Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
how about - at least in the monotheistic sense - "that conscious entity upon who all other conscious entities are dependent"
exists in a relationship of contingency
You mean - What would be required for an atheist to accept there is God?
like say, the issue of our ability to exhibit the symptoms of life, is due to god manifesting that quality - IOW whatever we have, we have as a part and parcel of god - "made in the image of god" etc etc
How would an individual person recognize this dependency; how would an individual person recognize they are dependent on God?
For example, I think that I have robust evidentiary support for the postulate that S.A.M. exists.
I can point to meaningful, objective, and unambiguous communication with you.
lightgigantic said:
Well, some people consider a certain measurement of brain activity to be the only real evidence for consciousness. Does a god have a brain that we can measure?
If not, then we're left to philosophy. As I can't even provide robust evidentiary support that other minds exist aside from my own, I don't see how I could prove the existence of god's consciousness.
Last edited:
Hmm so if you say, for example, I do not believe in desks, you have a value that you assign to the postulate desk.
What is the similar value that an atheist assigns to the postulate God? What is the evidence that would define a God? What exactly is it that you do not believe or disbelieve?
What is the similar value that an atheist assigns to the postulate God? What is the evidence that would define a God? What exactly is it that you do not believe or disbelieve?
Another:
I have robust evidentiary support for the postulate of gravity, or at least the special case that says "material objects in everyday experience fall down unless supported."
The postulate matches my experience, and can be tested objectively, unambiguously, and repeatedly.
I have robust evidentiary support for the postulate of gravity, or at least the special case that says "material objects in everyday experience fall down unless supported."
The postulate matches my experience, and can be tested objectively, unambiguously, and repeatedly.
I don't know what evidence would be required for the existence for god. And I obviously can't claim that what I don't know doesn't exist.
That's the problem, it's not so much that there is a lack of xyz evidence but that I honestly can't think of anything that would even qualify as xyz. I wouldn't even know where to begin looking, similar to how I wouldn't know where to begin looking for any invisible incorporeal being you describe to me.
Hmm so when you say you do not believe in God, you refer to an invisible corporeal being as a postulate? (which I apparently described to you)
I guess the first step is to realize how we are always in a state of dependence.
The next step involves seeing how all those states of dependency fall within the context of being dependent on god.
S.A.M. said:
If you read carefully, nowhere did I claim that that you described god as invisible or incorporeal. I only pointed the similarity between my attempt to search for such a thing and my attempt to search for "God", I just wouldn't know where to even begin.
And I've heard lightgigantic's definition of god thus far, I haven't heard yours so I'm still winging it using his.