God is defined, not described.
- Thread starter Ted Grant II
- Start date
Ah right.
A nutcase site that uses "translations" from Sitchin ( a nutcase) and Tellinger (another nutcase) - neither of whom are/ were actually qualified to do those "translations".
But you know better ? How so ?
Because I read sources that provide both sides of the story.
Both of those writers have zero reputation in legitimate academic circles.
Legitimate academic circles . Define this circle .
And not one of those three linked sites say anything about Enki or Enlil at all - let alone that they existed or were"god".
People whose work is corroborated.
People who actually got an education in the subject they pursue.
people who can support their claims.
Because I looked at them. I read them
I did a CTRL-F search for both "Enki" and "Enlil" and they weren't included.
Wrong.
Anyone can do so - but they're expected to have viable evidence to support them.
Firstly I don't assume God exists, secondly even if I, jan, did make such an assumption, atheists are still without God. Unless you believe my word is final.
Are you saying I invented God?
That's not what I said, or implied at all.
You are dishonest.
I haven't implied anything.
It is what it is.
I argued no such thing.
You're being dishonest.
If God does not exist, you are atheist by default.
You see it as an assumption, because you are atheist (literal),
As you remain atheist, God will never exist. You cannot know anymore than that,
Because you're atheist, God will never exist, So the question as to whether or not God exists, will always be up for grabs among curious atheists.
As an atheist you cannot know if I'm begging the question, unless you assume your position to be the only one.
You're right, my bad. There are only a mish-mash of ideas, as atheists scramble to invent a definition that does not imply God.
GOOD LUCK with that task.
jan.
Last edited:
So what's you're problem?
Read above.
If I am without Garg, why would I want to Garg?
Do you think'' real'' only applies to the external?
You mean my belief in God?
When you write the word ''real'', I think you mean, whatever you can perceive. You can't perceive God, hence God is not ''real''.
That's all well and good. But now you want claim your limited perception as the standard perception of all humans. Anything that does not comply, is to be squashed.
I think the 20th century had it's fair share of that kind of lunacy. Be careful not to ignite that fuse.
It could do, but in this thread, I don't. Simply because I don't have to.
If God didn't necessarily exist, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Like all other trends and fashions, the God thing would have died out centuries ago.
Of course an atheist could posit that god is just an invention by man, But that is what you have to think, if you reject God. Which you clearly do.
You have no choice but to base everything on the assumption that God does not exist. Why? Because God doesn't exist as far as you're aware.
More dishonesty James.
I've already explained what I mean by''God Is''
No. You try and keep up.
I've already explained it.
Or once you stop rejecting God, ''without God'' goes away of it's own accord.
Remember you can not know for sure, if I am merely assuming God.
No. They are ongoing perceptions.
Can you find that quote please?
Unfortunately, as an atheist, you only ever be privy to fact that God does not exist as far as you are aware.
You cannot know any more than that. All your speculations, remain speculations based on ignorance.
Speculation!
The question is, Does God currently exist for any atheist. The answer has to be no, otherwise they aren't atheist.
You see. I don't require an atheist to come to that conclusion.
The rest is speculation.
Still not an explanation!
jan.
Likr?
I say, let's look into it.
What would accept as evidence that God exists?
You think you do, but you don't.
We only need to know that for you there is no God.
Theist, and Atheist.
I'm okay with your speculation. That is all you seem to have.
jan.
Only if you intend to stop there, and say nothing more about the beliefs in question or the person holding them.
If you do intend to go on, and make observations or suggest implications or draw conclusions, you need to know more.
Jan Ardena:
I am coming to the conclusion that a lot of your errors are caused by your conflations of two or more different concepts that are actually logically distinct. To mention just two such conflations: one is your real or feigned inability to distinguish between the subjective and the objective; the other is your real or feigned inability to distinguish between fact and belief. When we add in your real or feigned inability to accept the logical implications of statements that you make, I'm somewhat at a loss as to how to get through to you. It seems to me that the only way to address some of your issues would be to try to walk you through some of the basics of logic and critical thinking.
I find it strange that an apparently articulate man such as yourself has apparently missed what it means to think logically and critically. Your posts suggest that you have probably had a formal education of some kind, but maybe you avoided subjects that demand clear thinking and logical analysis. Alternatively, it could just be that you're not being honest in our discussions. It's hard to tell.
I also find it strange that, as an articulate man, you find it so hard to express your ideas about God clearly. Most of your replies consist of one-line snippets. You answer questions with questions. You repeat yourself endlessly. It could be that your thinking really is as shallow as it seems to be from your posts. Maybe I'm overestimating your competency, after all. Or maybe you haven't thought as deeply about your beliefs as you think you have, and you hit a wall when it comes to explaining how they fit together coherently, or how they are supported.
Finally, I find it strange that you can't remember what other people tell you about their views. It like a mental block where you started with a fixed view of atheists, say, and nothing that is said to you by atheists can make a dint on that prior view. There seems to be an unwillingness on your part to see what you can learn from other people.
If I had to sum up your opinion in this thread in a single word, the word I'd use would be "dogmatic". And again, I'm a little surprised by the apparent contradiction between a man who to all appearances seems to have carved out his own unique religious belief system from fragments of existing religions and a rigid inability to think outside that box you've created for yourself. You dismiss all alternative views that challenge your own belief system, and you apparently dismiss them out of hand, taking no time to actually consider them or formulate a response, as far as I can tell. Maybe all this is a self-protection mechanism, or again it could be that you're just not being honest in our discussions.
I will respond to your latest replies to me below, though there's nothing new there from you and not more I can usefully add to what I have written previously in response. I don't think there's much point in my repeating points that you appear to have forgotten or ignored, for a third or fourth time or whatever.
I am coming to the conclusion that a lot of your errors are caused by your conflations of two or more different concepts that are actually logically distinct. To mention just two such conflations: one is your real or feigned inability to distinguish between the subjective and the objective; the other is your real or feigned inability to distinguish between fact and belief. When we add in your real or feigned inability to accept the logical implications of statements that you make, I'm somewhat at a loss as to how to get through to you. It seems to me that the only way to address some of your issues would be to try to walk you through some of the basics of logic and critical thinking.
I find it strange that an apparently articulate man such as yourself has apparently missed what it means to think logically and critically. Your posts suggest that you have probably had a formal education of some kind, but maybe you avoided subjects that demand clear thinking and logical analysis. Alternatively, it could just be that you're not being honest in our discussions. It's hard to tell.
I also find it strange that, as an articulate man, you find it so hard to express your ideas about God clearly. Most of your replies consist of one-line snippets. You answer questions with questions. You repeat yourself endlessly. It could be that your thinking really is as shallow as it seems to be from your posts. Maybe I'm overestimating your competency, after all. Or maybe you haven't thought as deeply about your beliefs as you think you have, and you hit a wall when it comes to explaining how they fit together coherently, or how they are supported.
Finally, I find it strange that you can't remember what other people tell you about their views. It like a mental block where you started with a fixed view of atheists, say, and nothing that is said to you by atheists can make a dint on that prior view. There seems to be an unwillingness on your part to see what you can learn from other people.
If I had to sum up your opinion in this thread in a single word, the word I'd use would be "dogmatic". And again, I'm a little surprised by the apparent contradiction between a man who to all appearances seems to have carved out his own unique religious belief system from fragments of existing religions and a rigid inability to think outside that box you've created for yourself. You dismiss all alternative views that challenge your own belief system, and you apparently dismiss them out of hand, taking no time to actually consider them or formulate a response, as far as I can tell. Maybe all this is a self-protection mechanism, or again it could be that you're just not being honest in our discussions.
I will respond to your latest replies to me below, though there's nothing new there from you and not more I can usefully add to what I have written previously in response. I don't think there's much point in my repeating points that you appear to have forgotten or ignored, for a third or fourth time or whatever.
Jan Ardena:
On a more general point, referring to what I wrote above, there is a problem here in that you're conflating issues of fact with issues of belief (and knowledge). In philosophical terms, you're failing to distinguish ontological issues from epistemological ones.
Theists and atheism are about what people believe. If you believe that God exists, you're a theist; if you don't, you're an atheist. On the other hand, "God Is" or "God Is Not" is about fact. It is about whether something describable as "God" actually exists in the world, or not.
There are four logically distinct situations a person can find himself in:
1. God exists and the person believes in God.
2. God exists and the person does not believe in God.
3. God does not exist and the person believes in God.
4. God does not exist and the person does not believe in God.
Atheism covers situations 2 and 4, because an atheist is defined not by whether God exists but by what the person believes about God.
In comparison (pay attention, this is important): Jan Ardena's "without God" only covers situation 2 and excludes situation 4!
Similarly, theism logically includes situations 1 and 3, whereas Jan Ardena's "God Is" only covers situation 1.
Logically, you cannot ignore half of the possibilities, Jan.
This whole thread has been an attempt by you to erect a smokescreen to obscure the fact that situations 3 and 4 are there. You pretend that only situations 1 and 2 are available. We can only conclude that either your ability to reason is impaired in some way, or you're not being honest.
Pay attention to my little list again. Consider situations 3 and 4 carefully. See?
You are confusing epistemology and ontology again. It doesn't matter what I believe. God will exist or not exist, regardless.
Pay attention to my little list again. Consider situations 1/2 and 3/4 carefully. See?
It doesn't matter whether "my position" in the argument is true or false. Either way, if you're begging the question, you're begging the question.
This is Logic 101, again.
Look at my little list again. "Atheist" covers situations 2 and 4 on that list, and not just situation 2 like you believe.
"Atheist" is about epistemology, not ontology.
Yes you do. If you call it ab "observation", yet can't explain how anyone else can make that observation, then it's exposed as a mere assumption.
Atheists can only be "without God" in your sense if God actually exists. And you haven't shown that God exists.
On a more general point, referring to what I wrote above, there is a problem here in that you're conflating issues of fact with issues of belief (and knowledge). In philosophical terms, you're failing to distinguish ontological issues from epistemological ones.
Theists and atheism are about what people believe. If you believe that God exists, you're a theist; if you don't, you're an atheist. On the other hand, "God Is" or "God Is Not" is about fact. It is about whether something describable as "God" actually exists in the world, or not.
There are four logically distinct situations a person can find himself in:
1. God exists and the person believes in God.
2. God exists and the person does not believe in God.
3. God does not exist and the person believes in God.
4. God does not exist and the person does not believe in God.
Atheism covers situations 2 and 4, because an atheist is defined not by whether God exists but by what the person believes about God.
In comparison (pay attention, this is important): Jan Ardena's "without God" only covers situation 2 and excludes situation 4!
Similarly, theism logically includes situations 1 and 3, whereas Jan Ardena's "God Is" only covers situation 1.
Logically, you cannot ignore half of the possibilities, Jan.
This whole thread has been an attempt by you to erect a smokescreen to obscure the fact that situations 3 and 4 are there. You pretend that only situations 1 and 2 are available. We can only conclude that either your ability to reason is impaired in some way, or you're not being honest.
No, I'm saying you're trying to define words so that God is assumed and other real possibilities are excluded from the start. Maybe you don't even realise that's what you're doing.
It's easy to make these one-line replies, isn't it Jan? The difficulty lies in backing up what you say with explanation or justification. If what I suggest is not a logical implication of what you write, you really ought to highlight my logical error (if there is one). Failing that, all you're doing is denying.
What it is, for you is a priori assumption. Dogma.
You say this, and yet, in your very next post to the thread (as I will highlight below), we find you arguing this very thing again.
No!
Pay attention to my little list again. Consider situations 3 and 4 carefully. See?
No. I see it as an assumption because it is an assumption.
No!
You are confusing epistemology and ontology again. It doesn't matter what I believe. God will exist or not exist, regardless.
Pay attention to my little list again. Consider situations 1/2 and 3/4 carefully. See?
And the converse also applies, according to you, I assume. Because you're a theist, God will always exist (for you), so the question never arises for you, and you have no curiosity about the ontology. Right?
"Begging the question" is about logic. It's about the argument being had. It is a structural feature of a logical argument. It has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the premises of the argument itself.
It doesn't matter whether "my position" in the argument is true or false. Either way, if you're begging the question, you're begging the question.
This is Logic 101, again.
There's no struggle required. "Atheist" is already defined in a way that does not imply God.
Look at my little list again. "Atheist" covers situations 2 and 4 on that list, and not just situation 2 like you believe.
"Atheist" is about epistemology, not ontology.
(continued...)
Mental states can certainly be real. Apart from anything else, they are evidenced by behaviour.
Look at my list again. Theism actually encompasses situations 1 and 3, not just situation 1, like you think it does.
But this comes back to our discussion about how God is to be perceived, doesn't it? You have told me you don't think there's a special "God sense" that some people have and others don't. So, in what way is my perception limited, compared to yours? Please explain.
Remind me who is trying to squash whom, again.
Remember how in the previous post you said that the longevity of religion is not evidence that God exists?
Why are you now arguing the opposite?
Of the two of us, you're the one with the assumptions.
Oh, and you still have the causation backwards. It's not "atheist, therefore no God". It's "not convinced of God, therefore atheist".
Who cares why? Your wanting or not wanting Garg is irrelevant to whether Garg exists. Wanting or not wanting might go to determining your belief in Garg, of course.
What do you mean by "the external"? Do you mean external to the human mind?
Mental states can certainly be real. Apart from anything else, they are evidenced by behaviour.
God's existence or non-existence is not dependent on what you or I believe. Ontology vs epistemology, again.
Look at my list again. Theism actually encompasses situations 1 and 3, not just situation 1, like you think it does.
There's no evidence that any human has a better "perception" of God than I do.
But this comes back to our discussion about how God is to be perceived, doesn't it? You have told me you don't think there's a special "God sense" that some people have and others don't. So, in what way is my perception limited, compared to yours? Please explain.
I'm not telling anybody what to believe, Jan. I'm fine with you believing in God's existence. Why won't you allow me not to share your belief? Why won't you admit the logical possibility of situations 2 and 4? Why can it only be option 2 for me?
Remind me who is trying to squash whom, again.
Are you referring to Hitler and Stalin again? (Hitler was a theist.) Have you forgotten about centuries of religious oppression in various forms, which still goes on today in many places?
God doesn't necessarily exist. Can we stop now, then?
SPOTLIGHT!
Remember how in the previous post you said that the longevity of religion is not evidence that God exists?
Why are you now arguing the opposite?
If God doesn't exist, then what other option is there? Invention by small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri?
Even if situation 2 was the situation I found myself in, that would not necessarily mean I was "rejecting" God. I might simply be unaware of God. Or I might be making an honest mistake.
No. Situation 2 remains a possibility for me.
Of the two of us, you're the one with the assumptions.
Yes, yes. God is exempt from having to obey the normal rules of verbs like "to be". God is a special ad hoc exception. And this is not at all dogmatic. I understand.
I'm confident that's exactly what you're doing. If there was anything more, I think you could have explained it by now.
Let's not bother with that. If your position now is that God's existence can be established using evidence, why don't you just present your evidence? Maybe a new thread?
Whereas you, as a theist, can magically just know that God exists. Or are you now claiming again that you know because of evidence? Sorry, it's hard to keep up with the flip-flopping.
Oh, and you still have the causation backwards. It's not "atheist, therefore no God". It's "not convinced of God, therefore atheist".
Logic 101!
Wrong, because situation 2 is a logical possibility.
Last edited:
(continued...)
Once we sort out your logical difficulties, then we can perhaps have a separate look at the psychology of theism and possible evidence for God. This is taking enough time and effort as it is without going off on tangents.
These topics are all irrelevant for this thread, I think.
Once we sort out your logical difficulties, then we can perhaps have a separate look at the psychology of theism and possible evidence for God. This is taking enough time and effort as it is without going off on tangents.
OK. I admit I am confused about certain things. See my post above regarding your "worldview".
No, because situation 2 remains a possibility for me.
On what basis do you assert that God necessarily exists?
This sounds like defining something into existence by simply asserting that it is necessary. As I'm reasonably sure that was not your intention, please can you explain the basis on which you assert that God necessarily exists?
Oh, and without begging the question, please?
How do you know that no one else makes that observation?
If only one person makes that observation, is that a good enough reason to think the observation is unfounded?
How can God ever exist for an atheist?
You keep saying ''exists''
Pots and pans exist.
You accept that gravity exists?
Have you seen it, like you see pots and pans, or does the fact that pots and pans fall to the ground instead of float, when you let them go, allow you to understand it?
What do yo mean by ''exist''?
Do you mean that if God does exists, then it is only a matter of time before we can all know that?
Or if God does not exist, then it will remain as it does from your perspective?
The problem with that, is that you are assuming your worldview as the default one.
2. God exists and the person does not believe in God.
Being an atheist is more than not believing in God.
The fact is, God does not exist for the atheist.
The only reason an atheist can not believe in God, is primarily due to this fact.
Anything the atheist piles on top of that, merely highlights it. One such point is ''Does God exist'', or ''Does God actually exist''.
Putting aside debates and discussions where theist and atheist exchange ideas, and we use common language, for easy communication, what do those statements mean?
The only thing you know about theism, James, is that theists believe in God, and you know that because that is the definition of the word.
As an atheist you cannot know anymore than that, because there is nothing to know
Your logic is based on the notion that God has to be proven to exist, because of this fact
The notion that ''God Is'' or God necessarily exists, is, in your eyes, an a priori assumption that God exists, because of that fact.
God will never exist as far as atheism is concerned, because God does not exist as far as the as the atheist is concerned, by default.
The problem is, you can't see that.
They're the perspective of blind person, compared to a sighted person.
You are blind when it comes to God, and you can't accept that others (theists) aren't.
Both situations are fundamental position. We start from there, we don't end up there.
God Is, from my perspective (sighted), God does not exist from your perspective (blind).
You have to show that existence is something that applies to God, in a way that it applies to other things that exist.
Obviously you're going to chant ''Ah that is special pleading''.
Then I say prove that gravity exists. Or even more controversial, prove that existence actually exists. If you can, please explain how you know it exists.
Because that's all it takes to respond to some of your posts.
But I will try and fatten them out, if it makes you feel better.
The problem is James, you are so busy trying to sum me up, you miss the essence of what it is I'm communicating to you.
You end up repeating yourself, thinking that you are coming at it from a different angle, but you don't.
You come at it, all the time, from the perspective of God does not exist. Like a completely blind person, expresses the world from the perspective of sight does not exist.
3. God does not exist and the person believes in God.
4. God does not exist and the person does not believe in God.
Do you think an atheist can ever know that God, as you put it, exists?
It is a fact that God does not exist, as far as you're aware.
So you're assumption has to be based on that
Note that I'm not saying you assert there is no God, only that there IS no God, as far as you're aware.
And so we return to the idea of theist, and atheist.
You're right, it doesn't matter what we believe, the truth will always ''be''. Because the truth just ''Is''.
It has nothing to do with ''existence''. That is an atheist perspective.
The term ''Theist'' does not include within it, belief that God exists. It simply states, a person who believes in God.
How do you conclude that I am begging the question, when I have offered no conclusion.
If we were engaged in an argument about whether or not ''The Truth'' exists. The aim of the argument would
be to arrive at the truth of the matter. We would hopefully be ''truthful'' in our exchanges.
But by your logic, to be'' truthful'' would be begging the question, because we assume the conclusion by assuming/implying ''Truth'' exists.
I am not assuming God exists, by stating ''God Is''. I am simply establishing a basis.
Just as you are not assuming God does not exist, even though God does not exist as far as you're aware, which happens to be an established basis upon which you base your perception.
That there are both theists and atheists, imply God.
Unless you can show that God does not exist, or that God is a made up concept.
The established basis of ''Atheist'' is that God does not exist.
There is no God. As soon as you ask for evidence of God's existence, you assume your position ''God does not exist'' is correct.
jan.