Curious George
Veteran Member
Never mind you switched it again... I never said this. Formulate it right. Not goes before God
-
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!
The default position...
- Thread starter Deathbydefault
- Start date
- Status
Never mind you switched it again... I never said this. Formulate it right. Not goes before God
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
I'm still on the "Theism vs Everything Else" side.
I don't feel the need to forcefully classify people either way, but then again I just don't care.
I do feel that, by definition, I know where people are categorized, no consent required.
Don't care enough to convince anyone though, if you have such issues about this then get the definition of Atheist re-written.
I don't feel the need to forcefully classify people either way, but then again I just don't care.
I do feel that, by definition, I know where people are categorized, no consent required.
Don't care enough to convince anyone though, if you have such issues about this then get the definition of Atheist re-written.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Because (obviously) you either hold a certain belief, or you do not. There is no third position.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I didn't 'switch' anything. I am painfully aware that your entire position here depends on how you word it. You attempt to conjure a third possibility from a polarity by semantics alone.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
If there's no evidence to authenticate a claim or testimony, no one can know the Truth of it but the testifier. And if all the witnesses are dead or otherwise unavailable, they can't be cross examined--much to the relief of those who claim revealed certainty. Then there's the question, why wouldn't God, if It was going to reveal something, do it for everyone, everywhere, everytime, in every language so it couldn't be corrupted by fallible humans?
Yes, in court, sometimes we have to decide what is most likely the Truth, but in criminal cases, there can be no reasonable doubt--where as with divine revelation, there's nothing but doubt. Take a will as an example. The deceased-to-be signs it in person, with two witnesses, and it's executed by a person of his choosing. Now, imagine a person writing something and saying that this is God's will. Not signature or it's in the author's handwriting, all the "witnesses" validate each other even though they're 2000 years dead or 2000 years after-the-fact, some priest says God chose him as the executor. Any judge would throw it out, but in our cases, with revelation, we're the judges.
We do so where there's corroborating evidence, the declarant is credible and trustworthy, but most importantly of all, the situation demands a decision one way or another be made. When you're talking spirituality, you're betting your soul if you have one. Are you going to rely on rationality, or emotion based mostly on a long family tradition founded on 2000 years of what is most likely air and superstition.
Tradition without a foundation in some sort of reason is highly suspect. Why or how did it start? They mustn't be their own justification.
In large part because we rely on our emotions for our reactions. Look at all the godawful, complex moral codes we've come up with. Deuteronomy alone makes my eyes cross. But all we really need is a very simple one sentence code, honor the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense.
Like I say, it depends on the source.
Questioning the existence of God, at least a revealed God and It's revelations leads directly to questioning the religions founded on those revelations, with the existence of those revealed Gods being a near certain lie or some form of misinterpretation or indoctrination.
No, the claim is whether a God might or might not have created the universe. Neither position can claim any evidence, at least not at this time. That said, a claim that God revealed Itself or some information, does put the burden of proof on the claimant. A deist God is just as remote as no God.
No. "Does God Exist?" would be a proposition. "God does not exist" is a declaration. And in either case you would need to define what God is. I define God as all that there is, objective and subjective, the whole Truth. It may or may not be conscious. Lies, the inventions of sentient creatures alone, are not part of God (if It exists), since they are the absence of Truth.
Yes, but you can't change that by using slight-of-hand with the dictionary. If one doesn't believe or if one disbelieves in anything, it's the same position. The only qualifier is the degree of certainty with which one claims that he doesn't believe or disbelieves.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
No, it most certainly is not. The origin of the universe is a different topic entirely.
The degree of certainty is a different topic also.
You: God exists.
Me: No he doesn't.
You can't say: "Prove he doesn't." The burden of proof is on you not me. You made the original claim.
Or you hold the opposite belief.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sure, and of course you can not at the same time both hold, and not hold the same
What? How can you believe God neither does, nor does not exist?
You don't. Every "I" is a separate person.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Of course we are, all separate people - what are you trying to say?
My question was - How can a person (an individual, a 'seperate' person) neither believe nor disbelieve God exists?
Your wording is wrong. A person can believe God exists, he can believe God doesn't exist or he can be neutral and believe neither.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Yes, and we are talking about the same context here - the same claim; Does god exist?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
What do you mean by saying 'my wording is wrong'? No it isn't. A person who does not believe god exists is atheist. The 'neutral' position you identify is atheist.
Last edited:
The neutral "position" is "weak atheist". "Strong atheist" is not a neutral position.
Theist
Atheist
Theist
Weak atheist
Strong atheist
Both are correct.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Strong and weak atheism are both atheism, and exclude belief in God. Strong atheism is no different in terms of burden of proof or default than is 'weak' atheism. In fact I think dividing atheism into 'strong' and 'weak' is a tragically pointless and silly concept.
Then you simply want to ignore the difference between people who believe God doesn't exist and people who don't believe God doesn't exist.
By not knowing. For example, the standard model is based upon quantum field theory, in which the so-called "quantum field" is the central or fundamental component to the "standard" Lagrangian approach, but this would-be "entity" doesn't appear in algebraic QFT. Worse, even if one asserts that e.g., the Lagrangian approach in which the quantum field appears should be interpreted ontologically, we still find that not only do various entities "appear" or do not depending upon particular formulations, and that one of he central descriptions of their dynamics can be reformulated or interpreted epistemically.
More simply, do you believe that path integrals describe the actual paths of "particles" or not? Perhaps you have a strong belief about this, but a great many people whose field is particle physics or condensed matter physics of quantum field theory or whatever would assert that they neither believe that path integrals describe the real trajectories of particles, nor that they believe that path integrals do not. They simply do not know.
Agnosticism isn't just a religious perspective. People can be agnostic about many things, in that given some proposition P they neither believe that P is true nor believe that P is false. They don't know.
- Status