New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-01-2018, 04:44 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
(31-01-2018 04:23 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  The way I see atheists here, they are full of vulgar bluster but nothing of any intelligent step by step argument on No God does not exist.

It is all cliches and slogans but nothing of ideas that compel mankind to listen to you, except to join you in ranting without logic at all - and that is because they are like you, full of vulgar bluster of grudge and hatred for God, but nothing of any logic and insight.

Okay, come forth and present your step by step of an argument against the existence of God, start with your concept of God.

What are you talking about, good sir? I've already told you my concept of god (see post #31).

I am willing to grant that your concept of god exists. Are you willing to grant that my concept of god exists?

If you can do that, we can move on to find common ground.

Blink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2018, 05:12 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
(31-01-2018 04:23 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  Okay, come forth and present your step by step of an argument against the existence of God, start with your concept of God.
God said to Moses: "Come Forth", but he came fifth and won a bag of peanuts.

"It's in the fridge, daddy-o! Are you hip to the jive? Can you dig what I'm layin' down? I knew that you could. Slide me some skin, soul brother!" - Willy Wonka
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like OakTree500's post
31-01-2018, 05:30 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
Dear Frelzik, here is again my concept of God:

"In concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

You tell me:

"...the proposition attached to the idea conveyed by the word "god" is so ill-defined or incoherent that it can't even be described in terms of true or false. "

Okay, you know better, then do us all a favor, tell us what is your concept of God that satisfies your most intelligent criteria, and I will work with you as to for us from your part to criticize it from your position as an ignostic.

And I from my position as a theist, of the certainty that God exists, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to read the concept of God according to Frelzik.


(30-01-2018 11:47 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(30-01-2018 06:50 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  The new way if it is anything new, to engage an atheist on God exists or not, consists in me and an atheist - I am a theist - to first work together as to concur on the concept of what is God.

Here is my concept of God, in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, dear atheist interested in this thread, please tell me what is your concept of God.

No, this is not new.

My position on the subject is ignostic, which is the position that the proposition attached to the idea conveyed by the word "god" is so ill-defined or incoherent that it can't even be described in terms of true or false. In my particular case, I view the word as having had too many different and contradictory ideas, concepts, and beliefs attached to it over the centuries to any longer convey more than the vaguest of meanings. (I call words like this "dead words". Ergo, "god" is dead. Look, I thought it was funny when I was 16.) To take a position on such an ill-understood proposition is nonsensical.

That said, once I drill down into what a particular person means by the word "God" at a particular moment (and don't even get me started on the equivocations and bait-and-switch tactics I've dealt with over the years), the idea behind that word in that case can obtain such coherence that a position on it becomes possible. It depends on the actual meaning, but I typically lean towards one of four positions.

One, I reject the definition. I typically only do this when encountering word games so bizarre that something like 90% of the population wouldn't recognize the concept as being remotely connected to what most people mean by the word "god". Oprah Winfrey's "Awe and Wonder" definition comes to mind. Another example would be someone who embraces the "god is love" passage so broadly and literally as to mean that every feeling of love, everywhere, and only that, is the god they're referring to. To avoid me rejecting that definition, unless someone starts throwing around words like panentheism, pantheism, or deism around to distinguish their position from theism, the god in question would have to, at the very least, with a conscious mind (including attributes like memories, personality, goals, intellect, and sense of self distinct from the rest of the universe) with supernatural powers (meaning the ability to affect reality in a manner signifying special exemption from the natural order), and who takes active agency in the universe.

Second, strong agnosticism. The god being described is not only unknown, but is by its very nature unknowable. I then wonder how the person I'm talking to claims to know it. Every time I've dug deeper on the subject in these cases, it's usually just wishful thinking, fallacious reasoning, or life experiences that could have been easily misinterpreted.

Third, weak agnosticism. While I might agree in the abstract that there could be some way of proving or disproving the proposed god, I do not at the moment have access to the necessary evidence to do so. This agnosticism is specifically agnostic atheism, because I don't believe that god exists.

And fourth, strong atheism, in which I take the firm position that the proposed god does not exist. Usually this is a result either of some paradoxical element of the described god (eg, an omnipotent god that can't make a rock it can't lift) or some contradiction between the description of the god and observations about reality (eg, a supposedly omnibenevolent god who is notable in its absence when people are dying).

I have not yet encountered a single proposed god remotely akin to what most people mean by the word to describe myself as a believer. Since I do not believe in any theistic god, I have not become a theist, and so I remain an atheist.

Now, regarding your definition, I'm leaning towards my first response: Rejecting the definition. There are several problems with it. First, there is nothing to suggest that such an original cause has any sort of mind. Second, there is nothing to suggest that an original cause would still be existent, much less active, which does not distinguish your theism from deism. Third, there is considerable vagueness about how you are even defining "cause" and "begin" and "exist".

You seem to be referring to Aristotle's agent-cause. If so, I would embrace strong atheism based on your phrasing. For example, I have put together chairs from Ikea. I am the agent who caused those chairs to begin existing. Yet there are a great many things that I did not cause to begin existing. Therefore, there is no one agent that caused EVERYTHING to come into existence, since that agent would have to be me (to account for the Ikea chairs) and also not me (to account for, oh, I dunno, sequin fedoras). This is clearly impossible. However, I suspect that this is less a rejection of what you believe, and more a matter of you having phrased it improperly.

If somehow you got past specific objections of that nature without creating new problems, I'd probably adopt some flavor of agnostic view. How would we know the universe had a beginning, rather than simply existing in one or more other forms prior to the Big Bang? How would we know that a single unbeginning cause rather than a multiplicity of unbeginning causes were behind the origin of the universe? What chain of evidence could exist for any of that? And finally.... why would we care? What, if anything, would be the practical value of sorting through such a debate to arrive at an answer?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2018, 05:33 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
(31-01-2018 04:23 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  The way I see atheists here, they are full of vulgar bluster but nothing of any intelligent step by step argument on No God does not exist.

It is all cliches and slogans but nothing of ideas that compel mankind to listen to you, except to join you in ranting without logic at all - and that is because they are like you, full of vulgar bluster of grudge and hatred for God, but nothing of any logic and insight.

Okay, come forth and present your step by step of an argument against the existence of God, start with your concept of God.

It's not as if it hasn't already been regurgitated thousands of times before Pachomius. What have you got that's new? Nothing.

The concept of God is almost irrelevant since it all just stems from the human imagination. None of it is based on any observations of an actual entity. All of the attributes that God has accumulated over time have been given to it by humans. God in the meantime has never demonstrated the actuality of any of them.

God served a purpose in the past. It was the invented answer to life's difficult questions, asked by humans who had little or no knowledge of the world they inhabited. Today, God is an unnecessary concept. It doesn't matter if it exists or not.

When you say things like "full of vulgar bluster of grudge and hatred for God" you betray your lack of understanding of the audience you are preaching to. It's hardly any wonder that no one here takes you seriously.

No gods necessary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2018, 05:36 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2018 05:45 AM by SYZ.)
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
(30-01-2018 06:50 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  Here is my concept of God, in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

You're more than welcome to your belief in God or gods. Although it has to be nothing more than a personal opinion, as there's no empirical evidence to support this belief. And as you'd know, even a truckload of personal beliefs does not equate to evidence.

Quote:So, dear atheist interested in this thread, please tell me what is your concept of God.

As a lifelong atheist, I can say unequivocally that God or gods do not exist.

Ultimately, the passage of my life, and its passing will be identical to yours—other than your belief in a supernatural entity. We live, love, and die regardless of our beliefs, either as an atheist or a theist. Oh... other than you wasting weeks or months of your life in the worship of a myth.

As a humanist, I'd rather spend that time improving (hopefully!) the lot of my fellow man—rather than spending it in selfish introspection governed by superstition and religious dogma.

Quote:The way I see atheists here, they are full of vulgar bluster but nothing of any intelligent step by step argument on No God does not exist.

In this case you "see" it wrongly. Atheists have no need and no desire to define your god for you; why should we? The actuality of gods has no more credence than Peter Pan, Beowulf, or Robin Hood. BTW, it's up to you—as the proponent of the claim that gods exist—to provide supporting evidence. It's certainly not the task of atheist to disprove it. Your logic is sadly lacking.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SYZ's post
31-01-2018, 05:41 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
(31-01-2018 04:23 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  The way I see atheists here, they are full of vulgar bluster but nothing of any intelligent step by step argument on No God does not exist.

It is all cliches and slogans but nothing of ideas that compel mankind to listen to you, except to join you in ranting without logic at all - and that is because they are like you, full of vulgar bluster of grudge and hatred for God, but nothing of any logic and insight.

Okay, come forth and present your step by step of an argument against the existence of God, start with your concept of God.

>The burden of proof lies upon he who alleges. Religious people should be aware that I'm perfectly willing to believe in god(s), ghosts, mediums, demons, angels, spirits, channeling, miracles, horoscopes, astrology, psychics, Ouija boards, the supernatural, and anything else for that matter, as long as they adhere to one proviso: prove it! That's all I ask for. Just one simple request. Prove it!

>Don't give me speculations, guesses, hopes, dreams, wishes, desires, beliefs, faith (or appeals to faith), or indoctrinations. Don't give me one-time-only, non-repeatable, non-testable events. Don't give me internal alterations in one's psychology or physiology which cannot be tested, observed or demonstrated, only felt or believed. And don't give me effects that cannot be related to the supposed cause.

>I have no objection to believing in a deity as long as proof based upon a rational standard of knowledge is forthcoming. Is that too much to ask? But surely, theists can't expect me to adopt their beliefs on the basis of what has been presented, thus far. Every "proof" that I've heard and very piece of evidence that I've seen for the existence of God(s) has been easily countered by rational evidence/arguments to the contrary. No convincing evidence for the existence of any deity has ever emerged.

>I'm more than willing to listen to theistic arguments or view theistic evidence as long as cross-examination is permitted. No claims which must be shielded from rational scrutiny are worth believing. As conditions now stand, theology rests far more on superstition and faith, than upon facts and reason. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gwaithmir's post
31-01-2018, 05:52 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
Dear Cheerful, you mention some attributes of God ascribed to Him by theists, but let us just concentrate on this concept of God:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

You see, when you as a thinking atheist give your mind to reason on the concept of God from me, you see immediately that whatever other attributes man ascribes to Him, if He is not in concept first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, He is not worthy of any salt of attention, starting from me yours truly.

Now, you want me to present to you evidence for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Simple, touch your nose, it has a beginning, that is one piece of evidence for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.


(31-01-2018 12:36 AM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  
(30-01-2018 06:50 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  The new way if it is anything new, to engage an atheist on God exists or not, consists in me and an atheist - I am a theist - to first work together as to concur on the concept of what is God.

Here is my concept of God, in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, dear atheist interested in this thread, please tell me what is your concept of God.


This is not by any means a new way of defining god, nor "a new way engage to engage the atheist". It is an ancient and very shop worn, empty claim. What hard evidence, proof, do you have for your assertion? There are so many ways to define God, that a naked assertion like that is not evidence for any possible of the many claims people in the past have made about what sort of God atheists are supposed to believe in.

If you mean the God of the Bible of Bible, the definitions derived from this supposed revelation define a God that cannot exist because the claimed attributes of that God are self contradictory. The incoherent claims about this God demonstrate that this God is impossible and thus not possibly a creator of anything at all.

The age old problems of a God that is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

The Universe has always been here, it had no beginning, no creator. Many ancient myths start with a primal void, chaos, a primal sea that emanates the Gods who create the world we see around us. A concept that long preceeds a Biblical style omni-everything creator God. What evidence do you have that demonstrates that these myths cannot be true?

Back to you. The demand for evidence for your God is in your court.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2018, 05:54 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
(30-01-2018 06:50 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  The new way if it is anything new, to engage an atheist on God exists or not, consists in me and an atheist - I am a theist - to first work together as to concur on the concept of what is God.

Here is my concept of God, in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, dear atheist interested in this thread, please tell me what is your concept of God.

So intelligence isn't part of your definition, so this god could simply be a natural phenomenon indistinguishable from the big bang. Drinking Beverage

You definition also doesn't say if this "creator" still exists or this creator was vaporized after the big bang leaving us in a godless universe.

So your definition is not falsifiable, it does not distinguish between natural forces that created the universe or an intelligent being creating the universe.

If you are going to assert that an intelligent force created everything, then you would have to figure out a way to distinguish it from natural forces and then measure that distinction.

Once again, all you are left with is an assertion with zero evidence, which lacks any meaningful specificity to be of any use.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
31-01-2018, 05:56 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
(31-01-2018 05:52 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  let us just concentrate on this concept of God:

No, lets concentrate on Elwetritsche.
You want me to define your god for you, so you define Elwetritshce for me first.
You havent defined them yet, and you havent disproved them.
I guess that means, Elwetritsche exists.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
31-01-2018, 06:07 AM
RE: New way to engage an atheist on God exists or not.
Dear Deesse23, you ask me:

"You are trying to make a claim. Why should anyone help you to define what you are claiming?"

Simple, because you as a thinking atheist deny that God exists, while I know for a certainty that God exists.

So, in order that we have the same God for a target: as you are a thinking atheist, it behooves you to either accept my concept of God, or you bring up your concept of God, and we will work as to concur on the concept that we both mutually accept:

So that you and I have the same target God, get that?

You to deny and I to prove: in re His existence or non-existence.

Get that!?

At least, think about that, as you are a thinking atheist.


(31-01-2018 01:02 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(30-01-2018 06:50 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  The new way if it is anything new, to engage an atheist on God exists or not, consists in me and an atheist - I am a theist - to first work together as to concur on the concept of what is God.

Here is my concept of God, in concept God is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, dear atheist interested in this thread, please tell me what is your concept of God.

You are trying to make a claim. Why should anyone help you to define what you are claiming? Imagine i claimed the existence of Elwetritsch, and asked you to help me define what Elwetritsch is? Hobo

God is the creator of everything? including time? How can he create time when time is necessary for the process of creation? Likewise with space. Please come back after you have a coherent idea about how this can work out. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: