Semantics of "I don't believe in God".

[Oli]

The point being?
As I said, my existence does not indicate a god to me.
Either give an explanation or forget about.

 

[Vkothii]

As you have so obviously forgotten about, I will too at this point.
About explaining it, I mean.

But with this parting shot: you possibly don't see any indication, as I claim to, because you don't know what "a god" is; instead you have some idea of that (which, being an idea, then cannot possibly be what you may or may not believe it is).

 

[Oli]

So you're using your own definition of god as well?
Regardless, anything that could (in my conception) be regarded or termed a god does not exist for me.
Especially one that would engender "belief".
And you still can't actually come out with a straight statement.
Pity.

 

[Vkothii]

So much for parting shots.

So you're using your own definition of god as well?

Which one are you using?

Regardless, anything that could (in my conception) be regarded or termed a god does not exist for me.

Of course, as long as you have an idea of that, which you perceive as an idea of something you aren't, and can't be, you never will, will you?

 

[Oli]

Well there's "generally accepted" definition, which probably has something to do with what comes to my mind when people use the word "god".

Something I aren't?
Well I'm not god for one thing.

Still no straight statement...

 

[Vkothii]

I think you just more or less said: "I'm not something I think I can never be, which is an idea".

 

[Oli]

No I said "I'm not something that fits any definition of god that I understand"

 

[Vkothii]

And that "definition" isn't some thing, that you also believe or define, that is: you understand as, unattainable personally because it can't exist, there can be no such thing?

I think that looks like going around in circles - either this thing exists, or it doesn't...?

 

[Oli]

Unattainable?
It's sometghing to be attained now rather be a consequence(?) of my existence?
You become more obtuse with every post.

What's your definition then?
If you tell me that then I can tell you straight away whether or not it exists for me.
It doesn't exist for me that I can discern, but according to you I should be able to see it.
So what is it?

 

[Vkothii]

I said "I'm not something that fits any definition of god that I understand"

How would you describe undefinable? "Unable to be attained to by any intellectual process" do it for you, or not?

I thought I had outlined my "definition", it's that which I say (because I see) is the thing about me I don't believe a word about, particularly any that are in books, or that anyone else has to say (about whatever it is).
It's something that isn't really definable that way. But it isn't complicated, or like you're superman. It's like breathing - actually it is breathing. And all the other stuff.
But it isn't thinking, or just an intellectual process, or emotion as such. You don't need to think about having a brain for it to be one, right?

 

[Oli]

How would you describe undefinable? "Unable to be attained to by any intellectual process" do it for you, or not?

Poor attempt at a subject change. Unable to be defined...

I thought I had outlined my "definition", it's that which I say (because I see) is the thing about me I don't believe a word about, particularly any that are in books, or that anyone else has to say (about whatever it is).

So god is what you say it is?
Hardly works for anyone else.
If they use their own defintion that doesn't match yours then it makes you wrong.
If ALL individual definitions are accepted then the concept itself becomes so nebulous as to be worthless.

It's something that isn't really definable that way. But it isn't complicated

Apparently it is since you still can't make a definitive sentence about what it is.

or like you're superman. It's like breathing - actually it is breathing. And all the other stuff.

So "being alive" is god?
:bawl:

But it isn't thinking, or just an intellectual process, or emotion as such. You don't need to think about having a brain for it to be one, right?

Who said anything about thinking?

You stated that your own existence proves that god exists.
You stated that this "proof" (or sequence of logic, or even god itself) is visible to everyone.
SO far you've failed at any of those.

 

[Vkothii]

This is getting tedious.
Did you say this before, I was sure I saw you post it:
"I'm not something that fits any definition of god that I understand"

So your definition isn't at all like mine, which goes: "I don't have a definition that corresponds to anything you have to tell me about whatever it might be".

You are going around in circles, see?

Who said anything about thinking?

You did.

You stated that your own existence proves that god exists.

Yes, and it does, where I am concerned. This appears to be a universal principle - everyone else with an existence is also in the same situation as me.

You stated that this "proof" (or sequence of logic, or even god itself) is visible to everyone.

I assume that since I see this, everyone else can see it too. What's so illogical about that?

SO far you've failed at any of those.

You mean: "so far I've failed to understand any of this, because I keep going back to the same idea".

 

[Oli]

Your definition of god is:

"I don't have a definition that corresponds to anything you have to tell me about whatever it might be".

That's not a definition that's a get-out clause.
And your existence proves to you that "you don't have a definition"?

So you still can't possibly have provided evidence of its existence, or even that ipso facto its existence follows from yours.

Yes, and it does, where I am concerned. This appears to be a universal principle - everyone else with an existence is also in the same situation as me.

Evidently not; since I'd already stated that it didn't follow for me.

I assume that since I see this, everyone else can see it too. What's so illogical about that?

Ah, so you wanna talk about esoteric military technology? Particle physics?
I assume, since I'm interested in them, that everyone else is.
Logic?

 

[Vkothii]

I wash my hands of it.

Good for you, but they were never dirty at any stage of this whole pointless "discussion".

I know. You never had any intention of looking past your own get-out clause. The one that goes: "I don't have a definition that fits, etc". Nicely done.

You seem to believe that your personal definition is "all that you need", whereas mine has to be something that everyone agrees with. Or you think everyone agrees perhaps, with your personal definition already (something you also know cannot be possible).

But I say I can have a "god" that does not, and cannot fit any description or be anything that you say, or anyone else says, or even what I say it is.
That thing. The one you have "no definition" for, except that you do have one. Your definition appears to exclude the existence of the thing, whatever it might be. It seems to be less general than my one, somehow.

Mine is completely free of any and all conditions; whereas your definition, the one that "you understand doesn't fit anything that you can be", looks like an idea, mine is more an "idea-free" version. This makes sense, since I am not an idea.

 

[Oli]

I know. You never had any intention of looking past your own get-out clause. The one that goes: "I don't have a definition that fits, etc". Nicely done.

Another "This is what I believe, so it must be universal" assumption?

 

[Vkothii]

No, like most of your efforts, it's an observation from me, which I believe is valid.

 

[Oli]

You seem to believe that your personal definition is "all that you need", whereas mine has to be something that everyone agrees with. Or you think everyone agrees perhaps, with your personal definition already (something you also know cannot be possible).

Nope I needed a definition of what god is, or what you considered it to be to see how its existence could follow from your own.
Everyone agrees with?
Again, false.
I don't agree, as I've said, that's not a definition at all, let alone of god.

Mine is completely free of any and all conditions; whereas your definition, the one that "you understand doesn't fit anything that you can be", looks like an idea, mine is more an "idea-free" version. This makes sense, since I am not an idea.

Which still doesn't invalidate my statement that as far as I can see its existence follows from mine.

So your assumption that this logic was true for everyone was, surprise, incorrect.
As Fraggle said a long while back.

 

[Vkothii]

No, it's incorrect to you because "it doesn't fit", right?
I can see that what I am is something I can also see in others (and in other sentient animals). This is not something that is an idea. Actually ideas are a peripheral thing, this thing I am is not something that requires me to have an idea about it, or explain it to myself. Of course I can try to do this, or try to explain something that is not amenable to intellectual analysis as such. Anyone can try to explain anything.

When it comes to experience and scientific explanation, there's only so far you can get by comparing notes; this presumes that everyone can see the same thing. With the topic of this thread, what sort of discussion do you think there can be if there's a belief that the subject can't exist? Or that an idea can't be the subject?

You seem to be saying that your idea of what this thing is, includes the idea that it can't be you. Whatever it is, your idea of it places it beyond your experience.
I say it has nothing to do with ideas, it's beyond ideas but not beyond experience.

Can you understand that?

 

[Oli]

No, it's incorrect to you because "it doesn't fit", right?

It doesn't accord with what I would call god, correct.

When it comes to experience and scientific explanation, there's only so far you can get by comparing notes; this presumes that everyone can see the same thing.

Which is exactly what you did:

This appears to be a universal principle - everyone else with an existence is also in the same situation as me.

Which Fraggle had already invalidated by disputing your ipso facto clause.

You seem to be saying that your idea of what this thing is, includes the idea that it can't be you.

Nope, I said that I don't consider myself a god, which implied that I could be but I'm not...

Whatever it is, your idea of it places it beyond your experience.
I say it has nothing to do with ideas, it's beyond ideas but not beyond experience.
Can you understand that?

Nope.
Really no.
Which is why, for me its existence does not follow from mine.

 

[Vkothii]

This thread is supposedly about the semantics of an idea - the "who or what is" idea, that is either in the way here, or is a sort of inevitable idea that we deal with one way or another.
I see no problem with claiming I am that which I perceive myself to be, and it's what I associate with an idea that to many people involves something else altogether, I call it "god", or "my god", and I'm it.
No problem in my head with that, except I also know that most people think of worship, and temples, and external deities, so saying "I am that thing, I am god or a god", doesn't fit with that.
I say you have it the wrong way around. The external stuff came from the real god, or gods, which is us.
That religious, ritualism etc, all represents just what we've been in apparent contention over here: the rationalisation, externalisation of our own nature - which is always beyond that because we can't rationalise or externalise it. You seem to be saying that there aren't any spirits or ghosts, I'm saying those are ideas, and what I'm talking about is not an idea, it's much simpler than that.