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

[stvdv]

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.

I agree, if you put it that way "IF God existed" THEN it predetermines the non-existence of God (in this moment)
It also predetermines that God existed in the past. And because God is defined as Omni-present "If God existed" is wrong

 

[blü 2]

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.

On what other basis might a believer and a non-believer discuss the question?

 

[DKH]

Is using the word "IF" legitimate in front of "God's" question? For example: IF God existed, then blah blah blah. Doesn't such questions predetermine the non-existence of God, if anyone answer such question?

Yes, if an atheist, unbeliever, doubtful person or a believer in God was asking the question: If God existed, then…Because, using "if" in this case would be a conditional situation and shows uncertainty. So, one who believes and knows that God exists should not introduce such a conditional assumption, related to God's existence. Yet, for the believer to respond to such statements/questions would be appropriate and should be expected. The supplied rebuttal would not be labeled as accepting the non-existence of God. It actually would show the opposite, in my opinion…

 

[Trailblazer]

Hopeful?

No, sure.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

I know many who consider themselves theists that aren't sure about God. Also, there is not a clear definition of God among theists, so it doesn't follow that all theists are sure about God.

Also, I think you have confused the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic.'

 

[night912]

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 predetermine the existence of god in a hypothetical sense for the discussion. Once it is answered and the discussion has started, any replies are valid if it stays within the context. However, anything that is said in the discussion need not be true nor believe by the ones engaging.

That's why I think it's funny that some people, atheists and theists, start backing out of the discussion and/or treat it as a truth argument. It's nothing more than entertainment for the mind. It's funny to see those people automatically calling out fallacies, correcting the misrepresentation, thinking it's a trap and that even goes for the ones who asked that question. Some of them actually believe that they had sprung a real trap and even celebrate their victory thinking they've won the ultimate debate for the existence of god.

 

[Trailblazer]

Some of them actually believe that they had sprung a real trap and even celebrate their victory thinking they've won the ultimate debate for the existence of god.

And some if them, like that atheist on the other forum I was posting to who is so illogical, believe they have won the ultimate debate for the nonexistence of god. He believes that if God existed there would be no atheists based upon the premise that if God existed God would communicate directly to everyone in the world so everyone would believe in God. That argument is so full of holes it would sink a large ship. Can't get much more illogical than that as that is a classic argument from ignorance as well an argument by assertion because he asserts that is true regardless of contradiction.

 

[chinu]

On what other basis might a believer and a non-believer discuss the question?

The common thing between both believer and non-believer is believing.
believing, believing, believing, but not Sure.

Believer = the one who believe in the existence of God. But not yet sure.
Non-believer = the one who doesn't-believe in the existence of God. But not yet sure.

Both believer and non-believer are on the same boat. The only difference is that one is standing in the front and other one on the rear.

Like; the one believe there are dolphins ahead in the sea is standing at the front, but the another-one who don't is standing at the rear. Both believe, but NOT-Sure.

One becomes believer, or a non-believer POST-Discussion, Not PRE-Discussion.
Therefore, there's no need of any more discussion after POST-Discussion.
Any discussion after POST-Discussion will only lead to a fight, rather a discussion.

 

[chinu]

No, it predetermine the existence of god in a hypothetical sense for the discussion. Once it is answered and the discussion has started, any replies are valid if it stays within the context. However, anything that is said in the discussion need not be true nor believe by the ones engaging.

That's why I think it's funny that some people, atheists and theists, start backing out of the discussion and/or treat it as a truth argument. It's nothing more than entertainment for the mind. It's funny to see those people automatically calling out fallacies, correcting the misrepresentation, thinking it's a trap and that even goes for the ones who asked that question. Some of them actually believe that they had sprung a real trap and even celebrate their victory thinking they've won the ultimate debate for the existence of god.

Is God entertainment for you ?

 

[chinu]

I know many who consider themselves theists that aren't sure about God. Also, there is not a clear definition of God among theists, so it doesn't follow that all theists are sure about God.

Also, I think you have confused the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic.'

Agnostics are also NOT sure about God, I think.

Do care to tell what are Agnostics, and how are they sure ?

 

[Trailblazer]

Believer = the one who believe in the existence of God. But not yet sure.

I am sure.

 

[blü 2]

The common thing between both believer and non-believer is believing.
believing, believing, believing, but not Sure.
[...]
One becomes believer, or a non-believer POST-Discussion, Not PRE-Discussion.
Therefore, there's no need of any more discussion after POST-Discussion.
Any discussion after POST-Discussion will only lead to a fight, rather a discussion.

But many discussions between believer and non-believer compare views firmly held.

So it seems reasonable to me to say to a believer, "Assuming your God exists, and is omnipotent and good, how do you account for evil, and injustice, and just plain bad luck?" (A very old example, that one.)

Or for a believer to say to me, "Assuming no God exists, where do you say Good comes from?" (Ditto.)

 

[chinu]

I am sure.

But many discussions between believer and non-believer compare views firmly held.

So it seems reasonable to me to say to a believer, "Assuming your God exists, and is omnipotent and good, how do you account for evil, and injustice, and just plain bad luck?" (A very old example, that one.)

Or for a believer to say to me, "Assuming no God exists, where do you say Good comes from?" (Ditto.)

Why this is a very old example ?
Why both believers and non-believers aren't on No-conclusion yet ? just think.

Just because, they both are on the same boat
One on the front
Another one on the rear

They cannot quit the boat.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Agnostics are also NOT sure about God, I think.

Do care to tell what are Agnostics, and how are they sure ?

An agnostic is one that holds a view that nothing can be known about the qualities or existence of God.

An atheist is one who lacks belief in the existence of a God or gods.

 

[blü 2]

Why this is a very old example ?

The issue was raised (it is said) by Epicurus, who lived, let's say, 2,300 years ago. I mention him rather than earlier examples because the god he speaks of is expressly omnipotent and benevolent. The issue is also known as 'the problem of evil' or 'the problem of pain' and was much discussed by the Schoolmen in the 11th and 12th centuries. I'm sure there are very many other examples out there as well.

Why both believers and non-believers aren't on No-conclusion yet ? just think.

The non-believer is asserting, sometimes explicitly, that if God is omnipotent and benevolent then it's not possible for pain for undeserved pain to exist in the world. Therefore the existence of pain demonstrates at the least that if there's a god [he]'s not benevolent.

But that's a side issue.

The central issue is that the conversation gives a completely legitimate use of 'If there's a God ..' in a conversation between believer and non-believer.

Just because, they both are on the same boat

The question is not whether they're both alive in the world. The question is whether a real God exists in that world. Exactly as if the question were whether there's a real sasquatch in the world ─ it's a question of fact, not a question of whether you exist in the bow or the stern of reality.

 

[chinu]

An agnostic is one that holds a view that nothing can be known about the qualities or existence of God.

Why holding a view ? why NOT sure ?

Does holding a view makes something sure loll.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Why holding a view ? why NOT sure ?

Does holding a view makes something sure loll.

It depends on the person holding that view.

 

[chinu]

It depends on the person holding that view.

Holding a view is NOT = Sure.

Hence, there's NO difference between theists and agnostics

 

[SalixIncendium]

Holding a view is NOT = Sure.

Hence, there's NO difference between theists and agnostics

Are you sure that this is the view you hold?

 

[Valjean]

Holding a view is NOT = Sure.

Hence, there's NO difference between theists and agnostics

Huh?