What does God want?

[James R]

Such as secular humanism.....

Yes, of course.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because Anne has formed an opinion. It is not a given that Bob has.

Based on the information given, Anne has no more formed an opinion than Bob has.

A few possible explanations:
- Bob is only 6 months old
- Bob does not dwell on such things
- Bob is open-minded and awaits evidence

You don't know that.
Work with the information at hand.

Not only are they not in opposition, they are not even mutually exclusive. Bob's lack of belief quite simply does not assert that Anne's belief is, in any way, false.

It is a matter of one is a theist, and the other is an atheist.
Theists believe in God.
Atheists don't believe in God.

The opposition to Anne believing in God would be for Bob to hold the belief that God does not exist.

I get you.
You think the reality of theism and atheism, implies that God exists. But, the atheist simply, does not believe in God.

So in a sense, the meaning of atheism is now, what is a reason for atheism. God does not exist, or there is no evidence for God, or any other reason one can come up with, Rotating them as one sees fit.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sure. You're satisfied with it, but you've said yourself that matters of evidence are secondary for you. The belief comes first, the rationalisations afterwards.

What do you mean by rationalisation occur afterwards?

Arguably, of course, there is no cosmological or teleological evidence for God. Philosophers have been around that block lots of times, and the usual philosophical arguments for God are all either flawed, or else inconclusive.

No they're not.
Debates between modern day philosophers reveal that the arguments are not flawed, or inconclusive.

Denial requires that something has been established as true.

Or denial of what has been established as true. Denial knows no bounds.

I do not deny anything. I merely do not share your unevidenced faith.

You do realise this is denial, don't you.

I must have missed your rational explanation for your theism.

Not very long ago, I took a little time to set out what I would regard as a sufficient explanation of my theism. Have you forgotten?

As far as I am aware, you justify your theism on the basis of "I just know God is real, and my magical knowledge proves God is real" and "I think it's natural to believe in God, therefore God is real". Neither of those justifications strikes me as strongly rational. Rationalisations, yes. Rational, no.

That is the downside of being in constant denial. You see and hear things in a way that satisfies your worldview.

What assertions? You're the one with the big unproven assertion, as far as I can tell.

I don't have to make any claims. I am not the one who is in denial, or reject the obvious evidences of God.
I'm not the one who shifts the goalposts of my worldview to shed responsibility of explaining it.

Theist - a person who believes in God.
I am a theist.

Atheist - a person who does not believe in God.

Are you an atheist?


Jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

What do you mean by rationalisation occur afterwards?

I mean what I wrote. People - like you, for instance - tend to hold beliefs first, then come up with rational-sounding justifications for those beliefs later. You said yourself that your starting point was accepting God. That's not something you arrived at after a careful examination of evidence, or by thinking the matter through. You also said that belief in God comes "naturally" to you. No need for all that hassle of requiring a good reason to believe; that's not for you.

Debates between modern day philosophers reveal that the arguments are not flawed, or inconclusive.

Which arguments for God are you thinking of, in particular, that are flawless and conclusive? (This could be a topic for a separate thread.)

You do realise this is denial, don't you.

I don't think you know what the word means.

Not very long ago, I took a little time to set out what I would regard as a sufficient explanation of my theism. Have you forgotten?

Got a link?

That is the downside of being in constant denial. You see and hear things in a way that satisfies your worldview.

And again you avoid addressing the point I made in order to repeat a baseless accusation.

I don't have to make any claims.

What's all this business about "God Is" etc., then? You seem very keen to drive that point home. That's not a claim? Go on, Jan. Tell me how it's an observation again, despite the fact that you can't explain how you observe it. (If you like, you can also tell me how it's now a claim to say that you've observed something.)

I am not the one who is in denial, or reject the obvious evidences of God.

What obvious evidence are you referring to?

Are you changing your tune again, so that now suddenly evidence is important to you? If so, we can discuss your evidence. Go ahead and present it.

I'm not the one who shifts the goalposts of my worldview to shed responsibility of explaining it.

For somebody who never shifts the goalposts, you sure spend an inordinate amount of your time bogged down in the minutiae of trying to redefine words to suit yourself.

Theist - a person who believes in God.
I am a theist.

Atheist - a person who does not believe in God.

Are you an atheist?

Yes.

Are you really still trying to sort out whether atheists believe in God, after all this time? I think you're in the wrong thread for that discussion, anyway. What happened to the one where you were trying to argue that all atheists are actually closet theists? If you've ditched that thread and are now able to accept that atheists do not believe in God, as you have written here, I'm happy to proceed on that basis. It will certainly save us a lot of time that could be better spent.

 

[James R]

P.S. Jan - we're now 325 posts into this thread, and I don't believe you have attempted to answer the opening post yet. Do you intend to answer the questions of the thread?

Way back in post #79 you quoted the questions and the best you could come up with was this:

Another silly thread, featuring the atheist god. I'll leave you all to get on with it.

You didn't keep your promise.

So, seeing as you're still here, and you've had almost a month now to think up an answer, do you think you could reply on topic?

 

[akoreamerican]

Well an honest agnostic theist, how refreshing. Good night, sweet dreams...

Thanks but I'm not a agnostic theist

Oh, I believe in a hierarchy of orders, but that does not make me a theist (a term which has a very specific definition). It makes me Bohmian Mechanics adherent, but David Bohm never claimed to be God (a term which also has a very specific definition).

what force put Bohmian mechanics into existence? Certainly not any man. We merely discovered what's already in place

 

[Jan Ardena]

I mean what I wrote. People - like you, for instance - tend to hold beliefs first, then come up with rational-sounding justifications for those beliefs later.

Have you ever experienced believing something without reason? Do you you think it is possible to choose anything you want to believe?

Which arguments for God are you thinking of, in particular, that are flawless and conclusive? (This could be a topic for a separate thread.)

They're not flawless, bit they're not flawed in the way you think they are. At least in the arguments against, you've given in the past. Do you have any new arguments against the arguments given by Bill Craig?

I don't think you know what the word

I don't think you mean that.

Got a link?

No.

And again you avoid addressing the point I made in order to repeat a baseless accusation.

Just helping you out James, but again you display denial.

What's all this business about "God Is" etc.,

I'm a theist James.
God has to Be, for me believe. Just like there has to be no evidence for you not to believe.

That's not a claim?

No. It's a description.
God exists, would be a claim.

Tell me how it's an observation again, despite the fact that you can't explain how you observe it.

Have you observed no evidence of God.?
What does it look like?

What obvious evidence are you referring to?

Already stated.

Are you changing your tune again, so that now suddenly evidence is important to you? If so, we can discuss your evidence. Go ahead and present it.

Just read something by Bill Craig. I'll present that has my evidence. He says it so much better than I could.

For somebody who never shifts the goalposts, you sure spend an inordinate amount of your time bogged down in the minutiae of trying to redefine words to suit yourself.

Well you're going to have to present these redefinition if we are to progress in this paricular accusation.

Are you really still trying to sort out whether atheists believe in God, after all this time?

That would be weird as an atheist is a person who does not believe in God.

What happened to the one where you were trying to argue that all atheists are actually closet theists?

It's probably in the same place as your other false accusations.

If you've ditched that thread and are now able to accept that atheists do not believe in God, as you have written here

If you'd bothered to read that thread you'd have noticed that I did write that. Several times.

Theist - a person who believes in God
Atheist - a person who does not believe in God.
Common denominator - God.

I'm happy to proceed on that basis. It will certainly save us a lot of time that could be better spent.

You're way behind JamesR.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

P.S. Jan - we're now 325 posts into this thread, and I don't believe you have attempted to answer the opening post yet. Do you intend to answer the questions of the thread?

Way back in post #79 you quoted the questions and the best you could come up with was this:

I believe I did answer the question. But if not, I'll answer it now. God does anything God wants to do.

You didn't keep your promise.

Oops! My bad.

So, seeing as you're still here, and you've had almost a month now to think up an answer, do you think you could reply on topic?

God does anything God wants to do.

Jan.

 

[Michael 345]

what force put Bohmian mechanics into existence?

And ladies and gentlemen here we have entered into the realm of Which Came First the Chicken or the Egg or in Technical Babble Infinite Regression

Since there is no end to infinity we had best stop here

 

[Write4U]

Thanks but I'm not a agnostic theist
what force put Bohmian mechanics into existence? Certainly not any man. We merely discovered what's already in place

So what do you think put all that in place, quark by quark by quark by electron, atom by atom?

Think of a wheat field in full bloom. How many grains of wheat will you count?

 

[James R]

God does anything God wants to do.

Can't think of any specific examples that show what God wants to do?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Can't think of any specific examples that show what God wants to do?

Builds worlds.

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

Builds worlds.

Jan.

Tinker Toys.

 

[Seattle]

Builds worlds.

Jan.

Then he is full of gas?

 

[Musika]

Tinker Toys.

Well you certainly have a modest opinion of your existence.

 

[Musika]

Then he is full of gas?

If the anthropocene age is to be taken seriously, apparently He is better with his gas than us.

 

[Seattle]

If the anthropocene age is to be taken seriously, apparently He is better with his gas than us.

According to you, we are his gas.

 

[sideshowbob]

Well you certainly have a modest opinion of your existence.

I have a modest opinion of the "creator". At best, if he existed, he might have been playing with toys that already existed. If you could show that he existed, that would be all you were showing.

 

[Musika]

According to you, we are his gas.

Maybe so, but obviously something has been lost in translation when our gas has such rapid, adverse effects .... unless the essence of your critique of the environmental consequences of the industrial age is "our culture was simply to much theisticly inclined." .... I mean you could say we are religious in our zeal to destroy the planet, but you are not using conventional language.

 

[Seattle]

Maybe so, but obviously something has been lost in translation when our gas has such rapid, adverse effects .... unless the essence of your critique of the environmental consequences of the industrial age is "our culture was simply to much theisticly inclined." .... I mean you could say we are religious in our zeal to destroy the planet, but you are not using conventional language.

I'm not critiquing any environment consequences. The Universe is largely gas (hydrogen).