You do it all the time, I've given you examples of it, even in this thread. So I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth in threads to prove it to you yet again .
Again with the accusation, Jan. You have pointed out one occurrence in this thread. One. With me writing "initial" instead of "original" - although the meaning as used is the same - which was also picked up by someone as you nitpicking.
So I'll take your unwillingness to support your accusations as there being insufficient evidence.
The practical comes first, as it pertains to moment to moment reality. So in reality God does not exist for you or other atheists. So when you imagine a world where God does not exist, you are effectively explaining your own world. Hardly imagination.
The practical I began with was belief in God. Then the intellectual kicked in. And from there a change in the practical. As and when the intellectual requires belief in God in order to make sense of the practical, the practical will incorporate it. Until then, why should the practical change?
But your argument is flawed - as I can also imagine a world where God
does exist. Which should be no different from you being able to imagine a world where he does not, right?
But you can't seem to do that, can you, as you are stuck with this
a priori assumption of God's existence.
It's not theism that asserts that God exists.
In the same way that it's not atheism that asserts that God does not exist.
God is a part of our existence, even if we don't believe.
Wow. And there you were previously trying to deny that you claim God exists. Are you going to deny you have said it now?
Hey, everyone, Jan has finally claimed God exists!
However, it is just as valid to say that "God is not part of our existence (other than as a concept), even if we do believe". I.e. your argument can be reversed and is just as valid. That is the way with circular arguments.
As far as we know there has always been something like God in the minds of men. There are no societies which do not know something about God, or that does not have to make law or proclamations to separate themselves from God' law. The legal system in England, and probably USA, have their basis in God' law (biblical).
Theism and atheism are by-products of an ancient, established system which goes much further than simply believing or not believing.
And this proves what, exactly? That God exists? Or that God
as a concept exists, albeit a concept that has permeated human society from an early age? The latter, yes, absolutely. The former? Not at all.
It is thus rather irrelevant to the discussion, as we're not discussing the existence of God as a concept, but "Proof of the existence of God" (as the thread title says). So anything that only speaks to the existence of God as a concept is irrelevant. Even you should be able to see that!
It doesn't matter what they call it. The name is a description. If this being ticks all these boxes then that being is the meaning of God, the most obvious being the original cause/creator.
The point is that God is not
just the original cause... but a whole host of other attributes as well. That's like me looking at a car and saying I like it's colour, and you trying to take it to mean I like the car.
IF God was just "the original cause" then we wouldn't even be having this discussion, as God simply wouldn't be a matter of such vast debate. It possibly wouldn't be praised or worshipped in great quantity at all (I say possibly as cults can arise that worship many things). It would just be a mystery - and understood as such. I guess until someone claims to have had some revelation - at which time they implicitly claim of God the ability to provide revelation - and thus God moves beyond just being "the original cause"... etc.
And yet theists are not allowed to quote scripture.
You can quote it, but to accept it as truth on the basis that it is scripture would be to do so with entirely circular reasoning.
But to respond to your point, people don't believe in God purely based on what they read in the scripture. Anymore than people develop a love of ice cream because they read the ingredients somewhere.
I never said that was why they believed. I said that discussion of religion was unavoidable due to THE definition of God being found in scripture, which is only held as such due to the religions that make them sacred.
This does nothing to answer the question.
Try again.
It answers the question entirely: why do atheists campaign to remove prayer from school, the term Christmas from Christmas Holiday?... if some atheists do it is because those things are aspects of religion - and some would like freedom
from religion as much as freedom
of religion.
Why do you think this does not answer the question you raised?
Do you think those things are somehow not matters of religion?
People do define God differently, but God is always going to be God, ie, the original cause/creator. That's how we know that they're defining God.
Well, thank you for finally clearing up that mess, that yes, people do define God differently. Despite your protestations previously.
Hey, everyone, Jan has now also agreed that people do define God differently.
Maybe things can move on.