Still waiting on
Jan Ardena
There isn't a total lack of evidence for God from a theist perspective, only an atheist one
the very >>> evidence <<<
which you say does exist from a thesist perspective
In regards to atheism.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
Still waiting on
Jan Ardena
There isn't a total lack of evidence for God from a theist perspective, only an atheist one
the very >>> evidence <<<
which you say does exist from a thesist perspective
For being without what exactly?
What are those things that I'm without? Hope you can be a little more specific.
Your point is on its way as we speak.
If I can't then God does not exist. Right.
What makes you think I have the capacity to show God to you? Oh wait, God can be anything you deem it to be, so if God is an impossibility, how can He exist.
This all falls under the umbrella of atheist. Without God.
I'm okay with most of the common evidences put forward by philosopher/science theists. Just Google evidence for God, and pick one.
But I don't see what good any of that will do, because you're only going to commit to your own concept of God, as opposed to God.
Jan.
So from these two, "lacking" is to "be in the absence of", agreed?
Good.
So what does it mean, to be in the "absence of"?
absence
ˈabs(ə)ns/
noun
- the state of being away from a place or person.
"the letter had arrived during his absence"
synonyms:non-attendance, non-appearance, absenteeism; More- an occasion or period of being away from a place or person.
plural noun: absences
"repeated absences from school" - the non-existence or lack of.
"she found his total absence of facial expression disconcerting"
synonyms:lack, want, non-existence, unavailability, deficiency, deprivation, dearth; More
- an occasion or period of being away from a place or person.
So from these three definitions:
To lack is to be without...
To be without is to be in the absence of...
Therefore to lack is to be in the absence of...
To be in the absence of is for that thing to be non-existent...
So to lack is for that thing to be non-existent.
Thus it is quite wrong for you, Jan, to assert that it is not possible to lack something that does not exist.
The definitions allow for it, for you to lack that which does not exist.
It is quite possible, however, that some usages of the word can lead to the thing you are lacking actually existing, just not with you.
But for you to claim ignorance of any other interpretation, and to do so with the obstinacy you are showing, is blatant dishonesty, Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So, you're NOT okay with just Googling for God and picking one.
"You have my permission use whatever you find, but what you use will be wrong." There's a setup for failure.
Fine, direct people to the right one. Or have the courage of your convictions and put your definition on the table.
Strawman, as I am not talking about being a suggestion of God.
Ignored further because you are misusing the word "atheism".
You can continue to ride roughshod over the English language as you are doing, Jan, but you will be treated accordingly. If you can not see that one necessarily lacks that which does not exist then you need to return to wherever you learnt English and take a refresher course. And in logic, while you're at it.
I don't deny that it is my default practical position, but it is not my intellectual one, just as it is my practical position on the infinite things that don't exist, of which God may or may not be one. Lest I should be steering my car to avoid the infinite obstructions that don't exist on the roads.
Until you can see that one necessarily lacks that which does not exist, this conversation will go nowhere. And I'd prefer to discuss perspectives, Jan, not your inability to use English properly.
Yes, such as the Scriptures and what people tell me. Where did you get yours from?
And you decided how, Jan? Further, not two minutes ago you were agreeing that lack of belief is not a choice. Once again with the inconsistencies.
Indeed: please learn to use English properly.
Its not an issue of whether you have to think about it or not, it's a matter of processing. That you now bypass the question of existence does not mean it is not a pertinent and indeed necessary part of the equation.
Ask yourself: how many things do you believe in that do not exist?
And you wonder why people consider you dishonest.
No, the reality of that thing.
No, Jan, it's because your own sources say it.
And how is this shedding any light on it? I asked you to shed light on why people take the assumptions as true, and all you have done is said what (you think) my position is and said that the other people aren't like me. Well, gee, thanks. I already know that. But it doesn't shed light on the situation, does it.
No, an atheist is a person who lacks belief that God exists.
If that is the definition you wish to use en okay.
So you claim but since this is rather the sticking point in question, simply asserting it won't actually do anything to further discussion, will it.
And you can claim that everything is evidence of God without being able to show how it rationally and logically leads to the conclusion of God without begging the question. But that's only to be expected.
I am trying to, Jan. If you know the atheist position as well as you claim to then you would know that the two (believing in God, and believing that God exists) both are used to refer simply to the issue of existence of God, as atheists are aware that you can not believe in something if it doesn't exist. So you'll have to excuse the odd slip, but I am trying to keep them to a minimum.
Deists do it all the time. They believe God created the world but has then left it to get on with its own thing, having nothing to do with it. Others simply choose to ignore God, even though they believe God to exist.
There are many ways it can happen.
Perhaps you misunderstood me when I say that I take people at their word: I don't necessarily believe that what they say is true, only that I accept that they believe it is true, unless I have reason to think otherwise. And I do this with theist and atheist alike.
I certainly don't "automatically create reasons why Anthony Flew must be mistaken". To think I do is simply insulting. I have reviewed his arguments and found them wanting, logically fallacious and thus rather naive. As people age their faculties start to wane and I can see how the comforting thoughts of a higher power can be increasingly appealing in the face of imminent mortality. I'm not saying it did happen to him but it is a possibility that can not be ignored. But his arguments for his eventual belief must be weighed and examined in the same manner as those who have always been theist. That he was atheist is a red herring to those arguments and no additional weight should be applied to them as a result.
And I do see it as an opportunity, hence why I examined his explanations. I have no doubt that it could one day happen to me, but similarly you could become atheist should you ever come to a realisation that God does not exist.
akoreamerican
Registered Senior Member
There is too much order in the universe to think that there is no higher power
The universe exists and it didn't come in to being by itself
The universe exists and it didn't come in to being by itself
"the non-existence or lack of.
"she found his totalabsence of facial expression disconcerting"
I don't think they're talking about things that don't actually exist, only things that are nonexistent like facial expression.
Hardly the same thing. Well done for trying though.
Jan.
Dictionaries are not exhaustive in their examples.
They are talking about the lack/absence of things that do exist but are not there, but also things that do not exist that also are not there.
The fact that the example is of the former does not exclude the latter.
But let's humour you and play your game...
Square-circles do not exist.
We thus lack square-circles.
Square-circles are absent from our reality - there is an absence of them.
Therefore we can lack that which does not exist, contrary to your claims.
You are thus wrong.
Now stop your pathetic little games, please.
Further ridiculous behaviour along this path will be taken as trolling, given that you are clearly and demonstrably in error.
For who to think?
Or do you simply mean that there is too much order in the universe for you to think that there is no higher power?
According to who?
You?
akoreamerican
Registered Senior Member
I see I'm talking to an arrogant person who believes everything just came out of nothing. If you don't know then it must not exist right?
Jan Ardena is still confused, or seeks to confuse, about the difference between the concept of something existing, and the actual thing existing.
Nobody here lacks the concept of God. We all have a good idea of what we mean when we talk about God.
On the other hand, quite a few of us lack the belief that God exists, in fact. Not lack the belief that the concept of God exists, mind you, but lack the belief that an actual, living God actually exists in reality (and not just in the mind).
And then there is also Jan's usual attempt to muddy the waters by distinguishing a belief in something from a belief that the something exists. Jan never explains what he means by that distinction, even though it is a simple one, because to explain it would be to reveal it is as another trivial point that anybody can grasp, rather than as a profundity that only Jan has access to.
To summarise:
Atheists typically do not lack the concept of God; in fact, identifying as atheists means that they have the concept sorted in their minds.
Atheists typically lack a belief that God exists, in reality, as opposed to as a concept in the mind.
Atheists typically lack a belief in God, in Jan's sense of trusting God to do good things for you and so on, because one cannot trust something that one does no believe exists (in reality, as opposed to as a concept).
We can easily compare other things. Take unicorns or democracy, for example.
I do not lack a concept of unicorns, although I am sure there are some people in the world who lack that concept, having never been exposed to it.
I lack the belief that unicorns exist (in reality, as opposed to as a concept in my mind).
I lack belief in unicorns, because I can't trust in something that I don't believe exists in reality.
I do not lack the concept of democracy, although once again I am sure there are people who lack that concept (at least in its details).
I believe that democracy exists in reality, at least in certain social and political situations.
I believe in democracy, in the sense that I trust it is likely the least worst system of government.
---
Now watch as Jan tries to play with the definitions, to move the goalposts around some more, to tell the atheists that their concept of God is wrong, etc. These the games Jan insists on playing.
Nobody here lacks the concept of God. We all have a good idea of what we mean when we talk about God.
On the other hand, quite a few of us lack the belief that God exists, in fact. Not lack the belief that the concept of God exists, mind you, but lack the belief that an actual, living God actually exists in reality (and not just in the mind).
And then there is also Jan's usual attempt to muddy the waters by distinguishing a belief in something from a belief that the something exists. Jan never explains what he means by that distinction, even though it is a simple one, because to explain it would be to reveal it is as another trivial point that anybody can grasp, rather than as a profundity that only Jan has access to.
To summarise:
Atheists typically do not lack the concept of God; in fact, identifying as atheists means that they have the concept sorted in their minds.
Atheists typically lack a belief that God exists, in reality, as opposed to as a concept in the mind.
Atheists typically lack a belief in God, in Jan's sense of trusting God to do good things for you and so on, because one cannot trust something that one does no believe exists (in reality, as opposed to as a concept).
We can easily compare other things. Take unicorns or democracy, for example.
I do not lack a concept of unicorns, although I am sure there are some people in the world who lack that concept, having never been exposed to it.
I lack the belief that unicorns exist (in reality, as opposed to as a concept in my mind).
I lack belief in unicorns, because I can't trust in something that I don't believe exists in reality.
I do not lack the concept of democracy, although once again I am sure there are people who lack that concept (at least in its details).
I believe that democracy exists in reality, at least in certain social and political situations.
I believe in democracy, in the sense that I trust it is likely the least worst system of government.
---
Now watch as Jan tries to play with the definitions, to move the goalposts around some more, to tell the atheists that their concept of God is wrong, etc. These the games Jan insists on playing.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Well, in fact, you're talking to a critical thinker on a science forum, who has said nothing about his beliefs, and is asking for you to back up these assertions that
- organization requires an organizer and
- a creation requires a creator.
That's all.
Equally, God can be whatever you, as a theist, concocts. Your God doesn't exist for atheists any more than any other concoction.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Even more: there are as many concepts of God as there are people. Every one of them unique, like snowflakes. Every one of them as valid as Jan's, and none of them falsifiable.
And yes, that includes those whose concept of God is that it's a concept only.
akoreamerican
Registered Senior Member
wow you gotta be kidding me, if you dont understand why organization needs a organizer and a creation requires a creator then you are not as smart as you seem to think you are
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Ah, the old 'it's patently obvious' gaff. It's better known as 'argument by incredulity'. "I don't understand how this can work, therefore God did it."
Snowflakes are a trivial example of spontaneous organization. They need nothing more than the molecular shape of water molecules and the right temperatures.
DaveC426913
argument by incredulity
I thought it was The Blind Watchmaker
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
So did the higher power come into being by itself? ——
Alex
Would that be "arrogant" as in making unsupported claims as though they are the truth, followed by insulting others who dare to question your views, and using strawmen rather than actually responding to what the person had written?
If you can find one that deals with thing that Actually doesn't exist, you may be on to something. But I doubt you will, as no one knows what actually does not exist, outside concocting ideas of combinations of things that do exist. But I won't hold my breath.
What is a square circle?
There is no ridiculous behaviour, you're just pissed because you cannot get round my points.
Jan.
Last edited: