Proof there is a God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by JBrentonK, Sep 23, 2015.

  1. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Yes, it's not necessary, babies lack a belief about god. But all theists, like you, have a belief.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Babies lack a belief about anything.

    Obviously, which is why we are called ''theist''.

    The important thing to bare in mind is that we do not need to believe in God to accept the definition of God. Agreed?

    jan.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Thereat... Old English? Translated from? May I ask the meaning you find in the word in the context of the quote. Are you using it as a noun? Perhaps explain what this means to you. I think I get it but I would appreciate further explanation.
    Alex
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Yeah, a religious claim.

    Which is exactly why you make them, over and over again. You have no interest in an honest discussion, which is why you will not commit to a definition of "god" to advance the discussion.
    No, because it is full of vague, metaphorical language. You have no interest in being clear because then we could actually point out the holes in your reasoning. For you, reasoning is not involved and you want others to merely submit.
     
  8. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Apparently knowledge of information about God will not give a better view of scriptures, since the BG is not "purely about God". It it explicitly about the nature of humans in the world, using an idea of the nature of a god as a way of explaining the nature of the world and of the relative place of humans in that world.
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    This is not a definition. It is not even grammatically correct, and so cannot be parsed for meaning.

    'full' is an adjective. It can also be an adverb, but I find no definition for it as a noun.
    The capitalisation suggests it has a non-standard, attributed meaning, which has not been provided. So we are still definition-less.

    Show us you are sincere in wanting to discuss god. Provide a workable definition.
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Jan I know this is part of a discussion with spidergoat but from my viewpoint you must believe in God to have a definition of God. How can I an athiest have a definition of something that I do not comprehend imagine or entertain. As you side we are on different sides of the arguement but you must somehow accept that an athiest does not and can not define God. I cant define God cause I have no idea I dont imagine anytthing, there are no atributes. I often wonder what folks see iin their minds eye so theclosest I could get to a definition would be trying to piece together someone elses imagination.
    You keep saying we can define God.. We includes me and ME can not so WE can not define God.. You can I can not. For a moment try to put yourself in my shoes and imagine how I see it.. It does not help if you declare something which is not true.
    I gave you my definition as best I could.. A mythical character.. You just ignore that. You just think I am in denial or missing the point.. No no no.
    You define God an athiest can not if they are being honest. Well I cant speak for others but please grasp what I am saying.
    Can we agree that given your position that you cant think of how I see things. That is not bad but you should at least understand I can not define God so it is incorrect for you to insist I and perhaps others can.
    It is a non event in my world.
    Alex
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Heh. I was about to refute this when I realized it's true.

    I was about to say I can accept someone else's definition of Santa Claus or of a unicorn without believing in them, but I can't really.
    Since it's fictional, and there are many accounts - none of which are authorities - there is no right/wrong about any given definition.

    If someone said 'the definition of Santa Claus includes a red suit and a button nose' - who am I to disagree?
    What would I say? 'No. Santa has several suits for different occasions, and his nose is more like a cherry.'

    If someone said 'unicorns are invariably pure white' - who am I to disagree?
    What would I say? 'No! Non-existent unicorns are often dunn-coloured or speckled'.


    An objectively-agreeable definition requires believing there is an extant thing being described.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2016
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    There are as many definitions of God as there are religions. So for the purposes of discussion it must be defined. We can tentatively accept a definition for the purposes of discussion, which is not the same thing as accepting a particular definition as the "true one".
     
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    There's a difference, surely, between defining the actual thing and defining a mere concept of that thing?
    While the onus should surely be on those wishing to prove the existence of God, this is clearly not going to happen with the current main proponent, so surely we can arrive at a definition of the concept of God without accepting or assuming that the thing actually exists.

    Such a definition, in my view, can not assert anything other than the characteristics sufficient for us to identify it unambiguously when the evidence arises. As such, defining it along the lines of "cause of all" is not acceptable as, since we are not there to witness the original causation (if indeed one took place) and thus can not prove that characteristic true, it is not a characteristic of God that can be used to identify Him.

    Anyone care to offer up a definition in such a manner?
    Does such a definition exist?

    Naturally I would prefer the theist to offer their definition, then prove that what they are defining actually exists, and then let us scrutinise it.
     
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    It means 'because of that'.
    In context it means 'because of that, a person, firmly in that knowledge, does not grieve.

    Jan.
     
  15. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Please speak for yourself.

    I think that many of us can form many good definitions of the divine without believing in them.

    We can form good ideas of different animals without knowing whether or not they exist. We can then find evidence about whether or not these animals exist.

    There is a problem that one can skip from one definition to another when there is no physical thing to fix its meaning (and even sometimes when there is). This is why it is important to get a clear definition up front, so that we can examine whether or not there might be something that matches that clear definition or not. We can, if we wish, move on to some other definition next.
     
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Not necessarily.
    I'm not making any religious claims.

    You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.

    No it's not.

    Jan.
     
  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I have provided a workable definition.
    I suppose you're going to waste more time now.

    Jan.
     
  18. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    How did you equate God and Santa, if you can't comprehend, imagine, or entertain God?

    You say you don't believe in God because, you think it is a man made myth (or something to that effect. Right?
    So why do you believe God is is a made up mythical?
    If your reply is no evidence, then what would be evidence of God? I assume you must know.

    A mythical character is still a character.
    Plus you must know why you believe it mythical.

    Fine. But you cannot claim that...

    God does not exist
    God is a mythical character
    God is a Santa Claus for adults.
    God is a crush for the weak minded
    There isn't evidence for God etc...

    Jan.
     
  19. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Sure. But you won't make any attempt to try to communicate something in a non-vague manner.
    That is easy for someone to say who apparently has not read any of the context of the document or anything beyond mere snippets of the document.
     
  20. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    The phrase "defining the actual thing" seems difficult and ambiguous to me. One spin that we might give it is to say that we are defining a concept and also saying that the concept refers to something, that it has a real existing referrant. We define a concept "Queen of England" and say that the elderly woman in Buckingham Palace is what corresponds to the concept. Compare that to defining our concept of "Sherlock Holmes", which doesn't possess an existing referrant.

    There are all kinds of philosophical difficulties associated with this. (I'm going to be returning to the bookstore this morning to purchase a very good but exceedingly expensive textbook on the theory of reference, that covers Frege's logical foundations, Russell's theory of descriptions, Kripke's rigid designators and Grice's innovative take on things.)

    When we talk about God, even if we presuppose a particular description for reasons of our adherence to religious tradition or whatnot, as Jan seemingly does (it's supposedly what all "scripture" is about!), the question still remains whether 'God' is like 'Queen of England' or like 'Sherlock Holmes'. We still don't know whether 'God' has an existing referrant. That's the whole issue between the theist and the atheist. The atheist doesn't deny the existence of the word 'God' or even the definitions that various people have given it. Atheists deny that it actually refers to any existing being.

    Have human beings created an initial 'definition of God' for themselves out of their own imaginations and then set off searching for anything that corresponds to it? Or are the 'definitions of God' actually supposed to be informative, factual descriptions of a really existing God? If we say 'God is X', (1) have we learned something about the nature of God (that God really is X), or (2) merely created our own requirement about what anything has to satisfy in order to be called 'God'?

    There are obvious theological difficulties with (2). But (1) begs precisely the questions that are at issue between the theist and the atheist.

    Describing God, actually learning about the nature and essence of God, presupposes that God exists, that human beings can somehow contact God and that information about God's nature and essence can pass from God to man. Sure, the Bible, Quran and Gita assume something like that, but is it true? And if we are defining our concept of God not from reciting tradition but from what is actually discovered about God, initial reference to God can't be established by use of a Russell-style definite description. It would seemingly have to be established ostensibly, by pointing at God in effect: 'I don't have a clue what that is, but let's call it 'God' and learn more about it.' I think that's the approach that most of the religious traditions take. Man encounters God (on a mountaintop, in a chariot or wherever) and God communicates. One seemingly believes that or one doesn't.

    Of course there's the additional complication that many monotheistic theological traditions, both in the West and in the East, would question how much human beings can know about God's essence. God is supposed to be transcendent, beyond human conceptualization entirely. Mankind can know God's actions in this world, but can't really know God as God actually is. If that's so, then the whole project of defining 'God' would seem to be doomed to failure.

    So I'm inclined to think that all of this talk about defining 'God' is deeply complicated, perhaps a bit of a red-herring and ultimately a bit circular.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2016
  21. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Just throwing the word "full" around is not a workable definition. You know that it isn't, yet you fuck around with this vague shit anyway. That is deceitful, it is purposefully lying through omission.
     
    exchemist and DaveC426913 like this.
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    You have not, and you know this perfectly well.

    I told you why it is not workable. 'full' is an adjective or adverb; you have used it as a noun. And it is not normally capitalized. You have used grammar and diction that cannot be parsed by anyone but yourself. It is - literally - meaningless.

    To respond simply insisting that it's workable, having been shown why it is not (not even addressing it), is evasive at best, disingeuous at worst. Doubly so by suggesting it is me doing the wasting of time.

    Provide a definition that uses words with established meaning.

    [EDIT] Yes, what PhysBang said.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2016
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    You are still attempting to shift the onus onto the antithetical.

    There is no antithethis until there is a thesis.

    Imagine this happening in a courtroom.
    Prosecution: "Let the defendant show why he is innocent." (Invalid thesis)
    Defense: "Of what? The prosecution has not made an accusation yet!" (no antithesis, since no thesis)

    The onus is on the claimant - you - to first lay out the claim. Until then, there is no need - indeed, no possibility - of a refutation.


    So, as always, lay out your evidence for the existence of God.

    You won't. Becuse you know it's indefensible.
    It's a belief. Which is OK, but let's not pretend it's something more.
     
    exchemist likes this.

Share This Page