Proof of the existence of God

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

So because something didn't exit in your mind prior to it existing, you deem that it came of nothing/non-existence? Do you apply that reasoning to the origin of the universe?

I didn't make any claim about the origin of the universe, nor did I talk about how things arise in the mind.

Then put us out of our misery and tell us what it is that comes out of nothing.

Possibly a universe. For example, have you read Lawrence Krauss's book A universe from nothing?

Of course, if you want to do it properly, you have to start by working out what you mean by "nothing" (which Krauss does).

Did God come from nothing?

To put forward a counterargument, there need to be an argument to draw from.
There isn't one.

Yes there is. You even quoted it. It's the first quote in your post.

No he's not. The answer has already been provided.

Great! Point me to where he provided it. Link?

It is you who needs to provide proof for your assertion, which currently has no basis in reality, and is thus far a just so story.

Which assertion?

There is already a definition of God, you simply gave your concept.

You mean Pachomius's definition? Yeah, ok. I'm happy to work with him on that basis.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I didn't make any claim about the origin of the universe, nor did I talk about how things arise in the mind.

I know you didn't make any claim about the universe, which is why I raised the question.
Regarding the mind; It sounds as if you're saying that prior to something entering your mind, it didn't exist, but now it does, therefore the default to existence is non-existence.
Do you apply that concept to the origin of the universe?

Possibly a universe. For example, have you read Lawrence Krauss's book A universe from nothing?

Do you think it is equally possible that a transcendent, intelligent agency could have caused the universe?

I haven't read Krauss's but I've seen him explain it quite a few times.

Of course, if you want to do it properly, you have to start by working out what you mean by "nothing" (which Krauss does).

He puts forward his explanation of nothing.
To me, nothing is exactly what it says on the tin; NO-THING! No space, matter, time,

Did God come from nothing?

No.

Great! Point me to where he provided it. Link?

The answer is in every scripture. The onus is on you to show that these scriptures are wrong,

Which assertion?

It depends, if you apply your existence arising out of non existence reasoning to the existence of the universe.

You mean Pachomius's definition? Yeah, ok. I'm happy to work with him on that basis.

His concept is based on the existing universal definition.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

spidergoat,




God isn't an idea. Unless you can show otherwise.

Atheists don't know what they're talking about.

jan.

God is merely an idea, unless you can show otherwise. The prevalence of the idea has no bearing on it's truth. Nothing in the study of nature or physics seems to show a God or need one, so the burden of proof is on you. It's likely that the use of God was a means for the weak to control the strong through fear of the unknown, fear of eternal punishment, at a time when no one knew better. It came from the fact that we didn't know anything about how things worked, especially things like natural disasters, cosmic events, and lightning. But we have proven explanations for these things.

 

[Spellbound]

God is merely an idea, unless you can show otherwise. The prevalence of the idea has no bearing on it's truth. Nothing in the study of nature or physics seems to show a God or need one, so the burden of proof is on you. It's likely that the use of God was a means for the weak to control the strong through fear of the unknown, fear of eternal punishment, at a time when no one knew better. It came from the fact that we didn't know anything about how things worked, especially things like natural disasters, cosmic events, and lightning. But we have proven explanations for these things.

You have it backwards. It's the weak and fearful who don't think of God. The atheist worldview that life is meaningless and purposeless is insidious to say the least. Read Brandon Clifton's (160 IQ) responses on God. The mathematics of the CTMU is enough evidence that there is a God.

See: http://atheistenquiry.org/2013/11/26/on-teleology/

 

[Seattle]

So up until that point everybody understood everything?

This is what is so amusing about atheist's, you don't have to make sense, but you're so adamant that you're right, even when everything is crumbling around you.

jan.

Up to what point? My point was the initially nothing was understood and therefore...GOD was the answer to everything.

Why is it raining...must be God...you know...someone who kind of looks like me but is super powerful...what else could it be?

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

God is merely an idea,

Prove it.

...unless you can show otherwise.

Knowledge of Him is natural phenomena, unless you can show otherwise.

The prevalence of the idea has no bearing on it's truth.

Baseless nonsense.

Nothing in the study of nature or physics seems to show a God or need one, so the burden of proof is on you.

The essential contents within scriptures are to be found within nature. The knowledge they contain is natural, unless you can show otherwise.

It's likely that the use of God was a means for the weak to control the strong through fear of the unknown, fear of eternal punishment, at a time when no one knew better.

More likely that it wasn't, unless you can show otherwise.

It came from the fact that we didn't know anything about how things worked, especially things like natural disasters, cosmic events, and lightning. But we have proven explanations for these things.

Oh, so now now you've moved to a definate claim? Fine.
Now prove it.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Prove it.

You show that it's more than an idea. Is it required for life to evolve? No. Does prayer work? No. Do miracles happen? No. Does it explain anything at all? No.

Knowledge of Him is natural phenomena, unless you can show otherwise.

Faith in him is fake knowledge. And it is by no means shared between all cultures. Animists believe that spirits reside in all kinds of separate things. Atheists have no delusion of knowledge about Him. You're knowledge of world cultures is stunted if you think that all religions are the same.

Baseless nonsense.

No? So the number of people who thought that Jews caused the plague determined whether this was true or not?

The essential contents within scriptures are to be found within nature. The knowledge they contain is natural, unless you can show otherwise.

Talking snakes.

Oh, so now now you've moved to a definate claim? Fine.
Now prove it.

Which part? That religiosity is found in inverse proportion to actual knowledge?

 

[Sarkus]

Who was the first person to talk about God?
When did this event occur?

Irrelevant, for the reasons already explained.

What are their concepts based on?

Could be anything: what their parents tell them, what they have read in a book, what some person who claims authority in the matter tells them. Or they could come up with a novel concept entirely on their own.

If God can be anything anyone wants it to be, then God only exists as fantasy, and therefore not real. It says that all theists believe something that doesn't actually exist as real. What does that say about theists?

If you can prove that those things don't exist, it would make them delusional to still believe.
But you can't prove that they don't. And with some concepts perhaps you can prove they exist, although whether they are a God you want to believe in, or has any meaning to you, or fulfills all the criteria and attributes that your concept of God has, I can't say.

Of course there has to be a standard of who and what God is, otherwise what is it that theists believe in? Your concept of God? I don't think so.

No, they believe in whatever concept they have of God. I am not so arrogant to say that all theists have the same concept.

This is classic. How do the scriptures limit the concept/definition of God?

By including attributes that Pachomius did not include in his concept.

A concept is basically an idea. Did you not read the definition I sent you, or are you immune from having to use basic definitions.

I read the definition. It just seems you don't comprehend it sufficiently. A concept is indeed an idea - a thought - a mental construct of something that may or may not have actual existence other than as the idea.

Now, an idea comes from a mind, meaning that as far as you're concerned God is a made up concept which was formed in a mind.

Non sequitur: your conclusion does not follow. Just because an idea comes from a mind does not mean that what you have an idea of does not exist in actuality. What of this do you struggle to understand?

Now can you support your claim, or is it just something you believe?

Are you going to show how your comments are relevant, by providing an example of something that exists that is not a concept?

If a concept can only be form in a mind, then how can that concept be anything but original? Since when were we able to cut and paste concepts?

If someone asks me to conceptualise a circle with a 2-foot radius, then that is what I imagine. If someone asks me to describe that concept, I say it is a circle with a 2-foot radius. As such it is a perfect copy of the original concept.
You have issue with that?

Such concepts are based on the thing itself. For example I may have concept for a particular kind of car, but cars already exist.

So what? Are you going to name something that exists that is not a concept? It's a simple request.

The definition/attributes of God exist, so my concept of God is based on that. If I base it on something else, then it is not THAT. It's something else.

The definition/attributes of what you consider to be God exist, and your concept is based on that. Not everyone has the same definition/attributes as you for their God.

The God you don't believe in, the transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, supreme being, is based on the said attributes of God.

One of them is, yes.

The God I believe in, and I'll even include Pachomius (based on what he writes) is based on said attributes.

Whether or not Pachomius does is irrelevant, as we are discussing the concept he posted, not the one he believes in if that is somehow different.

It's not the same, because atheists have to come up with reasons why God does not exist.

No we don't. We simply have to see no reason what God does exist. It is a matter of what we consider the default position.

Why? Because they only know a world where knowledge of God is a natural phenomena. If they don't accept that it is, then the onus is on them to prove that it isn't.
Now if you could do that you'd have a real case on your hands. But as it stands, you are simply denying this knowledge/information.

Utter drivel. Knowledge of God has not been shown to be any more a natural phenomenon than the Forth Bridge. Your distortion of the burden of proof is thus as laughable as it pathetic.

The fact is, you don't know where this knowledge came from, but relegating it to fantasy, when you have absolutely no evidence, and weak reasoning, to support that notion. Is in and of itself very revealing.

I don't relegate it to fantasy. I never have done. I relegate it to "I don't know what it is". But nice strawman.

I said As far as I know, knowledge of God's existence is a natural phenomenon.
Reread properly this time, then compose relevant question.

I read properly. Your criticism is unwarranted. My initial response stands.
If you say that "as far as I know" then you are claiming knowledge - which is only knowledge if it is true.
You then claim that "as far as I know, knowledge of God's existence..." which claims that God's existence is known, and thus true.
As for being "... a natural phenomenon" this just speaks to the availability of evidence that should be available.

So my response stands: "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 claim God is a concept, a product of the mind. That's a big statement given that you cannot support it with anything substantial.

If you can think of something, what you think of is a concept, whether or not that thing exists in actuality. So it's not a big statement, it is common sense. Your criticism would be valid if only you could name something that exists that is not a concept.

There's nothing to counter, you are without God, and as such I can't argue with you about you not believing in God. That is your choice.

There's plenty to counter, as you try to do, as you have previously tried to do, including but not limited to claiming that atheists have the wrong notion of God, that all atheists believe God to not exist etc.

I don't claim God exists. I believe God exists.

So you believe something you don't claim?
And as for not claiming God exists, you don't need to specifically state "I claim God exists" to make such a claim. Much of what you say makes the claim through inference.

That is always my position when talking with atheists. I'm more interested in the atheist's thinking, not their position regarding belief in God.

I disagree that you have any such interest: your only apparent interest is to knock down the atheist position.

 

[Spellbound]

Jan Ardena,

Once an atheist's life is on the line by the threat of murder or worse I am sure they will be singing a different tune. Evil is a reality that cannot be denied no matter how much they may want to cozy up in their little bubble but will find no protection. Especially from big bad truth.

 

[spidergoat]

Jan Ardena,

Once an atheist's life is on the line by the threat of murder or worse I am sure they will be singing a different tune. Evil is a reality that cannot be denied no matter how much they may want to cozy up in their little bubble but will find no protection. Especially from big bad truth.

Evil is quite the problem for theists. Why did God create it? Why does he allow it? Of course if I were under threat from murder, if pretending to be a theist would save my life, I would pretend to the best of my ability.

 

[Spellbound]

Evil is quite the problem for theists. Why did God create it? Why does he allow it? Of course if I were under threat from murder, if pretending to be a theist would save my life, I would pretend to the best of my ability.

God did not create evil. He created free-will. And the horror of having a cutlass to your neck will show you how objective good and evil are. Btw, God also created love as God is love.

 

[spidergoat]

God did not create evil. He created free-will. And the horror of having a cutlass to your neck will show you how objective good and evil are. Btw, God also created love as God is love.

Free will doesn't explain the evil of human-specific parasites and diseases, baby cancer, genetic deformities, conjoined twins, kids born with their hearts on the outside...

I agree with you that good and evil are objective truths, what's your point?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Seatle,

Up to what point?

Not to worry.

Who was this first person, and can you support this definite claim?

My point was the initially nothing was understood and therefore...GOD was the answer to everything.

How do you know this?
Or is this just what you believe?

Why is it raining...must be God...you know...someone who kind of looks like me but is super powerful...what else could it be?

Same as above.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

God did not create evil. He created free-will.

I don't hold that freewill is anything other than an illusion that is part and parcel of being self-aware.

And the horror of having a cutlass to your neck will show you how objective good and evil are.

To me that would rather show how subjective the matter is.

Btw, God also created love as God is love.

Ah, the God who creates themself... out of what, though?

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

You show that it's more than an idea.

Already have.
It exists.
Nobody knows of a time when humans and knowledge of God didn't coexist.
Nobody knows who started, when it started, or how it started.
So as it stands it is a natural phenomena, not a concept unless you know something we don't.

Is it required for life to evolve? No. Does prayer work? No. Do miracles happen? No. Does it explain anything at all? No.

Of course given your concept of God, your right, but what about other concepts of God for whom this is all positive.
How does this support your belief that God is merely a concept?

Faith in him is fake knowledge.

That doesn't even make sense.
Care to explain more?

And it is by no means shared between all cultures. Animists believe that spirits reside in all kinds of separate things.

They believe that spirit/souls cause life in the human being and transmigrating from one body to another, some even into plants, animals, inanimate objects like rocks, and rivers. According to one scripture God breathed life into a body and it became a living soul.

Atheists have no delusion of knowledge about Him.

That simply shows that atheist do not accept, or they deny, the knowledge. The reality is, it's still there, and you don't know where/when it came from.

You're knowledge of world cultures is stunted if you think that all religions are the same.

I'm not talking about religion. Religious institutes can be whatever who's in charge wants it to be.

No? So the number of people who thought that Jews caused the plague determined whether this was true or not?

How does this lend itself to the claim that God is a concept, a construct of a human mind?

Talking snakes.

Yet the word it was translated from was the nachash.

You see a ''talking snake'', these guys see...

...Nachash, the snake within man is the radical egotism which causes an individual being to make of itself a center and to relate everything else to it. Moses defines this sentiment as the seducing passion of elementary nature and the secret spring with which the Creator has provided all (animate) things in nature; we know it by the name of natural instinct. Nachash is not to be understood as a separate being, but rather as a central movement given to matter, a hidden spring acting in the depths of things.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/moq/moq05.htm

A simple case of you say tomayto and I say tomarto. Both concepts are based on the tomato, no matter what you call it. The tomato isn't a concept.

Which part? That religiosity is found in inverse proportion to actual knowledge?

Why are you obsessed with religion? We're talking about God, and whether He is merely a concept, or not. You claim God is a concept, but you cannot tell how you know this. I think you believe God is a concept.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Already have.
It exists.
Nobody knows of a time when humans and knowledge of God didn't coexist.

Monotheism is a relatively modern invention. Read some history, I'm not going to babyfeed you.

Nobody knows who started, when it started, or how it started.

It started with the rise of agriculture in the fertile crescent, which is apparently when you think history began.

Of course given your concept of God, your right, but what about other concepts of God for whom this is all positive.

It's not a matter of opinion. These things have been studied empirically.

That doesn't even make sense.
Care to explain more?

What you call knowledge of God is pretend. It's not knowledge, it's pretending to know something you don't know. It's a delusion. You commit multiple logical fallacies in your defense of your delusion, like argument from popularity. As if when many people believe something, that makes it true.

They believe that spirit/souls cause life in the human being and transmigrating from one body to another, some even into plants, animals, inanimate objects like rocks, and rivers. According to one scripture God breathed life into a body and it became a living soul.

Animists don't believe in a supreme being. They are atheists with respect to your God. So are Buddhists.

I'm not talking about religion.

Belief in God and religion are sinonymous.

How does this lend itself to the claim that God is a concept, a construct of a human mind?

Because appeal to popular culture has nothing to do with truth. All sorts of wrong beliefs are common.

Yet the word it was translated from was the nachash.

You see a ''talking snake'', these guys see...

Nachash is a hebrew word meaning serpent or snake. You can invent all kinds of things so that it makes sense to you, but that's what was written. But hey, if you can redefine words, then so can I. "God" in the bible means merely an ideal towards which people strive, an image of perfection that has no reality except as a metaphor. See how that works? By the way, why are you talking about scripture? I'll tell you why, because belief in God isn't natural, you got it from religion, as did everyone else.

You claim God is a concept, but you cannot tell how you know this.

I don't claim absolute knowledge as you do. But in the absence of evidence, lack of belief in God is the only rational position.

 

[Seattle]

Oh, so now now you've moved to a definate claim? Fine.
Now prove it.

jan.

You want me to prove that we use to know a lot less than we do now and that people invoked "God did it" as an explanation? History is the proof.

You're really attached to this God fellow aren't you? What happens if it turns out that he really isn't into you? You need to keep your options open

 

[Jan Ardena]

Irrelevant, for the reasons already explained.

Your reasons don't make sense. You said: "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. "

Here you say upon being asked to just comply with Pachomius by submitting your concept of God: "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."

...you go on to say....

"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."

Everyone here knows you think about God, yet you admit you have no concept of God.
So your definition is hopelessly flawed, most notably by your own statements.

What are their concepts based on?

Could be anything: what their parents tell them, what they have read in a book, what some person who claims authority in the matter tells them. Or they could come up with a novel concept entirely on their own.

According to your definition of concept, their concepts would be based on whatever thoughts they have at any given moment. But here you naturally define concepts as constructs, or mental representations of experience, and those experiences aren't concepts.
Every single concept of God, be it atheistic, agnostic, or theistic, is based on attributes that make God, God. You say God IS a concept, but you cannot explain how God became a concept, therefore your assertion is either one of belief, or denial. You simply have to accept that it is more likely that knowledge of God is natural phenomenon than not, at least in private.

Non sequitur: your conclusion does not follow. Just because an idea comes from a mind does not mean that what you have an idea of does not exist in actuality. What of this do you struggle to understand?

I'm specifically referring to the claim that God IS a concept, and it does follow that if this is the case, there must have been an original concept which spread throughout the world. How do you know this? Or do you simply believe, but have nothing but your whim to support it.

Come on Sarkus. How hard can it be? You made the claim, you're a smart guy,and I don't think make a claim of anything without a reason.

Are you going to show how your comments are relevant, by providing an example of something that exists that is not a concept?

I don't understand your question. Are you implying that everything is a concept?

If someone asks me to conceptualise a circle with a 2-foot radius, then that is what I imagine. If someone asks me to describe that concept, I say it is a circle with a 2-foot radius. As such it is a perfect copy of the original concept.
You have issue with that?

Yeah! That's not what a concept is.
All you have done is imagine what has been described to you. You have no concept.
Plus a circle isn't a concept, but you can create concepts using circles. Do you get it yet?

The definition/attributes of what you consider to be God exist, and your concept is based on that.

The knowledge of those attributes are there already, my consideration doesn't change that. Nobody knows the origins of this knowledge/information, and it's been here a long time, and is reflected through history. The same attributes.

Not everyone has the same definition/attributes as you for their God.

Everyone's concept of God is at least in relation to those attributes.

One of them is, yes.

There can only be one cause that brings all causes into existence. One of God' attributes is that He is the original Cause. Now you don't have to accept of believe it, but it's there, and always has been (knowledge/information). So if someone believes in God, but does not accept that, then their different concept is still in relation to God. They just don't accept it. The deist may not accept God as a supernatural agent who works miracles, and communicates with people, but they believe God created the universe. So they accept one attribute and disregard another. Both attributes are of God.

No we don't. We simply have to see no reason what God does exist. It is a matter of what we consider the default position.

The default position is God exists, and the world we were born in had that knowledge/information already in place. So you have to seek a way not accepting that.

Utter drivel. Knowledge of God has not been shown to be any more a natural phenomenon than the Forth Bridge. Your distortion of the burden of proof is thus as laughable as it pathetic.

Okay. We know when the Forth Bridge was built. Do we know when knowledge of God became available? I'm not saying it's not a concept, but I cannot say for sure that it is a concept. As it stands, it's not. You say it is, but are unable to give explanation as to why you know it is.

I don't relegate it to fantasy. I never have done. I relegate it to "I don't know what it is". But nice strawman.

What do you call it when somebody wholeheartedly believe in a concept they form in their mind, which doesn't actually exist, or there is no evidence to validate their beliefs?

I read properly. Your criticism is unwarranted. My initial response stands.
If you say that "as far as I know" then you are claiming knowledge - which is only knowledge if it is true.

I said ''Is God fact or fiction? As far as I know, knowledge of God's existence is a natural phenomenon.'' Knowledge/information of God's existence exists. Do you agree?
Of course you do.

You then claim that "as far as I know, knowledge of God's existence..." which claims that God's existence is known, and thus true.

I didn't say that, and putting in words into folks is pretty nasty. I said and meant what I said. Please deal with what I say, not what you want me to say.

As for being "... a natural phenomenon" this just speaks to the availability of evidence that should be available.

The notion of knowledge/information of God not being a mental construct from a human being, is more plausible than it being one, simply because you have no information to support your claim. You merely want it to be so.

So you believe something you don't claim?
And as for not claiming God exists, you don't need to specifically state "I claim God exists" to make such a claim. Much of what you say makes the claim through inference.

Let's put it another way, I am not claiming God exists. What I think in my own time, is my by business, as it yours. I only argue with what you provide for me to argue with, you seem to go one step further, invoking anything you think will strengthen you position even if you have to make it up, or you imply something and treat that implication as something I actually said, or believe.

I disagree that you have any such interest: your only apparent interest is to knock down the atheist position.

Now you're just judging me by your own standards.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Everyone here knows you think about God, yet you admit you have no concept of God.
So your definition is hopelessly flawed, most notably by your own statements.

Not at all. I have no concept outside of discussions with those who propose a working definition for purposes of discussion.
Do I think about God outside of such discussion? No.
Of I want to get involved in such a discussion I seek an understanding of the concept that is being discussed.
So my definition is not flawed, and is consistent with my statements.

According to your definition of concept, their concepts would be based on whatever thoughts they have at any given moment. But here you naturally define concepts as constructs, or mental representations of experience, and those experiences aren't concepts.

I do no such thing. If you wish to conceptualise God as an experience then it is you who are doing it, not me.
The experience (e.g. Listening to your parents) may lead you to build a concept, or to accept theirs. But I do not define concepts as being representations of experience.
Try again.

Every single concept of God, be it atheistic, agnostic, or theistic, is based on attributes that make God, God. You say God IS a concept, but you cannot explain how God became a concept, therefore your assertion is either one of belief, or denial. You simply have to accept that it is more likely that knowledge of God is natural phenomenon than not, at least in private.

I don't say that God is necessarily just a concept, but that in discussion we can do no more than talk about the concept of God that we have/are using. God, if he exists, is God, but our discussion is about our concept of God, whether accurate or otherwise.
I say God is a concept because everything is a concept if we think about it. You have yet to name something that exists that is not.
Your demand for me to explain how God became a concept is irrelevant and shows you don't understand what I mean by something being a concept, although I'm not sure I can explain it any more simply.
If you picture grass in your mind, you picture your concept of grass. When we use the term grass we refer to our concept of it, whether accurately describing the reality of grass or not. What we define grass as, what we think of when we use the term, that is the concept that is grass. Only when we see the actuality are we not using a concept.

I'm specifically referring to the claim that God IS a concept, and it does follow that if this is the case, there must have been an original concept which spread throughout the world. How do you know this? Or do you simply believe, but have nothing but your whim to support it.

There must also have been someone who first came up with the notion of goblins, of elves, of the tooth fairy etc.
at least with celestial teapots we do have a reasonable idea of who originated the notion, but with things that have gone back before the time of written language, to ask (as if being unable to say proves a point) is ridiculous. It is no more than you saying "you can't prove me wrong, so I'm right".

Come on Sarkus. How hard can it be? You made the claim, you're a smart guy,and I don't think make a claim of anything without a reason.

How hard is it for you to comprehend that one does not need to say who first came up with a concept to be able to say that it is a concept.
You clearly have misunderstood what is meant by me saying that God is a concept, and if what I have already written does not explain it then I am not sure I am capable, or that you are capable of understanding. And as such I will simply have to ignore any issues you have with it.

I don't understand your question. Are you implying that everything is a concept?

I am saying that we can not talk about something, or be aware of something, that is not a concept. The concept is therefore that thing we talk about.

Yeah! That's not what a concept is.
All you have done is imagine what has been described to you. You have no concept.
Plus a circle isn't a concept, but you can create concepts using circles. Do you get it yet?

I get what a concept is. I am not sure you do. Try looking up the wiki article on it:
"Concepts as mental representations, where concepts are entities that exist in the brain"
"Concepts as abstract objects, where objects are the constituents of propositions that mediate between thought, language and referents."

The knowledge of those attributes are there already, my consideration doesn't change that. Nobody knows the origins of this knowledge/information, and it's been here a long time, and is reflected through history. The same attributes.

Those attributes of the God you believe in are already there, undoubtedly in scripture somewhere. Anything else regarding any actual existence of God is an a priori assumption, and question begging.

Everyone's concept of God is at least in relation to those attributes.

Simply untrue. You might believe that this should be the case, but it isn't. Just talk to a deist.

There can only be one cause that brings all causes into existence. One of God' attributes is that He is the original Cause.

That seems to be a prevalent attribute among concepts of God. Even deists might believe that. But not all the attributes you might believe in are believed in by every theist.

Now you don't have to accept of believe it, but it's there, and always has been (knowledge/information). So if someone believes in God, but does not accept that, then their different concept is still in relation to God. They just don't accept it. The deist may not accept God as a supernatural agent who works miracles, and communicates with people, but they believe God created the universe. So they accept one attribute and disregard another. Both attributes are of God.

No, both are attributes of the God you believe in, and you have made the a priori assumption that the God you believe in is the only one that exists.
Yours is flawed reasoning because you assume from the outset that you are right. Naturally so, given your belief. But others will disagree, do disagree.

The default position is God exists, and the world we were born in had that knowledge/information already in place. So you have to seek a way not accepting that.

The default rational position should be one of non-existence rather than existence.
If you can provide logical proof that necessitates the existence of the God you believe in, okay, but you haven't. No one has.
The celestial teapot is also springing to mind.
Merely shifting what you consider to be the default position won't wash, I'm afraid. Otherwise I'd believe in the existence of everything that also can't be proven not to exist. Do you?

Okay. We know when the Forth Bridge was built. Do we know when knowledge of God became available? I'm not saying it's not a concept, but I cannot say for sure that it is a concept. As it stands, it's not. You say it is, but are unable to give explanation as to why you know it is.

Appeal to ignorance... "We don't know therefore you can't prove me wrong!" And given your understanding of what a concept is, I'm not sure I can respond to what you say in a way that has mutual understanding to both of us.

What do you call it when somebody wholeheartedly believe in a concept they form in their mind, which doesn't actually exist, or there is no evidence to validate their beliefs?

If it doesn't exist and it can be proven not to exist: delusion.
If there is no evidence to validate the existence or non-existence, I call it a belief that I find irrational.

I said ''Is God fact or fiction? As far as I know, knowledge of God's existence is a natural phenomenon.'' Knowledge/information of God's existence exists. Do you agree?
Of course you do.

I agree that information exists that claims God to exist. Of course.
But it is not knowledge that god exists unless that information is true, and that is the question in hand, isn't it.
If you can't demonstrate the veracity of the information, it can not (or at least should not) be considered knowledge, in my view (using even the simplistic notion that knowledge is a justified TRUE belief).

 

[Sarkus]

I didn't say that, and putting in words into folks is pretty nasty. I said and meant what I said. Please deal with what I say, not what you want me to say.

So you dispute you wrote those words? Because you repeated them not a moment ago... "As far as I know, knowledge of God's existence...".
So I did not put words in your mouth: those are the precise words you used.
Sure, if the interpretation of those words is not as intended, clarify what you did mean or show how he interpretation is in error. You haven't, all you have done is falsely accuse me of putting words in your mouth when from my position it is you who clearly doesn't always understand the meaning of what you write.

The notion of knowledge/information of God not being a mental construct from a human being, is more plausible than it being one, simply because you have no information to support your claim. You merely want it to be so.

I find your positioning to be highly irrational. I also do not "want it to be so". I would dearly love to be able to believe in God, for there to be an afterlife. Bbt there is no evidence of God. There is no evidence that God is not just a mental construct we have arrived at over thousands of years to explain that which I consider simply unknowable. And no one has shown me how it is knowable.

Let's put it another way, I am not claiming God exists.

Your language and tone infer otherwise.

What I think in my own time, is my by business, as it yours. I only argue with what you provide for me to argue with, you seem to go one step further, invoking anything you think will strengthen you position even if you have to make it up, or you imply something and treat that implication as something I actually said, or believe.

I only go with what you write. If you don't intend something to be inferred, be more careful with what you write.
I do not make things up, and if you wish to stand by that accusation then I insist you back it up, please. Otherwise please apologise.

Now you're just judging me by your own standards.

I will call it as I see it, and this is based on what you write.