Not illogical, as God is at least a valid logical conclusion. But the soundness of any conclusion about the origins of existence simply can not be tested. So we must go with what we consider rational. For me that would be to conclude "I don't know" - and to live life at a practical level as if God does not exist... it is the simpler theory (as in notion rather than anything scientific) - especially once you add in more attributes than just "Original Cause".I can only say that for me personally it is very illogical that just because we don’t know or don’t understand to something to attribute that to a God. Especially since (at least to me) there is a perfectly sensible scientific explanation for a lot of how the world and universe came to be and also a perfectly sensible scientific explanation to why self-aware beings like ourselves would develop religions whether or not such a God exists or not.
Exactly! It's the difference between what is logical and what is rational.When I then apply Occam's razor principle, the theory that God does not exist wins.
But as you correctly pointed out, this and the Occam's razor principle is not 100% evidence.
If something does not follow valid logic then it goes no further. But out of two competing notions, both of which are valid, that's when rationality kicks in. Unfortunately rationality is rather subjective - based on our own experiences, education, situation etc. So we may not all come to the same conclusion - but at least we would (or at least should) be able to agree on where we differ.
I agree that that is what Jan is saying, but that is a trivial matter - one which few disagree on - and Jan only keeps trying to repeat it so as to avoid addressing the mess already made through his constant denials of the logical implications of his posts.I can only say I see a lot of posts from Jan where is saying the following:
In order to say “I believe in God” or “I don’t believe in God” you have to define God.
And I (Jan) believe the definition for God is more or less universal for believers on non-believer alike and is: such and such.
When I then look at the responses they seem to think that Jan is saying that he believes the God defined a such and such exists. But that is completely beside the point.
What Jan said at the outset is equivalent to "because God is defined as such, if God does not exist, nothing could exist." But this is only the case IF one assumes that God actually exists, or is at least necessary.
Otherwise, if God does not exist (however God is defined) and we are still here, it merely shows that while the definition still applies to God, God is not necessary (because we are still here in the absence of God).
Thus our existence, the way the world looks now - with us having imagination - is not an argument for or against the existence of God defined as the "Original Cause".
Sure, a definition helps - and was provided by Jan very early on, and which the discussion has mostly adhered to (although some discussion is ongoing about whether that definition is sufficient for what is referred to as God, whether it is just the core attribute etc). So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to placate here - given the acceptance already of the definition for purposes of the majority of the discussion with Jan, and the agreement/acceptance that definitions are needed to be able have such discussions.
To explain the issue in a hopefully clearer way, which is not about the need for definition, but about how definition does not equate to existence (which while some might give lip service to they can't seem to back that up with anything else):
So imagine that there is a large rock in a field. The Gardener is defined as "The Man Who Put The Rock There".
Okay - so the rock is there, that much is certain.
So we can imagine a world in which The Gardener does exist: the rock is there. Thus the Gardener put it there - as defined - the definition can be applied to the existent Gardener.
Now, can we imagine a world in which The Gardener does not exist?
Jan's position is that the rock would not be there, because his view, his assumption, is that the rock could only have been put there by the Gardener - due to the definition of the Gardener, and that if something else put it there and not the Gardener then the Gardener is not as defined, and Jan would go down the whole "but then we're not talking about the same Gardener, and it's a waste of time" tactic etc.
But if you don't start with that a priori assumption of the Gardner being necessary, however, you could conclude that the rock is still there - but that it wasn't put there by anyone (if it was put there by another Man, that Man would be the Gardener - because that is who the Gardener is defined as).
In such a scenario where the Gardener does not exist, the Gardener is still defined as "The Man Who Put The Rock There", but because the Gardener is a fiction in this scenario (i.e. we've imagined that The Gardener does not exist), his definition does not apply to anything in reality.
Jan can't grasp this latter point because, as hopefully shown in this example, he is stuck with an a priori assumption of existence.
It goes nowhere while logical fallacies are thrown around with abandon, while people deny the logical implications of what they have previously written, and while people write with inconsistent claims and notions.Granted, he is not making it easy for us to see this, and I get the feeling he may even like dancing around this point for the sake of discussion. But I could no longer stay silent because you guys where running in circles getting nowhere and so this thread was going nowhere.
The fact that one person in this thread seems to do all three of these things... I hope you don't wonder why furthering discussion with that person is indeed a struggle.