prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Yep.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God is simple, not complex
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
Yes, I do think that's it.
Reflex
Active Member
Nah. It's more like changing sides after halftime with the opposing team not wanting to play by the rules
Gambit
Well-Known Member
You're missing the point. A lazy attitude toward proper grammar is not acceptable if you are seriously trying to communicate. Moreover, someone who uses "god" as interchangeable with "God" doesn't understand that he or she is making a category error. ("God" and "god" are not in the same category.)
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Isn't your God seen as just another god to someone who believes their god is God?
Arent all of them? Isn't that the point?
Gambit
Well-Known Member
By the way, I doubt that you're prepared to discuss comparative mythology unless you're have seriously studied the work of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung. But now I digress.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
I thought he said "outside myth?"
outhouse
Atheistically
There are no rules and knowledge is king.
And if you do not understand the origins of the concept, you have no ammunition
outhouse
Atheistically
Did the people who created these concept study each of these?
They both have their knowledge to share but Campbell used Jung quite a bit. No I'm not unarmed but thanks for you concern
These guys and others, are all part of the puzzle, but each on their own does not provide a full picture.
Problem is we know more about how the mythology evolved due to new anthropology that has advanced far and wide since their study on Abrahamic traditions.
Without Dever, Faust, and Finkelstein I doubt that you're prepared to discuss the origins of the people who redefined these gods you call god.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Can you dodge a question any better? I have higher hopes for you.
What god out of thousands has ever been proven to exist outside mythology?
outhouse
Atheistically
This is not your philosophy class.
You would be required to source your statement with a link here though. I asked nicely for a credible source, or you could admit to theistic nitpicking.
outhouse
Atheistically
Reflex
Active Member
This is the crux of this whole "debate." Like I said earlier, "As long as one side insists on making a category error and straw man the issue, what's there to talk about?" What makes this whole thing inane is that the atheists posting don't even try to understand where their category error lies. They say they are knowledgeable, but won't visit the links posted or, if they do, don't ask for clarification. This, in my book, is morally and intellectually reprehensible.
Once again: here and here are links to reviews of the book by Hart.
What prometheus and others are failing to acknowledge is that it has repeatedly been acknowledged that many "believer" make the same category error, but it is an error that is, historically speaking, an aberration.
Last edited:
Just so! That's why there is no "i," but an "I." On the other hand, there is "god" and there is "God."
What is the category?
One is general and the other specific?
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
All you do is claim that others aren't using your terms the way you want or agreeing with your ideologies. Yes, we know you're angry that not everyone agrees with you. Let's get past it.
Why not explain the "category error" and the specific reasons why everyone should agree with you?
outhouse
Atheistically
Linker and Hart are nobodies in this field, they are not Scholars.
outhouse
Atheistically
But what knowledge if history do you understand of the people who created these concepts ???
There is no debate, you have yet to enter THE debate.
You seem to just ignoring everything you cannot address, which so far seems to quite a bit.
You personally do not get to steer the debate into a philosophical arena that is way out of context.
outhouse
Atheistically
You have not demonstrated there is an error being committed.
That is your own personal definition, and personal opinions are easily hand waived off as rhetoric.
Reflex
Active Member
A category mistake is an error in logic in which one category of something thing is presented as belonging to another category. For example, to say "the rock is alive" assigns the category of life to that which is not alive. Another example would be to say that an idea is the color blue. It mistakenly applies the category of color to a concept in the mind. That's what atheists do here.
The vast majority of arguments one sees against the existence of God are not really arguments against God’s existence, but the existence of any number of so-called deities which may or may not exist in the universe. This is why, for example, Bertrand Russell’s teapot or the ever popular “spaghetti monster” are so silly as neither have even the basic characteristics of God and, therefore, cannot serve as adequate targets for the arguments raised by atheists. Just as frequently, an assertion of atheism is not the assertion of a complete philosophical or metaphysical position, but a way of saying, essentially, “That thing you say you believe in, which you are calling “God” – I don’t think that thing exists, or any similar thing.”
But in all the great religious traditions, God is not a name for some thing that can have similarities to other things. "According to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God "exists" in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all." Therefore, even the claim to reason in the denial of God is, in a sense, an affirmation of God.
The vast majority of arguments one sees against the existence of God are not really arguments against God’s existence, but the existence of any number of so-called deities which may or may not exist in the universe. This is why, for example, Bertrand Russell’s teapot or the ever popular “spaghetti monster” are so silly as neither have even the basic characteristics of God and, therefore, cannot serve as adequate targets for the arguments raised by atheists. Just as frequently, an assertion of atheism is not the assertion of a complete philosophical or metaphysical position, but a way of saying, essentially, “That thing you say you believe in, which you are calling “God” – I don’t think that thing exists, or any similar thing.”
But in all the great religious traditions, God is not a name for some thing that can have similarities to other things. "According to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God "exists" in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all." Therefore, even the claim to reason in the denial of God is, in a sense, an affirmation of God.
Last edited:
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Most skeptics (as well as most believers) are theologically ignorant.