God is defined, not described.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Ted Grant II, Oct 9, 2017.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    See the Rules of Jan's God Game.

    And, indeed, you are correct that it is not an argument. That's because the Rules of your game rely on logical contradictions and on silly power games in which you will take your bat and ball and refuse to play unless each player agrees to abide by your Rules in advance.


    "God Is" is a claim that God exists.

    Some believe one thing; others believe something else. Yes, yes.

    Compare Bigfoot, once again. Could Bigfoot just be, irrespective of belief?

    Well, yes, of course. But is there any good reason why somebody should believe in Bigfoot, in the absence of evidence for Bigfoot's existence? I can't see one.

    So what makes God different?

    God is not an object like Bigfoot? Well, how about isoceles triangles, then, or something else that is intangible? It doesn't seem unreasonable to believe in isoceles triangles, in some kind of abstract way. But that kind of belief seems to me to be of a different flavour than belief in God. I think that if we head down this track we'll be tracking back towards discussing the difference between believing in a concept and believing that a thing is real.

    When one mathematician talks to another, they probably don't usually have to start with a discussion about whether isoceles triangles exist. Both of them already accept that; they're on common ground. And so it is with theists when they discuss their gods, at least at the most abstract level. (And, let's face it, you portray your own God here in the most non-specific and abstract way possible, which I see as a strategy for making your God as small a target as possible.)

    But you want to discuss God with atheists. And there, your Rule no. 1 is firmly in dispute. You say "Atheists! Listen up! If you're going to talk to me about God, you have to come onto my home-ground playing field and play the game by my rules. Those are the only conditions under which I'll consider playing the God game." In reply, the atheists say that the rules of your game are internally inconsistent, illogical and don't make much sense when discussing a real-world conundrum. But you refuse to listen to any of that. It's your game played your way, or else you take your bat and ball and go home. You insist.

    Correct. You can only play Jan's God Game if you accept Rule 1: God Is, no matter what. At the start of play, you get to choose your token. You can play on the theist team, or you can play the atheist caricature role in which you must pretend to deny that God Is, all the while knowing that you already signed up to Rule 1 before you started.

    Jan's God Game is not a fair game. It's a biased game in which the playing field is sloped in only one direction and where the rules are structured so one team always wins.

    How enlightening. Let me paraphrase. The field in which we find ourselves in Jan's God Game allows that God Is, and we can have a friend called God. So, if somebody tells us they have a friend called God, we must accept it whether it is true or not.

    Enlightening, once again.

    Sarkus, if he agrees to play Jan's God Game, has already signed up to Rule 1. Acceptance that "God Is" has already taken place. Sarkus has chosen to play for the atheist team in this game, and so must now play out the role despite the slanted field of play. Truly "there is no God for Sarkus", because Sarkus is not playing on the winning team. He knows that, and Jan knows that, but Sarkus chose to play so here we are, playing Jan's game in which Sarkus has lost before the game begins.

    But there is a different game we could play - a more honest game.

    Rule 1 says "God Is". That's the Way Things Are. But playing on the atheist teams means you pretend you haven't already signed up to obey Rule 1.

    The atheist role in Jan's God Game is to pretend that things like evidence are important. Pretend that the field of play is flat, and ignore that the field slopes down towards the theist goal everywhere.

    Direct revelation would be like stopping in the middle of the game and suddenly changing teams, to play for the theists. Not for any reason to do with "evidence", but just an arbitrary decision to stop playing on the side that is predestined to lose.

    Of course, any atheist with integrity who goes in to play Jan's rigged God Game with eyes open will at least have the decency not to take the easy way out mid way through the game.

    It's interesting to speculate how Jan would fare if he ever agreed to play on a level playing field. I don't think we'll ever find out.
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2017
    exchemist likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    This part is correct. Well done.

    Good. Don't forget it's what makes you an atheist also. Apart from that, well done.

    No it's not James. It an observation of the situation humans find themselves in, simply by being born.

    Which is precisely why you are atheist.

    Even if Big foot existed, why do you think I'd want to believe in it?
    You don't know what it is to believe in something. Do you?

    Are you saying any of your captive audience, didn't come into a situation in which God simply is, and had to decide that God was not for them? For whatever reason.

    As you are currently without God, I totally accept your version of events.

    Why pretend?
    It is the situation we all find ourselves in. We either accept, or reject.

    Lol! It is interesting how you summarise. It is a good insight intro your tricky-dicky mind.

    What? An atheist field?
    Wasn't the twentieth century the year of the atheist field?

    Seriously though, there's nothing wrong with my field. We sell came into a situation where God Is, and without God. IOW, either we believe in God, or we don't.

    No thanks.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    Every time I assert "God Is", I claim that is the situation we find ourselves in. At some point we come to believe, or not believe in God.

    No. The gist is, things exist, because God Is. To say God merely exists, is to put God on a par with other things that exist.

    Ergo, if "God Is" then existence is possible.

    Obviously you don't have to accept "God Is". As a result, belief in God will not occur, and that is what we see.

    Of course you will say that "God Is" is the belief. That there is no "God Is". But you have to say that, because you don't accept it.

    If one claims that God exists, then one should provide reasonable evidence, or convincing arguments/explanations. And there are, in my opinion, good arguments and explanations given by some clear thinking Christian apologetics, and scientists. But I doubt you will agree.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Clearly you are not interested in the distinction I make between "God Is", and "God exists.

    "God Is", isn't a claim, but an observation. Duh!

    If there is currently no God, as far as you're aware, James. Then God does not currently exist. Why do you insist on denying that James?

    There is no God
    There is not any God
    There is no agreement about God.

    I believe in God, because I accept God Is.
    I made the choice, based on a set of parameters that was already, carefully put in place before I was born.

    By nonsense, do you mean God.
    I bet you do

    What is the point of this statement?

    There ìs no implication that God exists, in the statement "I believe in God". Especially if accept that existence is some attribute that God grants.

    You're not really listening. Are you?

    Not at all. I simply refer you to people who are better at explaining the evidence, and delivering good arguments, who are way better at doing so, than I could ever be.

    Last edited: Oct 22, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    These are weasel words (formally called equivocation*).

    We know that, a few hundred posts ago, you realized you were getting boxed-in by continuing to declare that God exists, and you hastily changed the term to something that you have decided is ineffable.

    This is another example of you arguing in bad faith.

    And you know it too.

    (How do you know what I'm thinking Dave, can you read my mind?)
    No, I can read your words. The words of someone who is working very hard to equivocate.

    * the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).
    * the use of ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Definition of is:
    - third person singular present of be.

    Definition of be:
    - exist.


    And Jan is the first one to point out that :
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2017
  9. river

    The thing is Jan if you believe in god , then you are a jehovah .
  10. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Sarkus has also pointed out that Jan had stated this previously (albeit another thread):
    - 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)."
  11. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    This is a claim.
    This is a claim, posed as a question.
    This is a claim.
    This is a claim.
    Correct, it is a claim.
    So when, not moments before, you said: "Every time I assert 'God Is', I claim that is the situation we find ourselves in", you didn't mean that it is a claim??
    Or perhaps you are going to say that "God Is" is not a claim that "God Is" but the claim that "God Is is the situation we find ourselves in", as if the two are not synonymous?
    That the parameters were already put in place is a claim.
    Yes there is.
    To believe in something necessarily requires the existence of that thing.
    Thus to claim belief in God you are necessarily asserting that God exists.

    Note how this is yet another thread nose-dived into the mud through being sidetracked by your illogic and inconsistency.
    James R likes this.
  12. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Ah. But Jan does capitalise the "is" to "Is", and thus there is clearly a difference that only Jan will be able to explain, no doubt.
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Jan Ardena,

    I always find it most interesting what you choose to ignore in your replies to me - probably more interesting than what you reply to, truth be told. Because what you deliberately choose not to address tends to include difficult points that would require a thoughtful reply from you, and/or a succinct summary of your position based on your previous posts that exposes your position to be illogical, inconsistent or otherwise ridiculous.

    Nevertheless, I trust that reasonably intelligent readers who are following this discussion will come to the obvious conclusions, based on what is written here by both of us, despite your prevarications.

    I must admit to some fascination with your apparent unwillingness to commit to simple claims that I imagine the vast majority of theists would be proud to claim as their own. Most obvious is the simplest of claims, which I would consider the foundation of theism: "God exists", or equivalently "God is real". If I were to go out into the street and ask random passers-by whether they believed in God, then I would expect those who answered "Yes" to be quite happy to assent to the idea that their God is real. But you ... apparently won't go so far. Instead, from you we get all this avoidance behaviour, to the extent where you start having to redefine the simplest words, like the word "is".

    I'm not quite sure why you're so desperate to paint yourself into a corner in which you effectively spend your time apologising that you can't commit to anything much; that's how your posts come across.

    Jan: "I believe in God."
    Ordinary person: "So God is real, right?"
    Jan: "God Is. But be careful! I'm not saying God exists or anything like that!"
    OP: "But you believe that God exists, right?"
    Jan: "I believe in God, but that in no way means I think God is real. Oh no! Not for a minute!"
    OP: "But wait a minute! If God Is, doesn't that mean God exists, necessarily? Are they the same thing?"
    Jan: "No. To say God merely exists, is to put God on a par with other things that exist."
    OP: "So saying that God exists is like an insult to God, then, is it? It's bringing God down a peg, and that's wrong?"
    Jan: "Existence itself is only possible because God Is."
    OP: "But God doesn't make the existence of God possible? Just the existence of other things, then? Why can't God make himself exist?"
    Jan: "God would be insulted if he existed. Existence is much lower than Is-ness. God's got Is-ness, which is a way cooler thing than mere being. Can't you see? God's the Man. Figuratively speaking. (Although, now that I think of it, Man is part of God, too.)"
    OP: "Ok, Let's backtrack. What, exactly, is your issue with the claim that God exists?"
    Jan: "If one claims that God exists, then one should provide reasonable evidence, or convincing arguments/explanations."
    OP: "I see. Existence demands arguments and evidence. But no arguments or evidence are needed for Is-ness. So, saying God Is makes your job of defending God easier?"
    Jan: "The whole existence thing is for clear thinking Christian apologists and scientists. I try to avoid the issue as much as possible. For me, God just Is."
    OP: "Well, I really wish you could offer some kind of defence of your claims, Jan, but I suppose it's too much to ask."
    Jan: "'God Is', isn't a claim, but an observation. Duh!"
    OP: "Isn't it a prerequisite for observing something that the thing that is observed exists in the first place?"
    Jan: "I'm going to pretend you didn't say that. I believe in God because I accept that God Is."
    OP: "But that's just saying the same thing twice, isn't it?"
    Jan: "Oh no, not at all. There's a special In-ness, as well as a special Is-ness."
    OP: "So you can believe in something without it actually existing?"
    Jan: "As long as it Is, that's just fine and dandy. There ìs no implication that God exists, in the statement 'I believe in God'. Especially if you accept that existence is some attribute that God grants."
    OP: "Yes, you said that before. God grants existence to everything except himself. Are we done, then?"
    Jan: "You're not really listening to what I'm saying, are you? There are two situations: 'God Is' and 'Without God'. That is,we either believe in God or we don't. And I do. Obviously."
    OP: "So let's summarise. You believe that God Is, but not that God exists, because God grants existence to other things but won't lower himself to existing in his own right. And the Is-ness must be appreciated directly, because mere evidence and argument and all that is for losers who demand existence. Is that right?"

    Is that right, Jan?
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Loose ends...

    When I wrote "correct", I meant that it is correct that you believe that 'God exists' is not a claim that God exists, and that's what makes you a theist. I certainly did not mean that I agree with your silly claim. But you already knew that from everything else I wrote in the same post you quoted (and in all my other posts), didn't you?

    What has wanting to believe in something got to do with whether the something is real?

    Remember I asked you: "But is there any good reason why somebody should believe in Bigfoot, in the absence of evidence for Bigfoot's existence?"

    Obviously, I ask the same question about God.

    We had a previous lengthy discussion about what you might mean by "believe in", and I have addressed the issue of faith, which is what you're really talking about here, in the thread "Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?"

    If you want to find out whether I know about "believing in", ask me something specific, rather than asking about believing in a vague, unspecified "something". What kind of "something" are you thinking of?

    Skipping to the chase, if your claim is that I don't know what it's like to believe in God, then my reply is the same as before. I know exactly what it's like, since I've been there, done that.

    Do you mean "is" or "Is"? (See what a mess you've made?)

    The fact is, nobody has ever come into a situation in which God simply is, if God does not exist. Not unless you're talking in some vague sense, like saying a religious setting like a church is a place where "God is".

    It's only the situation we find ourselves in if we accept the illogical starting point for your God belief.

    It's OK, Jan. I understand that you will only play the game according to the rules of Jan's God Game, which I outlined above. But those rules don't make any sense. They aren't even internally consistent.

    I think my little analogy is quite apt, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. While you try to obfuscate and avoid, I seek to shed light.

    A field in which we start by being honest about what we do and do not know.

    Are you going to start talking about Hitler and Stalin now? (Hitler was a theist.)

    Thanks for that truism. Obviously, belief will not occur in anything, if it is not accepted.

    Regardless of whether it is true or not, "God Is" is certainly a belief. When you state that it is a truth, it is also a claim you make. Moreover, it logically implies that God exists, as I and numerous others have pointed out.

    I have explored your attempt to distinguish the two in detail, in several different ways, in previous posts.

    Wrong, and inconsistent with your own previous statements, as Sarkus and Baldeee have both shown. This kind of stunt is not making you look good, Jan. You ought to try having the discussion in good faith.

    This is your mantra, and I have discussed its flaws extensively in previous posts. I see no need to cover the same ground again.

    How mystical of you.

    The idea of God isn't inherently nonsensical. But we can ask: is it reasonable to believe that God is real? Is it rational? Is it sensible? Is it justifiable? Can the belief be defended? Is there an alternative belief that makes as much or more sense? And so on. You don't appear to be interested in having that discussion.

    More closely that you would hope.

    Do you think I missed how you tried to avoid where I unpacked your logic, or rather your lack of logic?

    Here is what I wrote again, in full. Perhaps you could attempt an honest reply next time.

    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?​

    There's a third alternative I've thought of since I posted that. Perhaps you think that God is somehow immune to discussions of "existence", so that asking whether God exists is a contradiction in terms - like asking what is north of the north pole. Maybe you think "Is-ness" is superior to mere "existence". If so, then tell me what else, other than God, has this "Is-ness", combined with the indeterminate existence that your God is supposed to have. If there is nothing else - if your ad hoc invention of Is-ness only applies so that your God is exempt from all discussion of its existence, then you're making a special pleading, as well as your usual begging of the question of whether your God is real.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2017
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    One more loose end...

    I didn't get a chance to reply to posts that Jan wrote in another thread that was closed. I'd like to touch on one particular exchange:

    As usual, Jan's presentation of his argument is not very clear, but I think I understand it. Here's what I think he is saying.

    "An atheist, as a person who does not believe in God, implies God Is, but the atheist does not believe."

    In the first instance, Jan takes "belief in God" to mean something like trusting in God. And I think Jan's argument, such as it is, goes like this: because theists "believe in God", that implies God Is, because you can't "believe in" something that isn't real, by (Jan's) definition.

    Alternatively, Jan's argument in the first instance might be that because atheists are persons, and because Jan assumes that persons can't exist without God enabling their existence, then as soon as somebody says "atheist" they are necessarily implying the existence of a person, and ergo the reality of God.

    Either way, in the first instance, an "atheist" becomes a person who does not believe in God, but the existence of God is still implied. It might be implied directly, because "atheist" implies the existence of "theist", and theists believe in God, and belief in God implies God. Or it might be implied indirectly, because "atheist" implies "person", "person" implies existence, and existence implies God is there to make it so.

    The direct argument is disingenuous, because it seeks to sidestep the issue of "belief that God is real" by substituting "belief in God", by which Jan means trust and faith in something that is already known to be real. The indirect argument is fallacious because it begs the question; it assumes from the start that the existence of persons (and everything else) requires God, but this has not been established.

    "If the atheist lack a belief in the assertion that God Is, or God exists (in the way any object exists), then it implies God does not exist as far as the the atheist is aware, and thus requires some kind of proof, to account for such assertions."

    If Jan's first-instance argument fails (and it does), he falls back to this second line of defence, which argues that atheists miss the point by posing the question as one about whether God exists. That's because "God Is" is to be accepted as an a priori truth, according to Jan. Anybody who does not accept this Truth is simply "not aware" of God. The term "atheist" implies "God Is" just because everything implies "God Is", and nothing else needs to be said. According to this view, atheists are making a category error in even worrying about the "existence" of God. Objects may exist or not exist, but God is not an object. God is exceptional, a special case of one. Things exist (or not), but God Is. Some are aware of this; others are not.

    This fallback argument fails, just like the indirect version of the first argument, because it blatantly begs the question. It starts by assuming God as an a priori Truth, then tries to use that assumption to show that God's Is-ness is necessary.

    To summarise, according to Jan:
    1. As soon as an atheist invokes the mantra in the form of words "believe in God" then he or she is implicitly accepting that God Is, because "belief in" something requires acceptance of the reality of the something. This is true despite any explicit assertion from the atheist that he or she does not believe in God.
    2. Atheists, simply by existing, imply that God Is, because nothing can exist unless God Is.
    3. Some atheists secretly are aware that God Is, but they actively deny this awareness by claiming they don't believe in God.
    4. Other atheists are not aware that God Is and therefore mistakenly believe that it is permissible to talk about whether God exists. This is ignorance, because God is immune to existence; God just Is. Talking about God's existence is a category error.

    To summarise why Jan is wrong, in the same order:
    1. If "believe in God" requires that God is real, then if God doesn't exist, nobody can "believe in God", by definition. Anybody who claims to "believe in God" under such circumstances (with Jan's definition) is making a mistake. And in this case there can be no theists, despite any protestations to the contrary.
    2. You can't argue God into existence by assuming that God exists from the start.
    3. This might be true, but only if it can be fairly established that God Is. Question begging won't do the trick.
    4. This is a special pleading that, to all appearances, is only made in an attempt to stop inquiry into the question of whether God is real. It also begs the question by assuming the a priori reality of God.
  16. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    What is "a jehovah"?

  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    I take it you don't believe there is evidence for God?

    The issue of "existence" comes at a later point. Even you came into that situation.
    The people who founded the church you went to, also came into that situation. We all have.

    As long as it fits your designer persona.

    No it's not. It's the situation we find ourselves in.

    Yeah! Saying it "logically implies", is really pointing it out. What does "without God" imply?

    You're saying nothing James. Explain why it is a claim, and not an observation. Instead of relying on your atheist friends, who like you, rejected God at some point in their existence.

    No you haven't. You just say you have, because you don't think I will go back and check.

    Because being born is "mystical". Right?

    James, you make these long posts, and most of what you write is irrelevant to what I'm saying.

    All you have to do is show that we don't come into a situation where the two positions, God Is, and without God are already present.
    How do we get atheists, theists, and agnostics, without that?

    You don't need to use logic (if that's what you call it). I've already made the distinction between God Is, and God exists. Work with it.

    When you start actually using what I say, rather than your usual stunt of making stuff up, and argue with yourself, we can carry on.

    No, that's not correct.
    "God Is" and "without God" are two situations that are present, despite what we think, believe, or don't believe.

    We are (mystically) born into that atmosphere, where at some point we accept one or the other. It has nothing to do with belief. Is that clear clear enough for you? Yes? Then work with it.

  18. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    The hypocrisy is tangible in this one.
  19. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    If God actually Is/exists then we all came into that situation.
    If God Isn't / doesn't exist then none of us did, and noone ever has.
    For you to state that it is the situation, that we all come into that situation, is a claim on your part that God Is/exists.

    What is true, however, is that we have all come into the situation that God as a concept exists, and that some believe that the concept is a reality.
    But we all agree that merely believing in something does not make it an actuality, that the actuality of a situation is independent of any belief in it.
    That is a claim.
    From your perspective, starting from the a priori assumption that God Is, it implies that they are without something that exists.
    For those without that assumption it means that they do not have/believe in something that may or may not have a basis in reality.
    It you state an observation then it is ipso facto a claim that your interpretation of what you perceive is correct.
    If I state that "the sun is shining" then this is simply me claiming that what I perceive and interpret to be the sun shining corresponds with reality.
    It is thus a claim that the sun is shining.
    To state that something is an observation is to claim that it is reality.
    No, you have to show that they are the only two positions.
    It might be that the two positions you think there to be are in fact merely with regard the concept of God exists, and that people either believe that concept corresponds to reality, or they do not.
    Remember, claiming God Is does not make it so.
    That you think that they are the only two position does not make it so.
    It describes people's views - ontological and epistemological - with regard the reality of the concept of God.
    Oh, the irony.
    No, they are merely your claims about what the situation is.
    Due to your a priori assumption that God exists, it is easy to see why you think that "God Is" is the situation for all, and that "without God" are is the subsequent situation for those that do not believe in God (for whatever reason).
    But this is, whether you acknowledge it or not, only a claim on your part.
    Yes, a claim.
    You are assuming from the outset - and thus claiming it to be true a priori - that "God Is" is the reality.
    You certainly believe it to be so.
    Everything you say stems from that the priori assumption that it is.
    The issue at hand, whether you want to get drawn on it or not, is whether that really is the reality.
    You believe it is.
    Others do not share your belief.
    You claim it is.
    Others do not.
    There is nothing mystical about being born.
    A matter of biology, in fact.
    As for what we accept of not, it is not either that "God Is" or that we are "without God", it is whether we wish to accept that the concept of God is an actuality or not.
    And not accepting it in no way assumes that the concept of God is a reality.
    But from your a priori position of accepting and believing that God Is, of course you will think that either it is a case of "God Is", or being "without God".
    But fortunately our reality is not determined by your a priori assumptions.
    It has everything to do with belief: what you believe a priori to be true, the concepts you believe a priori to conform to reality, or even are required for reality.
    What you clearly can't distinguish between is what you believe to be true and whether it actually is or not.
    That's simply a sign of your confidence, not the veracity of what you believe in.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I note that Jan has again ignored or failed to address most of the substance of my latest posts. It is difficult to have a discussion when one party is not willing to have the discussion in good faith.
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Jan Ardena:

    I have already written about what I think of the evidence. But your argument is not about evidence, anyway. You actually have no argument for God - just an assumption you make.

    I agree with everything Baldeee wrote about this supposed "situation" you think we all find ourselves in, so there's no need to for me to repeat what he wrote on that. The "situation" you assume we are all in is entirely dependent on the truth of your a priori assumption, and you have done nothing to establish the truth of your assumption. Your claim that "God Is" is not an observation, but merely a belief you have.

    Are you going to try to redefine what it means to be honest now, to suit yourself?

    Go back and check the "My path to atheism" thread. And don't tell lies.

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

    The fact is, I have elegantly unpacked what you're saying, and laid out its flaws for all to see. Your strategy is to ignore everything I write that cuts too close to the bone. You address what you consider to be the easy points, and ignore every point that raises serious problems for your case. Don't think I don't see that. Don't think that other readers don't see that.

    I know you want to dictate the rules of Jan's God Game to us, again and again. I know that, for you, it's play by your rules, with your assumptions, or go home. But, as is abundantly clear to all by now, your rules are illogical, and not even internally consistent.

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

    I'm well aware that you don't use logic.

    I have. My analysis of your distinction is posted in detail in this thread. You have not replied to it. You are, in fact, ignoring it. Don't think that the readers of this thread aren't aware of your tactics.

    Here's something I wrote on this very topic, that you have completely ignored, and it's only a few posts above this one:

    Perhaps you think that God is somehow immune to discussions of "existence", so that asking whether God exists is a contradiction in terms - like asking what is north of the north pole. Maybe you think "Is-ness" is superior to mere "existence". If so, then tell me what else, other than God, has this "Is-ness", combined with the indeterminate existence that your God is supposed to have. If there is nothing else - if your ad hoc invention of Is-ness only applies so that your God is exempt from all discussion of its existence, then you're making a special pleading, as well as your usual begging of the question of whether your God is real.​

    My post here, which you have not addressed, uses, in large part, direct quotes from your posts. I think it rather neatly summarises your position. You have failed to address any of it, so far:


    Here's another post you have ignored, which refers, again, to direct quotes from you:


    So, stop with the transparent claims that I'm not using what you say. I'm directly quoting you. I'm summarising what I honestly believe your position to be. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected, but you'll need to point out exactly where I went wrong, rather than simply repeating the same claims one more time.

    What do you mean by the situations being present? Again, there are two possibilities, and I think you're deliberately obfuscating again.

    The first possibility is that God is both real and not real at the same time, which is a logical contradiction. If we're talking about objective truth, then either God is real, or he isn't. It can't be both.

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

    Nobody can be born into a logical contradiction, so I can only assume that you're talking about being born into an atmosphere in which some people profess belief in God, while others do not. I have no argument with that. But that is not your primary claim. You primary claim is not that some people believe that God Is; it is that the statement "God Is" is a truth. But that's not something you have shown to be the case. On the contrary, it is abundantly clear that this is just your personal belief.

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

    Yes, this is very clear to me.

    What if your belief is false?
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Jan has had this pointed out not 20 posts ago :
    and responded by saying
    which, I suppose, is true. To-wit: Jan is capable of discussing his Is-ness, but does not wish to, because he will end up painted into the same corner as he was with "God exists".
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: Jan is so wedded to his belief/ view that he's incapable of seeing any different view as valid. (His failure to engage properly is largely predicated on his view that any disagreement with his premise is - a priori - false/ mistaken/ deliberate contrariness).
    It's what got him permabanned from "my" science forum.

Share This Page