I'm glad we agree on something.
I didn't say you were. I said you cannot debunk God, but you can convince yourself there is no evidence for God.
If you don't think that was what I was saying then what you state is merely a strawman, claiming I cannot do something I have never done, and something you agree I have not done.
Me claiming that you can't hold your breath for an hour is about as relevant as your strawman.
You don't believe God exist, you don't think God can be knowable, despite NOT having a concept of God. You claim that concepts are formed through thoughts entering your mind, but as you don't think about God outside of other peoples concepts, you are devoid of forming them yourself.
So to sum up. You have no idea of God, yet you claim to "not to have a belief'' in His/It's existence.
What is it, that is, not knowable? Someone else's concept?
No, any explanation one might give for the origin of our universe.
To me it is a matter of science, not God per se. If one wishes to assign that attribute to their concept, as most seem to, then their concept is not knowable.
Why would you want to do that?
Or what can you possibly gain from that?
One gains insight into what might stand and what might fall with regard argument in support of their concept. One might glean through their defence something hitherto not considered.
Consider it also a process of science: the withstanding of a claim against peer review. If one can not defend what they claim, maybe they will appreciate what is necessary of them before claiming to have a proof.
Remember, you have no idea of what they're talking about. Wouldn't you be better off learning about God, then enter the
the discussion with something under your belt. This is probably why Pachomius asked for atheist's concepts of God. Trying to explain something to people with no idea of the thing you are attempting to explain is one thing. But trying to explain it when people are trying to debunk your points, with irrelevancies (for the most part), eventually becomes a tiresome task.
The onus is on the one making the claim to state their assumptions, their logic/argument, and then their conclusion.
Pachomius gave his concept. If he feels that his concept is insufficient for us to understand what it is he means then he needs to address that weakness in his so-called proof.
Remember, we are not taking about any atheist concept of God, if indeed they have one. We are talking about Pachomius' concept. He presented it, we discussed it, and we have rejected his proof in so far as he has presented anything so far that remotely resembles such. My concept is irrelevant to that process. Your and his requirement for it is a strawman, as explained many times now.
All my points are relevant.
Shown to not be the case.
If an attempt is going to be made to prove the existence of God, then we have to know what we're talking about with regard to what is God.
Pachomius has defined his concept, repeatedly. That is the concept we are working with. My concept, should I have one, is irrelevant. As previously explained.
Your guys tactic, is to not get to that stage by any means necessary, and to keep the notion of God to anything anyone wants it to be (indicating that it is made up like an imaginary friend), thereby never having to get to the point where belief in God makes any sense.
Like I said, it's so transparent it's not even funny anymore.
You would note, if you read this thread with anything more than your blinkered glasses, that it was Pachomius stalling and delaying, and effectively resetting the discussion whenever he met a dead-end of his own making. We still wait. Your interruption is a mere sideshow to the main event, should Pachomius ever deign to return and actually progress his argument.
Are you kidding?
I have reasoned (successfully imo) that knowledge/information of God is natural to developed consciousness (e.g human being).
No, you have merely claimed. I see no reasoning other than "we don't know who came up with the original concept... Therefore it is a natural phenomena" etc.
I have shown where it is very unlikely that a person formed the concept of God, as we (those of us who aren't afraid) know God to be.
Again, you have done no such thing. You have stated your opinion on the matter. There is nothing to suggest any accuracy behind that opinion.
That can be falsified by showing an instant of a man made concept that does change at it's core essential base over time and circumstance.
Or show a concept made by man that permeates, and affects every society, in one or other.
Special pleading. But you already know that.
And such things are not falsifiable. Merely being unable to identify a further example does not make your case correct.
You're right, I do believe God cannot be proven to exist so that everyone has to accept it. But it's makes for great fun to try. You'll be surprised what we can all learn from that. So please let's have fun with this. There's no need to get all serious.
It does not make for great fun when you try to support that which you know is not possible, and in doing so display a blinkered view of matters to the point of obstinacy, such as requiring others to put forth a concept when their concept is not the matter in hand.
It doesn't matter. Maybe he can progress the demonstration from the position of knowing what atheist concepts of God are.
Of course it matters, it is a strawman. He has stated his concept, we have accepted it for the purposes of discussion, he fails to move forward.
His concept of God, falls into the attributes of God (creator, original cause, etc...). None of you seem to accept that. Instead you try and show that God needn't be the first cause.
There were two strands to this thread: the first questioning his concept as being meaningful, in the way that Bertrand Russell tried to counter Copleston's concept. Reaising that this was not helping Pachomius present his proof, the second strand adopted by a number of posters here (myself included) was an acceptance of his concept as he defined it. Pachomius has yet to move forward with this second strand.
That said, you have derailed his presentation, with irrelevancies (as you have no knowledge or information outside of educated guesses).
What irrelevancies? The points raised spoke to the inability to prove his concept of God, either because he has yet to put forward such a proof, other than vague references to Copleston v Russell etc, or because his "facts and logic" were not.
So he asks what is your concept of God because he's not sure whether or not you're on the same page (this is just my take on Pachomius). If you don't comprehend what God is, or you choose not to comprehend, then he cannot progress.
He put forth his definition, his concept. We understand his concept. If he wishes to add to his concept that you, he, others believe God to have, do so.
If he does not think we understand then his action should be to explain his concept, not to ask us what ours is, especially when we have already answered that we don't have one.
That's like replying, upon being asked to remove your shoes to enter someone's home, I don't have to, my shoes are clean.
No it's not. The analogy is simply not there.
It's more like replying, when someone claims that their car can go 300mph and as part of his proof he asks us what car we have, that either we don't have one, or that it is simply not relevant to his claim that his car can go 300mph.
Your explanation is irrelevant because you're not looking at the big picture.
See above.
There is no need to view the big picture: someone makes a claim of being able to prove the existence of their concept. They define their concept, we accept their concept, and then we await their proof of said concept. If there is a bigger picture that is of relevance then this needs to be brought in to the concept under discussion. I/we await Pachomius' doing so. To date any such introduction of additional picture is as absent as his claimed proof.