Atheists, define 'God'

[WonderBeat]

Ok.... so how is it you know what you know?

How do you know that you are?

 

[mark kennedy]

You are assuming that we are not familiar with the various god concepts out there?

No, I am convinced that God's divine attributes and eternal nature have been made clear to you, so that you are without excuse. Otherwise, why are you not even remotely curious about the difference between theistic and atheistic epistemology?

You suppress it with every post while claiming to understand it. There isn't a philosophical system that would allow core tenants to remain semantically ambiguous. The arguments are fallacious since they are almost universally ad hominem in content and character. Nothing propositional emerges and on the rare occasion when it does, inverse logic is ignored. The one telling feature of skepticism is that it deconstructs meaning without establishing it's own, it's nihilistic, fatalistic, unmitigated, mysticism. All concepts that fascinate me.

As usual, you have missed my meaning entirely, not that you will ever know or even care.

 

[Dave Ellis]

How do you know that you are?

What is your problem with answering a simple question?

You are making all these claims, and I'm asking how you justify them.

Please answer.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, I am convinced that God's divine attributes and eternal nature have been made clear to you, so that you are without excuse. Otherwise, why are you not even remotely curious about the difference between theistic and atheistic epistemology?

You suppress it with every post while claiming to understand it. There isn't a philosophical system that would allow core tenants to remain semantically ambiguous. The arguments are fallacious since they are almost universally ad hominem in content and character. Nothing propositional emerges and on the rare occasion when it does, inverse logic is ignored. The one telling feature of skepticism is that it deconstructs meaning without establishing it's own, it's nihilistic, fatalistic, unmitigated, mysticism. All concepts that fascinate me.




As usual, you have missed my meaning entirely, not that you will ever know or even care.

To be fair, I don't think you understand properly applied skepticism then.

 

[ranunculus]

God esoterically realized is Oneness... Absolute wholeness/togetherness and Perfect Love....

God is morality....

And how do you know this?

My preferred question is: how do you not?

The problem is you are too trapped in your own mind to grasp the fact that you DO KNOW.

No, I am convinced that God's divine attributes and eternal nature have been made clear to you, so that you are without excuse.

"Religions do assert that there are things that are beyond question. Even when they pretend that you can question them... ....[I was in a debate and] one of the opponents was talking about how it's just true:' if god exists, and if you're open and honest, he will reveal himself to you'. My question is: 'Why didn't I get this revelation? Did I just not try hard enough'? And his answer was pretty much, 'yeah you had some bias or you didn't try hard enough'.
To me that's absolutely despicable. It's based on this idea that: 'oh I can't possibly be wrong about this. And the bible can't be wrong about this. And the bible says god will reveal himself to you, I've had what I think is this revelation. So clearly it's true. Which means that if you haven't had this revelation, it's YOUR fault.' "

"And it's one of the most disgusting parts about religion. [..is because] it is seen as YOUR fault if you didn't have this revelation. If you don't have this understanding. Then once again, instead of having a situation where you have the burden of proof put upon the person making the claims, you have something worse then that. Not only is there NO burden of proof but also, the guilt is SHIFTED to the person that doesn't see it. So a claim is made and if you don't see it , then you're at fault."

Matt Dillahunty, The atheist experience.

 

[WonderBeat]

What is your problem with answering a simple question?

What is your problem with realizing that there is no answer?

You are making all these claims, and I'm asking how you justify them.

Please answer.

Justification is self-evident. Once more, how do you know that you exist?

I am making ONE claim and ONE claim only.

 

[mark kennedy]

Uh, no. It is as I said to you many pages back: It is not an atheist claim.

Why exactly do you think an atheist should put down a blanket overarching definition of God?

Consider the meaning of the self pronounced label, a 'without' theist 'god'. Why would there not be a comprehensive working definition? It makes no sense unless the sense is a priori, that is, without need for definitive propositional foundation since it is intuitively perceived before hand.

That said, many of us have actually been willing to try and give you what you wanted and for the sake of argument provided some vague definitions to generally describe all concepts of God.

They are semantically ambiguous, which is in bounds, if you are proposing an a priori understanding. None of the definitions apply to the word 'god' as a dialectical entity as an object of rational inquiry. What is even more telling, they are invariably sidebars with no bearing the the arguments that follow. It makes no sense to me, it makes no sense unless the meaning is already, 'clearly seen'.

I'm still really not sure at all what on earth your point is here.

I know, but the inverse logic of an antithesis should be intuitively obvious. My positive statement that you clearly understand God's divine attributes can only be refuted if you make substantive inquiries into what they actually are. Atheists never do, I believe that to be fallacious.

No. There are many different definitions for God, actually. There's so many different variables and slight attributes loaded into each one that it is almost absurd to insist anyone who doesn't hold true to any specific God concept come up with one.

Your suggesting such a vast array of definitions that no definition is possible, that is self-deprecating . There would be at least a commonly agreed on working definition, one that both the theist and atheist can readily agree on. Your epistemology has abandoned what the theist considers valid propositional truth. You dismiss the reasoning of theists without the slightest inquiry into what they even perceive to be, 'god'. Why would you do that unless it was already commonly perceived, recognized and without substantive dissent?

No. God has shown me nothing. I have not seen God's "eternal power and divine nature."

A categorical denial without reference to what either of the elements would be. I'll say one thing for you, when you commit to a fallacy you stick with it.

Sorry. Next time ask me what I think rather than tell me. It helps, I promise.

But your philosophy is not based on what you believe, or even what you know to be true. It's based on something you don't believe and you have not the slightest interest in what 'it' is substantively that you have rejected.

It's called skepticism and while it's vital to any philosophical system, it must clearly define it's central terms before refuting opposing view points. I know you already understand what is meant by 'god', otherwise you would be pursuing a clearer understanding. But you don't, because it has already been made clear to you.

 

[Dave Ellis]

"Religions do assert that there are things that are beyond question. Even when they pretend that you can question them... ....[I was in a debate and] one of the opponents was talking about how it's just true:' if god exists, and if you're open and honest, he will reveal himself to you'. My question is: 'Why didn't I get this revelation? Did I just not try hard enough'? And his answer was pretty much, 'yeah you had some bias or you didn't try hard enough'.
To me that's absolutely despicable. It's based on this idea that: 'oh I can't possibly be wrong about this. And the bible can't be wrong about this. And the bible says god will reveal himself to you, I've had what I think is this revelation. So clearly it's true. Which means that if you haven't had this revelation, it's YOUR fault.' "

"And it's one of the most disgusting parts about religion. [..is because] it is seen as YOUR fault if you didn't have this revelation. If you don't have this understanding. Then once again, instead of having a situation where you have the burden of proof put upon the person making the claims, you have something worse then that. Not only is there NO burden of proof but also, the guilt is SHIFTED to the person that doesn't see it. So a claim is made and if you don't see it , then you're at fault."

Matt Dillahunty, The atheist experience.

That's one of the many reasons why I love listening to what Matt has to say. Everything in that entire piece is logically correct

 

[Dave Ellis]

What is your problem with realizing that there is no answer?

So you can't justify what you're saying? How were you enlightened to your current worldview initially? Somebody at some point must have taught, and convinced you of it.

Justification is self-evident. Once more, how do you know that you exist?

I am making ONE claim and ONE claim only.

I know I exist because I can physically examine myself, and confirm I am here.

Now, I'm asking for some evidence to examine about the claims you are making. What convinced you that what you're saying is in fact truth?

 

[quatona]

No, I am convinced that God's divine attributes and eternal nature have been made clear to you, so that you are without excuse. Otherwise, why are you not even remotely curious about the difference between theistic and atheistic epistemology?

What makes you assume I am not familiar with this difference, in the first place?
Reminder: this is a thread in which atheists are asked to "define 'god'".

You suppress it with every post while claiming to understand it.

Give me an example where I suppressed this difference.

There isn't a philosophical system that would allow core tenants to remain semantically ambiguous. The arguments are fallacious since they are almost universally ad hominem in content and character. Nothing propositional emerges and on the rare occasion when it does, inverse logic is ignored. The one telling feature of skepticism is that it deconstructs meaning without establishing it's own, it's nihilistic, fatalistic, unmitigated, mysticism. All concepts that fascinate me.

As usual, you have missed my meaning entirely, not that you will ever know or even care.

(emphasis added)
Irony alert.

 

[WonderBeat]

So you can't justify what you're saying? How were you enlightened to your current worldview initially? Somebody at some point must have taught, and convinced you of it.

Burt Harding - A Teacher of Advaita Vedanta

I know I exist because I can physically examine myself, and confirm I am here.

That is like saying, the train is on time because none of its luggage carriers went missing......

Now, I'm asking for some evidence to examine about the claims you are making. What convinced you that what you're saying is in fact truth?

I'll come back to you shortly......

 

[quatona]

Once more, how do you know that you exist?

Pretty much by ultilizing the same means by which I "know" that I have not existed before my birth.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Burt Harding - A Teacher of Advaita Vedanta

Thanks, I checked out a few of his videos.

That is like saying, the train is on time because none of its luggage carriers went missing......

No... It's like saying the train is on time, because it pulled into the station at the time it was supposed to.

I'll come back to you shortly......

Fair enough

 

[gav1nzdad]

It is remarkable that in a philosophy forum with a rather zealous host of atheistic evolutionists a coherent definition for 'god', is not readily forthcoming. I happen to know why, it's the same reason that the Bible really never defines God.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20}
​

There is no definition for God for the same reason Plato couldn't define the 'Good' in Plato's Republic. For me to define 'God' would be to define something less then God and 'God' is both self-existing and self-evident. Even Immanuel Kant when discussing examples of a priori (without prior) reason used 'God' and 'time' as explicit examples of a priori reason in action.

What is far more important, God is not defined by the people who believe in God the least because people already, 'clearly seen' God's, 'eternal power and divine nature'. Otherwise, one would expect them to be driven by undiluted curiosity, if nothing else, to understand the concept. I have yet to see an atheist demand a definition or even offer one, but of course, there is no need for one. God has already shown it to them.

I'll continue to monitor the thread in as much as I'm able, in the hopes that a more substantive approach to the subject is forthcoming. I'll tell you what, let's try a different approach. Consider this question. If a person was born devoid of sensory input from 'sight, sound...etc.' yet remained conscious despite the detachment from outside sensory data. Would this person have a single thought in their head? Kant would have said yes, what do you think?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Hi Mark.

First, I want to say that I am a christian. I would even say devout. And I think maybe you have well meaning intentions here. But I have to say that I can not "define" God.

And maybe it is just me, but to me, God is so much more than any definition that can be given to Him. If we say God is love, then what of His holiness? If we say God is holy, then what of His omnipotence? When we begin to describe His attribute, and that is really all we can do, we discover something else that God is.

To define something is not just to define what that something is, but to define what that something is not. It actually might be easier to define what God is not. But again, that is limiting our God. He is unlimitless, not a definition, just a description on another of attributes.

And being fair to the atheists on this board, the descriptions of attributes that we attempt to define would not be something any atheist will be willing to concede. To me, this defining God experiment is futile. You and I may agree on what God is, but you will never get that from an atheist.

Can an atheist be converted? Absolutely! Recall how CS Lewis was converted from atheism to christianity. His friend JRR Tolkien could not even convince Lewis to accept that God is real. Tolkien!!! And should we presume to have the vocabulary or debating skills of Tolkien?

If you haven't read Surprised By Joy, do so.

Anyway, I get your arguments, of course that is like preaching to the choir. And I admire your attempts here. I just want to address the inability to define God from a christian perspective.

Cheers!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Can an atheist be converted? Absolutely!

An atheist, but not necessarily every atheist. Similarly, a Christian may become an atheist, but not every Christian does.

Recall how CS Lewis was converted from atheism to christianity. His friend JRR Tolkien could not even convince Lewis to accept that God is real. Tolkien!!! And should we presume to have the vocabulary or debating skills of Tolkien?

Tolkien had a way with words, but that doesn't mean that he was good at debate.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

It is remarkable that in a philosophy forum with a rather zealous host of atheistic evolutionists a coherent definition for 'god', is not readily forthcoming.

Ignoring the nonsense about biologists being atheists, no it isn't. There's no requirement that someone have a concrete definition of everything they don't believe in. In fact, a lack of a coherent definition of an object (or as shown in this thread, the admission that one is not possible) is a perfectly good reason to lack belief in it in the first place.

What is remarkable is people who absolutely believe in something and at the same time can't even tell us what that thing is.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not one of you asked what God would be like.

That's simply not true. See posts 2, 4, 6 and 7 in this thread.

If you're not even going to read the responses, why bother asking a question in the first place?

 

[KCfromNC]

My preferred question is: how do you not?

The same way you know you don't owe me 10 million dollars.

 

[KCfromNC]

Consider the meaning of the self pronounced label, a 'without' theist 'god'. Why would there not be a comprehensive working definition?

There is, posted earlier in this thread. God's a character in a book.

Great, we now have a definition. What next? I'm guessing we're now going to be told that we're not believing in the wrong god. OK, wonderful - so what's the correct definition? But before you give it to us, be sure to get buy in from the "you can't define god" camp as well. There's no point in having a comprehensive working definition if it's rejected by people who allegedly believe in the same god you do.

 

[Skavau]

Consider the meaning of the self pronounced label, a 'without' theist 'god'.

You continue to not understand atheism. Atheism broadly is skepticism in all claims of God. That includes theism, polytheism, pantheism, panentheism etc. It does not reject necessarily a specific concept but all concepts. Atheists who invest time in discussing this stuff will at least be casually aware of many different concepts of God.

They are semantically ambiguous, which is in bounds, if you are proposing an a priori understanding. None of the definitions apply to the word 'god' as a dialectical entity as an object of rational inquiry. What is even more telling, they are invariably sidebars with no bearing the the arguments that follow. It makes no sense to me, it makes no sense unless the meaning is already, 'clearly seen'.

None of this follows. Atheists broadly don't view God as an object that can be rationally understood. If you ask atheists what they view the word 'God' as broadly meaning you will get a broad definition as there is no reason whatsoever to exclude all other concepts of God.

I know, but the inverse logic of an antithesis should be intuitively obvious. My positive statement that you clearly understand God's divine attributes can only be refuted if you make substantive inquiries into what they actually are. Atheists never do, I believe that to be fallacious.

Atheists don't attempt to refute God's "divine attributes". Generally speaking atheists who interact on this stuff attempt to refute or point out the absence of evidence in specific concepts of God as asserted by specific theists. They adapt depending on the theist they are talking to.

Your suggesting such a vast array of definitions that no definition is possible, that is self-deprecating .

Only a definition that takes into account all the different concepts of God.

Which doesn't interest me to work out, personally.

There would be at least a commonly agreed on working definition, one that both the theist and atheist can readily agree on.

In a debate of non-specifics, yes. There is. Atheists and Theists generally discussing these things presume without saying so that both are referring to a traditional theistic supernatural entity that created the universe and takes an interest in its path now.

It will be slightly different when talking to a deist, or a polytheist.

Your epistemology has abandoned what the theist considers valid propositional truth. You dismiss the reasoning of theists without the slightest inquiry into what they even perceive to be, 'god'. Why would you do that unless it was already commonly perceived, recognized and without substantive dissent?

When did I dismiss the reasoning of all theists, exactly? That I am an atheist speaks nothing for my attitude only my non-conviction. I am unconvinced of any claim that a God(s) exist. I will continue to do so until someone advances a coherent argument in favour of God(s) existence (whatever the concept is).

A categorical denial without reference to what either of the elements would be. I'll say one thing for you, when you commit to a fallacy you stick with it.

What fallacy precisely am I committing when I tell you directly that I have never been witness or granted knowledge of God's "eternal power and divine nature"?

But your philosophy is not based on what you believe, or even what you know to be true. It's based on something you don't believe and you have not the slightest interest in what 'it' is substantively that you have rejected.

No it isn't. Atheism is not a philosophy.

It's called skepticism and while it's vital to any philosophical system, it must clearly define it's central terms before refuting opposing view points. I know you already understand what is meant by 'god', otherwise you would be pursuing a clearer understanding. But you don't, because it has already been made clear to you.

I don't seek to disprove God. I never have done. I do not even claim that there is no God. I merely disbelieve in all propositions of God that I have seen. I am as disinterested in discovering the ultimate objective definition for God as I am disinterested in discovering the ultimate objective definition of a Jabberwocky.

You mistake my disinterest in a certain topic for hidden knowledge. I am well aware of many concepts of God due to them being culturally prominent and relevant to me. I am not aware of some other concepts as well primarily due to the fact that they are culturally alien to me. This surprises you? I have never attempted to hide any understanding of many different concepts of God. I can also if you like give you a vague non-specific definition of God. I suspect whatever I would provide would not actually cover all existent concepts and in fact, be worthless in those situations.

At any rate your argument here seems completely pointless. You first ask atheists for an objective definition of God. Atheists give some answers (different per each atheist due to the nature of atheists, obviously) and basically inform you that beyond generalities there is not one. You insist that because of some supposed reluctance and dismissal on behalf of the atheists in this topic that there is something afoot and deduce that they do infact know of God's attributes and of God otherwise they would be intensely curious to discover them. You then use this as a springboard to argue that they are "without excuse" and should recognise God. That is you are insisting all atheists are in denial about God and should repent.

This makes so many trivial mistakes and misjudges so many common personality types it isn't even worth listing them.

You ignore the reality that the fact that atheists are here participating in this discussion demonstrates that they do show a level of interest far beyond even many theists. You conflate not knowing or refusing to objectively clarify a consistent definition for 'God' as not knowing of any God concepts at all and you think that our hidden knowledge of these God concepts somehow mean that we secretly believe in God. This is nothing more than thinly veiled and sophisticated Jedi mind trick in order to try and convert others.

Am I right? I think so:

No, I am convinced that God's divine attributes and eternal nature have been made clear to you, so that you are without excuse. Otherwise, why are you not even remotely curious about the difference between theistic and atheistic epistemology?

Why else would you say that? You are advancing an argument for atheists to repent by trying some cheap psychological trick.