Is using the word "IF" legitimate in front of "God's" question ?

[chinu]

That doesn't follow. The very fact that we call them "believers" require that they believe. If they were simply sure, then they wouldn't be believers anymore.

But I think I know where you are heading. The problem is that you are using the wrong words.
Theist and atheist are positions on belief, not knowledge. Someone being sure is a knowledge claim, not a belief claim.

So, what do you call the one who is sure about God ?
What word do you have for such persons ?

 

[Samael_Khan]

So, what do you call the one who is sure about God ?
What word do you have for such persons ?

They would be Gnostic. We actually use the opposite of it on occasion in religious conversation: Agnostic.

So, regarding the meaning of words:

Gnostics say that they know, whereas Agnostics say that they do not know.

Theists say they believe, whereas Atheists say that they do not believe.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So, what do you call the one who is sure about God ?
What word do you have for such persons ?

Hopeful?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If this is so,
Then any such question is legitimate for atheist asking to atheist, NOT theist.

Any such question is NOT legitimate for theists
Because theists DOES-NOT hypothetical the existence of God.
Rather, theist's are sure about God.

So if God never existed, would such a question be legitimate for theists? Atheists?

Is such a question legitimate for someone who identifies as neither atheist or theist?

 

[Samael_Khan]

So, what do you call the one who is sure about God ?
What word do you have for such persons ?

Oh yeah, this is why atheist and agnostic are talking about two separate perspectives. Many people think atheist say that there is no God. Actually the term is used for lack of belief. So an atheist and an agnostic dont refer to two different positions. I am an agnostic atheist which means that I do not believe but I don't think that a God can be known based off current evidence. So I don't say that a god DOESN'T exist.

 

[chinu]

They would be Gnostic. We actually use the opposite of it on occasion in religious conversation: Agnostic.

So, regarding the meaning of words:

Gnostics say that they know, whereas Agnostics say that they do not know.

Theists say they believe, whereas Atheists say that they do not believe.

Can child say; he/she know there's father-mother ? how funny.
There's father-mother. Its understood by a child. No need to say I know.

Or, gnostics are kinda people who have lost God. like a child who have lost their father-mother during infancy ?

Or, what type of people are gnostics ?
Do you care to elaborate please.

 

[chinu]

Hopeful?

No-sense.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Can child say; he/she know there's father-mother ? how funny.
There's father-mother. Its understood by a child. No need to say I know.

Or, gnostics are kinda people who have lost God. like a child who have lost their father-mother during infancy ?

Or, what type of people are gnostics ?
Do you care to elaborate please.

A child would say "I know my father and mother exist." Making a positive statement saying "there is" is the equivalent of saying that you know.

Gnostics don't necessarily have to have lost God. They just have to see that he is present in some way.

I think gnostics are like the child in your example. I think we all practice knowing, such as me typing on this keyboard. I know it exists and I know my actions of my fingers produce these letters on the screen.

I don't just believe. I know.

 

[chinu]

So if God never existed, would such a question be legitimate for theists? Atheists?

Please remove the word IF from your question so that I could answer to it

Is such a question legitimate for someone who identifies as neither atheist or theist?

If your definition of theists = theists are someone who are sure about God.
Then such question is NEVER legitimate.

If your definition of atheist = atheist are someone who aren't sure about God.
Then such question is simply like atheists asking question to atheists. NO question is Non-legitimate between them

 

[Quintessence]

It's pretty standard form to frame thing like this in philosophical discussions: you grant certain foundational assumptions so the discussion can move forward in a way that focuses on the intended question at hand. To spell it out with an example:

"If there are many gods, is the problem of evil still relevant?"

This makes clear that the discussion is not a debate about whether or not there are many gods. You, as a participant in the discussion, are supposed to grant for the moment that there are many gods and then consider the implications that has for the question posed. The framing isn't saying there are or aren't many gods in any definitive sense because that's not the point or intended focus of the conversation. It's "for the sake of discussion, assume this is the case" basically.

 

[chinu]

A child would say "I know my father and mother exist." Making a positive statement saying "there is" is the equivalent of saying that you know.

Gnostics don't necessarily have to have lost God. They just have to see that he is present in some way.

I think gnostics are like the child in your example. I think we all practice knowing, such as me typing on this keyboard. I know it exists and I know my actions of my fingers produce these letters on the screen.

I don't just believe. I know.

Child in my example have an end point of knowing.
Does gnostics have any end point of this knowing ?
If yes, what do you name it ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For example: IF God existed, then blah blah blah.

Does't such questions predetermine the non-existence of God, If anyone answer such question ?

Kinda trap loll.

No. It only expresses the fact that there is no conclusive / justified reason to believe a god exists.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Child in my example have an end point of knowing.
Does gnostics have any end point of this knowing ?
If yes, what do you name it ?

With regards to God, thing is that theists say they believe because they cannot know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please remove the word IF from your question so that I could answer to it

If your definition of theists = theists are someone who are sure about God.
Then such question is NEVER legitimate.

If your definition of atheist = atheist are someone who aren't sure about God.
Then such question is simply like atheists asking question to atheists. NO question is Non-legitimate between them

Sounds like you have emotional problems with the english language more then anything else.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

For example: IF God existed, then blah blah blah.

Does't such questions predetermine the non-existence of God, If anyone answer such question ?

Kinda trap loll.

When speaking with some theists, and not wanting to simply allow them the presupposition of God's existence (because there is no verifiable basis upon which to presuppose such), I like to offer up "Provided that God exists," as context for a post in which I am going to (for the sake of argument or discussion only) assume that God exists. This is much the same as "If God exists" - and BOTH methods (in my opinion) can establish that you are willing to suspend skepticism for the sake of the discussion in order to offer some point about the universe as it would seem with God actually in existence.

There is absolutely no good reason to simply assume that God exists. I know this entire thread is about you wanting to do just that... but I am quite sure you can't provide adequate justification for doing so. And your inability to provide such is precisely why there is no good reason.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If this is so,
Then any such question is legitimate for atheist asking to atheist, NOT theist.

Any such question is NOT legitimate for theists
Because theists DOES-NOT hypothetical the existence of God.
Rather, theist's are sure about God.

You speak for all theists now?

“Who among us has not experienced insecurity, loss and even doubts on their journey of faith?… We’ve all experienced this, me too.” – Pope Francis

 

[Nakosis]

For example: IF God existed, then blah blah blah.

Does't such questions predetermine the non-existence of God, If anyone answer such question ?

Kinda trap loll.

Neither supports or denies it. Funny thing though, If there is no God then nothing said about God, other than God is not there I suppose, is correct.

If God exists, blah, blah, blah... Whatever follows is based on non-information.

"If God exists, then my right big toe would be longer than my left big toe." That's about the extent of logic that can be used.

 

[oldbadger]

For example: IF God existed, then blah blah blah.

Does't such questions predetermine the non-existence of God, If anyone answer such question ?

Kinda trap loll.

Hello my good friend!
Hope you are well.

But 'no' to your question.
The word 'if' does not lead us to any place of certitude, it just offers the chance to propose ideas without contentious offence.

Example?

If an atheist might say to me, a Deist,
......... 'If there is a Deity how does this make a difference to you, a deist, in everyday life?'

My answer wins no debate for the atheist either way...... I just answer.

But if the atheist would ask:
....... 'seeing as there's no Deity, how come you think your strange belief can make a difference to you?'

That's contentious and confrontational..... and rude. !!

So I like the 'if' word.


On the side: Did you get where you wanted to go?

 

[QuestioningMind]

For example: IF God existed, then blah blah blah.

Does't such questions predetermine the non-existence of God, If anyone answer such question ?

Kinda trap loll.

What a silly notion. According to that logic when I say: IF it rains today then we won't go to the beach, I have somehow predetermined that it's going to rain.

 

[stvdv]

theist's are sure about God

Theist "think" they are sure about God. Big difference. They don't call it "Belief" for nothing.