Hola!

[TheMessage]

Hello everyone, just stopping by to say... well, hello. I am an atheist (Formerly Deist), though I'd like to think myself open-minded and relatively non-hostile.

In my free time I like to compose music and play board games (Arkham Horror, The Settlers of Catan, etc... not so much monopoly and the like).

[Confused]

Hello everyone, just stopping by to say... well, hello. I am an atheist (Formerly Deist), though I'd like to think myself open-minded and relatively non-hostile.

In my free time I like to compose music and play board games (Arkham Horror, The Settlers of Catan, etc... not so much monopoly and the like).

Welcome to the forum. Feel free to jump into the debates as you feel able to. Fresh views are always nice.

[Zzyzx]

.
Hi TM,

Welcome to the forum.

I am an atheist (Formerly Deist), though I'd like to think myself open-minded and relatively non-hostile.

Have you considered Ignosticism? -- The theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God

[TheMessage]

.
Hi TM,

Welcome to the forum.

I am an atheist (Formerly Deist), though I'd like to think myself open-minded and relatively non-hostile.

Have you considered Ignosticism? -- The theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God

Honestly, no, but that's more for ignorance on my part. I'll go edjumacate myself and let you know what I think.

[TheMessage]

It's an interesting idea, and I can see how some would adopt such a position, but I wouldn't subscribe to it wholeheartedly. The concept of god(s) is, while nebulous, wel-defined enough for meaningful discussion. The concept of God is very well defined and falsifiable. Regardless, those who argue about whether any god can exist in a broad sense are discussion nothing, really. Any such debate must focus upon certain divine entities to be meaningful in the first place, so stating the obvious as a method of avoiding the question entirely is, while a nice rhetorical trick, a bit hollow.

Agnosticism is still for me. I don't know enough to state with 100% certainty whether or not there is a god, but I am aware that there are definitions suitable for debate of the various gods who are bandied about.

[McCulloch]

It's an interesting idea, and I can see how some would adopt such a position, but I wouldn't subscribe to it wholeheartedly.

I go back and forth on that one too.

The concept of god(s) is, while nebulous, well-defined enough for meaningful discussion. The concept of God is very well defined and falsifiable.

Really? Try getting a consensus on the definition.

Regardless, those who argue about whether any god can exist in a broad sense are discussion nothing, really. Any such debate must focus upon certain divine entities to be meaningful in the first place, so stating the obvious as a method of avoiding the question entirely is, while a nice rhetorical trick, a bit hollow.

Try arguing that God does not exist with someone who believes that God is infinitely ineffable.

[TheMessage]

It's an interesting idea, and I can see how some would adopt such a position, but I wouldn't subscribe to it wholeheartedly.

I go back and forth on that one too.

The concept of god(s) is, while nebulous, well-defined enough for meaningful discussion. The concept of God is very well defined and falsifiable.

Really? Try getting a consensus on the definition.

Regardless, those who argue about whether any god can exist in a broad sense are discussion nothing, really. Any such debate must focus upon certain divine entities to be meaningful in the first place, so stating the obvious as a method of avoiding the question entirely is, while a nice rhetorical trick, a bit hollow.

Try arguing that God does not exist with someone who believes that God is infinitely ineffable.

Generally, gods are supernatural beings of some sort, often with a creative or authoritative role. This definition is functional, but utterly useless for debate. Thus, you have to debate whether or not specific gods exist, not just any god or gods whatsoever.

God, with a capitol G, is most certainly defined. The Christian bible is the only religious document in which the god is literally just called God. The description of this entity is then presented in the book.

Now, I assume what you're getting at is that different people ascribe different qualities to God (Capital letter), making it difficult to define, but that's not a problem with the description but rather a problem with those individuals. You can claim that something has whatever qualities you wish to, but if that's an unfounded claim then it becomes a moot point.

For example, I can spout about the various qualities of apples and in the process incorporate several that aren't true, or more correctly, aren't part of the accepted definition of an apple, such as invisibility and telekinetic flight. This doesn't mean that an apple cannot be defined reasonably, it just means that I'm being unreasonable about how to define said apple.

God is clearly described in the bible and possesses impossible, contradictory qualities, so can safely be classified as a 'false god' or thought exercise and not a real being. Some people have tried to rectify this issue by changing the definition of God put forth in the text, but this is just an attempt to salvage a broken concept from itself and isn't based on anything other than their own desires.

[McCulloch]

Generally, gods are supernatural beings of some sort, often with a creative or authoritative role. This definition is functional, but utterly useless for debate. Thus, you have to debate whether or not specific gods exist, not just any god or gods whatsoever.

And just what does supernatural mean? Do you see the problem? The natural universe is everything we can possibly experience so what is left to be called supernatural?

God, with a capitol G, is most certainly defined. The Christian bible is the only religious document in which the god is literally just called God. The description of this entity is then presented in the book.

Correct me if I am wrong, but none of the writers of the Bible ever define God. They say lots of things about certain attributes that God has and perhaps things God does. God is spirit. Great! What is spirit?

Now, I assume what you're getting at is that different people ascribe different qualities to God (Capital letter), making it difficult to define, but that's not a problem with the description but rather a problem with those individuals. You can claim that something has whatever qualities you wish to, but if that's an unfounded claim then it becomes a moot point.

The whole ignostic position is that any discussion about God is moot. All claims about God are ultimately unfounded.

For example, I can spout about the various qualities of apples and in the process incorporate several that aren't true, or more correctly, aren't part of the accepted definition of an apple, such as invisibility and telekinetic flight. This doesn't mean that an apple cannot be defined reasonably, it just means that I'm being unreasonable about how to define said apple.

But in the case of an apple, we can start with an example. This is an apple, that is not. With the gods, we cannot do that. God isn't even a black swan. We cannot meaningfully say God is an omnipotent spiritual being, without any examples of spiritual beings.

God is clearly described in the bible and possesses impossible, contradictory qualities, so can safely be classified as a 'false god' or thought exercise and not a real being. Some people have tried to rectify this issue by changing the definition of God put forth in the text, but this is just an attempt to salvage a broken concept from itself and isn't based on anything other than their own desires.

Here is where I tend to move from ignostic to atheist. Unless you are one of the irrational people who argue that God is somehow above logic, then a God who is described as having mutually exclusive defining characteristics cannot exist.

[TheMessage]

Generally, gods are supernatural beings of some sort, often with a creative or authoritative role. This definition is functional, but utterly useless for debate. Thus, you have to debate whether or not specific gods exist, not just any god or gods whatsoever.

And just what does supernatural mean? Do you see the problem? The natural universe is everything we can possibly experience so what is left to be called supernatural?

God, with a capitol G, is most certainly defined. The Christian bible is the only religious document in which the god is literally just called God. The description of this entity is then presented in the book.

Correct me if I am wrong, but none of the writers of the Bible ever define God. They say lots of things about certain attributes that God has and perhaps things God does. God is spirit. Great! What is spirit?

Now, I assume what you're getting at is that different people ascribe different qualities to God (Capital letter), making it difficult to define, but that's not a problem with the description but rather a problem with those individuals. You can claim that something has whatever qualities you wish to, but if that's an unfounded claim then it becomes a moot point.

The whole ignostic position is that any discussion about God is moot. All claims about God are ultimately unfounded.

For example, I can spout about the various qualities of apples and in the process incorporate several that aren't true, or more correctly, aren't part of the accepted definition of an apple, such as invisibility and telekinetic flight. This doesn't mean that an apple cannot be defined reasonably, it just means that I'm being unreasonable about how to define said apple.

But in the case of an apple, we can start with an example. This is an apple, that is not. With the gods, we cannot do that. God isn't even a black swan. We cannot meaningfully say God is an omnipotent spiritual being, without any examples of spiritual beings.

God is clearly described in the bible and possesses impossible, contradictory qualities, so can safely be classified as a 'false god' or thought exercise and not a real being. Some people have tried to rectify this issue by changing the definition of God put forth in the text, but this is just an attempt to salvage a broken concept from itself and isn't based on anything other than their own desires.

Here is where I tend to move from ignostic to atheist. Unless you are one of the irrational people who argue that God is somehow above logic, then a God who is described as having mutually exclusive defining characteristics cannot exist.

Those qualities that God is described as having are essentially what we have to go off of as far as what God is. Similarly, other gods are described in various ways so that we have an idea of what they are. Ghosts are 'supernatural' in description and may or may not exists, but that seemingly nonsensical quality doesn't prevent us from having a meaningful discussion about them. It's simply a cop-out to act otherwise.

As for pointing at an apple, fine. But what about ideas and concepts? Can you point at gravity? Not in any real sense, but you can probably carry on a discussion about the concept of gravity. The immaterial doesn't have to be immune to discourse.

I understand the idea you're trying to convey, and that you see the very concept of a god to be impossible to discuss, but I honestly don't find that accurate. It's very difficult to discuss if everyone isn't on the same page, but it can be done.

[McCulloch]

Ghosts are 'supernatural' in description and may or may not exists, but that seemingly nonsensical quality doesn't prevent us from having a meaningful discussion about them. It's simply a cop-out to act otherwise.

Are they? If ghosts exist then they are part of the natural world.

As for pointing at an apple, fine. But what about ideas and concepts?

I am fine with God being an idea or a concept.

Can you point at gravity? Not in any real sense, but you can probably carry on a discussion about the concept of gravity.

But I can precisely describe and measure it.

The immaterial doesn't have to be immune to discourse.

The immaterial does not, you are right. The supernatural is, however immune from discourse.

I understand the idea you're trying to convey, and that you see the very concept of a god to be impossible to discuss, but I honestly don't find that accurate. It's very difficult to discuss if everyone isn't on the same page, but it can be done.

Good luck with that. See if you can get CNorman, he's Jewish, to explain to you what he means by God.