Why do many Americans believe in God?

jan said:
You need to work with a proper definition of God before you can find out whether or not the claim is extraordinary.
Click to expand...
No, you can describe entire classes of entity, kinds of Gods rather than individual definitions, as extraordinary claims.

For example, the real existence of anything a theologian in the Christian tradition would be willing to call "God" is an extraordinary claim.
 
exchemist said:
However your last sentence is nonsense. Nobody, in any discipline, wastes time defining concepts they do not use.
Click to expand...

If God is simply a concept, and as such is not used in any discipline, then God is defined as a concept which cannot be found anywhere.
If one does not have a concept of the law, and does not know one does not have a concept of the law. One would certainly act as though one does not have that concept. Does that mean the law does not exist? Or does it mean the law does not exist for that individual?

The truth is, the law exists despite ones acknowledgement of it.
If you believe there is no evidence of God within the universe, then you reveal your concept of God, as a material entity.
This is a false conception. Otherwise define God.

If they did, a musician would define, say, gravitation, because he does not use the concept. How absurd - don't be silly.
Click to expand...

I doubt you get the full picture of what I'm saying.

jan.
 
DaveC426913 said:
In the same way one can rule out Russell's teapot without having to define what colour it is.

The same way one can rule out perpetual motion machines (violates thermodynamics).

The same way one can dismiss ghosts without examining each sighting. They are supernatural in origin. They are all supernatural in origin. By that criterion alone all ghosts can be categorically dismissed.

So no, despite your insistence, it is not necessary to define something beyond a basic criterion in order to be able to categorize it.

God is supernatural. Occam's Razor is sufficient for many rational people to not require the concept as part of an explanation of the universe.
Click to expand...

You do realise that you are defining God?

jan.
 
Jeeves said:
Jan Ardena:

And every time somebody tries to give a definition, you say, No, that's wrong. Then you come back with yet another demand for a definition.

Obviously, they will give their definition, not yours. And they didn't make up the definition. Every time you ask: "What is it you don't believe?" they cite the god of the religion(s) they have witnessed, as described by the literature of those religions, or as told to them by believers in the god.

Simply: In the context of the OP, the god named and described in the Old and New Testaments is the one most Americans either believe in or say they believe in.
What I do not believe in is that one, along with all of the other gods of all the religious not mentioned herein (and yours). I don't need to name and define them individually, because the people who worship(ped) them had already done so, and their literature is available to study, should you require particulars.
Click to expand...

I asked you to define 'belief in God', and your definition was wrong. I don't see why you have a problem with that.

Jeeves said:
What I do not believe in is that one, along with all of the other gods of all the religious not mentioned herein (and yours). I don't need to name and define them individually, because the people who worship(ped) them had already done so, and their literature is available to study, should you require particulars.
Click to expand...

So you take the word of others with regards your spiritual life? Isn't that faith? Blind at that?

A word of advice, you should try and understand it yourself.

jan.
 
iceaura said:
No, you can describe entire classes of entity, kinds of Gods rather than individual definitions, as extraordinary claims.

For example, the real existence of anything a theologian in the Christian tradition would be willing to call "God" is an extraordinary claim.
Click to expand...

How do you know if it is an extraordinary claim, if you have no definition of it?
Why is it an extraordinary claim?

jan.
 
DaveC's Post #87 - Rule of Definitions

An object/entity/concept need be defined in only as much as is required to support a given assertion - and no more.

Assertion: Stars are hot
You must define stars or you cannot talk about them.
Definition: Stars are gravitationally-compact masses that undergo fusion
That is not enough of a definition. There are many colours of stars.
The definition given is all that is needed to support the assertion. All stars undergo fusion: all stars are hot.

Assertion: The universe appears to operate on natural laws alone, without invocation of a supernatural force such as a god.
You must define God or you cannot talk about it.
Definition: God is supernatural
That is not enough for a definition. There are many flavours of God.
The definition given is all that is needed to support the assertion. All Gods are supernatural: all Gods are unnecessary to explain the natural world.


Let this argument be refuted once and for all time. The next time someone uses the 'Define God' argument, you need only link here.
 
Jan Ardena said:
How do you know if it is an extraordinary claim, if you have no definition of it?
Why is it an extraordinary claim?
Click to expand...
Because it is, by definition, supernatural. That is sufficiently defined to refute it, since we see no reliable evidence of supernatural occurrences in our universe.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Yes. That was the request. QED.
Click to expand...

Okay.
Earlier you said...

DaveC426913 said:
So no, despite your insistence, it is not necessary to define something beyond a basic criterion in order to be able to categorize it.
Click to expand...

Your definition of God (man made concept) is integral in this statement. It is because God is a man made concept, why it is not necessary to define something beyond a basic criterion in order to be able to categorize it.
This isn't a definition of God, it is a denial of the definition of God. The definition which lies at the heart of both belief and disbelief.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Your definition of God (man made concept) is integral in this statement.
Click to expand...
No. That it is a human made concept is not part of the definition of God.

That is the assertion. It follows from the definition, which is that God is supernatural.
 
Jan Ardena said:
So what?
Click to expand...
It was your question.

I'll recap. You asked why God is extraordinary, requiring extraordinary evidence. The answer is that, since defined as supernatural, we'll need extraordinary evidence of a supernatural occurrence in a world that seems to operate just fine on natural laws.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It was your question.

I'll recap. You asked why God is extraordinary, requiring extraordinary evidence. The answer is that, since defined as supernatural, we'll need extraordinary evidence of a supernatural occurrence in a world that seems to operate just fine on natural laws.
Click to expand...

Why is ''supernatural'' extraordinary?

jan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top