So democracy hasn't endured?

Also, once you accept "God Is", you understand that man does not have that capability.

Which would be question-begging... "Believe to believe" I think it has been described to you before?

a priori relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.

I'm not referring to a priori knowledge, but to a priori assumptions.
It's a term used in law, so you may want to look it up, but it means something along the lines of "assumed to be true without further proof".

That's a different topic.

Not when you wish to use it to support your belief that God Is.

The fact that belief, or lack of belief in God is natural to humans, mean God is more than a concept, or the result of paltry human imaginations.

No it doesn't.
It is natural for humans to believe in superstitions, so presumably you think that superstitions are more than just a concept, or the result of "paltry human imaginations"?

How so?

When you give the propensity for humans to believe as giving weight to the veracity of that belief, as you do just above as well, then you are unwarrantedly confusing the two.

All I'm suggesting is that belief in God is natural to human beings.

So you accept that being natural to humans does not necessarily mean that it is true?
Or are superstitions all true?

That makes it important to our self-realisation and spiritual development.

Why?
This seems somewhat of a leap.
Do you consider folk-lore and superstitions similarly important?

Instead of seeking every which way I can, to repress, suppress, and oppress it, like you do.

I don't do any of those things.
Just like belief in superstition, it died out of me seemingly naturally.
There is no fight inside me, no effort to not believe that God exists.
It is more natural to me now than believing ever was.
But it's natural to not believe, right?
Isn't that what you've previously said?
So being natural is absolutely no arbiter of truth.
Unless you view it from the a priori assumption that God Is/exists.

That's how you see it now, because you didn't accept God. Now you're atheist, which means "without God".

So you don't think that belief in God is pervasive in our society?
If you think that belief is in and of itself independent of the truth of what is believed in, then the pervasiveness of belief throughout a population does not itself make what is believed true.
So you see it not as a pervasive belief, but as the truth of what is believed.
And you do so because of your a priori assumption,

Why don't you accept God?

I have already told you.

Said like a true atheist.

No, said like someone who has a reasonable understanding of the basics of deductive logic.

Why?

To do otherwise is a logical fallacy.

Yes.

Good.

Just as you've had time to not accept God, and as a result, increased your rejection, denial, and ignorance of God.

I've certainly had time to let go of my a priori assumption that God exists, and to start afresh.
If the rest makes you think better about what I say, go for it.

I've come to the conclusion that God is, and without God are the two positions all humans find themselves in.

Other than because of your a priori assumption, on what other basis have you reached that conclusion?

It is implied in your denial and rejection of God.

Wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid, Jan.
You've been arguing against your strawman again, haven't you?!

Which is my point.

If you're an atheist, but hold out that God could be a possibility. That notion is based on God, not theism. It is because the two position exist, why you hold on to that possibility.

It is based on the possibility of God, yes.

A theist doesn't hold the possibility that God Isn't, because there is no need.

So they believe.
On what basis, if not ultimately their a priori assumption that God exists/Is?

That is why atheists are without God.

So you believe.

The two positions in a nutshell.

Yes, one stemming from an a priori assumption that God exists/Is, and the other stemming from no a priori assumption at all.
Seem simple enough.
Thanks.

Now, do you have anything else other than your a priori assumption to offer?
Or are you just going to repeat the same old same old that stems from that a priori assumption?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Appealing to anything other than the actual argument itself is a fallacy, yes.

So it's not. Okay.

So democracy hasn't endured?

Is democracy an invention by man, or is the idea of the individual wanting a say in how his nation is governed, a natural occurrence. I would say the latter.
Try again.

Which would be question-begging... "Believe to believe" I think it has been described to you before?

"Accept" and "belief" are two different positions. But yes, one needs to accept, in order to believe.

It's a term used in law, so you may want to look it up, but it means something along the lines of "assumed to be true without

It still doesn't wash. My assumption is based on observation.

Not when you wish to use it to support your belief that God Is.

"God Is", is being used as an obserbation. Not a theistic statement. If you want to start a new thread where we discuss the theistic understanding. Be my guest
But it is definitely a different topic.

It is natural for humans to believe in superstitions, so presumably you think that superstitions are more than just a concept, or the result of "paltry human imaginations"?

I don't see God, and superstition on the same level. Obviously for someone who is without God, that's not a problem.

When you give the propensity for humans to believe as giving weight to the veracity of that belief, as you do just above as well, then you are unwarrantedly confusing the two.

How is knowing that God is more than a concept, or the result of paltry human imagination, a claim to the veracity of what is believed?

So you accept that being natural to humans does not necessarily mean that it is true?

I don't see how the notion of what is true, finds itself into this discussion
It is natural to eat. What more do you need to know? It is natural to accept God. What more do you need to know?

Why?
This seems somewhat of a leap.

An atheist perspective.
God does not exist for you, therefore anything related to God-consciousness is naturally of limits.

Do you consider folk-lore and superstitions similarly important?

No.

I don't do any of those things.
Just like belief in superstition, it died out of me seemingly naturally.

'Fraid not.
At least not based on discussions we have on God.

There is no fight inside me, no effort to not believe that God exists.

Lol!

It is more natural to me now than believing ever was.

That's because you never did believe, because you never accepted.

So being natural is absolutely no arbiter of truth.

If it is natural, what does truth have to do with it. It's natural to eat. How would you bring truth into that?

I have already told you.

Oh right? No evidence.

No, said like someone who has a reasonable understanding of the basics of deductive logic.

Nope
Sounds like an atheist.

To do otherwise is a logical fallacy.

Why is it?

Good. I've certainly had time to let go of my a priori assumption that God exists, and to start afresh.
If the rest makes you think

You're an atheist. Meaning you don't accept God. Ultimately you come to the conclusion that God does not exist. But you never did connect to God. That is why you had an a priori assumption.

Wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid, Jan.

More like wishful-thinking on your part.

It is based on the possibility of God, yes.

From an atheist perspective, yes.

So they believe.
On what basis, if not ultimately their a priori assumption that God exists/Is?

Based on acceptance.
Something you have not experienced thus far.

So you believe.

Yes.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Baldeee, I'd give it a rest - he's now just into his childish phase of petty retorts ("no, I don't smell! You do!") and reversion to his strawman. Maybe there are snippets of value in there, somewhere, but do you really want to trawl through the manure to find them?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I would say that telling yourself, there is no God, is foolish.

Who then, asks for evidence?

What claim have I made?

Most theists (if any) do not go around making claims that God exists.

jan.

^^^
I have never said there is no god. Telling yourself there is a god is foolish.

It is NOT a matter of asking for evidence! You are obligated to give evidence.

IF you are not making a claim, what the heck are you doing???

Bullshit. Most theists DO claim that a god exists.

<>

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is my personal belief so necessary James?

Because your personal beliefs are directly responsible for you being unwilling to put forth an honest argument:

Obviously atheist aren't going to assume that ''God Is'', they are going to be ''without God''.

There are two possibilities, neither of which are provable:

1] God exists; the believers are right; the skeptics are wrong.
2] God does not exist; the believers are wrong; the skeptics are right.

This is a skeptic, acknowledging that both are possible.

Let's see a believer acknowledge as much.

 

[James R]

Jan is digging an even deeper hole for himself now. I'll respond in more detail later.

One thing I would like to point out is that the atheists here are at a disadvantage because they are being scrupulously honest in this discussion, whereas Jan is putting things up as truths without any argument or evidence, then digging his heels in whenever he is called out on his unwarranted assumptions.

It would be easier if the atheists here were arguing that "God Isn't", or something similar. If they were, they could meet Jan on his own ground. If assertion really made it so, like Jan would have us believe, then atheists could argue that "God Isn't" is the "position we all find ourselves in", and that therefore proves that God isn't real - just like what Jan does on the other side of the argument. They could equally claim that "God Isn't" is an observation borne out of experience, and all that nonsense.

The problem for the atheists here is that we're more honest than that. We admit that nobody knows for sure if God is real. That is, we admit the possibility that God might exist. Jan takes this admission as a sign of weakness and an acceptance of defeat, because he thinks that an admission of any doubt is de facto acceptance of the opposite position. In contrast, Jan simply asserts, without evidence or argument, that the reality of God is not subject to any doubt at all, even though he must understand by now that it is very much susceptible to reasonable doubt. In other words, Jan is not being honest when he claims to just know that his God is real. And he knows he is being dishonest by making this false claim to certain knowledge.

The atheists here all accept that belief in God is pervasive in human society. But there is no logic to Jan's argument that because a belief is common, therefore it is necessarily true. For the vast majority of human history, people have believed that the Sun is a vast ball of fire in the sky, and no doubt literally billions of people still believe that today. It could be argued that such a belief is "natural" to human beings. But, nevertheless, we know that belief is wrong.

Once again, we are forced to conclude either that Jan has such an appallingly bad grasp of logic that he is not properly equipped to have this discussion, or else that he is being knowlingly dishonest in failing to concede that all he has to offer on behalf of his God at the end of the day is his belief and his a priori assumption.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Jan is digging an even deeper hole for himself now. I'll respond in more detail later.

One thing I would like to point out is that the atheists here are at a disadvantage because they are being scrupulously honest in this discussion, whereas Jan is putting things up as truths without any argument or evidence, then digging his heels in whenever he is called out on his unwarranted assumptions.

It would be easier if the atheists here were arguing that "God Isn't", or something similar. If they were, they could meet Jan on his own ground. If assertion really made it so, like Jan would have us believe, then atheists could argue that "God Isn't" is the "position we all find ourselves in", and that therefore proves that God isn't real - just like what Jan does on the other side of the argument. They could equally claim that "God Isn't" is an observation borne out of experience, and all that nonsense.

The problem for the atheists here is that we're more honest than that. We admit that nobody knows for sure if God is real. That is, we admit the possibility that God might exist. Jan takes this admission as a sign of weakness and an acceptance of defeat, because he thinks that an admission of any doubt is de facto acceptance of the opposite position. In contrast, Jan simply asserts, without evidence or argument, that the reality of God is not subject to any doubt at all, even though he must understand by now that it is very much susceptible to reasonable doubt. In other words, Jan is not being honest when he claims to just know that his God is real. And he knows he is being dishonest by making this false claim to certain knowledge.

The atheists here all accept that belief in God is pervasive in human society. But there is no logic to Jan's argument that because a belief is common, therefore it is necessarily true. For the vast majority of human history, people have believed that the Sun is a vast ball of fire in the sky, and no doubt literally billions of people still believe that today. It could be argued that such a belief is "natural" to human beings. But, nevertheless, we know that belief is wrong.

Once again, we are forced to conclude either that Jan has such an appallingly bad grasp of logic that he is not properly equipped to have this discussion, or else that he is being knowlingly dishonest in failing to concede that all he has to offer on behalf of his God at the end of the day is his belief and his a priori assumption.

^^^
Jan has been digging that hole for years.
I often have to put up with very much, sometimes in silence, just to get along with people but 1 thing I do not allow is for any one to try to tell me I know or believe something which I know that I do not know or believe. It certainly is not my fault that their Holy Babble tells them it is obvious to everyone & everyone is without excuse & they accept it without reasonable questioning. No matter what they believe or believe they know, that is very offensive & there is no frigging excuse for it. They would not like being told that they know there is no god. Of course, many theists have a double standard.
Unfortunately, Jan is not the only 1 with such notions as I hope I am showing in another thread.
Nobody knows for certain whether some god(s) may be real but : 1 - The god of the Christian bible cannot exist due to contradictions. 2 - I cannot think of any evidence of a god that could not result from some being(s) much more powerful than humans yet as natural a part of this universe as humans. 3 - Until there is logical convincing proof, there is overwhelming evidence against an omnipotent benevolent god.
Despite Jan's absurd assinine assumptions, I do not know any god(s) exists. Therefore, no god exists or it is not omnipotent or it does not want me to know or it does not care whether I know.
Despite most of what I have heard from theists, there is no onus on humans to find god. It is astounding how much responsibility theists try to put on puny humans while so little on a supposedly omnipotent god. Blaming ants for what humans do would be more reasonable.
I guess it is a disadvantage to be reasonable while others are being obtuse.
Jan is unable or pretends to be unable to understand extremely simple things such as my point about atheists not asking for evidence or his asking "What claim have I made?" etc etc etc. It reminds me of Andy Griffith's "What It Was Was Football" & Abbott & Costello's "Who's On First".

Great quote from Dick.

<>

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have never said there is no god.

You don't have to say it.

Telling yourself there is a god is foolish.

I don't have to say it.

IF you are not making a claim, what the heck are you doing???

I'm currently asking you what claim have I made.

Bullshit. Most theists DO claim that a god exists.

Examples?

jan.