So if one describes their god as nature, there is no such thing like that at all?
-
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!
You Can't Argue Against God
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Just because something is unknown to you doesn’t necessarily make that something unknown to others.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Then it's only for them and nobody else making public claims pretty useless then.
Who is it that has authority to determine what claims are useful and what claims are useless?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Best to ask the one who is making claims that they cannot prove.
We Never Know
No Slack
Which claim?
-That a god does exist
-That a god doesn't exist
Neither can be proven
You mean claims like, "there is no such thing like [God] at all"?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'd say people's claims of a god they cannot prove are easily dismissed. That is a better approach than sounding fundamental like they are.
I'd go with Dawkins approach that my belief in a god is on par with my belief that there are gnomes living and working in my garden.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
At least people can see and acknowledge nature. Of course god can be used metaphorically in a scientific setting as the late Stephen Hawkins had.
Can you expand on this, please? How does claiming a god exists make one sound "fundamental?"
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
By being adamant about something they cannot possibly prove or produce.
So using this logic, wouldn't this render all theists fundamentalists as well as anyone who is adamant about the existence of dark matter?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
And you haven't solved the problems of epistemology and the reason we have methodlogical naturalism. You just believe without eivdence that you have and that makes you a fundamentalist.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Nope.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, not really. It would apply to all postive claims in regards to metaphysics and ontology. Not just gnostic theists.
All that claim postive claims in regards to metaphysics and ontology and that would include some atheists and non-relgious people.
But then I am a fundamentalist as such, because I believe it is impossible to know anything other than tautologies.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
How many threads are you going to make on the same exact subject?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
How many posts are you going to make on the same exact subject?
Same post as in the other thread....
God is the proper name for the Christian god.
Christians proffer traits for God.
These can be argued against.
God is the proper name for the Christian god.
Christians proffer traits for God.
These can be argued against.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Gave answer in the other thread.
Correct.