So, in short you are deliberately causing confusion by introducing your own, unique definition to a word, that when capitalised, has a very specific meaning.
That can hardly be described as intellectually honest.
“God” is a proper noun, specifically the name for the Abrahamic or Christian god. If you are not referring to that personage then you are deliberately misleading the argument you propose.
I counsel you to hold yourself to a higher standard than you demonstrate here.
That’s where things get interesting. I hold Yahweh and Jesus as physical avatars of Father and Son respectively, but I don’t hold these avatars as Godly as the Father and Son. I also don’t hold the Father and Son as the entire being of God. I will readily admit that Yahweh did some pretty suspect things and that Yahweh and Jesus aren’t perfect moral models. I will also admit that the Father and Son are likewise not completely whole and that they have limitations.
Christian Gnostic wasn’t open.
You mean deliberately confusing.
The rest of your “reasoning” has no bearing on my post.
That there are many cults, sects and beliefs surrounding the christian god is a reality. What is at stake is exactly how you are defining your usage of the Proper Noun “God”
If you are not using it as the name of the Christian God…then stop capitalising it. It is just a god, one that you believe exists. One of at least 30,000 plus that are worshipped today.
If you wish to quantify its properties then give it a unique name, then there will no more confusion.
This really makes no sense at all. if the Father and son are not “Godly” then you are not a Christian and you should not use the capitalised version to describe whatever the hell it is you think is a god.
I see where Sheldon and the others are coming from, call your god thing Phillis or Blurp then the confusion will not be promulgated on these pages and you can ascribe whatever qualities you wish to it?him?her? them?
But there’s the thing… I view them as Godly. I also view us as Godly, but not as Godly as Yahweh or Jesus.
If God’s omnipresent, that means we are a part of the dance. Rather than seeing ourselves as apart, we should view ourselves as part of the greater whole.
Yes, in a way… That’s what I am getting at. But I’m advising caution as not all definitions grant the greatest utility or are in line with the principles of cooperation, integration, and harmony.
the Christian?Abrahamic God? The God of the Levites? You mean that God. I remind you once more dishonesty is not tolerable in these debates,
You do not get to redefine an existing proper noun because you wish to cause confusion.
God has several specific properties…if you are not acknowledging that it is the proper noun for a specific god, then define the properties of your particular belief and do not confuse it with the existing “God”.
Does your belief include or exclude Allah? Zeus? Manitou?
who really cares about that? “God” is a proper noun and is ascribed to a particular belief set with specific properties.
It seems you are being deliberately obtuse here.
Others such as yourself have used the term Divine or The Divine to describe this. Perhaps your problem is that you are trying to ascribe personal qualities to it … ah yes …
So you are trying to sidle up to a fusion of panentheism with Christianity. I have seen this movie before, on another forum. Another scholarly type (retired professor) identifying as a panentheist but with an elaborate way of superimposing Christianity and the Bible as its highest expression. Far more elaborated than you’re attempting but the same basic idea. In his case he had an encounter with this deity in what he referred to as “deep meditation” and had all this revealed to him. He has published what he calls his Synthesis online somewhere or other.
I am with old_man on this though, you must not use accepted terms and referents to things you are putting a different spin on. Although if you’re trying to create this Frankenstein monster of a belief system, I can see where it would be tempting.
I do not wish to cause confusion. I merely ask people to think more of God beyond Yahweh and Jesus.
The etymology of the word “god” traces back to Old English “god”, which is derived from *Proto-Germanic guthan. Western Christianity in the early Middle Ages coined this term of refer to the Christian God as Carolinian Hegemony grew over the West Europe.
Not necessarily, but I would posit that these beings could be carried representations of lesser beings that became mythologized (great kings, spirits seeking vainglories, human qualities given to non-human beings).
Well, I thank you for your response.
It seems to me you are invoking the Humpty Dumpty argument “Words mean preciseley what I want them to mean, neither more nor less.”
Many have tried this rather ridiculous route…
And? Another wild red herring. God is now a Proper Noun and refers specifically to a belief with specific properties. Your personal definitions are not accepted.
I think we are all well and truly fatigued by your “posits”, avoidance and downright carelessness with truth.
And if Yahweh and Jesus are part of reality, but not the full sum of reality, and I recognize God = reality, would Yahweh and Jeus be only partial realities?
Says who??? You??? When did you become the deciding authority on the concept of God?
I am becoming tired of people who don’t care to engage and posit my speculative definitions as erroneous without providing any evidence or rationale why they are.
If we are at an impasse, I think that we shouldn’t engage with each other anymore until we find common ground from which to discuss. If you are agreeable to that, I am agreeable as well. If you are not agreeable to that, then we are wasting our time…
Nobody cares. “God” has specific defined qualities as defined in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Your johnny come lately Humpty Dumpty effort is breathtakingly dishonest
, “God” is a proper noun. It is the name of the Abrahamic God…which has very specific attributes. You are misusing it. Not my definition, but the average 12 year old would find no difficulty in looking up the usage and definitions. It appears you do have such a difficulty,or are deliberately looking to confuse.
Speculative definitions? You mean your obfuscations, avoidance and downright misuse of the language? Those speculative definitions?
So you want to Humpty Dumpty new pastures? Oh dear, far from being the cleverest person in the room I think you might find yourself at a great disadvantage with the majority of the members here who are well used to sorting the spivs from the flim flam. . Good luck.
Here’s an idea, call your made up deity “Humpers” that should allow you scope to run your imagination and make up an harmonious whole…
Why do you keep repeating my assertionsback to me and stating what is trivially true, instead of addressing what I’ve posted?
It’s a simple request, if you can’t evidence it just say so.
Nope, not even remotely true, I’man atheist, I make no assumptions about deities, that’s what you’re doing, relentlessly. I only asked you to evidence one of your claims, the dishonest evasion speaks for itself.
I could care less, you brought your claims to me, I didn’t seek you out, and this is a public debate forum, so I will respond as and when I am minded to do so.
Not to menti9n falsely equating the word with other words, then refusing to address objections.
And if he doesn’t exist that phrase et al are meaningless, so stop putting your overly verbose cart in front of your magic pony, and give us the best reason you think you have for believing any deity exists.
NB don’t redefine exists here, it’s in any dictionary
Because it doesn’t merit us anything if we cannot agree on what we are discussing. You keep requiring empirical evidence, but I’m telling you that you need a higher standard of rationale (proof) than that for to prove for God as God is not a provisional axiom or a being that consists with contingent properties inherit to its nature. That’s not what God is. To prove for God, you need a modal proof demonstrating God and what properties are essential properties to the being that you are seeking to prove.
Yet, you just provided a qualifier (empirical substance). Do you not even know what you are supposedly objecting to in concept?
You’re falling into a definition fallacy, Sheldon. Assertions about a necessary property are quite different than assertions that we make about a provisional property. Assertions about necessary properties are not the realm of linguists and historical scholars, but rather the realm of philosophers and mathematicians.
Then address the specific objections to your bare claims honestly, instead of repeating them back to those who make them. NB merit here is entirely subjective, anyone is free to decide how / if the debate has benefited them.
That’s a lie, I have extended you repeatedly the maximum amount of latitude, by asking for the best reason you think you have that a deity exists.
I don’t care, you don’t get to tell anyone what standard they must set for personal credulity. You are free to believe your unevidenced and irrational arguments have merit, but no one else is obliged to.
You haven’t learned to walk, and you’re trying to run. Forget proving anything, and offer something beyond bare assumptions and false equivalences.
1) An argument alone cannot demonstrate existence, since that must reflect objective reality, thus objective, testable evidence is required for any unbiased conclusion.
2) No claim about a deity has any meaning unless it can be evidenced.
3) You are free to believe anything without any evidence.
4) When you bring such beliefs here, no one is obliged to give them any credence.
5) Since you brought those claims here, anyone is free to point and laugh if they are minded to.
From one lie to another, you leap from one claim to another like a frog on amphetamines, and I am disinclined to keep going back to find the correct context if you are too lazy / dishonest to address specifically what you have quoted.
No, you don’t get to arbitrarily redefine words, and pretend you’ve made a sound argument, if you persist I will reciprocate in your dishonesty to teach you what it’s like to be on the receiving end of such mendacious semantics. You have been warned here…
NB You failed to offer anything yet again to support your false equivalence that a god = reality.
Do you think this will go away, and we will all suddenly be swayed by unevidenced and irrational rhetoric?
Sure. As limited subjects, we can interpret qualifiers relative to our subjective biases. However, as objects, there are things that are and aren’t cooperative, integrational, and harmonious to our objective well-being.
I am not saying that requiring empirical evidence is bad, Sheldon, but empirical evidence has limits because empiricism as a field can only address provisional truths and contingent properties. I have provided deductive proofs and modal proofs which you don’t seem to exchange with. My reason being is that we’re discussing a being (in the hypothetical) that has necessary truths and essential properties (or else the thing doesn’t qualify to the concept). Either this is due to your lack of education/understanding in the field of modal logic or just obstinate positioning.
Scientists/philosophers rely on objective standards for credulity, Sheldon. As a scientist (if you would qualify yourself: an empiricist), you are requesting empirical evidence: a thing consistent with the scientific method. I am, as a philosopher and mathematician (a rationalist), seeking to explain to you that empirical evidence is a lower form of credulity that modal proof and deductive reasoning because empiricism relies on provisional assumptions and contingent claims. We don’t get to argue this point rationally.
Sheldon… A modal argument isn’t the same thing as a provisional argument. Your misunderstanding is similar to how people misinterpret certain scientific theories as speculation rather than as well-documented explanations.
This is dependent upon whether you view deity as a provisional and contingent being or as a necessary and essential being. Likewise, this is also dependent upon whether you view God and deity as expressing the same concept or whether you view God and deity to express approximate concepts (similar in some ways, but not the same).
That’s an epistemological claim: one which I would disagree with (as substance precedes, consciousness). As limited subjects, we can interpret qualifiers relative to our subjective biases, but the credulity of such responses is relative to the object (for example: you can believe that you love broccoli and have an opinion that broccoli is the best vegetable, but if you never eat broccoli when offered a choice of vegetable and throw up broccoli every time you eat it, how credible is your claim?).
Subjectively no. But you must then admit that you are doing so from a subjective point of lenses and not an objective point of lenses (for example: a person can do what is objectively the best thing for you given a position, but you can still refuse them as a subject. however, you cannot rationally claim that they didn’t do what is objectively the best thing for you given a position).
As subjects, yes. However, I could do the same thing (point, laugh, and insult you to the cows come home). But where does that leave us objectively? Have we worked towards cooperation, integration, and harmony with each other? If not, doesn’t that mean that we were bad faith actors towards one another?
There are already enough bad faith actors in the world. Can’t a place of rational debate be a safe haven from bad faith?
Sheldon, what do you keep asking for? “Empirical evidence for your claims, please.” Did you not?
First, we haven’t reached an objective qualifier (or it this case, intersubjective) for terms for which we are attempting to discuss. Second, you’re setting arbitrary standards for a term that you claim to disbelieve it, but you don’t provide those standards in good faith to see whether they can stand up to philosophical examination.
That’s dishonesty, Sheldon, and bad faith. Grandstanding and pretending that you have the intellectual high ground when you can’t even provide a definition for the thing that you are supposedly objecting to is not an exercise of rational thought.
Do you see the word empirical in that quote? Again you have the maximum latitude here. Present the best reason you think you have that any deity exists.
On the contrary, I have addressed them, they make a priori assumptions that I see no justification for beyond simple bias. Gödel’s ontological proof for example, the conclusion follows only if one accepts its initial a priori assumptions (axioms) as true premises, I have seen no compelling reason why anyone would do this, beyond a bias, as they want to believe a deity exists.
Except you know you believe a deity exists and it is not hypothetical, and it’s just a subjective opinion that the claims are necessary truths, or that the properties assigned are in anyway essential.
Yet you wouldn’t buy a car or boards a plane that used subjective beliefs to design them, and when your sick you go to medical science for answers, if your smart.
It doesn’t matter, the arguments for a deity all involve subjective bias, the conclusions are true only of one accepts the initial premises as true, and without evidence I see no reason beyond bias for doing this.
Why would I accept the claim it is necessary or essential, give a reason beyond bias.
No it wasn’t an epistemological claim, it is merely obvious that people can believe what they want to believe, and often will.
It is a subjective choice to set any standard for credulity, but that standard need not be subjective, how much bias one indulges would determine this.
Have I asked for empirical evidence? I have repeatedly asked which deity you believe exists and for the best reason you think you have for believing this, I can’t really cut you much more slack than that I think. You are a theist, and you cam to an atheist forum, and yet months later we are still asking which deity you believe exists and why, to me that seems like arguing in bad faith.
Are you seriously asking that I define your belief for you, come on. You brought it here, the burden of proof is entirely yours, that crack about the intellectual high ground and grandstanding is pretty hilarious.