What is Proof of Gods existence to you?

[Prana Pastime]

Pretty much the atheist demands proof from the theist, then dismisses any proof the theist presents because it doesn't fit with their preconceptions. Then the reverse happens but because the atheist defines themselves by "lack of belief" (whilst implictly accepting that naturalism is the default position and self-evidently the nature of reality), they have no burden of proof. Whilst professing scepticism, the possibility of deism as based on reason and observation of nature is not considered.

Because I'm a materialist, I'm coming from the opposite direction that naturalism is not self-evident and I keep ending up on the wrong side of this inspite of being an atheist because I do believe there is a burden of proof even as I struggle to define it.

I voted other in the poll. I like this forum but I realize it was made and talked on long ago. I wish I hadn't been so far behind in time on this one. I was almost atheist
at one point in time. What proof of God? I don't like the word God. I feel as though there is a transcendant "thing" but its more like a "not-thing" if that makes any
sense. You may not be able to deem it an entity because its always coming to be or dissolving apart so in that sense its not a thing. A creature like a human is an open system( energy goes in and energy goes out). Where in the universe is there not a system like that?( I ask because I'm really not sure). Even the universe is
expanding because of an energy ( a constant is being pumped in continually so to speak), dark energy fills empty space. The proof I think is in un-explainables.
Time is a big one. Does it even exist?? Time I feel started with sun dials measuring shadows but if you go off the earth planet the sun is eternally risen. How do you
measure time?, its like an arbitrary choice. You could look at atoms and rates of decay but you are merely randomly selecting a variety to compare to another. Like
why select a proton over a muon(?) or whatever it might be. It would just be an agreed upon standard candle, so its a choice(seemingly). There was a scientist
recently that released a book called the Mathematical Universe. This person feels that math isn't just a part of reality but that its the only thing, the universe is a
mathematical object. He has two conclusions from his thought. One is reality is a mega-simulation and were in a program( like that movie The Matrix) but the computer or whatever you would call it is not in this reality but somewhere else. Two the Universe is gigantic enough that its actually a Multiverse. In the second
conclusion there are infinite copies of you. Which copy you are ( "actually") has everything to do with a quantum theory that hasn't come to total completion yet.
The quantum theories of the world we have now work well but they leave out gravity and of course Consciousness. So I believe but my conceptions have become
more pagan like as my life has progressed. Right now Buddhist concepts and Hindu concepts explain the most to me but that doesn't mean it couldn't change. With
the information out there right now I stick with my vote of other.

 

[Laika]

I voted other in the poll. I like this forum but I realize it was made and talked on long ago. I wish I hadn't been so far behind in time on this one.

no worries. the admins are pretty lenient here and fairly hands off. its remarkable that it works given that we're debating religion on RF. if you find a thread and think you got something you feel is worth adding to it, its ok to do that.

 

[dogfishparisi]

My apologies, I meant to say "post", not poster. Let's grant to assertions you've made:
1) "Scripture repeatedly tells us God is beyond human understanding"
2) "scripture can be understood by humans to learn about the lessons contained therein"

If we grant these two propositions/claims, then necessarily scripture can be understood and if it is correct than we can't understand god. That is, granting these propositions and the veracity of scripture, god cannot be understood through scripture or through any other means. Hence this:

is largely meaningless. The depth of our understanding, according to scripture, is (granting your assertion) necessarily and fundamentally limited. Increasing our understanding can easily mean nothing more than the realization that we cannot increase our understanding beyond the recognition of our fundamental inability to understand. Certainly, if scripture "repeatedly tells us God is beyond human understanding", then this is the most significant fact regarding god that we can know from scripture, as whatever understanding we might gain from it or from anything else (granting the scripture does indeed tell us this and is correct), we will fundamentally lack the capacity to understand god, and scripture cannot inform us regarding the nature of god beyond that this nature is exceeds our ability to comprehend.

We can choose any subject- math, physics, literature, art, and spend our entire lives studying only to fall short of a complete and total understanding. That's just reality. God is no different. We can never stop learning on any topic if we desire to learn more. Just because we will never know it all doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to learn.
And scripture contains much more than just information about God.

 

[Unification]

Justin Martyr didn't use the words atheism or atheist. The word atheos didn't indicate belief or disbelief in gods. You're relying on a translation and the new atheist anti-intellectual betrayal of atheism to misuse a word despite your own previous statements about the consistency of your usage of with dictionaries and common usage (not a few popular authors who try to duck out of making any intellectually honest argument by defining terms to make themselves correct and then insisting these are somehow necessary meanings of the terms they misuse).


Except insofar as you have quoted Justin Martyr as saying something he COULDN'T have meant. Hence "...In such an environment atheism was simply unthinkable. The term atheos did not originate before the fifth century and even then indicated only a lack of relations with the gods." (emphasis added)
Bremmer, J. (1994). Greek Religion (Greece & Rome No. 24). Oxford University Press.

And I notice you have continued to define atheism in contradiction to dictionary definitions and usage (as far as usage is concerned, you have the new atheism-i.e., a couple of authors- and I have the largest and best corpora of the English language. Which is more likely to reflect usage? A few authors or a balanced sample from spoke and written use of the English language in corpora that include American English, British English, Web-based English, historical English, and more?

New Age Atheism?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We can choose any subject- math, physics, literature, art, and spend our entire lives studying only to fall short of a complete and total understanding.

For none of these are the texts do we find any that are not only claimed to be inspired or infallible, but to be quintessential and essential to the topic. If a mathematician says we will never understand math, it means nothing. Even Heisenberg's uncertainty principle doesn't represent an epistemic barrier to understanding physics (just the state of physical systems), nor does it matter if any physicist says we can't ever completely understand physics. But when texts inspired by God (or believed to be) say we can't understand God, then there must exist a defining component to God that makes understanding God impossible. We can precisely determine indeterminacy in numerous subjects and the limits to understanding to others are non-specific and cannot be shown to even exist. For example, I frequently (albeit jokingly) define poetry such that it must have been written by an author from the UK and that it died with Auden. There is nothing, however, that necessitates this being wrong (despite the fact that even I think it is). Math, physics, literature, art, etc., are not entities that inform us they are beyond our understanding in ways we cannot even comprehend.

We can never stop learning on any topic if we desire to learn more.

This doesn't imply an impossibility of understanding. Particularly as understanding becomes incredibly simpler when we stand on the shoulder's of giants. An average student in an average elementary calculus course is able to solve problems that Newton, Leibniz, Laplace, Euler, Fourier, etc., couldn't. The average mathematics major just beginning her or his graduate mathematics career understands vastly more than any mathematician from Newton through Cantor possibly could. In other words, what took centuries and the greatest minds to accomplish can now be understood in a few years.

 

[ether-ore]

How do you define God?

I define God by saying that He is our Father in Heaven. Our Father in Heaven has given His Son, Jesus Christ, sole proprietorship over the creation of this heaven and this earth and the judgment of events that take place on it. Jesus Christ is the only God to whom we are answerable since He has said that no one can come to the Father except through Him. I believe that our Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and bone and while His influence is everywhere felt, He Himself occupies space in a specific location. Jesus Christ, now resurrected, also has a body of flesh and bone. The third member of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost, is as yet a personage of spirit so that He can whisper to our minds His testimony of the Father and the Son. Aside from the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, we are to live by faith on the testimony of scripture as a part of this mortal test.

I define God the Father as such because I believe we literally are His spirit children. I define 'spirit' as matter from a scriptural reference, but can give it no more clarification other than to say it is matter so refined that we cannot detect it with our senses. So that becomes a matter of faith. No pun intended.

For clarification (if it can be accepted as such), I wish to add that I believe that we are eternal beings. That you and I, all of us who exist, have always existed without beginning and that we will always exist without end, except that our estates may be different. Because of this, I believe that free agency is our natural condition. If we were created, we could do nothing but what we were created to do. As eternal Intelligences, we, by using that agency, agreed to become God's children so as to have the opportunity to progress. The course of this progression has brought us here to mortality to gain a physical body (something we never had before and could not gain by any effort of our own) as well as to learn to control its inherent lusts and appetites. God, who's laws are as eternal as He is and which He Himself abides and which have been in force on other of His creations before this earth and are therefore objective since they apply in all places at all times, are given to benefit us in our progression. Our behavior relative to these laws will determine, on the day of judgment, our estate after this life is over. Judgment is postponed until the day of judgment so that we can gain experience (pain and suffering included) as a consequence of our own actions, both collectively and individually.

So, I define God as a being who is attempting to help His children in their progression without violating their agency.

 

[Bunyip]

New Age Atheism?

LOL Just 'atheism'. It is a common usage, popularised by many well known authors and as old as the church itself. I'm afraid that the member dismissing it (and myself) as a misuse had not thought through his objection.

If in future you ever see somebody dismiss anything somebody else has said in English, on the grounds that they can not speak ancient Greek - you can just assume that person is not thinking straight.

 

[Bunyip]

1) None applied Justin Martyr's usage.
2) We can marshal more examples of usage like yours by using this site. What we find, though, are almost entirely atheists of a particular type (new atheists or influenced by them) who prefer to abandon the intellectual integrity of their forebears by defining themselves to be the "default" position rather than defending/arguing for their position. What we won't find is that this is consistent with "usage" outside of such small circles. And what we certainly don't find is any evidence for your claim that your usage is consistent with dictionary definitions rather than wholly inconsistent (as it is).


They "dared" to use idiomatic definitions instead of intellectual arguments. How courageous. Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Russell, Gould, etc., were all moronic cowards compared to Hitchens and you.

Love that got three likes for the most utterly misguided rebuttal since 'yeah, but what am I?'
Sooooo......the New Atheists are 'abandoning the intellectual integrity of their forebears by defining themselves to be the default' are they? And using 'atheist' as an adjective, which you can not find listed as a usage (love that you imagine you have a dictionary that lists usages comprehensively) in your dictionary and thus dismiss as a misuse?

So much for logic.

 

[Unification]

LOL Just 'atheism'. It is a common usage, popularised by many well known authors and as old as the church itself. I'm afraid that the member dismissing it (and myself) as a misuse had not thought through his objection.

If in future you ever see somebody dismiss anything somebody else has said in English, on the grounds that they can not speak ancient Greek - you can just assume that person is not thinking straight.

Lol, I hear you buddy. No assumptions. Some sarcasm in a heavy politically correct environment.

 

[Bunyip]

Lol, I hear you buddy. No assumptions. Some sarcasm in a heavy politically correct environment.

Cheers mate.

 

[Shad]

Love that got three likes for the most utterly misguided rebuttal since 'yeah, but what am I?'
Sooooo......the New Atheists are 'abandoning the intellectual integrity of their forebears by defining themselves to be the default' are they? And using 'atheist' as an adjective, which you can not find listed as a usage (love that you imagine you have a dictionary that lists usages comprehensively) in your dictionary and thus dismiss as a misuse?

So much for logic.

The issue is that many "New Atheists" are "attacking/criticizing" religion from a social perspective. Dawkins is an example of this. If you look at his work a lot is about traditions, social interactions and education. He rarely discusses the philosophical side of theism. It is the same type of arguments used against atheism when people bring up China or Communist Russia. Since they are not using philosophy as a basis many now redefining atheism based on the work by people that have no expertise in philosophy. This creates a pop-culture definition which Legion and I have argued against. Just because Dawkins defines atheism in a certain way does not mean he is correct. A popular definition does not mean a correct one regardless of the popularity of the authors

 

[Bunyip]

The issue is that many "New Atheists" are "attacking/criticizing" religion from a social perspective.

How is that the issue? It is not the topic here, so in what way is that the issue? And what would that have to do with their employing the same usage of 'atheist' as Dawkins et all did?

Dawkins is an example of this. If you look at his work a lot is about traditions, social interactions and education. He rarely discusses the philosophical side of theism.

Well why would he need to?He can write about whatever he wants - what has it got to do with proof of god?

It is the same type of arguments used against atheism when people bring up China or Communist Russia. Since they are not using philosophy as a basis many now redefining atheism based on the work by people that have no expertise in philosophy.

So what? Few theists are trained in philosophy - how is it relevant?

This creates a pop-culture definition which Legion and I have argued against.

Pop culture definition? It is as old as the church itself.

Just because Dawkins defines atheism in a certain way does not mean he is correct.

Of course it does - it is an ancient usage, and would be acceptable even if it were not and Dawkins invented it.

A popular definition does not mean a correct one regardless of the popularity of the authors

Of course it does, dictionaries record USAGES, they do not define words. Trying to dismiss a usage as you and Legion are doing on the grounds that it is modern is a demonstration of a catastrophic failure in your understanding of how language works.

It is an accepted usage, and has been for nearly 2000 years. How it makes sense to you to dismiss it because you don't like Dawkins I can only imagine.

My tip would be - next time you come across a usage you are not familiar with, just roll with it. That is how living languages work.

I imagine Dawkins does not take a philosophical approach as often as you would prefer, because it does not provide useful evidence. And he is a scientist. Buddy, there is no right definition of atheism, there is no universally accepted correct definition - just lots of different usages over time, attacking a usage because you think it is 'pop culture' is just absurd.

 

[Shad]

How is that the issue?

The issue is people with no background in the relevant field theism falls under are making up their own definitions. Definition which become pop-culture but assumed to be factual definations.

It is not the topic here, so in what way is that the issue?

No it is not. However you are entertaining/responding to Legion and arguing against his views. So if you wanted to play the "off-topic card, you could of awhile ago.

And what would that have to do with their employing the same usage of 'atheist' as Dawkins et all did?

It is an incorrect definition is some cases made by an unqualified person.

Well why would he need to?He can write about whatever he wants - what has it got to do with proof of god?

Again you were responding to Legions points. It is kind of late to play the off-topic card.

So what? Few theists are trained in philosophy - how is it relevant?

It means most people parrot what they hear. Kinda of like people parroting Aquinas' 5 ways without realizing 3 are the same argument rehashed. They lack an education in the relevant field yet believe with certainty in something they are ignorant of.

Pop culture definition? It is as old as the church itself.

Implicit/explicit definitions are only a few decades out as is strong/weak.

Of course it does - it is an ancient usage, and would be acceptable even if it were not and Dawkins invented it.

No it is not. Even atheism as rejection of theism is only a few centuries old.

Of course it does, dictionaries record USAGES, they do not define words. Trying to dismiss a usage as you and Legion are doing on the grounds that it is modern is a demonstration of a catastrophic failure in your understanding of how language works.

Some dictionaries are crap. Some have competing definitions. Such as lack of vs rejection or disbelief. Do you accept the urban dictionaries definition of all it's words? Do you accept it as an authority for English? Usages does not mean it is correct. For example if I start calling a dog a cat this does not mean my usage is correct. Go look up the common slang word for gay. You will rarely find it's usage in a dictionary.

It is an accepted usage, and has been for nearly 2000 years. How it makes sense to you to dismiss it because you don't like Dawkins I can only imagine.

Nope, the definition started around the 1600-1700s

My tip would be - next time you come across a usage you are not familiar with, just roll with it. That is how living languages work.

No its how people that do not have a proper education uses words. This does not mean their definition is correct. It is why people are taught spelling and grammar.

I imagine Dawkins does not take a philosophical approach as often as you would prefer, because it does not provide useful evidence.

Philosophy provide the soundest arguments against theism. It pushes theism into an irrational position. Pointing out social ills of religion does not refutes theism.

And he is a scientist. Buddy, there is no right definition of atheism, there is no universally accepted correct definition - just lots of different usages over time, attacking a usage because you think it is 'pop culture' is just absurd.

It is pop-culture since the people using these definition are popular figures not scholarly figures. Using Dawkin's definitions is a fallacious argument from authority since he does not have a single degree in linguistics nor philosophy. It is no better than creationist quoting scientists which reject evolution while the majority they cite have no education in any field evolution covers. Usage does not mean correct, it just shows people do not have a firm grasp on the language they use.

 

[Shad]

For Atheists: How do you define God?What would convince you theists were right? could you be convinced?

I do not define God as I do not believe in God. There is no reason for me defining something I do not believe in. I let the theist define God since it is their belief.

I have no need to convince a theist I am right as I am rejecting their claim since it fails to meet the burden of proof or provide a rational reason for accepting the claim as true. I can point out fallacious reasoning or flawed claims of evidence but theists must be open, and educated, to the idea they are wrong or are using fallacious reasons. I find that many theists are incapable of either as many are gnostic rather than agnostic.

I could be if provided with empirical evidence or a rational argument. I have to see neither.

 

[dogfishparisi]

I do not define God as I do not believe in God. There is no reason for me defining something I do not believe in. I let the theist define God since it is their belief.

I have no need to convince a theist I am right as I am rejecting their claim since it fails to meet the burden of proof or provide a rational reason for accepting the claim as true. I can point out fallacious reasoning or flawed claims of evidence but theists must be open, and educated, to the idea they are wrong or are using fallacious reasons. I find that many theists are incapable of either as many are gnostic rather than agnostic.

I could be if provided with empirical evidence or a rational argument. I have to see neither.

I can respect your position completely. I am a person of faith yet I must concede that I could be wrong- rationally I understand this, but on a deep visceral level I feel convinced...

 

[Shad]

I can respect your position completely. I am a person of faith yet I must concede that I could be wrong- rationally I understand this, but on a deep visceral level I feel convinced...

The major issue I see is that being convinced often becomes a claim of knowledge which can not be false in order to be knowledge.This need not apply to any particular view. This is just how humans think. Inductive logic becomes a universal and is often confused for deductive logic.

 

[Bunyip]

The issue is people with no background in the relevant field theism falls under are making up their own definitions. Definition which become pop-culture but assumed to be factual definations.

As I said, but you must have skimmed my post - it is a usage as old as the church itself, and a USAGE - not a definition. There is no such thing as a 'pop culture definition of atheism'. This is about a USAGE as old as the church. By the way Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and the others I identified who have employed the usage I did do have backgrounds in the relevant fields anyway.

No it is not. However you are entertaining/responding to Legion and arguing against his views. So if you wanted to play the "off-topic card, you could of awhile ago.




It is an incorrect definition is some cases made by an unqualified person.

It is not a definition at all. Are you even reading before you respond? It is a USAGE first found in Justin Martyr in the 2nd century. It also appears in many of the most popular and best selling books on theology in modern times.

Again you were responding to Legions points. It is kind of late to play the off-topic card.




It means most people parrot what they hear. Kinda of like people parroting Aquinas' 5 ways without realizing 3 are the same argument rehashed. They lack an education in the relevant field yet believe with certainty in something they are ignorant of.



Implicit/explicit definitions are only a few decades out as is strong/weak.



No it is not. Even atheism as rejection of theism is only a few centuries old.



Some dictionaries are crap. Some have competing definitions. Such as lack of vs rejection or disbelief. Do you accept the urban dictionaries definition of all it's words? Do you accept it as an authority for English? Usages does not mean it is correct. For example if I start calling a dog a cat this does not mean my usage is correct. Go look up the common slang word for gay. You will rarely find it's usage in a dictionary.



Nope, the definition started around the 1600-1700s

You keep repeating 'definition', not usage - please re-read the thread.

No its how people that do not have a proper education uses words. This does not mean their definition is correct. It is why people are taught spelling and grammar.

Definition again huh? Stuck on that little mistake aren't you?

Philosophy provide the soundest arguments against theism. It pushes theism into an irrational position. Pointing out social ills of religion does not refutes theism.




It is pop-culture since the people using these definition are popular figures not scholarly figures. Using Dawkin's definitions is a fallacious argument from authority since he does not have a single degree in linguistics nor philosophy.

Wow! You're kidding right? Dawkins is not a scholar? And of course he gave no such definition, although you seem stuck on that.

It is no better than creationist quoting scientists which reject evolution while the majority they cite have no education in any field evolution covers. Usage does not mean correct, it just shows people do not have a firm grasp on the language they use.

Sheesh mate, that was just terrible. Please re-read the thread.

 

[Bunyip]

Shad

Seriously mate, criticizing somebody in a discussion for employing a usage as old as the church itself and popularised in many recent books and articles on the basis that it is a 'pop culture definition' and therefore wrong is just ridiculous.
If that is all you have, go back to the drawing board.

Just FYI, here is Justin Martyr from the first apology to the Emperor Augustus (2nd century);
"Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. "

Which as you can see is the same usage I employed. Here it is in Stephen Roberts famous quote;
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

It has been similarly applied by Dawkins;
"Modern theists might acknowledge that, when it comes to Baal and the Golden Calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." (Dawkins 2004, 150)

Krauss, Harris, Hitchens and many, many others employ the same usage. Dismissing it on the basis that the most successful scientists, authors and thinkers of our time don't know what they are talking about is just silly.

 

[Shad]

As I said, but you must have skimmed my post - it is a usage as old as the church itself, and a USAGE - not a definition.

Not really. It was not uses as a rejection of all claims of God but rejection of state sanctioned gods such in the case for both Romans and Christians. For the Greek it was about naturalism not belief.

There is no such thing as a 'pop culture definition of atheism'.

Yes there is. It is the definition in which a person does not hold a belief while having no knowledge of the concept. This use to be form agnostic. Agnostic use to be the middle-ground. Now it has been relabeled but has no argument supporting this reliable as per Flew's own work.

By the way Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and the others I identified who have employed the usage I did do have backgrounds in the relevant fields anyway.

Harris is the only one with a degree in philosophy. Dawkins does not have one, neither does Hitchens.

It is a USAGE first found in Justin Martyr in the 2nd century.

No he was arguing against the state sponsored version religions of which Christianity was not one of. This brought charges against of being against the state, treason. He then goes on to shoehorn every other religion and God, that he does not accept, as not being Gods. So all he has done is argue against state sanctions then put forward his own sanctions from a Christian perspective.

Read chapters 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 56, 57, 58, 62, and 74

 

[Bunyip]

Not really. It was not uses as a rejection of all claims of God but rejection of state sanctioned gods such in the case for both Romans and Christians. For the Greek it was about naturalism not believe.

So what? It is still the same usage I employed.

Yes there is. It is the definition in which a person does not hold a belief while having no knowledge of the concept. This use to be form agnostic. Agnostic use to be the middle-ground. Now it has been relabeled but has no argument supporting this reliable as per Flew's own work.

As I keep saying, please re-read the thread. This is about a USAGE, not a definition. I gave no such definition. You keep missing that - and going back to definitions.

So just for clarity: Shad, this is about a usage, not a definition ok?
I employed a usage first found in Justin Martyr, and gave no definition.

Harris is the only one with a degree in philosophy. Dawkins does not have one, neither does Hitchens.

So what? What authority do you imagine they need to employ an old usage as Roberts, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al did? Why on earth would they need qualifications in philosophy?

No he was arguing against the state sponsored version religions of which Christianity was not one of. This brought charges against of being against the state, treason. He then flips around and calls Romans Gods demons rather than Gods. Goes on to mock people that worships animals or animal representation as Gods. He does exactly the same thing by defining what are Gods or not. Considering he only believes in one God every other claim of Gods is demons. Read his work.

I did, it is the same USAGE.
You are trying to create an issue out of thin air.

Frankly this endless spin on why you think that usage was wrong is just absurd. It is an astonishing amount of trouble to go to in order to not engage with a very simple point.


What on earth does this nonsense about usage have to do with proof of god anyway?

As I said; if this is the best argument you can think of - attacking a usage, then go back to the drawing board.