Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
If they're no longer skeptical, then they are not skeptics.
-
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!
Let's Present Some Evidence ...
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
If they're no longer skeptical, then they are not skeptics.
PureX
Veteran Member
"Believe in" is one of those phrases we use, that's too vague to really mean anything. I believe my car is out in the driveway, but as I am not now looking at it, I can't be certain that it's there. Does this mean that I "believe in" my car?
What does it mean to "believe in" something? Does believing in something mean that I can no longer be skeptical, to any degree? And if I am allowed to be skeptical, what degree of skepticism will preclude me from "believing in" it?
What's the relationship between what I "believe in" and what I "know"?
I'd be happy to answer your question, but I need the question to be more specific.
Commoner
Headache
You're dodging the question, PureX. I wasn't asking you whether you believe in "god" or know it is real. I don't really care to have that discussion as I feel it's irrelevant - there is no "absolute knowledge" that any of us have available.
The question was (borrowing from your analogy): "Do you even know what "car" is?"
If you don't know what "car" is, how can you say anything about it at all - on either your "belief" or "knowledge" regarding it being in your driveway (existing)?
What is "god"?
Last edited:
Do you?
Commoner
Headache
I was asking regarding the specific topic of "god", the thing he is supposed to be presenting evidence for. I don't have a belief in a god, so I don't know how to answer that.
Other than that, yes - I can define/describe anything I believe in. How could I believe in it otherwise? What would I be believing in?
Last edited:
Bingo. Who's to say he doesn't know what he believes in?
If he answered your question, would you then have something to believe in? (I sincerely hope not.)
Commoner
Headache
I would at least have the notion of "I know what I mean by god, I just don't know how to express it" to believe/disbelieve.
It was really meant as a rethorical question, a sort of a plea for a bit of honest self-reflexion on PureX's part. I would not have accused him of dodging the question, had he not decided to miss the point entirely. I expect him to be able to define "god", especially since the entire purpose of this thread is for him to present evidence/arguments for the existence of this thing he believes in that he calls "god". And if he doesn't know how to describe it, at the very least I expect him to have a clear image of what he's presenting in his mind and not jump from concept to concept in order to keep his idea "alive" as he's been doing so far. Is that too much to ask?
Otherwise we'll just keep running in circles chasing PureX's "dynamic idea" as we've been for the last 150 pages and not really achieve anything.
Last edited:
Yeah, I caught the rhetoric that says (effectively) I don't understand, and I'm not hearing anything I can make sense of in what you say, so I wonder if you know what you're saying. But what he's saying and what you're hearing may be two entirely different things, and there is no requirement for them to align.I would at least have the notion of "I know what I mean by god, I just don't know how to express it" to believe/disbelieve.
It was really meant as a rethorical question, a sort of a plea for a bit of honest self-reflexion on PureX's part. I would not have accused him of dodging the question, had he not decided to miss the point entirely. I expect him to be able to define "god", especially since the entire purpose of this thread is for him to present evidence/arguments for the existence of this thing he believes in that he calls "god". And if he doesn't know how to describe it, at the very least I expect him to have a clear image of what he's presenting in his mind and not jump from concept to concept in order to keep his idea "alive" as he's been doing so far. Is that too much to ask?
Otherwise we'll just keep running in circles chasing PureX's "dynamic idea" as we've been for the last 150 pages and not really achieve anything.
I butted heads with PureX in my first months on this forum, and in that exchange I realized that that he's expressed a viewpoint, and that I've not been able to squeeze it into my view, doesn't mean his isn't an honest expression. People vary more than I'm sometimes willing to admit.
I also know the way in which that "what God is" can be the most impossible of questions for believers to define. If "God" is "the undefined," in any sense (such as where "the world" is the defined), then the expectation to define it will always be unfulfilled. It is possible to hold to this and have nothing to offer to others.
PureX
Veteran Member
I come with an artist's background. And I spent many an hour in college discussing the question; "what is art". And in the end all that come to be understood is that art is a process of investigation that questions everything, even itself. Art can't be defined because it is the process by which we question how we define things.
Yet art is "real". It's a real process involving "real" ideas being expressed through "real" mediums. Those mediums may be as different as the words on a page, the sounds from a musical instrument, the movements of a dancer, the illusions created by manipulating colors and lines on a flat surface, or the re-enactment of events on a stage. And every one of these instances will be different, by both design and intent.
Yet they are all examples of "art". And most all of us know it when we see it, even if we can't agree on when we're seeing it, or on it's meaning, quality, and purpose.
"God" is a lot like art. We can't define it, because it defines us. We can't describe it because it appears different every time we see it. We can't objectively qualify or quantify it. Yet almost all of us knows it when we experience it, even though we don't all experience it the same way.
God is mostly defined by it's mystery. That makes it very difficult to wrap our minds around, but that's just the way it is.
Yet art is "real". It's a real process involving "real" ideas being expressed through "real" mediums. Those mediums may be as different as the words on a page, the sounds from a musical instrument, the movements of a dancer, the illusions created by manipulating colors and lines on a flat surface, or the re-enactment of events on a stage. And every one of these instances will be different, by both design and intent.
Yet they are all examples of "art". And most all of us know it when we see it, even if we can't agree on when we're seeing it, or on it's meaning, quality, and purpose.
"God" is a lot like art. We can't define it, because it defines us. We can't describe it because it appears different every time we see it. We can't objectively qualify or quantify it. Yet almost all of us knows it when we experience it, even though we don't all experience it the same way.
God is mostly defined by it's mystery. That makes it very difficult to wrap our minds around, but that's just the way it is.
Commoner
Headache
See, there you go again, PureX.
Your mixing up different categories here. "Art" is an attribute or a process, but there is no actual "art" that exists as a distinct entity. Yes, we use it as a noun to say "this has the attribute we call art, therefore we call it art". No one is asking you to identify what counts as art and what does not. We are simply asking you to explain what you mean when you say "god". Just as you could explain art as "(the creation of) beautiful or significant things". Yes, the decision whether or not something is beautiful or significant and could therefore count as art is subjective, but the definition of "art" is not something mysterious - in fact, it's quite trivial.
I'll try this again: what do you mean when you say "god"?
If you think "god" is like "art", then can you really say you're talking about something that exists beyond the conceptual level? Then does "interesting" exist as well? Yes, things that are interesting ("thing od interest", if you will) do exist, but that's not "interesting" itself - "interesting" is purely conceptual, just as "art" is (not the actual things we determine to be art). Just because you can use something as a noun doesn't make it any more special and it does not make it "exist" any more than any other concept. That goes for all your favorite nouns - love, art, justice, etc...
If you're trying to say that god exists on that level - then I might agree. Of course, so do flying reindeer.
Your mixing up different categories here. "Art" is an attribute or a process, but there is no actual "art" that exists as a distinct entity. Yes, we use it as a noun to say "this has the attribute we call art, therefore we call it art". No one is asking you to identify what counts as art and what does not. We are simply asking you to explain what you mean when you say "god". Just as you could explain art as "(the creation of) beautiful or significant things". Yes, the decision whether or not something is beautiful or significant and could therefore count as art is subjective, but the definition of "art" is not something mysterious - in fact, it's quite trivial.
I'll try this again: what do you mean when you say "god"?
If you think "god" is like "art", then can you really say you're talking about something that exists beyond the conceptual level? Then does "interesting" exist as well? Yes, things that are interesting ("thing od interest", if you will) do exist, but that's not "interesting" itself - "interesting" is purely conceptual, just as "art" is (not the actual things we determine to be art). Just because you can use something as a noun doesn't make it any more special and it does not make it "exist" any more than any other concept. That goes for all your favorite nouns - love, art, justice, etc...
If you're trying to say that god exists on that level - then I might agree. Of course, so do flying reindeer.
Last edited:
Commoner
Headache
I agree, mostly. But I do not share your conclusion that it is possible to honestly believe in something without knowing what you believe in - at least to the point where you don't have to resort to using contradictory concepts to describe it. Otherwise I can safely say that you don't know what you believe in. :sorry1:
I think the difficulty in defining comes from the fact that the thing most "believers" actually believe in is a fairly trivial concept of a watchful alpha-male character in the sky, not some grand unknowable mystery as they might claim. They might not be fully aware of this and it might even be a completely unfair assumption on my part but I think it applies in this case.
Last edited:
Or, you firmly believe in "I don't know".
From my observation, just from people on this forum and people in my life, I would suggest that the guy-in-the-sky is less common. But that's admittedly a small sampling.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
In fact, it's quite probable that you don't have anything to offer others if you can't define what you believe.
Do you honestly think art doesn't exist? Or love?
Just being utilized as a noun qualifies a thing as "a distinct entity" (or, if you wish, "as if a distinct entity", effectively the same, as even the "really-real" nouns are utilized "as if" nouns) complete with characteristics, function and form. Art exists. Concepts exist. Flying reindeer are imaginary, not abstract, unless symbolized.
Definition isn't the problem. The problem is form.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Indeed - not being able to form a belief doesn't result in having much to offer others either.
Haha.
Not the "form" I expected, but true enough.
Commoner
Headache
Sure they do, just not on any level of existence one would have to present evidence for.
I agree, concepts exist, even "god". So what?
Unfortunatelly, we don't know what "god" is (at least the PureX god), so which characteristics does utilizing this noun give it? How is it distinct from anything else?
Last edited:
Commoner
Headache
Or, you firmly believe in "I don't know".
Possibly.
Well...I wasn't really suggesting they are necessarily aware of it. I just think that's what it boils down to - and all the major religions utilize this "weakness" to the fullest. But it's quite possible I'm wrong in this instance.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Reification Fallacy (from Wikipedia):
Reification (also known as hypostatisation, concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase "holds another's affection", is taken literally, affection would be reified.
Willamena, you should avoid trying to make linguistic arguments of this sort, because they make no sense. The question is whether "God" refers to a real concrete entity or an imaginary one. Is God "real" (like a human being) or purely imaginary (like a flying reindeer)?