No it's not. Concept are ideas, and people have different ideas all the time.
Indeed they do. And God is a concept whether or not God also exists. One can simply not talk about something without that thing being a concept, irrespective of whether that thing exists or not.
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.
They are talking about
their concept of God - not necessarily yours.
This is just more evidence of you riding roughshod over their concept of God, claiming it
has to abide by the attributes of your concept or not be 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.
No it wouldn't. I take theists for what they say, accept (for the purpose of discussion) the concept of God that they believe in, that they believe exists, and proceed accordingly. It is
you who is arrogant to belittle any concept they may have that doesn't fit your view, whether or not your view is shared by the majority 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.
No, there doesn't
have to be a standard. You simply assume there is one, because you assume that God must be the God of scripture, and that all scripture must be referencing the same God.
This is an unwarranted assumption.
What I would argue against is trying to define God without His attributes.
Which you base on Scriptures which is an appeal to authority, and limits the concept of God to the God of scriptures rather than the concept of God presented, as in this thread before you butted in to ride roughshod over Pachomius' concept.
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.
I have no need to support the claim until you can think of one thing that is not a concept.
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.
Oh, dear Xenu! Are you for real?? Why have you introduced the need for a concept to be original to be your concept.
Is my car not actually mine because I didn't originate it?
Thoughts don't have to be original to be
your thoughts.
So enough with the fundamentally ridiculous drivel that you're spouting, please.
If you think of something then you have a concept of that thing, and in having a concept of that thing, it is
your concept. Noone else is thinking
your thoughts inside
your head.
So, I repeat my request:
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.
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.
Pathetic irrelevancy for the reasons stated.
What do you mean by ''not shared''?
I mean that I do not agree with it, therefore I do not share in your reasoning: it is not shared.
That's because they have come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist.
Please quote source for what I consider to be yet more drivel.
Most atheists, those who simply lack belief in God, that I have met do so because they simply have no opinion on whether or not God exists, and are apathetic toward the question. There is certainly no conclusion by them that God does not exist. I would say this describes 90% of the atheists I know.
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.
It is certainly a preoccupation with atheists who
want to consider the question. But since in my experience this covers a tiny minority of atheists, to consider it a preoccupation with atheists is simply drivel.
And if a theist has doubts about God's existence then I think it reasonable to conclude that they would be preoccupied with the issue - believing in the existence of something they doubt may exist...?
An atheist who has doubts more often than not (in my experience) simply doesn't care one way or the other.
If they question God's existence, how could they be theist (believe in God)?
You'd have to ask them.
Why would I want to do that?
Did I say you did?
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.
It is the same, merely from a different perspective. You simply don't like the view.
Whatever you think is the more recent viewpoint is irrelevant to what I said. What the "starting point" is is also irrelevant. Unless you want to appeal to popularity, to authority, or any other of those wonderful logical fallacies?
Is God fact or fiction? As far as I know, knowledge of God's existence is a natural phenomenon.
Then show it. Prove it. Prove that the claim of God's existence is true, as it needs to be true for it to be knowledge. Otherwise you are left with nothing but a claim of God's existence, and it's not hard to find evidence of claims of God's existence.
You made the extraordinary claim, you support it.
What extraordinary claim did I make, exactly?
If you counter a position, even with something akin to "'tis not!" you argue against that thing.
If the atheist says that they do not know whether or not God exists and you claim "God does exist" you are arguing against atheism. It's that simple. 'Tis not rocket science, so why do you need such simplistic notions described to you?
Wow! Didn't see that coming.
You expect to be able to hurl veiled insults with no comeback, then? And if you expected it, why bother in the first place, and then why the sarcasm? :shrug:
