Part of the reason for this is that you don't have any real affirmative thesis about God; part of the reason for that would seem to be that you don't know much about God.
Tiassa's channeling Jan! What kind of knowledge would knowledge about God be? How would one acquire this kind of knowledge? What makes propositions about God true or false?
And you've said as much; you're something of an expert in atheistic criticism against religion.
I think that James is among the best educated and most thoughtful atheists on this board. (There are others like Sarkus, though Sarkus might be more of an agnostic.) So in the context of this board at least, James probably can be called an expert in atheistic criticism of religion. He's one of the places that I look to for the best atheist ideas on Sciforums. He makes sense when he writes, his arguments are generally speaking cogent and well conceived and he doesn't typically rant and bluster like so many of our lesser atheists do.
I think that James' fault in this thread is his tendency to fight with everything the theists say. So (no surprise) the theists aren't in any hurry to say anything. James would be better advised to ask questions suggesting that he's sympathetic with what the theist is struggling to say (Bowser's nature mysticism early in the thread for example) and just wants to understand it better. If somebody wants to disagree with something a theist says in this thread, the critic should just say that they don't personally find it convincing and give some reason why.
The purpose of this thread shouldn't be to belittle and destroy everything that the theists say. If theists are being asked to stick their necks out and tell us how they conceive of 'God', they need to be given the necessary space to do that.
Why do you need to know what who means by, "God"?
God certainly seems to be relevant on what ostensibly is a philosophy of religion discussion board. Anyone who has ever taken a philosophy of religion class at a university knows that 'God' is a major topic of conversation in that context. While not all religion is theistic, religion in the West typically is. What's more, the 'God' idea arises over and over on boards like this one. Endless arguments revolve around it.
But it's pretty clear that not everyone conceives of 'God' the same way. I've already pointed out several variants...
1) The natural theology approach, that seeks to approach God from knowledge of the natural world. First cause, ground of being and design arguments belong here.
2) The revealed theology approach, that seeks to approach God through selected "scriptures" or revelatory traditions that are believed by particular faith communities to reveal the divine. The Yahweh and Allah of the Bible and Quran belong here, as do the Hindu deities in the Puranas and other traditions.
3) And a personal experience approach that derives from personal religious experience. Contemplative traditions in all the religions belong here. This one is probably most often the source of the ineffable Godhead ideas. These are often described as experiences of the indescribable. The Pseudo-Dionysius, John Scotus Eriugena, the Hindu Brahman and apophatic (negative) theology ("neti, neti") belong here. The Buddhist Dignaga says very similar things, even if he isn't a theist and calls it 'ultimate reality' and not 'God'.
The point that I want to make is that arguments that address one of these (questions regarding scripture for example) may be largely irrelevant to the others. They are epistemologically distinct. And crucially, the kind of God concepts that they generate seem to me to be fundamentally different too. Obviously it might be helpful to our Sciforums religion discussions to recognize that.
Natural theology produces a highly intellectualized concept of whatever it is that hypothetically performs metaphysical functions. Scripture reveals named and personified deities that are often thought to communicate with mankind and are concerned with human behavior. And disciplines like yogic meditation result in a simultaneously transcendent and experiential divine being of some kind, beyond words and concepts but very evocative to the emotions and transformative in the life of the contemplative who enjoys this kind of experience.
I agree very strongly with the idea that atheists shouldn't be trying to
tell theists what it is that theists supposedly believe. Atheists should be
asking them. Instead of atheists being the ones deciding what theists really mean when they use the word 'God', it's seems much better for atheists to ask the theists what they mean. That's what James was doing and
I applaud him for it. It's just that James shouldn't be so combative when the theists do as he asks. As for the rest of the atheist hyenas, they are best ignored.
And my belief is that when smarter and more thoughtful theists are allowed to speak for themselves, we will find that they embrace a whole variety of not always consistent "God" ideas. Some of them might not be expressed very well (these are hard things to put into words) but if looked at sympathetically, their ideas might turn out to be surprisingly sophisticated. And we might even find that many of the familiar atheist arguments don't even address many of the ideas that theists actually have.
