In regards to atheism.

[James R]

Baldeee:

I disagree.
I would say that the rational position (for me at least) is that we can't know if God (as "cause of all") exists or not.
I would not assign any level of probability to it as I think even that is one step too far.

I agree that we can't know for sure whether there is a "cause of all" kind of God.

But we can look at what the various religions have to say about God, and they all have a lot more to say about God that "cause of all". I think we're on fairly safe grounds in saying that, most probably, none of those Gods exist.

In other words, basically my impression is that the more specific the posited God is, the less chance than he exists as advertised.

Consider Thor, or Mercury, or Poseidon, for example. I don't think you'd really say you can't assign any level of probability to their potential existence as real beings.

Why would you think that God "probably" doesn't exist?

To be fair, I'm probably thinking of those specific Gods, as described by the religions. Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu. Those Gods.

But on the other hand, I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me when you say you can't assign any level of probability to God's existence. Are you telling me that you're a true 50-50 agnostic? There could be God, or not, and there's just no way to do better than a 50-50 guess?

Surely, if you don't count yourself as a believer, your probability that God exists must be less than 50%. And that means that God probably doesn't exist - i.e. you judge it more probable than not that God does not exist.

 

[Baldeee]

In other words, basically my impression is that the more specific the posited God is, the less chance than he exists as advertised.

Agreed.
I was merely referring to the God that Jan tends to revert to as having the one property that all the variants have, that being "cause of all".

But on the other hand, I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me when you say you can't assign any level of probability to God's existence. Are you telling me that you're a true 50-50 agnostic? There could be God, or not, and there's just no way to do better than a 50-50 guess?

I'm saying that to apply a probability is to claim some knowledge of the matter.
I am an agnostic of the variety that thinks the question of God is beyond knowing.
How can we apply a percentage to that which we know nothing about?

Surely, if you don't count yourself as a believer, your probability that God exists must be less than 50%. And that means that God probably doesn't exist - i.e. you judge it more probable than not that God does not exist.

With regard most concepts of God, this is true of me.
I am merely referring to (in this case) the "cause of all" concept - i.e. the concept that is at the heart / root of all others, the one that Jan reverts to, for example.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

It looks like this conversation has gone about as far as it can go with you. So let's sum up. You wrote:

As far as you're concerned God does not exist. You obviously won't see yourself as being without God, but that implies God exists. But God does not exist as far as you're aware. To a theist God Is, therefore from that perspective you are without God. That's just the way it is.

The discussion descends into God's existence because you refuse to accept all sides. You want to fit everything into your own little mindset, where God does not exist, and your position is validated. You want closure, which is why are still discussing this topic

This is your position in a nutshell. So let me sum it up, from what you wrote, here and above:

1. You believe that atheists hold absolutely that God does not exist, and no matter how often they tell you that isn't what they believe you refuse to acknowledge that. Instead, you repeatedly insist that they believe something other than what they say they believe.
2. From your perspective as a theist, "God Is", and from your perspective atheists are therefore failing to "acknowledge" the God that exists. That's just the way it is, and I accept that this is how things appear from your point of view.
3. You demand that atheists accept your definition of "atheist" rather than their own - the one where "atheist" means "person who rejects the God who Is". And you consider it a failing on the part of the atheists when they will not agree to your redefinition of "atheist".
4. Because you cannot establish the objective existence of God, you seek to devalue objectivity entirely, replacing it with "true for you" vs "true for me", as if there actually is no objective truth. However, when called on this nonsense you will momentarily flip-flop to agree that there are some objective truths after all. Then, in the next sentence, you'll conveniently forget or ignore that again.

And here's the counter from my side of the fence:
1. Atheists do not know absolutely that God does not exist, any more than theists know that God exists. Nobody knows whether God exists.
2. God does not need to exist in order for atheists not to believe in him, any more than my Great Aunt Hermoine needs to exist in order for me not to believe in her.
3. Atheists do not reject your God. There's no rational reason to suppose that there's anything there to reject, other than the concept you offer up.
4. Perception and fact are different things. Your perception may be different from mine, and I'm quite happy to accept that. But you do not get to choose your own facts. Either God exists, or he doesn't. There's no "existence for you" vs "non-existence for me". We can agree on them matter of differing perceptions, as long as you're clear that's what we're talking about. But deliberately attempting to blur the distinction between fact and perception is not arguing in good faith. Of course, there's a more charitable alternative: perhaps you really are unable to distinguish your perceptions from facts.

 

[Michael 345]

My Thor exist

He just Is

His hammer just Is

I see his works everywhere

Go Mighty Thor

 

[Yazata]

I disagree.
I would say that the rational position (for me at least) is that we can't know if God (as "cause of all") exists or not.
I would not assign any level of probability to it as I think even that is one step too far.

Why would you think that God "probably" doesn't exist?

A lot depends on how we frame the question. When we ask "What is the likelihood that God exists?, what do we intend the word 'God' to mean?

1. If we follow the path of natural theology where 'God' refers to whatever the unknown answers might be to the big metaphysical questions (what was the first cause? why is there something rather than nothing? what is the fundamental substrate of reality? what is the source of the order that we observe in nature?) then I'd say that the likelihood of God existing is the same as the likelihood of those kind of questions having answers.

I don't have a clue what that likelihood is, so I'm pretty much an agnostic regarding that kind of stuff. (It all seems to depend on how science and philosophy develop in the future, which I have no way of knowing.) So far, I seem to agree with you.

2. But having said that, when people use the word 'God', they seem to me to mean something rather different than answers to metaphysical questions. God is an object of worship, it's the object of religious longing. It's imagined as the ultimate Good. People want to obey it. They want to become one with it.

I'm more skeptical that whatever answers the metaphysical questions will be a suitable object of religious passion. Do we (should we) worship the big bang or natural selection or quantum field theory or things like that? That's a lot more doubtful, even from entirely religious presuppositions. (That's the problem that the more abstract and impersonal concepts of the God-head seem to fall prey to... Why worship them?)

3. And believers in God typically go further than that. They imagine God as a person for whom ascription of psychological attributes is appropriate. God loves, he (the pronoun speaks volumes) experiences anger and wrath, he is concerned for us. God has supposedly interacted with humans in ways that form the basis of the big monotheistic religions, thundering on a mountaintop in Sinai, dictating Islamic law in a cave in Mecca, having some deep conversation with Arjuna on the back of a chariot, or preaching the coming kingdom of God in Galilee, then dying and rising again from the cross.

I just personally find it exceedingly unlikely that whatever the answer is to the big cosmic questions is up above, that it will turn out to be one of the characters of the religious myths. When I say 'exceedingly unlikely', I'm not talking formal probability theory (which would seem to be impossible to calculate), just an informal intuitive judgement.

But that leaves me effectively an atheist by the time we have gotten to 3. and started talking about the personalized God(s) of the religious myths.

 

[Michael 345]

God was invented by lazy men

They told wild stories and claimed secret knowledge. The knowledge was not really secret but did require some understanding of the world and of people

The susceptible people in the group believed the Cowpat

The lazy ones took advantage of their skills and told the susceptible to give them money so they could study the mysteries

Why do backbreaking work when you can study and enlarge your knowledge of the Cowpat you invented

AND GET PAID FOR IT

End of rant

But the basics are true

 

[James R]

You have experience of things existing like rocks. You see nothing but things that aren't God (at least as far as you comprehend what God is.

So for you God does not exist. Your only problem is you think that it is the same for everyone.

My reality is different to yours, in that God Is.

It's different realities again, I see.

No, Jan. We only have different ideas. We share the same reality. Either God exists or he doesn't.

The important question you need to ask yourself is: how do I know that God exists?

When you've really thought about that, you could perhaps try to explain it to myself and your other readers. "It's just natural", or "I just know" won't do, Jan. You need to do so much better than that. What you're essentially saying is that you just feel that God exists, and that's hopelessly subjective.

There is no way that you can know that.

Do you know somebody who sees God, or touches God, or photographs God? Is there something you're not telling us?

All you know is that God does not currently exist. Your problem is that you apply your situation to everyone else.

We share a world, Jan. You don't get to choose your own facts, like it or not.

I meant to say that I'm okay that you see God as the universe. My bad.

Maybe there is extra baggage, but it gets you thinking about God. When you start thinking about God, you learn more. Right now you're only interested in validating your own position, by claiming everyone necessarily thinks like you.

I am acutely aware that not everybody thinks like me, I assure you. Having this kind of discussion with you is ample proof of that.

I watch you flip flop back and forth on points. I see you ignore things that have been explained to you, over and over. I see you struggle with basic rational thinking - even the idea that there is an objective reality. I see you regularly torture the very meanings of words in order to try to jam your views into some kind of form that you believe is immune to contradiction. I see a lot of magical thinking from you. I see a continual reluctance to face arguments square on; rather your tendency is to deflect or ignore or to turn questions back on those who ask them, thus avoiding having to give an honest and thought-out answer. I see somebody who wants, for whatever reason, to hide the real reasons for his beliefs; hence the one-word non-replies to questions, and the stone-walling.

Clearly, not everybody thinks like me.

Then remain in your position. There's not much more I can day, as for you God does not exist, and you are therefore without God.

You make a poor evangelist, Jan. For somebody who is reasonably articulate, and a person with a strong faith, you do very little to convince anybody else that there's any value in believing as you do.

God.

What about God? See what I mean about the stone-walling?

That's something you find out for yourself.

You're telling me you have no idea why atheists lock themselves off from engaging with your God. Ok.

It's entirely natural.

Why doesn't everyone "naturally" have it, then?

No.

You answered half the question again. What of the other half: 'Or is it, rather, that you assume that God exists and you think "God exists, therefore he made that rock"?' The answer to that one is "Yes", I assume, but you don't want to say that.

What else could you think?

If you put in a little effort, who knows? Maybe you'd change my mind. But I guess we'll never know.

So why didn't you say that, instead of using a dishonest tactic. You say I'm inconsistent, then write crap like that.
You're so easy to work out, it borders on ridiculousness.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. What do you think you've "worked out"?

My bad. I meant to say you can see God as the universe.

But that's not what people mean when they say "God".

The discussion descends into God's existence because you refuse to accept all sides. You want to fit everything into your own little mindset, where God does not exist, and your position is validated. You want closure, which is why are still discussing this topic

Hmm...

Obviously I can't accept all sides. That would mean believing in God and not believing in him, simultaneously. I accept that it is your perspective that God exists. I think your perspective is probably wrong.

As for my "little" mindset, that's an interesting choice of adjective, Jan. Perhaps that's just an insult - a little mind can't imagine God, or something like that. Or maybe "little" means that you think a universe with God in it is somehow more grand than one without God, and that I'm missing out on that grandeur with my limited worldview. To counter that, I might suggest that many atheists view those who rule their lives according to superstition and fantasy as having the more limited perspective on things.

As for closure, I think we have it. You have made it clear that your perspective is that God Is, and that you regard atheists as people who reject your God. It is clear that you would like to redefine the term "atheist" to be one who denies the God who Is. But we've exposed your programme in this thread for what it is, and you've failed. Atheists don't deny your God. There's probably nothing there to deny. You're welcome to your concept of your God; nobody is denying you that.

Who is/was God in your theistic days.
How did you comprehend. God?

For me, initially God was the Christian God, essentially. That was the tradition I was brought up in. Later, I revised my concept of God to be more general and less specifically Christian, as I found the specifics of the Christian God to be untenable in light of the available evidence. For quite a while, I guess you might have called me a deist. For a time after that, I called myself an agnostic, though I didn't fully understand what that meant until later. Now I'm content to call myself an atheist, and I remain agnostic.

How did I comprehend God? I read the "scriptures". I attended church regularly. I prayed. I felt God's presence (or so I thought at the time). It was only as I read more widely and became more educated that I gradually changed my belief. I had long discussions with friends about God. I also had discussions at various times with priests and other religious people about God. And - very importantly - I learned how to think like a scientist and like a scholar. I even had quite a few conversations on the internet about God.

That is how I came to comprehend God.

You most certainly aren't. The love is there though.

I'm glad you think so, Jan.

What is compassion James? You're definition explains the symptoms, not the properties. It exists, you accept that it exists. So according to your logic you are supposed to be able to show what it actually is, not just the symptoms.
I'm waiting.

The symptoms are the thing when it comes to an intangible. What is hunger? Answer: a longing for food that manifests itself in various ways in the body and the mind and in the actions. So it is with compassion.

And God? What are the symptoms of God? Everything that is, you say. So, if anything exists, then God exists. But this is not how people use the word "God". "God" is not synonymous with "everything". So, there must be more specific symptoms of God. If so, what are they? And how do we know they are due to God and not to something else?

Yes but they have no experience of it, so it is nothing more than a concept, which they can tailor how they like.

No. Look at the dictionary definitions of "compassion" that I posted above. There is inevitably some wiggle room there, as in any definition, but the basics of what compassion involves are right there. It can't be tailored however you like.

The person who possesses it doesn't need to analyze it, or debate its existence, unless they choose to.

They do if they want to convince somebody else that they possess it, assuming that person doesn't take it for granted from the start that they have it.

That is the same with theists. We don't have to explain, or prove it. Unless we want to. You on the other hand, as evidenced your whole campaign, can only comprehend concepts of God.

You're right. You don't have to explain God, or prove that God exists if you don't want to.

Not every theists feels the need to evangelise. On the other hand, you seem to enjoy it, in certain respects. As long as it doesn't touch on the heart of what you believe or why you believe it. That seems to be a very private matter for you that you don't want to share. So, we get general platitudes and claims that you can't support, instead.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Does it matter [whether God has a purpose]?

It would matter to me, if it turned out that God exists. Doesn't it matter to you?

I'm talking about stuff in regards to atheist, namely the original meaning of the term, and how it perfectly fits every single atheist. What are you here for?
Are you kind of trolling?

Whenever you talk about the "original meaning" of this or that, you invariably mean "the meaning that I, Jan, just came up with and put forward as an assertion as part of a debate".

It's no surprise that you believe that the term you defined for yourself perfectly fits how you conceive of that term.

What am I here for? In part, I'm here to lay bare your shenanigans, Jan. But I also enjoy the insight I get into your mindset in the process.

More charitably, I'm here to share my own thoughts and ideas with those who read my posts, and I'm interested in the responses that I get to them. I'm also here to read other people's posts, which are often well considered and thought-provoking, whether I agree with them in whole, in part, or hardly at all.

I am questioning all of it.
How do you know

I'll repeat my question: How do I know what?

I hope all you atheists are reading this. Don't cry foul when and if I decide to adopt the same attitude.

You've lost me again.

We're in agreement James. God does not exist as far as you're aware, and God Is, as far as I'm aware.

Then we have Closure of a sort.

Does your concept of God hold that God is a material being?

No. God is not usually described that way. Not the kind of God you're describing, anyway. And yet, this God of yours is supposed to be able to interact with material beings and material things in general. How he manages that is a mystery. Magic, I guess.

Your mind is already made up.

Well, yes, I have an opinion. It is not set in stone. But that wasn't the point. The point was, I try to think with my brain, not with my gut. You should try that, too.

Not to mention your ability to see, and make sense of stuff.

There you go assuming that God exists again. You need to show how God's existence gives me sight that I wouldn't otherwise have in a universe without God in it.

I wouldn't worry yourself about it James.

You can't tell me how one finds God in anything, can you?

No it's not.
It's purposely placed there because you don't want to admit that God doesn't exist.

I don't know that God doesn't exist. What is so hard for you to understand about that? Does it have to be black or white for you? Is there no grey? The fact is, you don't know that God exists. You can bluff and bluster all you want about that, and make empty claims, but that's the fact. You don't know.

Let's get it right. For you God does not exist. That is all you understand.

No! I understand that there are many reasons why people like you believe that God exists in spite of the fact that he probably doesn't. Believe me, I understand. And I also understand why it is so hard for you to admit to yourself that you don't know.

It is only your ego that demands everyone should necessarily think and conclude like you.

I'm not demanding anything, Jan. I'm merely trying to gently nudge you in the direction of rational thought on the matter. I don't expect my efforts to pay immediate dividends, and I'm sanguine about the possibility that they will come to naught with you, I assure you.

 

[James R]

Baldeee:

I was merely referring to the God that Jan tends to revert to as having the one property that all the variants have, that being "cause of all".
I'm saying that to apply a probability is to claim some knowledge of the matter.
I am an agnostic of the variety that thinks the question of God is beyond knowing.
How can we apply a percentage to that which we know nothing about?

I don't think we know nothing about God. God is described in Jan's various "scriptures". According to the scriptures, God is the guy who created light before he created the Sun - or was it the other way around? (see Genesis).

I am merely referring to (in this case) the "cause of all" concept - i.e. the concept that is at the heart / root of all others, the one that Jan reverts to, for example.

Jan wants to have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he presents as small a target as possible, the "cause of all" or "ultimate cause" God who is very much in the background of the universe. That God's job is to set the clockwork running and then disappear from view. But on the other hand, Jan also wants a personal God, a God who is Goodness, a God who can and does intervene in human affairs, a God who listens to prayer, a heavenly Father - that kind of thing. That God is a much bigger target, so Jan only gives us glimpses of him. When pressed, he quickly slinks back into the shadows, reverting to the "ultimate cause" undetectable, unprovable and unfalsifiable God.

It's Jan's entire package to which I assign a low probability, not just Jan's shadowy "cause of all causes" version of his God.

 

[Baldeee]

I don't think we know nothing about God. God is described in Jan's various "scriptures". According to the scriptures, God is the guy who created light before he created the Sun - or was it the other way around? (see Genesis).

This isn't necessarily "God", though.
At worst this is just a concept, and we might know much of what is conceptualised as God.
But how do we know this is actually God?
I'm starting from the notion that if God exists then if it is anything then it is at least the cause of all.

Jan wants to have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he presents as small a target as possible, the "cause of all" or "ultimate cause" God who is very much in the background of the universe. That God's job is to set the clockwork running and then disappear from view.

It is the deist's view of God.

But on the other hand, Jan also wants a personal God, a God who is Goodness, a God who can and does intervene in human affairs, a God who listens to prayer, a heavenly Father - that kind of thing. That God is a much bigger target, so Jan only gives us glimpses of him. When pressed, he quickly slinks back into the shadows, reverting to the "ultimate cause" undetectable, unprovable and unfalsifiable God.

Indeed.

It's Jan's entire package to which I assign a low probability, not just Jan's shadowy "cause of all causes" version of his God.

Understood - and I am in agreement.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The important question you need to ask yourself is: how do I know that God exists?

I understand why that would 'The important question', but from my perspective it is no more important than asking how I know compassion exists.

When you've really thought about that, you could perhaps try to explain it to myself and your other readers. "It's just natural", or "I just know" won't do, Jan. You need to do so much better than that. What you're essentially saying is that you just feel that God exists, and that's hopelessly subjective

It's a perfectly adequate explanation, as it is true.

What you're essentially saying is that you just feel that God exists, and that's hopelessly subjective

It's all going to sound subjective to you. So I'm just telling you like it is. Like you said, you can't go any further at this time.

Do you know somebody who sees God, or touches God, or photographs God? Is there something you're not telling us?

No. I don't know anyone that does that.

We share a world, Jan. You don't get to choose your own facts, like it or not.

What?

I watch you flip flop back and forth on points. I see you ignore things that have been explained to you, over and over. I see you struggle with basic rational thinking - even the idea that there is an objective reality.

Wow. I've watched the same thing regarding yourself.

You make a poor evangelist, Jan. For somebody who is reasonably articulate, and a person with a strong faith, you do very little to convince anybody else that there's any value in believing as you do.

You seem hung up on convincing people of things
We're just having a chat James. That's all.

What about God? See what I mean about the stone-walling?

That is an adequate answer, but not for you.

You're telling me you have no idea why atheists lock themselves off from engaging with your God. Ok.

That wasn't your question. Your question was about you.

Why doesn't everyone "naturally" have it, then?

They do.

You answered half the question again. What of the other half: 'Or is it, rather, that you assume that God exists and you think "God exists, therefore he made that rock"?' The answer to that one is "Yes", I assume, but you don't want to say that.

You said it yourself, this thread is about atheism.

If you put in a little effort, who knows? Maybe you'd change my mind. But I guess we'll never know.

You should read my posts, as I've already covered this.

What I mean is that your current limit is that God does not exist, so there's really no point in talking about God's existence, because as far as your concerned God does not exist.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. What do you think you've "worked out"?

Don't worry about it.

For me, initially God was the Christian God, essentially. That was the tradition I was brought up in. Later, I revised my concept of God to be more general and less specifically Christian, as I found the specifics of the Christian God to be untenable in light of the available evidence. For quite a while, I guess you might have called me a deist. For a time after that, I called myself an agnostic, though I didn't fully understand what that meant until later. Now I'm content to call myself an atheist, and I remain agnostic.

There's nothing personal in there.
It reads like a manual.

That is how I came to comprehend God.

That doesn't sound like you were a theist at all.

The symptoms are the thing when it comes to an intangible. What is hunger? Answer: a longing for food that manifests itself in various ways in the body and the mind and in the actions. So it is with compassion

Not the same thing James.

And God? What are the symptoms of God? Everything that is, you say. So, if anything exists, then God exists. But this is not how people use the word "God". "God" is not synonymous with "everything". So, there must be more specific symptoms of God. If so, what are they? And how do we know they are due to God and not to something else?

James, you are an atheist.
That means God does not exist for you.
That is your position.
I'm not going to waste anymore time with this off-topic dialogue.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Given what you deem an "adequate" explanation, Jan, it really is no wonder that you believe what you do.
I think I'll leave you to your wholly subjective God, and your "no true scotsman" fallacy that you bring out to dismiss those who you can't possibly imagine might once have been a theist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Given what you deem an "adequate" explanation, Jan, it really is no wonder that you believe what you do

Well this response is understandable given your current position.

I think I'll leave you to your wholly subjective God, and your "no true scotsman" fallacy that you bring out to dismiss those who you can't possibly imagine might once have been a theist

Like I said, given your current position, that is what is available to you.

Jan.

 

[karenmansker]

Do you know somebody who sees God, or touches God, or photographs God? Is there something you're not telling us?

or, photographs angels?! . . . . . h-m-m-m-m . . . . . Copyright KSM, 2010

 

[Jan Ardena]

But that leaves me effectively an atheist by the time we have gotten to 3. and started talking about the personalized God(s) of the religious myths

You are most definitely atheist.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I think we're on fairly safe grounds in saying that, most probably, none of those Gods exist.

What does that even mean?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Baldeee:


I don't think we know nothing about God. God is described in Jan's various "scriptures". According to the scriptures, God is the guy who created light before he created the Sun - or was it the other way around? (see Genesis).


Jan wants to have his cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he presents as small a target as possible, the "cause of all" or "ultimate cause" God who is very much in the background of the universe. That God's job is to set the clockwork running and then disappear from view. But on the other hand, Jan also wants a personal God, a God who is Goodness, a God who can and does intervene in human affairs, a God who listens to prayer, a heavenly Father - that kind of thing. That God is a much bigger target, so Jan only gives us glimpses of him. When pressed, he quickly slinks back into the shadows, reverting to the "ultimate cause" undetectable, unprovable and unfalsifiable God.

It's Jan's entire package to which I assign a low probability, not just Jan's shadowy "cause of all causes" version of his God.

Do you feel better about yourself when you spout this stuff?

Jan.

 

[karenmansker]

Baldeee:
I don't think we know nothing about God. God is described in Jan's various "scriptures". According to the scriptures, God is the guy who created light before he created the Sun - or was it the other way around? (see Genesis).

Mine (KSM) on Baldee's (above): IMO, "God is the entity/intelligence that created energy (before creating the Sun), from whence (energy) all else is deriving.

 

[Sarkus]

I see we've reached Jan's chocolate teapot phase of discourse. Now that his more normal content has been shown to be worthless, he's forgone any effort at pretence and gone straight for clarified drivel.
With no other arguments to make it's just a case of "if you disagree it's because you are without God". Quite funny, really. If it wasn't so tragic.

 

[Sarkus]

Mine (KSM) on Baldee's (above): IMO, "God is the entity/intelligence that created energy (before creating the Sun), from whence (energy) all else is deriving.

Do you have anything to support the existence of this concept of God?