God is defined, not described.

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

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

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

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

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    I was being sarcastic.

  8. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

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

    Who then, asks for evidence?

    What claim have I made?

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

  9. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    If you can't see how this is an a priori assumption on your part by now then I guess you never will.
    It will forever mean that you are limited to discussions where "God Is" is assumed by all parties as a truth from the outset.
    Why do you deny this possibility?
    What we are born into, and what people "across all time" are born into, is simply the pervasiveness of belief in God.
    Why are you equating this to "God Is" being the truth, if not through your a priori assumption?
    You tell us, Jan.
    You profess a belief in God, do you not?
    Or do you simply assume that what you believe is true?
    Given the definition of "without" that you insist upon, this assumes a priori that God Is.
    Pervasiveness of a meme is no arbiter of its truth.
    The reality is that we do not know who first came up with the notion, nor whether that notion is based on a reality or not.
    Do you?
    Expressing it as an observation IS a statement of belief.
    You are stating that you believe your interpretation of that observation to correspond to reality.
    You can't simply say "this is an observation" and expect your interpretation, your claim of what you think you have observed, to be taken as unquestionable truth.
    All you have is your belief, your claim, that God Is.
    What you are doing here, Jan, is simply asserting your a priori assumption, and then insisting others accept it.
    All you have is a first-hand interpretation based on your a priori assumption that God Is.
    That doesn't make it true.
    But it does make it your belief.
    So you state it as observation, what you hope will be accepted as the unquestioned truth.
    This is nothing but rule 1 of your game, Jan.

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

    Somehow I think you dispute the notion that you are dishonest, right?
    How can you possibly do so when I have clearly stated it as an observation!
    Or are you finally going to realise that stating something to be an observation is simply stating one's belief that one's interpretation of what they have observed is correct?
    James R and Sarkus like this.
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    At what point did this website become so lax that someone feels that they can simply assert something and insist that everyone must accept it?
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

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

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

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

    No trend lasts throughout all time.

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

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

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

    Is this a claim?

    Why do you think someone came up with it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

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

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

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

  14. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    You do state it as part of your belief.
    Only you think it is not just your belief but reality, and as such should be accepted by all.
    This is just part of your belief, though.
    It all comes from your belief.
    So an argument from longevity?
    It is an unprovable claim/belief, so as long as it gives some people hope it will last.
    Longevity of an unprovable belief is not a measure of its veracity, only of how willing people are to maintain it as a belief.
    So you believe due to your a priori assumption.
    So you believe due to your a priori assumption.
    Yet you want your observation to be taken as the objective truth of the situation.
    No one can differ with you,
    It is your interpretation or the wrong interpretation, right?
    And you believe your interpretation is correct... due to your a priori assumption.
    Yes, you accept your a priori assumption to be true.
    Why do you accept your a priori assumptions to be true?
    It doesn't matter if you made God up or not.
    It is what you believe.
    You seem to also believe that the notion of God is not man-made?
    Why do you believe this?

    What do you mean by "...and theism is, and was not pervasive?" - your grammar is throwing me a tad.
    What circumstances were there that were not begging the question, that did not rely on the a priori assumption?
    I am highlighting that your usage of the word "without" makes it a loaded question, loaded with the a priori assumption that God Is.
    As such it is not a question that needs answering, until you can remove that a priori assumption.
    From your position of holding the a priori assumption that God exists/Is, I can see why you think that.
    Because I do not hold the a priori assumption that God Is, and without that I am unsure of the veracity of the claim that God exists/Is.
    Superstitions are a meme, many of which have lasted a significant time.
    Unless you believe that they are all true, you necessarily must accept that longevity is no arbiter of their truth.
    Because to think about something, first the notion must form.
    If you are thinking about God, first there must be the notion of God.
    Argument from longevity again.
    The common denominator is people, and the human propensity for belief.
    It is undeniably a powerful belief, capable of lasting, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.
    Also I don't need to show you that it is a mere trend for that to be a possibility.
    So you believe.
    Your belief doesn't make it true.
    So you believe.
    Yes, it is.
    It is the very definition of an a priori assumptions: that which you want people to accept without further proof or argument.
    You have stated that much explicitly.
    Calling it an observation doesn't change it.

    Natural propensity to believe in God does not mean that the belief is true.
    It merely means that people are born with the propensity to believe.
    And you are confusing the propensity for belief with the veracity of what is believed.
    Yes, the backdrop is that we are mostly all born into a society where belief in God is pervasive.
    That is irrelevant to the truth of what is believed, irrelevant to whether God Is or God Isn't.
    You need to distinguish between the pervasiveness of belief and the veracity of what is believed.
    The countering has been done through the this thread and others.
    The immediate issue is that you are now trying to assert it as an a priori assumption that we must all accept.
    Yet you can't see it as an a priori assumption.
    If you find it interesting then perhaps you should start a thread in the psychology forum as to why people might pick up analogies and lines of argument from other people and run with them.
    Personally I find it rather common.
    Ah, but they're not false accusations, as I've clearly expressed them as statements.
    Thus they must be accepted.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You finally accept that your statements are merely statements of what you believe rather than statements of objective truth.
    I do believe we're getting somewhere, Jan.
    So does that mean you will now stop with the claims as fact, the statements as objective truth?
    With your a priori assumption, it certainly would seem that others are rejecting that which you think you know to be the case.
    With your a priori assumption, it certainly would seem that others are rejecting that which you think you know to be the case.
    Back we are to you and your strawman, Jan.
    Where have I indicated that God is a made up fantasy?
    Where have I ever assumed it?
    Where have I said anything that could imply as much?
    No, it is not any assumption on my part that shows your assumption could be true.
    It is accepted that it could be true, Jan, for the simple reason that it can't be shown to be false.
    But few here argue that your view is necessarily wrong.
    Most here would accept that "God Is" is a possibility, but they also accept that "God Isn't" is a possibility.
    Most do not have an a priori assumption that one or other is correct from the outset.
    And most do not merely beg the question of that a priori assumption to reconfirm their own position.
  15. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Is that a fallacy?

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

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

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

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

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

    Why don't you accept God?

    Said like a true atheist.


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

    It is implied in your denial and rejection of God.

    Which is my point.

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


  16. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Appealing to anything other than the actual argument itself is a fallacy, yes.
    So democracy hasn't endured?
    Which would be question-begging... "Believe to believe" I think it has been described to you before?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'm not referring to a priori knowledge, but to a priori assumptions.
    It's a term used in law, so you may want to look it up, but it means something along the lines of "assumed to be true without further proof".
    Not when you wish to use it to support your belief that God Is.
    No it doesn't.
    It is natural for humans to believe in superstitions, so presumably you think that superstitions are more than just a concept, or the result of "paltry human imaginations"?
    When you give the propensity for humans to believe as giving weight to the veracity of that belief, as you do just above as well, then you are unwarrantedly confusing the two.
    So you accept that being natural to humans does not necessarily mean that it is true?
    Or are superstitions all true?
    This seems somewhat of a leap.
    Do you consider folk-lore and superstitions similarly important?
    I don't do any of those things.
    Just like belief in superstition, it died out of me seemingly naturally.
    There is no fight inside me, no effort to not believe that God exists.
    It is more natural to me now than believing ever was.
    But it's natural to not believe, right?
    Isn't that what you've previously said?
    So being natural is absolutely no arbiter of truth.
    Unless you view it from the a priori assumption that God Is/exists.
    So you don't think that belief in God is pervasive in our society?
    If you think that belief is in and of itself independent of the truth of what is believed in, then the pervasiveness of belief throughout a population does not itself make what is believed true.
    So you see it not as a pervasive belief, but as the truth of what is believed.
    And you do so because of your a priori assumption,
    I have already told you.
    No, said like someone who has a reasonable understanding of the basics of deductive logic.
    To do otherwise is a logical fallacy.
    I've certainly had time to let go of my a priori assumption that God exists, and to start afresh.
    If the rest makes you think better about what I say, go for it.
    Other than because of your a priori assumption, on what other basis have you reached that conclusion?
    Wishful thinking on your part, I'm afraid, Jan.
    You've been arguing against your strawman again, haven't you?!
    It is based on the possibility of God, yes.

    So they believe.
    On what basis, if not ultimately their a priori assumption that God exists/Is?
    So you believe.
    Yes, one stemming from an a priori assumption that God exists/Is, and the other stemming from no a priori assumption at all.
    Seem simple enough.

    Now, do you have anything else other than your a priori assumption to offer?
    Or are you just going to repeat the same old same old that stems from that a priori assumption?
  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    So it's not. Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

    Oh right? No evidence.

    Sounds like an atheist.

    Why is it?

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

    More like wishful-thinking on your part.

    From an atheist perspective, yes.

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


  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

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

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

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

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

    Bullshit. Most theists DO claim that a god exists.

  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Because your personal beliefs are directly responsible for you being unwilling to put forth an honest argument:
    There are two possibilities, neither of which are provable:

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

    This is a skeptic, acknowledging that both are possible.

    Let's see a believer acknowledge as much.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Great quote from Dick.

    Last edited: Oct 26, 2017
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    You don't have to say it.

    I don't have to say it.

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



Share This Page