Proof of the existence of God

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

My thesis is that your definition of God, "Creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning" is unsatisfactory, because it leaves out what most theists believe is most important about God, namely his being a 'person' and his moral and soteriological qualities. It doesn't tell us why a metaphysical function should be worshipped as being divine.

Why does it matter what most theists believe, or even think. We're talking about God, or at least a concept of God based on what God is.

In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived as the Supreme Being (God - Wikipedia)

That is what the definition of God is. Concepts are simply based or not based on that.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

He's asking for your concept. Maybe if you engage him, he'll make his point.

I can only tell him so many times that I don't have one, but am willing to work with his for the purpose of discussion.
[qupte]Anyone can have many concepts of God, but we're not discussing many concepts, we're discussing 'God', The Supreme Being, The All-Mighty, The First Cause, etc... Of course you can waste time with any concept your mind can muster, but it only comes across as an evasion tactic.[/quote]We are specifically discussing Pachomius' concept. If you wish to raise a separate concept and provide proof of the existence of that God then do so, but do so as a separate line of discussion, please. If you think yours is the same as Pachomius' (and he has been at lengths to lay out specifically what his concept is for the purpose of this discussion) then great, feel free to weigh in with your own proof.

No one is talking about belief, or something to fall back on. You must have a concept of God, or not (which would beg the question as to why you are taking part in this discussion). He is simply asking you what it is. Why is that such a difficult task?

I have no meaningful concept of God but, as has been repeatedly said, I (as are there in the same position as me) am happy to use his concept for the purpose of this discussion. My lack of meaningful concept (outside of this discussion) does not preclude me from partaking of a discussion where a concept is discussed, especially if, as Pachomius claims, merely "thinking on facts and logic" can lead to a proof of the existence of that concept.

Why use his concept, when he ask's for your concept? How will he make his point if you don't participate in his request?

Because, if you had bothered to read the thread rather than just try to get involved with the first post you come across, the thread is about a single concept of God and the proof of the existence of that concept. It needs no other concept. It doesn't matter if I do or do not have a concept of my own. If Pachomius has a concept (and he clearly does) and he claims he can prove the existence of that concept, then it be hooves him to do so, irrespective of any other concept that might be held by other people.

I've read enough to get the jist.

Clearly you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be writing such irrelevancies.
[qupte]I think it is hard to say whether or not he has failed, because from what I have read, no atheist has put forward a proper concept of God. [/quote]WTF?
He has put forward a concept he claims he can prove through "thinking on facts and logic". He has not yet done so. He has thus failed so far. It's not hard to say so.
It is an utter red herring on your part, and on his if he is insisting, to require a concept from atheists to be able to prove or otherwise his own concept. That is simple logic.

It would seem that using his own concept, as your own defeats the object, holding up the progression. He may well fail, but you won't really know until you comply.

So tell me how me having a concept or not impacts on his ability to prove the existence of his concept of God?
Either he can prove it or he can not. It doesn't need me to have a different concept, or even the same concept, for him to succeed or fail.
If I ask you to make your concept of ice-cream, and you define your concept and then make it, how does me having a different concept of ice-cream mean that you have or have not made your own concept? The success or not of you making your own concept of ice-cream depends on the accuracy of your product to your definition, not to my definition.

I wouldn't know how to prove God's existence to someone like yourself, and others. So I wouldn't make a thread like this. Also, I wouldn't approach it the way Pachomius has, but I am naturally interested in his claim, and would like to see where it goes.

So would we, which is why we keep asking. And he continues to press the reset button. As I hope I have clarified to you at least, any requirement for others to put forward their own concept is irrelevant to Pachmoius proving the existence of his own concept.

Why did you feel the need to use Xanu?

I could have used any other name I made up on the spot. I am aware there is a similarity in spelling to Xenu, the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy per Scientology. But spelling is not everything.

What is it that you don't believe in?
Is it everyone else's ideas, or your own idea?

Anything I find meaningless.

What is it that cannot be known?
Your idea of God?

Anything that can not be differentiated from nature, whether it is the cause or not. Anything that can have multiple logically valid explanations and requires circular reasoning or a priori reasoning as a means of claiming soundness/veracity. Etc.

What is your idea of God, and what is it about God that you conclude God cannot be known?

I have no idea about God that is not merely a reflection of the concept I am discussing at the time. And it is the veracity of the claims of what God is that can not be known.

Is it me, or have you contradicted your position?

It's you.
My point was that the claims being theistic in nature is not why I am asking him to support them, it is simply because his claims are unsupported.

Then comply with his request and supply your concept of God, or admit you don't have one. This way he'll be able to make his point (as I stated before).

And I strongly suggest you bother to read threads before butting in, as you would have identified the numerous occasions where I and others have stated as much. At the moment you are just raising irrelevancies and re-covering ground already well and truly trodden.

It is in reference to the word ''atheist'', which defaults the position to ''one who does not believe in God''

No, if you are looking to be concise in your definition, it defaults to "one who lacks belief in God". There is a difference between the two that you have been repeatedly told, and which you repeatedly choose to ignore.

And like anyone else, how they live their life is based on their worldview. Intellectualism falls within that, and has no independent existence. You live your life as though God does not exist, because for you, at every moment, every decision, God does not exist.

From a practical point of view, yes. And that practical position is, as explained, driven by one of two possible intellectual worldviews: God does not exist, or it is unknown whether God exists or not. Deal with it. Trying to twist what atheism is to suit your agenda won't wash.

It simply common sense. For you God does not exist (until such time that He does).

Correct. But that position is not a matter of belief but of practical acceptance on a day-to-day basis. Belief is an intellectual position. So please do not try to equate the two when it is clear they are different.

How have you killed the proof when he hasn't presented it yet?
Isn't your personal, honest concept of God required?

I didn't say I have killed it. I said that it is sufficient to do so on its logic.
And no, my own personal concept of God is not required.
E.g. If I say that all Blargs are Queegs, and all Queegs are Zomats, but then claim that there is a Blargs that is not a Zomat, do you need your own personal concept of these things to be able to spot the invalid logic used?
No, you don't. So stop asking, stop saying that one is required.

 

[Sarkus]

Well given the subject matter, one cannot say whether or not it is going to be a struggle, as observing God may not be the same as observing a star. One would think one would come to the table with an open mind, not a sledge hammer. Personally I don't know how he intends to prove God, to any atheist here, but I'm not going to knock him before he gets a chance. At least comply with him and see where it goes. Plus I would like to know what your concept of God is.

For the last time, it doesn't need us to comply with his request.
If, after reading this, you still think it is required, show me why, other than just to placate a baby in a pram. What is there in my own concept, should I have one, that enables Pachomius to prove the existence of his own?

Why do you always ask this? I can work with any concept of God, because I comprehend who and what God is, from scripture.
I have already explained to you what God is, and from that, any concept you care to come with, lies within those aspects.
So simply remember what I've told you, then you needn't ask in future.

But you don't work with any concept of God. You always insist that there is just one concept: yours. As you have done again in the post I am responding to. You have claimed that Pachomius concept also matches yours. Irrespective of what concept Pachomius has specifically stated, you claim that is encompassed by yours. You would then claim that any other concept of God that does not match yours is necessarily wrong. And by doing so you belittle and disparage those other concepts that you do not accept.
So don't deceive yourself, Jan.

That is what ''God'' means. It's not a concept. The sun may be explained differently from different sources, but the sun is what it is without the various perceptions. If God isn't those attributes I put forward, then He isn't God. You could do well to keep that in mind. My concept of God has to keep those attributes in mind, or else I would be making stuff up.

God is a concept. Whether that concept exists or not is a matter of belief. Your concept may be that God actually exists, not that you can prove it to those that ask. Others have concepts of God that do not exist (had you read this thread you would have come across at least one such).
God does not necessarily exist simply because your concept is that it does. So don't claim god is not a concept: it is. As are all things that exist, and many things that do not exist as anything other than concepts in the mind of sentient beings.
As for making stuff up, I wouldn't say that you do, but who is to say that those you believe ultimately did not.

There's no need for me to posit a concept, as I have told you what attributes God must have to be God. If you refuse to work with that, then you are clearly trolling.

And in telling what "attributes God must have" you have indeed provided your concept, whether you acknowledge it as such or not. But it is still just your concept, and that of anyone who shares your views. But that does not necessarily encompass everyone who has a concept of God. And it is sheer arrogance to think otherwise, and not to mention insulting to those who hold other concepts.

I am not going to attempt to provide proof of God's existence to you or any atheist in these forums, but I am interested in hearing Pachomius's attempt.

As are we all, Jan, as are we all.

Arguing against atheism is pointless.

Yet you do it so often. Speaks volumes of you, I guess.

I'm more interested in the mental position of the modern atheist, the types that frequent forums like these.

If that is the case then have the decency to raise a thread on the matter rather than troll another with what is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion you interrupt.

 

[spidergoat]

...God Himself is not subject to time and space....

That's called "special pleading". Meaning you deliberately overlook a case of something not following the rules that you previously set. If common sense physics (the nose on our face) doesn't apply in the case of God, then it doesn't apply to anything. How do you know the first cause, if there was one, is God? It's not so just because that's how you define it. There might be a first cause that is dumb and simple, because the early universe was not complex, it was simple. Complexity grew later out of it's own changing properties, driven only by cooling.

 

[James R]

Pachomius:

Okay, atheists and kindred personalities, let us effect a joiner, tell me what is your concept of God; not that I am into getting you to admit the existence of God, but just to see whether you can think on facts and logic.

Ok. I'll give you one concept of God. It goes like this:

God is kind of like a big patriarchal father figure who lives in the sky and watches everything we do. He cares about human beings and if you pray to him sometimes he will act to improve your life by magically and subtly controlling events or physical occurrences in our material universe. This God magically created the universe out of nothing, but for some reason mostly cares about some members of one species on one little planet out of countless planets that exist. God doesn't talk directly to human beings, but only indirectly, or occasionally in dreams or "visions" (hallucinations). God is said by some to be Good, but nevertheless permits countless natural and human-caused evils to occur every day. This God is a single being, and some say there are no other gods. But much of the world's population doesn't accept one or more of the above elements in this description of the supposed One God.

So there you go. What now?

So, as you can read and understand, this is the concept of God from yours truly:

In concept God is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Ok. That's a very simple conception of God. Where to from here?

So, as you deny God exists, then if you care to get into a joinder with me which is logical from your part, then you also take up the concept of God from me, and you prove that there is no entity corresponding to that concept of God, and I from my part will prove to you from facts and logic that there is certainly existing an entity in concept the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Ok. Since you are making the positive claim that your God exists, you go first.

Please posts your facts and logic now.

Now, if you care to effect a joinder with me on facts instead of on logic, then you look up a fact that is the best rebuttal for the existence of God, in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

You haven't posted any facts that need rebutting yet. All you have so far is a claim that your God exists. I'll wait for you to post your facts and logic, then reply.

Tell me, if you have been reading my posts, where do I sneak in an assumption?

Everything you post is based on your as-yet-unproven assumption that your God exists.

I'm glad you are now willing to post your facts and logic, though. I look forward to reading.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

I can only tell him so many times that I don't have one, but am willing to work with his for the purpose of discussion.[/quote]

What can you possibly achieve from that, aside from blocking his concept with anything you care to mention?

[quote]We are specifically discussing Pachomius' concept. If you wish to raise a separate concept and provide proof of the existence of that God then do so, but do so as a separate line of discussion, please.[/quote]

It is because you don't have a concept of God why you see what i'm saying as separate. If for you God is merely an hypothesis to be treated the same way as any other hypothesis, there is absolutely nothing he can say to convince you of God.
But the problem will not be of his making, because you have accepted that God does not exist, and launch your dialogue on that basis.
What would a dialogue between a scientist and someone who has no concept of science, but insists on using the scientists concept to demonstrate conceptual errors, look like?

[quote]If you think yours is the same as Pachomius' (and he has been at lengths to lay out specifically what his concept is for the purpose of this discussion) then great, feel free to weigh in with your own proof.[/quote]

My concept may not exactly be the same as Pachomius's, but we can recognise that we are talking about God, because of the mentioned attributes.

As I've already explained I see no point in trying to convince people who believe God doesn't exit, that He does, but I am interested to see what happens when someone does.

My lack of meaningful concept (outside of this discussion) does not preclude me from partaking of a discussion where a concept is discussed, especially if, as Pachomius claims, merely "thinking on facts and logic" can lead to a proof of the existence of that concept.

It depends on the discussion. If you are required to have a concept of God, and you don't, then consider yourself precluded.

If Pachomius has a concept (and he clearly does) and he claims he can prove the existence of that concept, then it be hooves him to do so, irrespective of any other concept that might be held by other people.

How would you know? You don't even have a concept of God. You simply listen to the other guy's, then improvise. When it comes to God, you really have no idea what you're talking about. It's as if you tell yourself there's nothing more to this God hypothesis, than making stuff up, then convince yourself you have a point. When in fact you have none.

It is an utter red herring on your part, and on his if he is insisting, to require a concept from atheists to be able to prove or otherwise his own concept. That is simple logic.

I'm not sure that he said he need atheist concepts to prove God exists, but I wouldn't see how that would benefit him. There may be other reasons he wants you to comply. Maybe he just wants to demonstrate how ignorant card carrying atheists are, they spend all there time arguing against God, but have no idea as to what or who God is.

So tell me how me having a concept or not impacts on his ability to prove the existence of his concept of God?

Maybe one of you should find out. Then again I've seen nothing that could be said to be a concept of God, and there seems to be no comprehension as to why a concept of God is necessary.

If I ask you to make your concept of ice-cream, and you define your concept and then make it, how does me having a different concept of ice-cream mean that you have or have not made your own concept?

How different can your concept be?
And if they seemed different at the start of the dialogue, there would definately be essential things about ice cream that would concur, which wouldn't take too much intelligence to realize they're talking about the same thing, or something very similar.

[quote]I could have used any other name I made up on the spot. I am aware there is a similarity in spelling to Xenu, the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy per Scientology. But spelling is not everything.

Xenu is a mere dictator of the Galactic Confederacy, God is the Supreme Being, The Supreme Cause of all causes. So again why did you put them in the same bracket? You may as well have used the one that is actually to an agent one would describe as ''God''.

And I strongly suggest you bother to read threads before butting in, as you would have identified the numerous occasions where I and others have stated as much. At the moment you are just raising irrelevancies and re-covering ground already well and truly trodden.

I know you're arguments so well, I only have to read a few of your posts to get what going on.

No, if you are looking to be concise in your definition, it defaults to "one who lacks belief in God". There is a difference between the two that you have been repeatedly told, and which you repeatedly choose to ignore.

The actual meaning is ''without God'', which I suppose describes atheists accurately, instead of labels designed to give a rational, and scientific basis for your world view.

God does not exist, or it is unknown whether God exists or not. Deal with it. Trying to twist what atheism is to suit your agenda won't wash.

The latter serves no purpose intellectually or practically. For all intent and purpose your position remains God does not exist. In your case this is even more telling, because you don't even argue like someone who admits not knowing whether or not God exists. All you do is beat down anything positive pertaining to the existence of God, to the point where you have to tell/remind people you're agnostic-atheist.

But that position is not a matter of belief but of practical acceptance on a day-to-day basis. Belief is an intellectual position. So please do not try to equate the two when it is clear they are different.

Don't try to tell me what belief is. I know what it is.
Belief is more than an intellectual position, it is what drives us. Again you show remarkable lack of understanding about simple human attributes.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Xenu is a mere dictator of the Galactic Confederacy, God is the Supreme Being, The Supreme Cause of all causes. So again why did you put them in the same bracket? You may as well have used the one that is actually to an agent one would describe as ''God''.

Not only did you not read the thread to garner context for your replies, but you clearly failed to read what I actually wrote in response to you.
I said I did not refer to XEnu, and that any similarity in spelling to what I did refer to, XAnu, is where the similarity ends.
So why now do you still accuse me of referring to XEnu?
You may as well criticise me for lacking belief in your dog, given the similarity in spelling to God.

I know you're arguments so well, I only have to read a few of your posts to get what going on.

"Your" not "you're" - it's just something I find irritating, unless you are genuinely considering me to be arguments?
And clearly reading the few posts you have has, at least in this case, been insufficient for you to garner the context so missing from your posts.
But hey, you probably think you're in the middle of it now, so what's the point, right?

The actual meaning is ''without God'', which I suppose describes atheists accurately, instead of labels designed to give a rational, and scientific basis for your world view.

The actual Latin and Greek origins certainly meant that, but that could also describe a baby, a chair, and anything else that never even contemplates the matter.
Words change in meaning over time. Deal with it.

The latter serves no purpose intellectually or practically. For all intent and purpose your position remains God does not exist. In your case this is even more telling, because you don't even argue like someone who admits not knowing whether or not God exists. All you do is beat down anything positive pertaining to the existence of God, to the point where you have to tell/remind people you're agnostic-atheist.

I can not be held to blame for you misunderstanding what agnostic-atheism is, nor how agnostic-atheists might interact with people. Simply put, we are not all the same. As said, I find if someone makes an unsubstantiated claim I will likely ask them to support it. If you find that this is "beating down anything positive" then that is a misconception for you to rectify. From my view there has to be something positive to beat down. But there isn't. Just unsupported claims.
And until something is supported, it is more rational to accept (intellectually) that it is unknown, and that leads to the practical position in this case of God not existing.

Don't try to tell me what belief is. I know what it is.
Belief is more than an intellectual position, it is what drives us. Again you show remarkable lack of understanding about simple human attributes.

No, you are once again equating your particular belief on all other beliefs. Not all beliefs drive us. Period. I believe it will rain tomorrow. How is that driving me? It is purely an intellectual position, but one that quote often informs our practical position. I believe it will rain tomorrow so I prepare accordingly etc.
But whether or not it drives our practical position does not alter what a belief is.
And, as you fail to accept, more than one belief, or lack thereof, can drive the same practical position, which means you can not logically infer from that practical position what the intellectual position is.
No matter how much you argue to the contrary.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Not only did you not read the thread to garner context for your replies, but you clearly failed to read what I actually wrote in response to you.
I said I did not refer to XEnu, and that any similarity in spelling to what I did refer to, XAnu, is where the similarity ends.
So why now do you still accuse me of referring to XEnu?
You may as well criticise me for lacking belief in your dog, given the similarity in spelling to God.

''Xanu'' or ''Xenu'', it doesn't matter you put it in the same category as ''God'', which means either you are ignorant of the concept of God, or you are aware (as you say), but for some reason put them in the same category.

"Your" not "you're" - it's just something I find irritating, unless you are genuinely considering me to be arguments?
And clearly reading the few posts you have has, at least in this case, been insufficient for you to garner the context so missing from your posts.

Now you have to resort to my spelling to try and gain some upper ground. Why am I not surprised?

But hey, you probably think you're in the middle of it now, so what's the point, right?

I've no idea what YOU'RE talking about.

The actual Latin and Greek origins certainly meant that, but that could also describe a baby, a chair, and anything else that never even contemplates the matter.

So YOU'RE saying that ''atheist'' could describe a baby, a chair, and anything else you care use?
Fraid not. It means without God.

Words change in meaning over time. Deal with it.

In this case YOU'RE wrong.
Deal with it.

I can not be held to blame for you misunderstanding what agnostic-atheism is, nor how agnostic-atheists might interact with people. Simply put, we are not all the same

It really isn't that complex...

1. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. Google.

...Now if you want to wiggle around that, it's entirely up to you. But I'm okay with it as a definition.

From my view there has to be something positive to beat down. But there isn't. Just unsupported claims.

How do you know their claim is unsupported?
Why is the first cause argument unsupported, given the subject?

And until something is supported, it is more rational to accept (intellectually) that it is unknown, and that leads to the practical position in this case of God not existing.

What do you mean by ''supported''?

No, you are once again equating your particular belief on all other beliefs.

How did I do that exactly?

Not all beliefs drive us. Period. I believe it will rain tomorrow. How is that driving me? It is purely an intellectual position, but one that quote often informs our practical position. I believe it will rain tomorrow so I prepare accordingly etc.

You've answered YOUR own question. Duh!
If it did rain, but you didn't believe it would rain, you might very well get caught up in it.

But whether or not it drives our practical position does not alter what a belief is.

It may well drive you to prepare accordingly, or not. That is the belief. Not affirming to oneself ''I believe, I believe. That means nothing at all to the person, but it may fool others into thinking that one does believe, when in fact one does not.

And, as you fail to accept, more than one belief, or lack thereof, can drive the same practical position, which means you can not logically infer from that practical position what the intellectual position is.
No matter how much you argue to the contrary.

I don't know what you mean by ''more than one belief''.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

''Xanu'' or ''Xenu'', it doesn't matter you put it in the same category as ''God'', which means either you are ignorant of the concept of God, or you are aware (as you say), but for some reason put them in the same category.

Wow, you have no idea what you're responding to, do you. I said that I don't rule out the universe being created by God, or Xanu, or any other intelligent concept. I do not put Xanu in the same category as God, other than as a possible cause for the universe, should it be deemed to have one. The universe could have been farted out of Great A'Tuin for all I know.
Now stop getting your knickers in a twist, read the thread and be sure you know what you're replying to, and the context.

Now you have to resort to my spelling to try and gain some upper ground. Why am I not surprised?

No, the upper ground was there then you failed to adequately read the thread from the outset. Picking you up on your spelling was because that particular error irritates me.

I've no idea what YOU'RE talking about.

I mean that you now think that since you're in the middle of an argument you have no need to actually attempt to read the rest of the thread to garner context.

So YOU'RE saying that ''atheist'' could describe a baby, a chair, and anything else you care use?
Fraid not. It means without God.

No, I'm saying that simply defining atheist as YOU do, as "without God", means that you can legitimately label babies, chairs et al as atheist. Or do you not think that they are "without God" in the same way as me?

In this case YOU'RE wrong.
Deal with it.

Yes, Jan, you saying so means I have no option but to agree.

It really isn't that complex...

1. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. Google.

...Now if you want to wiggle around that, it's entirely up to you. But I'm okay with it as a definition.

No, that's quit acceptable, but your definition of atheism is contrary to the one you posted moments ago ("without God"), and now if only you bothered to remember these definitions and not move to others when it suits you, we might get somewhere.

How do you know their claim is unsupported?
Why is the first cause argument unsupported, given the subject?

Because he has not yet supported it. He has made claims, he has provided examples that do not rationally support the claim in favour of other possible competing claims. And thus I conclude that he has not, as yet, supported it. Simples.

What do you mean by ''supported''?

To provide an argument/justification that shows how the claim should rationally be favoured over alternative theories that can answer the same situation, without making unwarranted assumptions (I.e. Assumptions that are also unsupported).

How did I do that exactly?

By riding roughshod over what other people may claim of God, and claim that there is only one God and that anything that doesn't adhere to your version is not truly God.

You've answered YOUR own question. Duh!
If it did rain, but you didn't believe it would rain, you might very well get caught up in it.

I gave an example of a belief that does possibly drive a practical position, but not all do. If I am inside for the day, whether I believe it will rain or not is irrelevant to me. I can hold the belief or not. No driving.

It may well drive you to prepare accordingly, or not. That is the belief. Not affirming to oneself ''I believe, I believe. That means nothing at all to the person, but it may fool others into thinking that one does believe, when in fact one does not.

Eh? In English, please. The words make sense in isolation, but as the sentence you have put together... .

I don't know what you mean by ''more than one belief''.

Two beliefs would be more than one, three would be more than two etc.
If two beliefs can lead to the same practical application, the practical application can not be used to determine which belief the person holds. Simples, really.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But you don't work with any concept of God. You always insist that there is just one concept: yours. As you have done again in the post I am responding to. You have claimed that Pachomius concept also matches yours. Irrespective of what concept Pachomius has specifically stated, you claim that is encompassed by yours. You would then claim that any other concept of God that does not match yours is necessarily wrong. And by doing so you belittle and disparage those other concepts that you do not accept.
So don't deceive yourself, Jan.

Of course I work with a concept. For example a Christian may accept Jesus Christ as God Himself, but I don't, but I can understand why they would. Both ideas fit within the definition framework of God.

I insist that there is a universal definition of God, but of course you deny this, most probably because it does nothing to validate your worldview. Every concept (even James's) has to comply with the definition of God, otherwise we're not discussing God.

God is a concept.

Good call. Now all you have to do is support that claim by stating who brought this concept from the mind into the world. You also need to state when and where this concept originated. I've more challenges for you but we'll see how you do with these.

Your concept may be that God actually exists, not that you can prove it to those that ask. Others have concepts of God that do not exist (had you read this thread you would have come

I have a concept of God based on experience, comprehension, and understanding. God existing is only a concept if I come up with the idea. I don't know whether or not you've noticed, but God's existence is a given which we either accept or deny. His existence is not contingent on belief.

God does not necessarily exist simply because your concept is that it does.

I don't care about God's existence, it simply stands to reason, for me, that such an agent, is.
The idea of existence is a pre-occupation of the God-less person, because he/she needs to justify his/her worldview.
I mean, if God does exist, and the person pretended that God does not exist, by reinforcing it in his mind/heart, then that person would be a fool. Wouldn't you agree?

So don't claim god is not a concept: it is.

Fine, I'll accept it if you can tell me where this concept originated, and by whom.
Good luck with that.

And in telling what "attributes God must have" you have indeed provided your concept, whether you acknowledge it as such or not.

How so? It hasn't come from me. I have simply come to that understanding, mainly from reading scriptures, a medium that extends so far back, nobody knows how or why they came into circulation. That's not even taking into consideration what predated scriptures, namely the oral tradition. Nothing has changed since then. The attributes I speak of has never changed, so how can it be my concept.

Yet you do it so often. Speaks volumes of you, I guess.

When have I argued against atheism?

If that is the case then have the decency to raise a thread on the matter rather than troll another with what is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion you interrupt.

You have no concept of God, but use other peoples concepts to validate your position of ignorance, relentlessly, you consistently deny universal definitions of God, foolishly calling them concepts.
In all these years your ignorance on the subject of God, has been nothing if not consistent.
I understand what is meant by ''...the fool doth say in his heart, there is no God''.
Just to let you know, I'm not calling you a fool, but I have clearer understanding of what it means.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

There is no universal concept of God.

 

[Daecon]

Babies and chairs don't believe in any Gods, so they're atheist.

Everything is atheist until they're indoctrinated by someone with a religious agenda.

 

[Sarkus]

Of course I work with a concept. For example a Christian may accept Jesus Christ as God Himself, but I don't, but I can understand why they would. Both ideas fit within the definition framework of God.

Your claim here to work with a concept of God is contrary to other discussions with you where you have categorically denied doing so, to the extent that pages of a thread were devoted to your denial.
And now you claim you do have a concept. Or do you claim to be able to work with a concept you don't have?
Please try to be consistent in your claims, even across threads.

I insist that there is a universal definition of God, but of course you deny this, most probably because it does nothing to validate your worldview. Every concept (even James's) has to comply with the definition of God, otherwise we're not discussing God.

Your insistence is noted. However it does not make it so. I insist that others may have different definitions of God. Of course you deny this blah blah blah.

Good call. Now all you have to do is support that claim by stating who brought this concept from the mind into the world. You also need to state when and where this concept originated. I've more challenges for you but we'll see how you do with these.

Why do I have to support such a claim when it is self evidently a concept. Even you accept that god is a concept, one you even work with. Answering those questions would not promote the claim further, and being unable to answer them does nothing to diminish the claim. So unfortunately your pathetic attempts at obfuscation and derailment are irrelevant and thusly ignored further.
All existent things we are aware of are concepts within our mind, we can not conceive of huge without being so. There are also concepts we hold of things that have no existence outside of the mind.
But feel free to name something that exists for which you have no concept. Anything at all, for which you have no concept at all. And by doing so prove that your issue with me calling God a concept is a valid issue to have.

I'll take your next but in steps, as there is so much garbage to wade through...

I have a concept of God based on experience, comprehension, and understanding.

As do those atheists who have a concept of God that they claim does not exist. But again, it is nice for you to admit that you do have a concept of God.

God existing is only a concept if I come up with the idea.

Eh? Maybe you have a different understanding of what is meant by a concept than me... So let me be clear of my usage again: every thing we think of we conceptualise. We turn them into concepts within our mind to be able to picture them, to be able to talk about them. So it is ludicrous, with this understanding of what a concept is, to say that God existing is only a concept if you come up with the idea. The apple on my table exists. I can conceptualise the apple, and part of that concept is that it exists. I can conceptualise a non-existent apple beside it, and part of that concept is that it does not exist.
So your comment seems... odd to say the least, confused and ridiculous to say more.

I don't know whether or not you've noticed, but God's existence is a given which we either accept or deny. His existence is not contingent on belief.

God's existence or not is a given. I.e. Whether god exists or not is not contingent on belief. You certainly believe that God exists. But that does not make it so, as you admit.

I don't care about God's existence, it simply stands to reason, for me, that such an agent, is.

For someone who believes that God exists, for someone who previously claimed that belief is a driving force, and for someone who vociferously argues against atheists (even without reading the thread for context of what they are getting involved in) you seem to have a very odd way of showing that you don't care about God's existence.
As for reason, yours is not shared.

The idea of existence is a pre-occupation of the God-less person, because he/she needs to justify his/her worldview.

Utter drivel. There are more atheists who couldn't give one iota about god's existence or not than there are who do. You seem to confuse the few who post on sites such as these with the majority and generalise accordingly. Please don't, so as not to look so foolish again.
And I wouldn't wonder that there are more theists who question God's existence, when they go through hard times for example, than atheists who do. But please do continue to believe whatever nonsense makes you happy... Oh, wait...

I mean, if God does exist, and the person pretended that God does not exist, by reinforcing it in his mind/heart, then that person would be a fool. Wouldn't you agree?

Sire, if God does exist. Just show that God exists and you can claim the person a fool.
But then if God does not exist, and the person pretended that God does, by reinforcing it in his mind/heart, then that person would be a fool, right?
It all comes down to proving that God does exist, really.
And in the absence of that... why believe?

Fine, I'll accept it if you can tell me where this concept originated, and by whom.
Good luck with that.

Good luck with finding someone to argue against your red-herrings. Come back when you have something relevant to discuss.

How so? It hasn't come from me.

Why this notion that a concept must originate with you in order to be your concept? If you are thinking of something, you are conceptualising it. It is a concept.
No one has said it need be original. So enough with your red-herrings, please.

When have I argued against atheism?

Does it surprise you to learn that every time you claim God is more than a concept, that God actually exists, you argue against atheism. Admittedly the arguments generally amount to nothing more than personal incredulity, appeals to authority, and perhaps one or two other logical fallacies, if not being mere claims, but that's when you do it.

You have no concept of God, but use other peoples concepts to validate your position of ignorance, relentlessly, you consistently deny universal definitions of God, foolishly calling them concepts.

The same way I call an image of my car in my mind a concept of my car. It is you who foolishly fails to grasp what is meant by something being a concept. I suggest, assuming you finally understand, you revisit the posts and reinterpret accordingly.

In all these years your ignorance on the subject of God, has been nothing if not consistent.

I can only use the concepts that other people provide, yourself included. If I remain ignorant it is because I find nothing presented of any substance.

I understand what is meant by ''...the fool doth say in his heart, there is no God''.
Just to let you know, I'm not calling you a fool, but I have clearer understanding of what it means.

I understand what is meant by "never stand in the middle of a fool and their God".
Just to let you know, I'm not calling you a fool, but if have a clearer understanding of what it means.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Babies and chairs don't believe in any Gods, so they're atheist.

Everything is atheist until they're indoctrinated by someone with a religious agenda.

Well... as chairs are inanimate objects, to call them atheists is bit desparate IMO.
But, whatever floats your boat.

How do you know babies are without God, (the correct meaning of the word ''atheist'')?

I take it you assume that one has to affirm belief in God, to actually believe in God. Why would you assume that?

jan.

 

[Daecon]

Okay, how did you learn about "God"? What were you before the idea of "God" was given to you, if not an atheist?

Or did you think you were born believing in the Hindu/Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Ancient Egyptian/Ancient Greek/etc. faith?

 

[Photizo]

Okay, how did you learn about "God"? What were you before the idea of "God" was given to you, if not an atheist?

Or did you think you were born believing in the Hindu/Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Ancient Egyptian/Ancient Greek/etc. faith?

You might be directing the question to someone else but...I became aware of Him as a little child on my own...just musing in my mind at things around me and... He was there. However, it was not until much later that I personally responded to the specific message of the Gospel that I had heard on a number of occasions. (John 3:16).

 

[Daecon]

And if you grew up in India, do you still think you'd have heard about the Christian God?

 

[Photizo]

And if you grew up in India, do you still think you'd have heard about the Christian God?

Of course--you don't think they are aware of Him there?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Daecon,

Okay, how did you learn about "God"?

Reading and listening.

What were you before the idea of "God" was given to you, if not an atheist?

I was more ignorant than I am.

Or did you think you were born believing in the Hindu/Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Ancient Egyptian/Ancient Greek/etc. faith?

I may well have been, but I don't actually know.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your claim here to work with a concept of God is contrary to other discussions with you where you have categorically denied doing so, to the extent that pages of a thread were devoted to your denial

No it's not. Concept are ideas, and people have different ideas all the time. But if those concepts aren't based on attributes that are credited to God, like the ones I mentioned, then how are they talking about God.

Of course you can say people can see God how they see fit, if you like, but that would be a blatant condemnation of theists.

There has to be standard, and you'll find that standard in every scripture, and, comprehended in God based religions, even poly-theistic ones.

What I would argue against is trying to define God without His attributes.

Why do I have to support such a claim when it is self evidently a concept. Even you accept that god is a concept, one you even work with.

I think you should support the claim because you made it, and furthermore, I didn't say God is a concept, I said I have a concept of God, and can, and do work with other concepts.

All existent things we are aware of are concepts within our mind, we can not conceive of huge without being so. There are also concepts we hold of things that have no existence outside of the mind.
But feel free to name something that exists for which you have no concept. Anything at all, for which you have no concept at all. And by doing so prove that your issue with me calling God a concept is a valid issue to have.

Simply put a concept is an idea, so if God is my concept, He is therefore my idea.
If my concept of God is based on God, then God isn't my concept or idea.
So where did this concept originate if it is indeed a concept.

You claim that God is a concept, so tell me who, and when started this concept.

con·cept
n.
1. A general idea or understanding of something:
2. A plan or original idea.
3. A unifying idea or theme, especially for a product or service.

For someone who believes that God exists, for someone who previously claimed that belief is a driving force, and for someone who vociferously argues against atheists (even without reading the thread for context of what they are getting involved in) you seem to have a very odd way of showing that you don't care about God's existence.
As for reason, yours is not shared.

What do you mean by ''not shared''?

Utter drivel. There are more atheists who couldn't give one iota about god's existence or not than there are who do.

That's because they have come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. But if there are any doubts about God's existence then I think it is more of a preoccupation with atheists than with theists as to the existence of God, because we comprehend God differently.

And I wouldn't wonder that there are more theists who question God's existence, when they go through hard times for example, than atheists who do. But please do continue to believe whatever nonsense makes you happy... Oh, wait...

If they question God's existence, how could they be theist (believe in God)?

Sire, if God does exist. Just show that God exists and you can claim the person a fool.

Why would I want to do that?

But then if God does not exist, and the person pretended that God does, by reinforcing it in his mind/heart, then that person would be a fool, right?

Well it's not the same. I don't know when God was never perceived to exist, and as such I'm inclined to say ''God does not exist'' is the new kid on the block, and as such has to find the starting point, and the person/peoples who brought it into existence. Is God fact or fiction? As far as I know, knowledge of God's existence is a natural phenomenon. You made the extraordinary claim, you support it.

Does it surprise you to learn that every time you claim God is more than a concept, that God actually exists, you argue against atheism.

How so?

I understand what is meant by "never stand in the middle of a fool and their God".
Just to let you know, I'm not calling you a fool, but if have a clearer understanding of what it means.

Wow! Didn't see that coming.

jan.