I mean your particular beliefs about God, as opposed to other theists' particular beliefs about God.
Such as.
Don't you care whether what you believe in exists or not?
I don't attach anymore importance than Theos Him/Itself.
I understand that you may be scared to take a close look at the issue because it threatens to pull the rug out from under the whole edifice of your belief.
I have been taking a close look at this issue which is why we are discussing it.
Some have even implied it is needlessly close. So no, there is no fear on my part.
If you're able to pull the rug out from under my feet (whatever that means) regarding my belief, please do.
Sorry. You've already said you're not interested in questions of evidence or lack of evidence, so any discussion with you concerning rational reasons to doubt God's existence is likely to be a waste of my time.
Where did I say that?
Don't you read all those "scriptures" you constantly refer to as authorities on God? Don't they set out what God is for you?
For the sake of argument, why don't we assume that God is what the scriptures describe? You shouldn't have too much complaint about that.
Yes, I'm okay with that.
But I'd like to know, how you would know it would be God, should the evidence (you say is lacking) be forthcoming.
Firstly, you are trying to tell atheists how they ought to define themselves, in contradiction to how they actually define themselves.
That is a misrepresention of the truth. I am looking at the original meanings of the words, and noticing that the foundation upon which the terms atheist and theist are based, are still the basis today, despite the outward appearance of change.
Secondly, you have repeatedly tried to import the debateable assumption that God exists into the discussion, so you have moved the discussion away from one that is merely about terms and definitions.
Examples please.
One wonders, then, how anybody ever comes to believe in God.
I think belief in God is natural to humans, as is not believing in God.
Except, of course, the ones who believe that God exists yet don't believe in God, which you tell us is a meaningful possibility.
I believe you exist, but I don't believe in you.
You just seem to be an okay guy.
I see the word "God" there, but no God. Where's the God?
You're without Him/It.
It's fine to tell us all what you personally believe, but please realise that your proclamations do nothing to convince a skeptic.
Are the skeptics with or without God (as per definition)?
If they are without God, then no amount of evidence will suffice.
"IS" is a statement about existence, from the verb "to be". When you say "God IS", you're making a statement about God's existence. You are not correct unless you can establish that your statement is true.
I'm making a statement that reflects the meanings of the word Theos, and it's counterpart Atheos.
There is no mention of existence or lack of. Only God, and being without God. The idea of God existing from an atheist point of view, is simply an atheists point of view.
It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, only that it can't be shown to exist as something that we can readily see with our eyes, like we can see tables and chairs. This is why the original terms are so intelligent in their meanings. It explains why you demand physical evidence of God.
Perceiving love is a function of human perception not a lot different from perceiving trees, when it comes down to it.
Please show it.
Also, disinterested observers can often see objective signs that love exists in other people.
How do they know it's love.
Love has visible effects on the world.
Such as?
What does God do that is separate from nature?
I don't understand the question.
And again, here's your cue to argue that God is nature, but then that makes God a non-person. Also, God is traditionally supposed to be supernatural - above nature.
You've lost me here.
Could you believe in me even if I didn't exist?
I'd have no concept of you, if you didn't exist, let alone believe in you.
Now which one or more of these things, if any, is real? If none of them is real, then people are probably babbling incoherently when they talk about existence. If, on the other hand, one or more of them is real, then it might be reasonable to talk about existence after all. It could even be that we could invent rational criteria by which to judge whether or not something exists.
Regardless of what is real, what does it mean to believe IN their existence?
Isn't it enough to believe that they exist?
It sounds like you're almost talking about evidence there, Jan. But you and I both know that we don't need evidence to show that God exists. Right?
You need evidence to show that God exists.
You said I have no reason to rationally claim that God exists, and I said I do.
You're the one who brought it up, and I simply responded.
jan.