God is defined, not described.

Then I apologise for giving you too much credit for recognising it as the rhetorical device it was.
I shall endeavour not to give you that credit in future.

So it's my fault now. :biggrin:
FYI, it doesn't even work as a rhetorical device.
I've never protested real logic.
I just don't consider randomly throwing in, any unrelated factor, to give one one self more wiggle room, as logical. :)

Jan.
 
So it's my fault now.
No, all mine - for giving you too much credit.
FYI, it doesn't even work as a rhetorical device.
Your opinion, not mine.
I've never protested real logic.
I just don't consider randomly throwing in, any unrelated factor, to give one one self more wiggle room, as logical.
Strawman, as that's not what they did.
You just couldn't follow it, or weren't able to refute it, and so were/are trying to latch onto any excuse to ignore it.
Nothing that one should not expect from you, I guess.
 
I observe that God Is, and without God, are two situations we all come in to
That isn't so. There are many theists whose gods do not partake in your "Is", and whether if God "Is" anyone can be without that God is far from a settled question.
 
That isn't so. There are many theists whose gods do not partake in your "Is", and whether if God "Is" anyone can be without that God is far from a settled question.

If they are theist, they accept God, because God Is.
They may highlight different aspects of God, but it is still God.

For example, deists only accept God as a creator, and disregard the idea of a personal God. But it is still God, and the notion of God the creator, was already set in place before deists came about.

Jan.
 
If they are theist, they accept God, because God Is.
They may highlight different aspects of God, but it is still God.
They don't, though. Their gods are not like that.
And there is still the problem of the impossibility of being without your God.

So you see the two categories are insufficient and muddled.
 
They don't, though. Their gods are not like that.

If we are talking about "god's" then we are talking about different aspects of God.

And there is still the problem of the impossibility of being without your God.

That's a different subject matter.
Plus when I say "God Is", I am not pertaining to a belief in God. Just the notion of the two positions, which are reflected in human society.

So you see the two categories are insufficient and muddled

Not when you look at them carefully.

Jan.
 
If we are talking about "god's" then we are talking about different aspects of God.



That's a different subject matter.
Plus when I say "God Is", I am not pertaining to a belief in God. Just the notion of the two positions, which are reflected in human society.



Not when you look at them carefully.

Jan.

So when looked at them carefully , what are your conclusions ?
 
Theist, and atheist.
In what context did you ask the question?

How do you define, and/or describe "God"?

Jan.

A being rather than a god .

A being that is gathering knowledge outside its self , imagining the possibilites .

In the context of abrahamic religions , god is enlil , he is mean and nasty against Humanity

, lord is enki , kind and enlightens Humanity . Wants Humanity to survive .
 
If they are theist, they accept God, because God Is

You shouldn't end a sentence with Is.
Oops, I just did, but I had to do it, to make my point.
My problem with your "God Is" proposition is that it is incomplete.
"God is love" is complete.
"God" is the subject and "is love" is the predicate.
"Is" is not a predicate. It's just a joining word.
 
You shouldn't end a sentence with Is.
Oops, I just did, but I had to do it, to make my point.
My problem with your "God Is" proposition is that it is incomplete.
"God is love" is complete.
"God" is the subject and "is love" is the predicate.
"Is" is not a predicate. It's just a joining word.

What does this change ?
 
You shouldn't end a sentence with Is.
Oops, I just did, but I had to do it, to make my point.
My problem with your "God Is" proposition is that it is incomplete.
"God is love" is complete.
"God" is the subject and "is love" is the predicate.
"Is" is not a predicate. It's just a joining word.
It's just Jan's way of avoiding admitting that he thinks that God exists.
 
Where have you addressed any of my points?
I have addressed every one of them, exhaustively. You choosing to be unresponsive - and simply reiterating your chant - that's on you.
And, again, the dodge. You are not personally being attacked. Your arguments, that you have freely put forth are being attacked.

We will take your silence as acknowledgement that you've been successfully called out as dishonest. It may be an admission by omission, but it's the best we can expect from you.
 
Jan Ardena:

Theism is a belief in God. I am a theist, therefore I believe in God.
Why did you avoid answering my question?

I asked you whether you care if God is real or not.

My observation of God Is, and without God (you keep forgetting that part), is based on the fact that there are atheists and theists. Why do you persist in distorting that?
I'm not distorting it. I'm just unpacking your statement and exposing it for what it is.

Because your "without God" starts from the assumption "God Is", your claimed "observation" is really only that "God Is". But it isn't really an observation at all - that's just a smoke screen you're putting up. What you have is an a priori assumption that "God Is". Your attempt to redefine atheism on the basis of that assumption fails, because you have not established that the assumption - your starting point, you premise - is valid.

I observe that God Is, and without God, are two situations we all come in to.
You avoided answering my direct question about how you make this observation. Why is that?

"Playing at distraction"? What is the basis of this assumption?
Initially, you said God exists. When holes were picked in that idea, you moved the goalposts and started claiming instead that "God Is". And when holes were picked in that assumption, you started denying that it is simply your belief or assumption, and started claiming it is an "observation".

All this is a distraction. I assume you think you're making your God belief a small target by trying to redefine it until it is empty of any content that can be interrogated. But all you're really achieving is showing just how far you're willing to go to try to protect your own belief, even if that means throwing away logic and reason and your integrity in the process.

I wouldn't describe the difference between atheist and theist, as the theist having special magical powers, although I can see why you would invoke that. It is that the atheist does not accept God, whereas the theist does.
And what of the first two options I put to you, that you have ignored? Why did you not address those?

So let me see if I can understand what you're saying here. You wouldn't describe theists as having magical powers, but... There's an implied "but" in there, isn't there? Does that mean I'm on the money with the idea that you think theists have a kind of "God sense" that atheists lack, separate from the normal senses? Or does your implied "but" mean something else?

Really? I think it is because they are without God.
This is my problem with what you are saying. I keep thinking "No, wait, Jan's got this completely backwards." And I understand why. It's because you start from "God Is", and then you assume "without God" implies implicit acceptance of "God Is". Therefore, "God does not exists for atheists", and therefore atheists deny God.

But if you don't start from the unfounded assumption that "God Is", then you can start instead at a more sensible, open, position, like "Could it be that God is real?" or "Is there a God?" You ask why atheists question the existence of God. This is why. It is a logically prior question to your assumed starting point. If the atheist arrives at the answer "God probably doesn't exist", or "There's no reason, as far as I can tell, to believe that God exists", then the question is not closed forever and ever. Instead, the atheist simply does not believe that God exists, provisionally. If more evidence or convincing argument comes along in future to change his mind, then so be it.

You think that the only way atheists can be "without God" is to be in denial of the a priori "truth" that you believe, without your ever having considered the prior question. And you don't seem able to admit as a possibility that atheists could be "without God" simply because God doesn't exist. If that is the case, in fact, then you, despite your belief and your assumption, are as a matter of fact, equally "without God" in that simple sense.

Note that when I discuss this matter, you can assume I'm always interested in objective truth, first and foremost. I do not equivocate and obfuscate like you do, saying "God does not exist for you" and things like that. If I wanted to say that, I'd say "You do not believe that God exists", which is unambiguous. I clearly distinguish belief from fact. You, on the other hand, either can't tell the difference, or else you seek to deliberately muddy the waters.

That's like an ataste-ist, asking a taste-ist to show sugar is sweet.
We've had this discussion before. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of taste - quite sufficient for any a-tasteist to accept that taste is a real thing, even if he personally can't experience it directly. There are also explanations as to why an a-tasteist cannot experience taste, which have nothing to do with being in denial.

What objections are those James. If we take your response so far. You aren't really addressing my observation. You seem to spend your time telling me it's an a priori assumption that God exists.
I have asked you to explain how you make the "observation". You can't, or won't. Why is that?

I'm not debating the existence of God.
Indeed, and that's the problem. You want to preach to atheists about what they must be, based on your assumption of God. But they do not accept your assumption of God. And for you, that assumption is not up for debate. So we end up with this head-in-the-sand stance from you, where you pretend to have a conversation but all you really do is go around in circles.

What do you mean by "God is, or isn't real"
I use the word "real" to encompass existence and Is-ness. Take it as a catch-all term, if you like. It saves me time and effort dealing with your distractions about the supposed difference about God being an "Is" and God existing.

Jan Ardena said:
James R said:
We're concerned here about whether your belief is grounded in any kind of fact.
Why?
Because if it isn't, it's just an assumption.

Please explain how it is.
Explain how it is that people could have just made up stories about God that somehow stuck? Do you really need me to explain that for you, Jan?

Think about Greek myths. Or Harry Potter, for that matter. Fantasy and myth works its way into culture, regardless of its truth. But you know that already. Don't you?

I didn't say I don't believe that God Is. I said that in this discussion, it is a non theistic observation.
If that was the case, then I'd have no problem accepting it. But it isn't. It is a theist assumption, as far as I can tell. Your assumption.

My observing how there are theists, and atheists.
It seems you haven't been paying attention after all.
Theists are people who believe in God. Atheists are people who do not believe in God. We agree on that, I believe.

Our point of disagreement is that you think that the fact that some people - yourself, as the most pertinent example - believe in God, it means God must therefore be real. Not just subjectively real (real "for you") but also objectively real for the atheists who are "without God". That is a fallacy. That is your ongoing error.
 
Last edited:
Jan Ardena:

I didn't mention tradition.
Then what was all that talk about how we know God is real because human beings have believed in God over multiple generations? How is that not an argument from tradition?

The sun is there. Isn't it.
They weren't wrong about that.
You missed the point, which was that just because a particular belief is held across generations, it does not mean the belief reflects a fact about the world.

I didn't say it was.
Again, I have to ask: what was the point of all your talk about belief across generations, then? It sounded like you were saying that the fact that so many people have believed in God across generations somehow implies that God is real.

And then we have this in your next breath:
James R said:
Jan Ardena said:
Even if belief in God is natural to humans, as you claim, that says nothing about whether God is real. It justs says that human beings are inclined to believe that God is real.
I think it says more than that.
It is also natural for one not to believe in God, so I accept your point from your perspective.
You can't have it both ways, Jan. Either you are saying that God is real because people believe God is real, or you're not. Which is it?

And please don't start talking about "real for you" vs "real for me". I'm interested in objective reality, not your equivocal relativism.

I'm not e entirely sure what a "false belief" is.
Are you serious? That is a problem you really need to remedy, Jan. I urge you to take that Logic 101 class, ASAP.

Put simply: a false belief is a belief in something that is not true. For example, if I believe that Hillary Clinton is the current President of the United States, then I hold a false belief. Similarly, if I believe that "God Is", when really God Isn't, then I hold a false belief.

So if someone cannot show God to you, in a suitable way, means that God is not real.
No. It means they have failed to convince me that God is real.

What is "real"when pertained to God. It's not a theistic term.
Is this a further step away by you? From "God exists" you went to "God Is", and now ... what? Suddenly you want start claiming that it is not permissible to talk about God in any way that questions God's reality?

You're adding more and more to Jan's God Game as we go along, so that in the end the only thing that will be left is Jan's Impregnable God Fortress, in which God is whatever Jan declared God to be (not that we're allowed to use the word "be" any more in reference to God).
 
Jan Ardena:

Not sure what you mean here.
I have explained in some detail what I take to be the rules of your God Game. Please review the previous posts. Please ask questions if I have not been clear.

To summarise briefly:

Rule 1. To play Jan's God Game, all players must assume a priori that God Is.
Rule 2. Theists may then believe in God, while atheists must play the role of denying God.
Rule 3. Any player questioning the existence of God is in breach of Rule 1 and is hearby excluded from the game.

But being called an atheist, in the literal sense, does seem to be fearful for you.
Nobody likes being bullied, Jan. I refuse to play Jan's God Game, in which your "literal" sense obliges me to accept Rule 1. I reject your Game.

You're arrogance come from thinking that your mindset is the absolute standard for all others.
I fully recognise that there are many people who do not live by the standards of rationality and clear thinking that I aim for. It would be nice if they did, but I realise that it's too much to expect.

One reason I take time to talk with you is that I think there is hope for you. I can see you have the capacity and the potential. Besides that, you're not the only person reading this.

An atheist perspective.
The perspective of somebody who cares about what is true. There is no "real for you" and "real for me". There's just reality, for both of us, and then there are our respective beliefs. I want you to appreciate the difference.

Jan Ardena said:
James R said:
How can you find God? By assuming it a priori? Or through normal senses? Or through magical powers?

First you accept.
If you can't, then you become atheist.
In other words, it's option 1: you assume it a priori.

That's what I thought.

Well, I'm glad we finally cleared that up, Jan.

I know you are, but you reject/deny God at every turn.
You mean I don't "accept", by which you mean I refuse to assume; I refuse to join you in your a priori assumption. Correct.

I am open to belief in God for some other reason than an unjustified a priori assumption, though. If any good reason ever comes to light.

Poor angry James!
Probably you are perceiving my frustration with you as anger. That is understandable, but mistaken. I'm not angry at you, Jan. I understand exactly where you're coming from.


James R said:
The path to atheism is simple, though. It starts just by asking yourself the question "How do I know that my God is real?
You're right, it is simple.
Why would you ask if God is real, if God was real?
See, you shied away from the question. You couldn't bring yourself to ask yourself, honestly.

To repeat, the question was "How do I know that my God is real?" You don't start contemplating that by assuming that your God is real a priori. That's not being honest with yourself.

Bear in mind, I'm not asking you to put on a show for my benefit. I'm asking you to spend some time by yourself and think it over. Running away because the question is too fearful to face shows both a lack of confidence and a lack of courage on your part.

I suspect that God was never real, because "real" could be anything you consider "real", and if God doesn't match up to that, then God would not be "real".
You're back to your relativism. You're thinking God was never real for me. I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with whether God is really real, for both of us.

If for you to accept God,it must be on your own terms, then you're already atheist, because you are without God.
I think that my terms - that it should be reasonable to accept God - trump your terms, which appear to be that one ought to just believe, for no good reason. But admittedly, I seem to be much more wedded to reason than you are.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top