And your not quite getting this belief thing are you?

I dont get what you mean here, that much is true.



Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Is your implication that athiesm is not a belief?

Because athiesm does hold one major proposition to be true....can you guess what it is?

It is not "given" that the terms are unknowable. This is circular reasoning. The proposition that "god is unknowable" is actually the conclusion. You cannot use it as a premise. It is one thing to say that something is unknown. It is an enormous logical leap to then infer that it is unknowable. Such an inference requires additional evidence.

Err no I think you missed the point there. I will return to this at the end of my post.


If you cannot even define god in a non-contradictory manner, it seems fairly safe to assume s/he/it does not exist until more information comes to light.

No it would be safe to assume that you dont know enough about it to jump to a conclusion about it not existing.

:icon_lol:


Is this where your "flaw" at the heart of skepticism comes into play?

Not really although it is another one.


That is all I am trying to do by asking for your definition. Do you agree that the attributes in my definition are the minimum neccessary and sufficent for an entity to be called "god"?

No.

I spend alot of my time (prehaps too much) arguing with various faithful people (and yes I include athiests in that). It always comes down to initial assumptions that they would like to be true, because it helps them construct a workable belief system from which their ego's can go forth and pontificate their precieved truths.

My main point is that one does not know enough to make a definition/propostion/axiom/postulate from which to construct a meaningful argument about the nature of God©. That is not a conclusion it is stating that the basic requirement for the construction of an argument/proof/rationalisation/rant cannot be fullfilled as of the present.

You personally have a definition of God© from which you start your arguments from.

That is the logical insconsitency.

You dont believe in something that you believe your own defintion of.

If a tree falls in the forest and it kills a mime, does anyone care?

If a bear shits in the woods and wipes its ass with a skunk, is it less or more stinky?

No it would be safe to assume that you dont know enough about it to jump to a conclusion about it not existing.

Once again, if someone posits the existence of an entity, until some evidence is provided it is assumed not to exist.

Are you agnostic as regards unicorns? Leprechauns? Djinn? Bunyips? I would very much doubt that you are. In all other aspects of your life, you use evidence, experience, and logic to determine what is real and what is not. Yet when it comes to this one topic the rules change for some reason.


I spend alot of my time (prehaps too much) arguing with various faithful people (and yes I include athiests in that). It always comes down to initial assumptions that they would like to be true, because it helps them construct a workable belief system from which their ego's can go forth and pontificate their precieved truths.

My main point is that one does not know enough to make a definition/propostion/axiom/postulate from which to construct a meaningful argument about the nature of God©. That is not a conclusion it is stating that the basic requirement for the construction of an argument/proof/rationalisation/rant cannot be fullfilled as of the present.

You personally have a definition of God© from which you start your arguments from.

That is the logical insconsitency.

You dont believe in something that you believe your own defintion of.

Well, you are arguing that an entity that you refuse to define is unknowable. You regard that as intellectually sound?

Are you saying that an entity with limited power could be god? That an entity with limited perception could be god? That an entity not responsible for the existence of the universe could be god? As Ian G.R. has attempted to point out to you and Zapruder, if the word "god" is so lacking in meaning for you, then what exactly are you arguing? Not being able to see because you are blind is one thing; not being able to see because you have your eyes shut is another.

How do you know that I am not god? How do you know that you are not god? Maybe the chair you sit on is god? Maybe the bug that splattered against your windscreen the other day was god? I am fairly sure that you do not give credence to any of these; you would not be able to function in the world if you did.

My posessing minimum requirements for the attributes of god, is not a logical inconsistency, it is a requirement for the conversation. Without a definition of god's attributes you are caught in the trap of having to consider every entity, object, and phenomenon you encounter as possibly god. I just do not believe that you do this.

Is your implication that athiesm is not a belief?

This would be correct. Is it your implication that agnosticism is not a belief?


Because athiesm does hold one major proposition to be true....can you guess what it is?

Um, one should not believe in the absence of evidence?

Once again, if someone posits the existence of an entity, until some evidence is provided it is assumed not to exist.

Are you agnostic as regards unicorns? Leprechauns? Djinn? Bunyips? I would very much doubt that you are. In all other aspects of your life, you use evidence, experience, and logic to determine what is real and what is not. Yet when it comes to this one topic the rules change for some reason.



Well, you are arguing that an entity that you refuse to define is unknowable. You regard that as intellectually sound?

Are you saying that an entity with limited power could be god? That an entity with limited perception could be god? That an entity not responsible for the existence of the universe could be god? As Ian G.R. has attempted to point out to you and Zapruder, if the word "god" is so lacking in meaning for you, then what exactly are you arguing? Not being able to see because you are blind is one thing; not being able to see because you have your eyes shut is another.

How do you know that I am not god? How do you know that you are not god? Maybe the chair you sit on is god? Maybe the bug that splattered against your windscreen the other day was god? I am fairly sure that you do not give credence to any of these; you would not be able to function in the world if you did.

My posessing minimum requirements for the attributes of god, is not a logical inconsistency, it is a requirement for the conversation. Without a definition of god's attributes you are caught in the trap of having to consider every entity, object, and phenomenon you encounter as possibly god. I just do not believe that you do this.

Not be able to function? I think the Sufis do just fine...

Once again, if someone posits the existence of an entity, until some evidence is provided it is assumed not to exist.

No no you assume it doesnt exist I dont not. I assume it may exist. The probability of its existence my be very small but it may exist.


Are you agnostic as regards unicorns? Leprechauns? Djinn? Bunyips? I would very much doubt that you are. In all other aspects of your life, you use evidence, experience, and logic to determine what is real and what is not. Yet when it comes to this one topic the rules change for some reason.

Mmmmm this is a whole other can of worms and one which I am loath to go into for fear of the argument veering into a direction that will obscure the main argument. So at present I will concede this point so as not to muddy the waters.

For some reason I change the rules when people start to talk about God© or the lack there of, yes....yes I do.


Well, you are arguing that an entity that you refuse to define is unknowable. You regard that as intellectually sound?

Yes I am saying I cannot define something that is unknowable and yes I think that that is intellectually sound.


Are you saying that an entity with limited power could be god? That an entity with limited perception could be god? That an entity not responsible for the existence of the universe could be god? As Ian G.R. has attempted to point out to you and Zapruder, if the word "god" is so lacking in meaning for you, then what exactly are you arguing? Not being able to see because you are blind is one thing; not being able to see because you have your eyes shut is another.

I am not saying anything about the nature of God© whether that nature is indeed non-existant (as you would have me conclude) or not as many thiest would have me believe. I do not claim such knowledge. That is my argument.

Due to this lack of knowlegde I am not making assumtions reguarding God©. But you as an athiest are! Thats all there is to my argument....simple.


How do you know that I am not god? How do you know that you are not god? Maybe the chair you sit on is god? Maybe the bug that splattered against your windscreen the other day was god? I am fairly sure that you do not give credence to any of these; you would not be able to function in the world if you did.

Your self assurance would be misplaced. You may indeed be God© or my chair maybe or x maybe or y or x and y or none of them I dont know.


My posessing minimum requirements for the attributes of god, is not a logical inconsistency, it is a requirement for the conversation. Without a definition of god's attributes you are caught in the trap of having to consider every entity, object, and phenomenon you encounter as possibly god. I just do not believe that you do this.

As I mentioned sometime ago I do have panthiestic leanings at times so I am comfortable with such concepts as anything or all things being God©. I dont hold it as an absolute truth I'm far to skeptical to do that.


My posessing minimum requirements for the attributes of god, is not a logical inconsistency, it is a requirement for the conversation.

I quote this again because it alludes to a remark I gave earlier. Your possessing of any requirement for Godly© attributes is a requirement for your athiestic belief.

Please reread that last sentance until you understand what I am saying....

This would be correct. Is it your implication that agnosticism is not a belief?

Nope I fully accept that my agnostcism is a belief of my choosing.


Um, one should not believe in the absence of evidence?

Nope athiesm that has the premise that God© does not exist. You are reffered to my last post (in fact a number of posts before that) reguarding the problem with that argument.....

Let me put it this way nicko1...do you BELIEVE that God© doesnt exist?

Nope athiesm that has the premise that God© does not exist.



Wrong, atheism has the premise that one doesn't believe in god.

Many atheists believe lots of things but the only thing they have in common is that they don't believe in god.

Wrong, atheism has the premise that one doesn't believe in god.

Many atheists believe lots of things but the only thing they have in common is that they don't believe in god.


Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551

: one who believes that there is no deity

Are you equating your flawed understandings of a theory, based entirely on the bolded text in pop science articles, with the vision of the people who came up with the stuff in the first place?

It's clear from what you've written that you don't understand how science, and in particular the most mathematical end of theoretical physics, works. This is no big deal, it makes you no different from the vast majority of the population, but you need to take advice and stop trying to delude yourself. Seriously, you are so far from being right it would take a year or so of degree level physics for you to even realise how wrong you are.


You are clearly intent on discrediting me, for what I do not know, but it shows you are narrowminded. I am not talking about the people who originally came up with the vision, if that were the case you might start looking a bit further than your limited scope of "physics", a recent foray into the subject. Nor do I particularly care in relation to my spiritual beliefs the equations and mathematics involved in string theory. Your narrowmindedness is showing.

I do not read pop review articles, wouldn't know where to find them. My beliefs were formulated long before I came across any readings to do with the science of string theory.

There is no way to prove string theory right now, and thus it's essentially a fancy thought experiment...

It's also useless.

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551

: one who believes that there is no deity

Or this

a⋅the⋅ist
  /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
Use atheist in a Sentence
See web results for atheist
See images of atheist
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist

Nope athiesm that has the premise that God© does not exist. You are reffered to my last post (in fact a number of posts before that) reguarding the problem with that argument.....

Hard atheism has as it's conclusion that god does not exist. Soft atheism has the conclusion that one should not believe in god. Whilst it is true that a conclusion is a premise, your definition is deceptive as it implies that that the premise is unfounded.

An example of a truly unfounded premise is your conclusion that the true nature of reality is unknowable. It is based on nothing more than the observation that many aspects of reality are currently unknown.


Let me put it this way nicko1...do you BELIEVE that God© doesnt exist?

This is why I asked you what you mean when you say "god".

If we are using the minimum definition of god that I provided earlier, then I am unable to refute that entity's existence. On the other hand, I have no reason to believe that it does exist. Using the same logic that I employ in all other aspects of my life, I therefore do not believe in god. I am therefore a "weak" atheist as regards this definition of god.

However, you have previously stated that you use your "copyrighted god" term to mock established religion. Most of these religions (judeo-christianity for example) add to the minimum definition of god that I provided, the quality of "omnibenevolence". Essentially they claim that in addition to being all-powerful and all-knowing, god is also perfectly moral. As this attribute is not logically consistent with the other two, I do claim that any entity so described does not exist. I am therefore a "strong" atheist as regards these definitions of god.

I like that answer Nick01. Your position is clear.

On the subject of omnibenelovence, I recall there was an off shoot Christianity sect that had the premise that everything was made by God, God is good, therefore everything must be good, therefore nothing must be bad, therefore their members were free to engage in whatever made them feel good. Guilt free Christians, obviously the ideal was hated by the established churches.

I will state my position as an atheist as clearly as possible.

1. I do not believe in god(s) because there is no proof of their existence.
2. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.