God is defined, not described.

[Jan Ardena]

Three basic religious foundations , jews , christians , islamic , in no partictular order of importance .

Why you respond to my post with ''Abrahamic''?

jan.

 

[river]

Why you respond to my post with ''Abrahamic''?

jan.

Why wouldn't I ?

I'm just trying to understand what god is to you ?

Is your concept god abrahamic based or something else ?

Just asking !!!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why wouldn't I ?

I'm just trying to understand what god is to you ?

Is your concept god abrahamic based or something else ?

Just asking !!!

I don't see God as Abrahamic, or Hindu.

jan.

 

[river]

I don't see God as Abrahamic, or Hindu.

jan.

What then ?

What then is god to you ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

What then ?

What then is god to you ?

I already told you.

jan.

 

[river]

I already told you.

jan.

What post , the # number please .

 

[Baldeee]

Wow. Did Jan just cite logic as a liability in an argument?

It certainly seems so.

I haven't complained about you arguing with logic. But adding factors just so that you can continue to make your points, rather than actually discuss the points I put forward, isn't logic.

Ah, so it seems Jan doesn't like converting an argument into more easily understood examples that highlight the logic (or lack of) of the argument.
He thinks this is "adding factors".

This is like a child wanting to ignore a birthday present he resents being given, so focuses on a dislike of the wrapping paper as a reason to reject it.

 

[Sarkus]

I haven't complained about you arguing with logic. But adding factors just so that you can continue to make your points, rather than actually discuss the points I put forward, isn't logic. It's just another way for you to shift the goalposts.

There have been no "added factors", just a parsing of the issue into more simplistic examples. That you can't follow the logic is no excuse for disregarding the issue.

What question have I begged?

God's existence.

It is natural to accept God, as it is natural to not accept God. That's the point I'm coming from.

And if that is so, the natural acceptance or not is no arbiter on the veracity of whether God actually exists or not.
You assume, a priori, that he does. Whether this stems from your "natural acceptance" or not is neither here nor there. Everything you subsequently argue stems from that a priori assumption, and your arguments in support of the veracity of God's existence all stem from that a priori assumption.
You thus confirm what you already assume because you hold that assumption. Question begging.

You seem to want to bring the discussion around to God's existence, thinking that I perceive God, the way you do.

The issue of God existing is at the very heart of the matter. It is irrespective of one's perception - unless you are reverting to your nonsense of a wholly subjective God?
Do you agree that your perception of God has no bearing on whether or not God actually exists "or Is"?
And if you believe in God, are you saying that you don't also believe that God exists (or Is)?
So God's existence is at the heart of this debate, Jan, whether you like it or not. If you want to move it to an issue of perception then you are simply arguing a red-herring.

When I assert that God Is, I do it for the sake of discussion, just as somebody would assert that God isn't, God does not exist, or there is no evidence for God.

I really don't care if what you argue is the position you personally hold or not, only that if you argue a line that you stick with it, don't become inconsistent, and when you do say something that you accept what this implies, not disown it as not having been stated explicitly. It would help, I'm sure, if you understood logic enough to recognise your implications.

They are all starting points. I do not need to provide proof, or evidence, anymore than the other claimants.

Other claimants do have to! If you are asserting something as fact, or claiming to know something, then you must support it when asked. This is simple discussion decency. Especially so when the very issue in question is the actual existence or otherwise of something. To say "X exists but I don't have to support this claim!" is trolling.

So how you conclude that I am begging the question, I'm not entirely sure.

Given that the issue of supporting a claim is irrelevant to whether or not you beg the question, which is a matter of logic, you're merely displaying your lack of understanding of logic. That lack of understanding runs through the heart of your posts, in your inability to defend yourself against criticisms of illogic, such that you have to sidetrack, obfuscate, evade etc.
If you want to counter a point that involves logic, it be hooves you to at least try to understand the basic principles of the logic.

You define atheist in one way, I define it in another. Your use of the term is superficial, meaning it is particularly suited to fit your persona. My use of the term is based on definitions, also from atheists like yourself. You claim that atheism is a lack of belief in God, so do I. The difference being, I use the correct meanings of the words, whereas you don't.

If that helps you sleep better at night, Jan.
The thread regarding the definition of atheism was closed and I have no intention of rehashing it here. But as long as your strawman holds the same definition as you, I'm sure the two of you will get on swell.

 

[Jan Ardena]

There have been no "added factors", just a parsing of the issue into more simplistic examples. That you can't follow the logic is no excuse for disregarding the issue.

Treat ''X' as the set of things that don't exist, then proceed to use ''X'', and draw conclusions based on it, is an added factor.

God's existence.

I said, there is God Is, and there is without God. That is the playing field we find ourselves in.
That is not claiming God exists.

And if that is so, the natural acceptance or not is no arbiter on the veracity of whether God actually exists or not.

I'm not concerned with God's existence. You are.
I'm commentating on the playing field, mentioned above.

You assume, a priori, that he does.

I've never once claimed that God exists. You obniously need me to, to help your points along. So now you say I imply it, because I am a theist. Then in the same light, you imply God does not exist, purely by being an atheist, which you somehow deny or reject.

Everything you subsequently argue stems from that a priori assumption, and your arguments in support of the veracity of God's existence all stem from that a priori assumption.

Where have I claimed that God exists? If I have not claimed that, then please don't say I have, and then proceed to draw conclusions based on that false factor.

The issue of God existing is at the very heart of the matter. It is irrespective of one's perception - unless you are reverting to your nonsense of a wholly subjective God?

For you, it is at the heart of the very matter, but not for me.
God doesn't exist for you, and God Is, for me. Those are our starting points, the basis of theism and atheism.
You are trying to say that God needs to be shown to exist. I'm saying God does not need to be shown to exist.
You imply that the default position, is the position you hold, I say that it isn't.
If what I say stems from an a priori assumption, then so does yours.

Do you agree that your perception of God has no bearing on whether or not God actually exists "or Is"?

I'm not talking about my perception of God. I describing the playing field we find ourselves in.
There is God Is, and there is without God. This is pre-perception. We simply choose to accept, or not.
Hence the terms atheist and theist.

I really don't care if what you argue is the position you personally hold or not, only that if you argue a line that you stick with it, don't become inconsistent, and when you do say something that you accept what this implies, not disown it as not having been stated explicitly. It would help, I'm sure, if you understood logic enough to recognise your implications.

My line is, and always has been There is God Is, and there is without God, a commentary if you will, about the position we find ourselves in.

But what about your own implications (God does not exist, atheism is the default position, evidence is required to verify God's existence, the list goes on and on..), and dis-ownership of needing evidence to verify God. What other ways are there for you to know God, other than accepting God (you mentioned there are other ways)?

To say "X exists but I don't have to support this claim!" is trolling.

Please show where I say God exists?
If you are talking about implications, then you are in exactly the same boat, and should adhere to your own principle.

Given that the issue of supporting a claim is irrelevant to whether or not you beg the question, which is a matter of logic, you're merely displaying your lack of understanding of logic.
That lack of understanding runs through the heart of your posts, in your inability to defend yourself against criticisms of illogic, such that you have to sidetrack, obfuscate, evade etc.
If you want to counter a point that involves logic, it be hooves you to at least try to understand the basic principles of the logic.

It is your opinion that I side-track, obfuscate, evade etc.
You are trying to bring this discussion along the lines of God's existence, which is a claim that requires an explanation to support it. I am not talking about God's existence, although you desperately want me to. Maybe so that you can go into a never ending discussion about logic.

That God Is, is assumed in both atheism, and theism, is not an argument but an observation, does not need any more scrutiny, than to look at the words, and discover what they actually mean. If you think I imply God does exist, then you imply God does not exist.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Treat ''X' as the set of things that don't exist, then proceed to use ''X'', and draw conclusions based on it, is an added factor.

It's no more an added factor than any analogy or example. But you choose to focus on the wrapping and not the inside.

I said, there is God Is, and there is without God. That is the playing field we find ourselves in.
That is not claiming God exists.

And now you are simply highlighting the dishonesty of your semantic games, Jan. First, you have previously said in other threads: "If God is the creator original creator, then we exist because God exists." (post #228 of the "My path to atheism" thread).
In post #109 of that same thread you are even more explicit: "While I do believe that God exists..."

Yes, Jan, I understand that by "exist" you mean that "God Is" and that you think existence is a property of God. Fair enough, that is understood, but you have to accept that when people use the phrase "God exists" they include within that the notion that "God Is" and are not limiting it to the notion of a physical existence in the way an apple exists.
For you to not do so, and to continue your semantic evasion, is, needless to say, dishonest.

So yes, Jan, you are claiming God exists. Every time you say "God Is" is you claiming that God exists. Every time you say God exists is you claiming that God exists.
Got it?

And it is about that which you are begging the question.

So please, enough of the dishonest semantic games.

I'm not concerned with God's existence. You are.

The issue is of existence, Jan. And yes, by "existence" I am referring to God being.

I'm commentating on the playing field, mentioned above.

And the game is regarding the veracity of God's existence.

I've never once claimed that God exists.

Post #1666 of the thread "In regards to atheism": "Yes, I've stated that God Is, "
And from post #373 of the thread "is faith a reliable path to knowledge": "Can you accept that for me, God Is (or to simplify, God exists). "

You see, Jan, your posts are littered with you claiming that God exists, whether explicitly or through you equivocating "God Is" with "God exists." You have used "God exists" to mean "God Is" and now expect to be able to argue on semantic grounds that when people use "God exists" it means something different to "God Is".
No, Jan, this is decidedly dishonest on your part. And yes, I am reiterating it in the hope that you take note and refrain from it.

So let's just accept that you have claimed that God exists (or God Is), shall we?
This is your a priori assumption.

So care to revisit your response in this light? Or will you just evade it?

You obniously need me to, to help your points along. So now you say I imply it, because I am a theist. Then in the same light, you imply God does not exist, purely by being an atheist, which you somehow deny or reject.

If you believe in God then, by necessity, you believe that God exists (or God Is). If one is an atheist then they simply lack the belief that you have. They do not need to go as far as believing that God does not exist. You seem to think that not saying yes is the same as saying no.
Do you believe I have a friend called Felix? If you say yes, fair enough, you believe I do. If you say that you believe I don't have a friend called Felix then fair enough, you also have a positive belief. But if you say "I don't know" then you can't say that you do believe, but nor do you believe that I don't.
It's really not that difficult, Jan. I guess your strawman is of the "I believe you don't" variety. Hey ho.

Where have I claimed that God exists? If I have not claimed that, then please don't say I have, and then proceed to draw conclusions based on that false factor.

You have claimed it, many times, many threads, the above examples but just a few.
Now let's move on from this, shall we, and hopefully you will no longer try to claim that you haven't made such a claim.

For you, it is at the heart of the very matter, but not for me.

It may not be at the heart of your belief, Jan, but it is at the heart of the discussion between theist and atheist. If you are still here then it is at the heart of your reason for being here, otherwise you should frequent a forum where God's existence (or Being) is taken as a given.

God doesn't exist for you, and God Is, for me. Those are our starting points, the basis of theism and atheism.

That may be true for you and your strawman, but it is not for me. My starting point is the lack of an a priori assumption regarding God. At that starting point I simply do not know whether God exists or not. I have explained this to you many times. To no avail, it seems.

You are trying to say that God needs to be shown to exist.

Nope, not me. Maybe for your strawman, though. I am quite comfortable in saying (and listen to this, Jan, just to show you can) that the veracity of God's existence (i.e. whether it is true that God Is, or true that God Isn't) is not dependent upon what can be shown to me. But I am going to need something (whether that is evidence, a sound or even just convincing logical argument, or direct revelation, or something else) before I hold the belief that God does exist (or Is).
Note, there is no implication in any of that that God Is. Nor any implication that God Isn't.
Rocket science it isn't.

I'm saying God does not need to be shown to exist.

I know that's what you're saying. But you can't explain why the veracity of God's existence (Being) should be accepted without reliance on your a priori assumption.

You imply that the default position, is the position you hold, I say that it isn't.

I say that the default position should be the one without a priori assumptions.

If what I say stems from an a priori assumption, then so does yours.

Then what are those assumptions I hold?

I'm not talking about my perception of God.

Evasion. Please have the decency to answer the question.
[upte] I describing the playing field we find ourselves in.
There is God Is, and there is without God. This is pre-perception. We simply choose to accept, or not.
Hence the terms atheist and theist.[/quote]From your perspective, with your a priori assumption that God Is, this undoubtedly makes sense to you. You don't allow for the possibility that God Isn't. Your dice are loaded from the outset yet you do not recognise that, because your a priori assumption is in everything you argue.

My line is, and always has been There is God Is, and there is without God, a commentary if you will, about the position we find ourselves in.

A priori assumption to the fore. Bold as brass. Alas you just can't recognise it for what it is and how it impacts every argument you come up with, and all your mantras.

But what about your own implications...

Ooh, a list. Let's see how many you get right...

(God does not exist,

... Nope, not an assumption I make.

...atheism is the default position,

... Hmm, i certainly think at the moment that in the absence of a priori assumptions that one would (what I consider to be) rationally end up with atheism (being the non-implying version that is simply a lack of belief in the existence of God, so not your, let's just say disputed definition). But I am open to being convinced otherwise.

evidence is required to verify God's existence, the list goes on and on..),

Nope, I'm open to other means, such as direct revelation. Hasn't happened that I'm aware of yet, though.
So maybe half a point out of three. How did you score against your strawman? Four out of three?

...and dis-ownership of needing evidence to verify God. What other ways are there for you to know God, other than accepting God (you mentioned there are other ways)?

Convincing logical argument, direct revelation. There may be others but I do not know what they might be. Again, note how this is not saying that those other ways do not exist!

 

[Sarkus]

Part 2...

Please show where I say God exists?

Shown above.

If you are talking about implications, then you are in exactly the same boat, and should adhere to your own principle.

Youll have to do better than simply say "well if I am then so are you!".
Please do point out an implication and show why it is valid. I have had the decency to do so... although if you're not aware of your own implications perhaps having them pointed out and explained to you might not help you see them.

It is your opinion that I side-track, obfuscate, evade etc.

It is. And others' opinions. And I have tried to always point out where you have and why I consider it such. Much good it does me, though.

You are trying to bring this discussion along the lines of God's existence, which is a claim that requires an explanation to support it. I am not talking about God's existence, although you desperately want me to. Maybe so that you can go into a never ending discussion about logic.

I have no overriding desire to talk about evidence. You are actually the one that keeps bringing it up, accusing me of saying that if there is no evidence it doesn't exist. Anyone would think it you with the fascination for the issue of evidence. I just go where the thread leads, and respond to comments made.
And if a logical argument upsets you, Jan, then apologies but it's not going to stop.

That God Is, is assumed in both atheism, and theism, is not an argument but an observation, does not need any more scrutiny, than to look at the words, and discover what they actually mean. If you think I imply God does exist, then you imply God does not exist.

And back we are to your utter semantic drivel. That thread was closed, Jan. No one thought you were right then and no one thinks you're right now.
You consider theism to be the belief in God. It is not possible to have believe if something unless you think that thing exists, whether that existence is like that of an apple or is to be considered Being.
So yes, theism is the direct implication that God exists (or Is).
Given your a priori assumption that God Is, it is of course inevitable that everything implies God exists, that atheism is the rejection of that which Is. Just a pity that what you think is not the arbiter of my reality. And I assure you that atheism, not seen through the filter of your a priori assumption, has no such implication that you think it does.

If you hold a blue filter to your eyes and then claim the entire world is blue, from your perspective you are right, Jan. With your a priori assumption in place, yes, you are right.
Try removing the filter. Or at least try to actually comprehend what reality might be without that filter. Difficult, perhaps. But surely worth an effort?

 

[Jan Ardena]

What post , the # number please .

post no.35

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's no more an added factor than any analogy or example.

How so?

And now you are simply highlighting the dishonesty of your semantic games, Jan. First, you have previously said in other threads: "If God is the creator original creator, then we exist because God exists." (post #228 of the "My path to atheism" thread).
In post #109 of that same thread you are even more explicit: "While I do believe that God exists..."

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.

when people use the phrase "God exists" they include within that the notion that "God Is"

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.

So yes, Jan, you are claiming God exists. Every time you say "God Is" is you claiming that God exists. Every time you say God exists is you claiming that God exists.
Got it?

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

The issue is of existence, Jan. And yes, by "existence" I am referring to God being.

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.

And the game is regarding the veracity of God's existence.

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.

Post #1666 of the thread "In regards to atheism": "Yes, I've stated that God Is, "
And from post #373 of the thread "is faith a reliable path to knowledge": "Can you accept that for me, God Is (or to simplify, God exists). "

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.

If you believe in God then, by necessity, you believe that God exists (or God Is).

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.

Do you believe I have a friend called Felix? If you say yes, fair enough, you believe I do.

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

But if you say "I don't know" then you can't say that you do believe, but nor do you believe that I don't.

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.

You have claimed it, many times, many threads, the above examples but just a few.

They're not examples.

If you are still here then it is at the heart of your reason for being here, otherwise you should frequent a forum where God's existence (or Being) is taken as a given.

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.

My starting point is the lack of an a priori assumption regarding God.

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

Nope, not me. Maybe for your strawman, though. I am quite comfortable in saying (and listen to this, Jan, just to show you can) that the veracity of God's existence (i.e. whether it is true that God Is, or true that God Isn't) is not dependent upon what can be shown to me. But I am going to need something (whether that is evidence, a sound or even just convincing logical argument, or direct revelation, or something else) before I hold the belief that God does exist (or Is).
Note, there is no implication in any of that that God Is. Nor any implication that God Isn't.
Rocket science it isn't.

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.

I know that's what you're saying. But you can't explain why the veracity of God's existence (Being) should be accepted without reliance on your a priori assumption.

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.

I say that the default position should be the one without a priori assumptions.

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.

I'm describing the playing field we find ourselves in.
There is God Is, and there is without God. This is pre-perception. We simply choose to accept, or not.
Hence the terms atheist and theist

From your perspective, with your a priori assumption that God Is, this undoubtedly makes sense to you. You don't allow for the possibility that God Isn't. Your dice are loaded from the outset yet you do not recognise that, because your a priori assumption is in everything you argue.

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.

... Nope, not an assumption I make.

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

Nope, I'm open to other means, such as direct revelation.

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

Convincing logical argument, direct revelation. There may be others but I do not know what they might be. Again, note how this is not saying that those other ways do not exist!

Yeah! You sound real convincing.

...

 

[Jan Ardena]

And if a logical argument upsets you, Jan, then apologies but it's not going to stop.

Doesn't upset me at all.
I just find it pointless when observing the field we all come to find ourselves in.
If you were a logical person, you wouldn't need to try to use logic, it would naturally permeate your statements.
Simply put, you are an irrational person, who uses logic, to secure you weak position, so you can drag it on and on, and on..
See how you try to invoke logic into this simple discussion about the actual state of play, instead of conceding.

And back we are to your utter semantic drivel. That thread was closed, Jan. No one thought you were right then and no one thinks you're right now.

Here is a good example of you irrationality. It doesn't matter whether you, or others think I am wrong, when it comes to determining whether or not my observation is valid. Yet if I used the ''other people think you're wrong'', you would immediately come down on me with some fallacy or other. This is because you are irrational, and use logic as a weapon to sustain your irrationality. This is usually donet by imposing needless factors, or by scouring the internet to spot fallacies. It doesn't seem to occur to you that you yourself, are anything but logical, and that it is evidenced in almost every discussion regarding God.

If you hold a blue filter to your eyes and then claim the entire world is blue, from your perspective you are right, Jan. With your a priori assumption in place, yes, you are right.

Yes. And if you do not accept God Is, then you see the entire world from a position of being without God.
With your a priori assumption in place, yes, you are right.

See. It works both ways.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

How so?

Because that's what it is... an example that uses abstract concepts to strip it back to the logic.

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.

WTF? You claim right here that "God Is" - and you're saying that this is not a claim that God exists? Despite you equating "God exists" with "God Is"????

I'm sorry, Jan, but this is yet more blatant dishonesty on your part. "I don't claim it... but I claim it... but that's not me claiming it even though I claim it. And because I have said I haven't claimed it then I can not be said to have claimed it."
Utterly ridiculous, Jan.

It stems from the fundamental position we find ourselves in, Sarkus.

Whether it's your fundamental position or not, it is your claim. Accept that it is. Be honest for once in this discussion.

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.

And since you have previously defined God as the creator, you thus are also saying that we exist because God exists. So again, enough of your utter bullcrap, Jan. Yes, it is a no-brainer - that you are simply talking crap.

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.

So your strawman undoubtedly tells you.

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

So you believe (a priori).

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.

So you believe (a priori).

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 disagree.

So your strawman undoubtedly tells you.
See, Jan, you're now openly admitting that you're not actually listening to what I say, and admitting that you are simply arguing against what you think atheists do. Please stop trolling.

No it's not. The game is; God Is, and there is ''without God''.

So you believe (a priori).

The question of God's existence, is due to being without God. Nothing more.

So your strawman undoubtedly agrees.

I have also stated that 'God Is' here also. As has been explained to you, there is no claim that God exists.

Demonstrably false, as shown above.

Being a theist, it means that I accept God Is, and in doing so, inevitably believe in God.

You don't just "accept God Is" but you state it. That is an explicit claim that God exists, especially given your equivocation of "God Is" and "God exists".
Deal with it, Jan, and stop trolling with your dishonesty.

And you require evidence to verify what you term as God's existence

So your strawman undoubtedly tells you.

then you imply that God does not exist (hence the need for evidence).

So your strawman undoubtedly tells you.

This become amplified when you reject evidence of God, as not having strong enough evidence.

So your strawman undoubtedly tells you.

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

So why do you think that everyone has to believe that God exists or that God does not exist?? Spot your hypocrisy yet?
If you neither believe or not believe then you are among those that lack the belief that I have a friend called Felix. Now exchange "I have a friend called Felix" for "God Is/exists". Simples, really.

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.

I haven't said one way or the other. I am merely asking you the question. Otherwise you are arguing from authority. Fair enough.

They're not examples.

Yes they are, Jan. For all to see. Your inability to accept them as such does not diminish them as 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.

That has nothing to do with this thread.

God Is, is the reason.

No, the belief that God Is is the reason. The veracity of that belief is in question. You base it on an a priori assumption of its veracity.

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.

But it is, Jan. Your a priori assumption that God Is includes the very assumption that God exists. It is inescapable. Your unwillingness to address the issue, to evade and avoid it, and to not discuss with atheists on the issue that even you agree is important to the atheists, is dishonest.

Assuming there are a priori assumptions regarding God. Another a priori assumption perhaps?

It's no assumption, Jan. Your own arguments are testament to you holding it a priori.

That you need evidence, is enough to know that God does not exist currently, as far as you're aware.

So your strawman probably agrees.

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.

I might act as though it is not there, but I wouldn't actually know if it was there or not. Again you confuse practice with the intellectual position being discussed. This has been pointed out to you time and again.

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.

How do you know 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 don't get to tell me what the thing to accept is or not, Jan. Stop being dishonest. That you have already accepted it from the outset a priori does not change the matter, does not change the question. The point remains: you accept the veracity of God's existence (or that God Is) a priori.

You assume that God Is, is an a priori assumption. Why?

Because you are unable to explain why you believe God Is (i.e. why you think it true) without recourse to that assumption. Because it underpins everything you say, all your arguments. Because you rely on it for all you say, yet cannot support it, and even go so far as to try to remove it from examination.

I didn't make it up. That's just the way things are.

So you believe (a priori)

The fact that you don't accept God Is, is consistent with being an atheist.

It certainly is. So what? That neither implies God Is, nor gives any relevance to the veracity or otherwise of God Is.

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,

Every argument you have made starts with the assumption that God Is. It drips from every line you write. Yet it is unsupported by you other than through begging the question. Every time you say "The game is: God Is and there is 'without God'", every time you try to push the definition of atheism as implying that God Is. Everything you say, Jan, on this subject starts with the assumption (call it acceptance, belief, whatever) that God Is. You take it as a given without proof, without support, without question, and use it as the foundation of your arguments. That is the epitome of an a priori assumption.

I do allow for God Isn't in my observation, by including ''there is without God''.

No, Jan, because you have previously argued that "without God" implies that God Is. You do not allow for God Is being false. You can not contemplate it. You wouldn't even know where to start without God Is as your starting point.

For you God Isn't, and I accept that. So again you are mistaken.

Now you're reverting to God being a wholly subjective matter. Please don't be so dishonest.

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

So your strawman probably agrees.

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

So you speak for the way God operates do you? You're that arrogant? I think God, being who He is reported to be, would be able to reveal himself directly and in a manner that would work. If He so wished, of course.

Yeah! You sound real convincing.

Believe me, don't believe me. I don't care, Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Doesn't upset me at all.
I just find it pointless when observing the field we all come to find ourselves in.
If you were a logical person, you wouldn't need to try to use logic, it would naturally permeate your statements.

So a person blind to logic is unable to see the logic in other peoples' statements. Well, that's so unsurprising. Any more sage words, Jan?

Simply put, you are an irrational person, who uses logic, to secure you weak position, so you can drag it on and on, and on..

Irrational person who uses logic?? Again, any more sage words?

See how you try to invoke logic into this simple discussion about the actual state of play, instead of conceding.

Ah, the complaint about using logic again. I see.

Here is a good example of you irrationality. It doesn't matter whether you, or others think I am wrong, when it comes to determining whether or not my observation is valid. Yet if I used the ''other people think you're wrong'', you would immediately come down on me with some fallacy or other.

That wouldn't make it irrational, Jan, that would make it hypocritical. There is a difference.
But you're right, if I used it as an argument then it would be hypocritical - an appeal to popularity, no less. But here's the rub: it wasn't an argument but a simple statement of fact: people thought you were wrong then and they still think you're wrong. And the thread was closed. There is thus no reason to continue with that line (unless you want to get another thread closed?).

This is because you are irrational, and use logic as a weapon to sustain your irrationality.

Yes, logic is the tool of the irrational!

This is usually donet by imposing needless factors, or by scouring the internet to spot fallacies.

No, I don't need to scour the internet to spot fallacies - just your posts.

It doesn't seem to occur to you that you yourself, are anything but logical, and that it is evidenced in almost every discussion regarding God.

Then by all means point out the flaw you perceive in the logic of my arguments! Set it out and highlight the flaw in the logic. I'm not saying there isn't any flaw, and I'd be grateful to anyone who points one out... but you simply saying "you are irrational" or "you... are anything but logical" really isn't going to cut it, Jan.

To quote from "A Knight's Tale": You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

Yes. And if you do not accept God Is, then you see the entire world from a position of being without God.
With your a priori assumption in place, yes, you are right.

See. It works both ways.

No, Jan, it really doesn't. The (or at least my) non-acceptance of God is not an a priori assumption but the conclusion reached after stripping away the a priori assumption that God Is.
Once you do that and then actually examine things, with no question-begging of that assumption, well, then you might come up with a convincing argument that leads you to conclude that God Is, or maybe one that leads you to conclude that God Isn't. Or you might still be in a state of unknowing on the matter.

But you honestly can't see why that (the conclusion) is not the same as your a priori assumption, can you?

 

[Baldeee]

Reminds me of a quote by Sam Harris:
"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not finished.

 

[James R]

This is farcical.

I said, there is God Is, and there is without God. That is the playing field we find ourselves in.
That is not claiming God exists.

Saying "God Is" is claiming that God exists. What does "Is" mean, if it is not referring to existence?

The truth here is that Jan has desperately been tying himself in semantic knots for some time now. And now he just looks ridiculous.

We need to bear in mind, always, that Jan starts from the a priori assumption that God exists. But he is desperate not to admit that to anybody - perhaps not even to himself. And so we get ... this nonsense.

Let's put ourselves in Jan's shoes for a moment and imagine what it is like to be Jan. Our core belief, we tell ourselves, is that "God Is". This is part of the mantra. This is the starting point. But we also know, intellectually, that God's existence can't be proven via the usual methods of evidence, logic and so on. Therefore, we must be careful to avoid at all costs, if possible, talking about the issue of existence. So maybe a good strategy might be to deny that "God Is" logically implies "God exists". We could spend weeks or months taunting the atheists by insisting that "God Is" means something deep and mysterious, and insisting that only atheists are concerned about trivialities like existence, while the "Is-ness" is actually there all the time in front of their noses. Fingers crossed that the atheists won't catch on to the illogicality of the whole premise.

Having side-stepped any honest discussion of the issue of existence, we are now free to insist that "God Is" defines "the playing field". This is a neat trick, because it means that atheists are only allowed to play the game on "the playing field" by accepting the ground rule that "God Is". That is, atheists are allowed on the playing field, but only on the understanding that they are "without God", by which is it meant that they can play but only if it is understood that they are turning a blond eye to their implicit acceptance that "God Is". Any atheist who refuses to play on this playing field can be stonewalled with the manta "God does not exist as far as you're aware", which really means "You're on the field that I have defined regardless of whether you want to play there or not. I'm in control here, and I won't listen to anything you say unless you admit that God Is and that you're only pretending that God Isn't."

To sum up, Jan's playing field works like this:
1. God Is, and this can be regardless of whether God exists. [which is illogical nonsense]
2. God Is implies that God exists, but no theist on this field must ever explicitly admit this. On the contrary, efforts should be made to deny it, because it helps to create chaos and confusion among non-theist players. If the logical inconsistency of this position is ever pointed out, it should be ignored and the topic changed if possible. A good deflection tactic is to claim that "I'm not interested in existence. You are." If this fails to distract, the theist should stonewall and insist on point 1.
3. If you're playing "on the field" then it means that God Is, regardless of whether you're atheist or theist.
4. Atheists automatically lose this game whenever they play because they contradict themselves by tacitly accepting rules (1) and (3) merely by agreeing to play on this field.
5. Atheists should be constantly and repeatedly told that "God Is" while playing on the field, and that they are "without God" because "God does not exist for you as far as you are aware". That is, atheists should be reminded that they are playing a role in this game - the role of the person who knows the rules of the game but whose assigned position in the game is to feign rejection or denial of the rules.

We don't need to play on Jan's playing field, of course.

The reality is that existence is objective. God either exists or he doesn't. As far as the truth goes, it doesn't matter what Jan's starting assumption is. He can believe that "God Is" until the cows come home, and it won't affect God's existence one bit. If Jan's assumption is wrong, then as a matter of fact God doesn't exist for him any more than God exists for any atheist. His ardent belief in the "Is-ness" of God, in this case, is just a mistake.

It is possible to play on an honest playing field, not on Jan's crooked one which slopes steeply downward toward his goal. On the honest playing field, we accept that theists make a "leap of faith" to believe in the face of uncertainty that God exists. Whether or not that leap is justifiable is arguable, of course. As for atheists, they do not believe that God exists. They do not make the leap of faith.

To emphasise, the question of whether God is real or not is a separate one from the question of what atheists or theists believe about God. Jan's game in which he pretends that it is impossible to lack belief in God unless one tacitly accepts that "God Is" is illogical and dishonest.

The question of what a person believes should also rightly be separated from what the person knows. Jan thinks that he knows that God Is. In fact, he only believes that God Is, which is quite a different thing. On Jan's playing field, it is permissible for theists to claim knowledge, because nobody is allowed to play on Jan's field without accepting rule 1: "What are you talking about? Of course God Is - I'm on the playing field, aren't I?" But on the honest playing field, we don't pretend to know stuff. There is no Rule 1 that says "God Is". If God indeed exists, that is a fact that must be established by the usual methods. It is not an accepted a priori fact of play.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I've never once claimed that God exists. You obniously need me to, to help your points along. So now you say I imply it, because I am a theist. Then in the same light, you imply God does not exist, purely by being an atheist, which you somehow deny or reject.

You claim that God exists every time you assert "God Is". How could you not? What does "Is" mean if it does not refer to existence?

Previously you have stated that God does not exist "like other things exist", or similar, which is a set of weasel words. You have also said that God "is existence", or similar. The gist is that if anything exists (and clearly it does), then God exists. So "God Is" implies "God exists", weasel words or no weasel words.

Where have I claimed that God exists? If I have not claimed that, then please don't say I have, and then proceed to draw conclusions based on that false factor.

Here you pretend that you need to make an explicit claim in order to have claimed something. Are we to throw basic logic out the window when we talk to you? If what you say logically implies something else, how does it not follow that you have implicitly claimed the something else?

I must say that, after participating in and observing many discussions with you, I am coming to the conclusion that either your understanding of logic is not as strong as it could be, or that you are deliberately dishonest and are pretending to be ignorant of what logical argument entails. I hope it's the former and not the latter.

God doesn't exist for you, and God Is, for me. Those are our starting points, the basis of theism and atheism.

You are correct as far as stating your own position goes, but that's just a re-statement of your subjective belief.
What most atheists believe is more subtle than your mantra has it, and this has been repeatedly explained to you. If you need it clarified again, please let me know.

But note that both of these statements are about what people believe. You are not discussing whether God actually exists in your statement. And if you think you are, then you need to do some more work sorting out the difference in your own mind between subjective and objective reality.

You are trying to say that God needs to be shown to exist. I'm saying God does not need to be shown to exist.

Nothing needs to be shown to exist for somebody to believe in it. People hold all kinds of irrational beliefs, some of which are unfalsifiable, some of which are unfalsified, and some of which are just false.

Nobody here is questioning your right to believe whatever nonsense you want to believe.

A related, but separate, question is: what is reasonable to believe?

I'm not talking about my perception of God. I describing the playing field we find ourselves in.
There is God Is, and there is without God. This is pre-perception. We simply choose to accept, or not.
Hence the terms atheist and theist.

See the Rules of Jan's God Game, which I have helpfully posted above for potential players.

Please show where I say God exists?
If you are talking about implications, then you are in exactly the same boat, and should adhere to your own principle.

There is no implication that "God does not exist" in the statement "I don't believe that God exists". A statement of belief is just that, nothing more. Moreover, the statement "I don't believe that God exists" is perfectly consistent with the statement "God exists." Both can be true at the same time.

Compare your own ridiculous position, where you say both "God Is" and "I haven't said that God exists". Now, the second statement can be read two ways. If we use sensible logic, we can take it to mean that you think that God exists but you haven't "said it" out loud; in that case the statements reduce to the logically consistent "God Is" and "God exists".

On the other hand. if we throw logic out the window we take you to me that you think that God doesn't exist, despite your assertion that "God Is". In that case, you either have a severe case of cognitive dissonance, attempting to believe two contradictory statements at once ("God Is" and "God does not exist"), or else you simply fail or refuse to recognise the basic logical implications of your statements.

So which is it, Jan? Are you willing to admit that you are merely scared to say out loud that "God exists", or would you have us throw logic out the window when we read what you write?

You are trying to bring this discussion along the lines of God's existence, which is a claim that requires an explanation to support it. I am not talking about God's existence, although you desperately want me to. Maybe so that you can go into a never ending discussion about logic.

Yes. God's existence requires an explanation to support it. You're right.
And yes, you're not talking about God's existence. You're desperate to avoid talking about that, at all costs. See the Rules of Jan's God Game.