Reasons for the belief in no God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In regard to the first sentence: We can't include that in our definition because that presumes God's existence. If we include in our definition, "God is an object of human worship," then the conclusion of God's existence is imbedded in the definition. The definition then is reduced to a statement of belief, without rational foundation.

That depends entirely on how you approach the question.

One way of phrasing that requirement would be "if a particular thing is God, then it is an object of human worship". The logical corollary to this "if a particular thing is not an object of human worship, then it is not God". This allows us to exclude from our search for God all the things that are not objects of human worship, since we can be sure that they're not God.

In regard to the 2nd sent: No, what it implies is that a portion of humanity has had a belief in "God" entities since the dawn of recorded history, and most probably, far earlier. No doubt, millions of people believed they had "real knowledge" of Zeus and Pan, but that knowledge has been reduced to myth and legend for most rational thinking people of today.

What I meant is that for God to exist, there must also exist some group of people who have (or had) real knowledge of God. This means that to determine whether there is a God or not, we don't have to scour the entire universe for evidence; we only have to evaluate the claims of each religion through human history to see if they're derived from real knowledge.

Of course, this is still a huge task, but it's many times easier than looking through the entire universe for God.

 

[LuisDantas]

So knowledge of God is simply a matter of aesthetics?

No. Belief in God is.

I know nothing about knowledge of God, but then again this thread is about belief, not knowledge.

So if I pray for god to reveal itself to me, and shortly after I experience a revelation in which god is manifestly, and without doubt, the cause of the experience, then the revelation falls within the realm of aesthetics?

Who knows? By my understanding, you alone could tell.

I maintain, however, that your interpretation of the experience as being due to the existence of God - that is, your belief in God - is indeed a matter of your personal aesthetical inclination.

I disagree...

The experience may have been "beautiful," but I don't believe in the experience because it is so. My conception of beauty cannot be the cause of the experience. I don't believe in something's existence because it's beautiful; I must first accept the existence of that thing--even if imaginary--before I can think of it as beautiful.

Do you think I should reject the truth of my revelation of God as self-evidently true, and in its place accept your theory that my knowledge of God was merely an aesthetic choice?

I'm not claiming anything about what you should do, or even believe on. I'm just saying that your belief in the existence of God is a matter of aesthetics as opposed to (objective) fact.

Is your aesthetic opinion more powerful than the power of God?

I have no idea. How are we supposed to measure one against the other? For all I know there is no God.

Maybe if he does exist and decided to speak to me I will change my understanding of things, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

This is all hypothetical, of course, with my revelation.

Well, everything is possible with a concept that is both unproven and explicitly beyond normal limitations of nature and logic, isn't it?

 

[WanderingSoul]

That depends entirely on how you approach the question.

One way of phrasing that requirement would be "if a particular thing is God, then it is an object of human worship". The logical corollary to this "if a particular thing is not an object of human worship, then it is not God". This allows us to exclude from our search for God all the things that are not objects of human worship, since we can be sure that they're not God.

What I meant is that for God to exist, there must also exist some group of people who have (or had) real knowledge of God. This means that to determine whether there is a God or not, we don't have to scour the entire universe for evidence; we only have to evaluate the claims of each religion through human history to see if they're derived from real knowledge.

Of course, this is still a huge task, but it's many times easier than looking through the entire universe for God.

I have to be forthright and tell you, that strikes me as complete nonsense. I'm sorry if that sounds crass, but I feel the need to be honest. I do appreciate your taking the time to respond, however.

Your whole argument relies too heavily on circular reasoning. In the second paragraph above you declare that,

"...for God to exist, there must also exist some group of people who have (or had) real knowledge of God."

Literally interpreted, that's nonsense. There's no known law that declares that before a supreme being can exist that humans must have had "real knowledge" of that existence. Not to mention the fact, humans came long after God's alleged existence in eternity, and so could not have had real knowledge of God's existence before God existed.

And the part where you say, ""if a particular thing is God, then it is an object of human worship," is circular reasoning. You even complete the circular reasoning in the same paragraph with, ""if a particular thing is not an object of human worship, then it is not God."

Also, respectfully, I tell you, that periods go inside the quotation marks, as does most punctuation, though not at all times.

 

[PolyHedral]

Literally interpreted, that's nonsense. There's no known law that declares that before a supreme being can exist that humans must have had "real knowledge" of that existence.

Actually, there is; His specific definition of what a god is is that law. Things can exist perfectly well, but they don't become gods specifically until humans know about them. It's an unconventional meaning of "God", but his argument is valid.

 

[Willamena]

Literally interpreted, that's nonsense.

As an aside, I'd like to point out that it's not that it's taken literally that makes it nonsense, but that it's taken out of context.

 

[WanderingSoul]

Actually, there is; His specific definition of what a god is is that law. Things can exist perfectly well, but they don't become gods specifically until humans know about them. It's an unconventional meaning of "God", but his argument is valid.

Unfortunately his definition presumes God's existence. I can't debate with someone who works like that; what's the point?

So are you saying that if there has existed one God in actuality, then that god did "not become a god" before humans called it so? How can that be a rational foundation for any argument for or against God?

Just for kicks, I ask, if there were other life forms "out there" worshiping the true God, must that God wait upon our existence to be God? Is it that you place humanity above all other possible life-forms in the universe, and above God itself?

And his argument is not valid, as you suggest, because as I pointed out for all and any, he has resorted to blatant circular reasoning.

I feel this is personal. Who could defend such a position if it wasn't?

 

[PolyHedral]

Unfortunately his definition presumes God's existence. I can't debate with someone who works like that; what's the point?

It does nothing of the sort. Just because he has provided a criteria for whether a given entity is God, doesn't mean that there exists an entity that matches that criteria.

So are you saying that if there has existed one God in actuality, then that god did "not become a god" before humans called it so? How can that be a rational foundation for any argument for or against God?

Yes. Because I'm operating off 9/10th's definition of God.

For God in the general sense, I have no idea.

Just for kicks, I ask, if there were other life forms "out there" worshiping the true God, must that God wait upon our existence to be God? Is it that you place humanity above all other possible life-forms in the universe, and above God itself?

Yes. Because I'm using an arbitrarily-defined measure of what a god is.

 

[WanderingSoul]

It does nothing of the sort. Just because he has provided a criteria for whether a given entity is God, doesn't mean that there exists an entity that matches that criteria.

Yes. Because I'm operating off 9/10th's definition of God.

For God in the general sense, I have no idea.


Yes. Because I'm using an arbitrarily-defined measure of what a god is.

Here's what he said: One way of phrasing that requirement would be "if a particular thing is God, then it is an object of human worship". The logical corollary to this "if a particular thing is not an object of human worship, then it is not God". This allows us to exclude from our search for God all the things that are not objects of human worship, since we can be sure that they're not God.

He wants to define God as any particular thing that has been "an object of worship"; and anything that is "not an object of human worship" to be something other than God.

That is a defintion with circular reasoning built in, and which presumes God to be anything that has been "an object of worship." He has offered no qualifying criteria to that definition; any particular thing that has been worshiped is to be considered "God." In the next line his says that this "This allows us to exclude from our search for God all the things that are not objects of human worship, since we can be sure that they're not God."

This is not an objective search for God, but merely a tautological statement of belief by that poster. His circular-reasoned definition excludes anything that has not been worshiped by man to be something other than God.

Got it?

And...I ...have...no idea what you mean by 9/10ths definition of God. I really don't. Is this to suggest that your knowledge of the god you are not sure exists is 9/10's complete? And which God are you talking about? According to the poster, any particular thing that has been worshiped is "God." Maybe you can clarify these points.

And, honestly, that last remark, "..arbitrarily-defined measure of what a god is" makes no sense to me. Why would a God worshiped elsewhere in the universe have to wait upon your arbitrariness? Does God have to check in with you before it can be worshiped? And humorously, you say are measuring God arbitrarily; yet just a few lines earlier you have defined God to 9/10ths perfection.:yes:

I really feel you and I may have reached the limits of this discussion. What do you think?

 

[WanderingSoul]

I maintain, however, that your interpretation of the experience as being due to the existence of God - that is, your belief in God - is indeed a matter of your personal aesthetical inclination.[A clip from LuisDantas]

But I have to disagree with that

Definition of revelation: God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.

Are you saying that my aesthetic inclinations caused that divinely inspired revelation? What if I were deaf, blind and dumb? Am I beyond the reach of a supreme being because of my hampered aesthetic understanding?

Clearly, my aesthetic understanding can't be the cause of a revelatory experience, because by definition, such an event is divinely caused.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have to be forthright and tell you, that strikes me as complete nonsense. I'm sorry if that sounds crass, but I feel the need to be honest. I do appreciate your taking the time to respond, however.

Your whole argument relies too heavily on circular reasoning. In the second paragraph above you declare that,

"...for God to exist, there must also exist some group of people who have (or had) real knowledge of God."

Literally interpreted, that's nonsense. There's no known law that declares that before a supreme being can exist that humans must have had "real knowledge" of that existence.

But are you saying that a "supreme being" that nobody has ever known about would be "God"?

How do you define "God"?

Not to mention the fact, humans came long after God's alleged existence in eternity, and so could not have had real knowledge of God's existence before God existed.

Right... so until that point, God, if he exists, was not God.

Here's an analogy that I've used before: say you're walking along the beach and you find a tangle of dried seaweed that's just the right shape for you to wear on your head. Is it a hat?

Once you start wearing it, sure. But before that, it was not being used as a hat and had not been manufactured to be a hat, so it was not a hat.

And the part where you say, ""if a particular thing is God, then it is an object of human worship," is circular reasoning. You even complete the circular reasoning in the same paragraph with, ""if a particular thing is not an object of human worship, then it is not God."

No, it's not circular reasoning; it's an assertion. There's nothing circular about it. It doesn't rely on itself; it relies on the definition for God that I've given axiomatically.

Also, respectfully, I tell you, that periods go inside the quotation marks, as does most punctuation, though not at all times.

Yeah, I messed a few of those up.

 

[McBell]

But I have to disagree with that

Definition of revelation: God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.

Are you saying that my aesthetic inclinations caused that divinely inspired revelation? What if I were deaf, blind and dumb? Am I beyond the reach of a supreme being because of my hampered aesthetic understanding?

Clearly, my aesthetic understanding can't be the cause of a revelatory experience, because by definition, such an event is divinely caused.

Seems to me that your definition of revelation assumes the existence of god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And...I ...have...no idea what you mean by 9/10ths definition of God. I really don't. Is this to suggest that your knowledge of the god you are not sure exists is 9/10's complete?

I think he means the definition given by me, 9-10ths_Penguin. Sometimes people call me "9/10ths" for short.

 

[Meow Mix]

I think he means the definition given by me, 9-10ths_Penguin. Sometimes people call me "9/10ths" for short.

I call you slave! Now make me a sammich! :flirt:

 

[genenuega]

God works in mysterious ways beyond human comprehension... this is from my experience.

 

[McBell]

God works in mysterious ways beyond human comprehension... this is from my experience.

Yes, his ways are so mysterious it is as though he was never there.....

 

[LuisDantas]

But I have to disagree with that

And that is certainly your rightful privilege... as is mine to disagree in turn.

Definition of revelation: God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.

Are you saying that my aesthetic inclinations caused that divinely inspired revelation?

You can say so. Whatever you experienced, you interpreted it as of divine origin because it suits your manner of thinking and perceiving things. It is quite ok, as long as people understand that not everyone is like that.

What if I were deaf, blind and dumb? Am I beyond the reach of a supreme being because of my hampered aesthetic understanding?

I don't see a relation. In the sense that I am using the word, aesthetics don't necessarily relate to sensorial input.

For all I know, senses deprivation may lead to a sublime experience of God. It still doesn't say anything about whether God actually exists, however.

Clearly, my aesthetic understanding can't be the cause of a revelatory experience, because by definition, such an event is divinely caused.

If you choose to define it that way, then of course yes. But it is very hard to arrive at any conclusion on whether they really exist or are only convincing instead.

 

[cottage]

What are your reasons for believing that there is no God? I don't want you to prove a negative, I want you to give me a reasonable argument that shows there is not logical possibility for God.

Do we need reasons for disbelieving in God, other than there being no compelling reason to believe that there is a God?

And God is logically possible, by the way.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

where the hell did Subby go anyway?

 

[McBell]

where the hell did Subby go anyway?

I do not know.
However, if memory serves, subby will get on and make several posts and then be off for a while, get on make several posts and be off for a while.

Don't give up on him.
I have no doubt that he will be back.
it just seems to me that he doe snot have consistent access at this time.

 

[WanderingSoul]

Seems to me that your definition of revelation assumes the existence of god.

A true revelation of God--assuming such a event can occur--would have to be the conscious realization of God's existence as self-evident truth, because a revelation is a divinely caused miracle for which there could be no logical proof.

The knowledge of God attained would not come from any presumed existence of God in any definition, but via a divinely caused event in which knowledge of God is attained.

There is no presumption, only a realization. Don't you ever read the paper?