If your truly can't prove a negative then....

[Cearbhall]

Don't make the claim. If your making a claim, the burden of proof is expected regardless your ability to prove or not.

Why are you using "your" in the place of both "you" (in the thread title) and "you're?"

I agree that you shouldn't claim you can prove something that you can't claim, but the fact that I can't disprove that leprechauns live beneath the surface of Mars doesn't mean I'm not going to make the claim that they don't, for example. I don't see anything wrong with being of the opinion that something doesn't exist even if you can't disprove it, as long as you don't expect others to bow down to your conclusion.

 

[bricklayer]

Don't make the claim. If your making a claim, the burden of proof is expected regardless your ability to prove or not. It doesn't go null even if it's truly a claim that can't be proven for certain reasons.


In other words do you think that the inability to prove a negative nullifies the burden of proof? I certainly don't.

It's not so much that ideas are proved to us as it is that all of the other ideas considered have been disproved. What remains is what we are LEFT TO BELIEVE. Then, that's tested, and so on, and so on.

Even truth is only proof to the extent that it has been tested and proved.

 

[quatona]

And you would be right. The context in which the word was used, as well as taking into account who spoke the sentence would indicate to you that they were not talking about money, or one of the many gods of Hinduism, or the gods of Greek Mythology, but rather, the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, who Anselm calls the "Greatest Conceivable Being" or as you simply stated, "The God that Christians worship". The three are synonymous.

What this means depends heavily on the denomination of the person speaking.
There is a reason for the fact that any time I was simply assuming a certain self-professed Christian to hold a certain God concept, either he or other self-professed Christians told me that this is not the God they believe in.
So I have made a habit not to make any assumptions as to what god concept a specific self-professed Christian holds . The first question when someone wants to talks to me about "God" is always: "God?? What do you mean?"

As for your question: All I can conclude from the statement is that the person means something that determines the weather.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you are talking with a person you know is a Christian, and you might for example be talking about the weather, and then the Christians makes the statement:

"Yes, indeed, God has caused the sun to shine brilliantly today!"

What/who do you think the word "God" would be in reference to in that sentence?

In that case I would assume he was refering to the Christian God because most Christians believe their God is the only God that exists.
But the other day I was discussing with a person I knew was a Christian and he asked if I believed in God, and I replied "I assume you are refering to the God discribed in the Bible?" and his reply was do I believe in any God? He recognized other religions exists. Like I said; you can't always assume unless the person asking indicates which God they are refering to; and sometimes even then your assumptions might be incorrect.

K

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

What this means depends heavily on the denomination of the person speaking.

Which Christian denomination would not define God as I have defined Him? Presbyterian? Lutheran? Episcopalian? Baptist? These are some examples of denominations.

There is a reason for the fact that any time I was simply assuming a certain self-professed Christian to hold a certain God concept, either he or other self-professed Christians told me that this is not the God they believe in.

If they were Christians, then they believed Christ is the Messiah and Emmanuel, that is, God with us.

If they did not believe in Christ as the Messiah, then they were not Christians in the Biblical sense, which is the sense I always use the word in unless otherwise specified. This is how I was using the word in the question I posed to Ken.

So I have made a habit not to make any assumptions as to what god concept a specific self-professed Christian holds . The first question when someone wants to talks to me about "God" is always: "God?? What do you mean?"

Excellent.

As for your question: All I can conclude from the statement is that the person means something that determines the weather.

What do you think the Christian could be talking about that had the ability to determine the weather and would be labeled as "God", if it were not the God of Christianity?

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

In that case I would assume he was refering to the Christian God because most Christians believe their God is the only God that exists.

And you would be justified in the assumption.

But the other day I was discussing with a person I knew was a Christian and he asked if I believed in God, and I replied "I assume you are refering to the God discribed in the Bible?" and his reply was do I believe in any God?

His reply was a question?

He recognized other religions exists.

I recognize that fact too.

Like I said; you can't always assume unless the person asking indicates which God they are refering to; and sometimes even then your assumptions might be incorrect.

K

All I asked was if you were talking with someone whom you knew was a Christian and you were talking about the weather, and the Christian said:

"Yes, indeed, God has caused the sun to shine brilliantly today!"

Who/what do you think they would be referring to when they used the word "God"?

It is possible they could be referring to the shoes on their feet.
It is possible they could be referring to the shirt you are wearing.

But what would you think would fit the criteria of:

A. An entity that could cause the sun to shine
B. An entity that a Christian would refer to as "God"?

Obviously it is not their shoes.
Obviously it is not your shirt.

Is it not more probable that they are referring to the God of Christianity?

 

[Ken-1122]

His reply was a question?

As I said before, his reply was "Do I believe in any God at all"? He wanted to leave open the possibility that I might believe in the existence of Vinishu, Allah, Dionysus, or some other God that he and other Christians may not recognize.

All I asked was if you were talking with someone whom you knew was a Christian and you were talking about the weather, and the Christian said:

"Yes, indeed, God has caused the sun to shine brilliantly today!"

Who/what do you think they would be referring to when they used the word "God"?

It is possible they could be referring to the shoes on their feet.
It is possible they could be referring to the shirt you are wearing.

But what would you think would fit the criteria of:

A. An entity that could cause the sun to shine
B. An entity that a Christian would refer to as "God"?

Obviously it is not their shoes.
Obviously it is not your shirt.

Is it not more probable that they are referring to the God of Christianity?

As I've already said before, If a Christian involks God in casual conversation, I would assume he were refering to the God of Christiainity. But rarely when speaking to Christians do they involk God into casual conversation, unless the conversation is about God. Also most Christians recognize that not everybody is a Christian so when refering to God to a stranger, they may realize that this person might be of another religion because lets face it; it is more common to see those of other religions than those of no religion at all.

Ken

 

[variant]

You may have a poor understanding of the God Christians worship, but what little you do know, in combination with the context in which the word is used along with knowing who is speaking to you, can give you sufficient reason for concluding what you have concluded.

That is my point.

I don't think I poorly understand the concept as it is presented at all. I think the concept is poorly understood.

 

[quatona]

Which Christian denomination would not define God as I have defined Him? Presbyterian? Lutheran? Episcopalian? Baptist? These are some examples of denominations.

Well, two of your definitions were practically tautologies (of course, a self-professed Christian is adhering to what he thinks is Christian doctrine), and one (TheGreatestConceivableBeing) is so wooly (and unfalsibiable - just so not to forget what has been my actual point) that it doesn´t tell me anything about what this person conceives as greatest etc. (A definition that involves unprecise terms like "greatest" doesn´t even deserve the predicate "definition" for purposes of what we are discussing here).

If they were Christians, then they believed Christ is the Messiah and Emmanuel, that is, God with us.

If they did not believe in Christ as the Messiah, then they were not Christians in the Biblical sense, which is the sense I always use the word in unless otherwise specified. This is how I was using the word in the question I posed to Ken.

Don´t give me the True Scotsman.
I am facing a guy who professes to be a Christian and when he says "God" I must conclude that he is talking about the god of his concept (which he considers to be the god of Christianity). That was your scenario.
Whether he is a TrueChristian would be impossible to tell for me (even if I had any inclination to tell a self-professed Christian what a TrueChristian is - which definitely isn´t my job as a non-Christian).

Excellent.

Ok. So then please don´t ask me questions that force me to make such assumptions.

What do you think the Christian could be talking about that had the ability to determine the weather and would be labeled as "God", if it were not the God of Christianity?

In this scenario, it can either be the TrueGodOfChristianity, or it could be this persons erroneous idea as to what the god of Christianity is.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

I don't think I poorly understand the concept as it is presented at all. I think the concept is poorly understood.

Poorly understood by whom?

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Well, two of your definitions were practically tautologies (of course, a self-professed Christian is adhering to what he thinks is Christian doctrine), and one (TheGreatestConceivableBeing) is so wooly (and unfalsibiable - just so not to forget what has been my actual point) that it doesn´t tell me anything about what this person conceives as greatest etc. (A definition that involves unprecise terms like "greatest" doesn´t even deserve the predicate "definition" for purposes of what we are discussing here).

I would recommend studying Anselmian Perfect Being Theology.

It will help you understood what all is entailed in "The Greatest Conceivable Being" descriptor.

Don´t give me the True Scotsman.
I am facing a guy who professes to be a Christian and when he says "God" I must conclude that he is talking about the god of his concept (which he considers to be the god of Christianity).

That was my point. I am glad you have understood.

That was your scenario.
Whether he is a TrueChristian would be impossible to tell for me (even if I had any inclination to tell a self-professed Christian what a TrueChristian is - which definitely isn´t my job as a non-Christian).

I did not use the phrase "True Christian", so I do not know why you are using it.

I have used the phrase "Christian in the Biblical Sense", which simply means one who believes what the Bible teaches specifically regarding the deity of Christ.

Ok. So then please don´t ask me questions that force me to make such assumptions.

I cannot force you to make an assumption by asking you a question. If you do not want to answer it, then do not answer it. You answering a question, by assuming something or not, is a choice you make of your own volition.

In this scenario, it can either be the TrueGodOfChristianity, or it could be this persons erroneous idea as to what the god of Christianity is.

I did not ask you for the various possibilities regarding one's interpretation of the Biblical God of Christianity, i.e. erroneous or true interpretation.

What I asked was:

What do you think the Christian could be talking about that had the ability to determine the weather and would be labeled as "God", if it were not the God of Christianity?

Whether or not the Christian's view of God is erroneous or in accordance with Biblical Christianity is moot. It is not pertinent to what I asked. I simply asked what could fit the criteria of being able to determine the weather and be labeled as "God" by a person who you know to be a Christian.

You would not assume that such a person was talking about Zeus, or Adonysius, of Hermes, or Vishnu, or Brahman, or Molech, or Allah or any of the thousands of gods within the Hindu pantheon.

You would rightfully infer that a Christian was referring to God i.e. the God of Christianity. If you wanted clarification on what their specific views were regarding God's essential nature, you would then ask them, i.e is God a Trinity etc. etc. The fact that people within Christianity have slightly divergent views regarding certain aspects of theology is not a warrant for claiming one cannot know that a Christian is referring to the God of Christianity when they use the word "God" unless the context furnishes some reason for this uncertainty.

For example:

You are speaking with the same Christian, and the Christian then makes the remark:

"I used to treat money as my god before I came to Christ."

Here the context shows us that the word "god" is not to be understood as the God of Christianity, but rather, that which is worshiped or highly prized by someone. Money, cars, clothes, power, wealth etc. etc. could all be referred to as "gods".

My point in all of this is that we can indeed know what is meant when someone uses the word "God" or "god" in a sentence. All we have to do is take into account the context and the person making the statement. And if in anything we are unclear after this, we simply ask for clarification.

 

[quatona]

If you are talking with a person you know is a Christian, and you might for example be talking about the weather, and then the Christians makes the statement:

"Yes, indeed, God has caused the sun to shine brilliantly today!"

What/who do you think the word "God" would be in reference to in that sentence?

It could be anything from an InvisibleBeardedSkyDaddy whose main concern is where humans put their naughty bits and who sends people who don´t believe in his existence to eternal torture, to "the universe" or just some unspecified natural force.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

It could be anything from an InvisibleBeardedSkyDaddy whose main concern is where humans put their naughty bits and who sends people who don´t believe in his existence to eternal torture, to "the universe" or just some unspecified natural force.

Christians do not generally understand "God" to be "the universe", nor do they generally understand "God" to be some "unspecified natural force", so assuming those two would be unwarranted.

 

[quatona]

I would recommend studying Anselmian Perfect Being Theology.

It will help you understood what all is entailed in "The Greatest Conceivable Being" descriptor.

Doesn´t make sure that the person we are talking about
1. has studied it
2. agrees with Anselm
3. interpretes it in the same way as I do.

That was my point. I am glad you have understood.

So your point was that I can´t know what a self-professed Christian refers to when saying "God"? Ok, then.
So what was your point in bringing up your question?

I did not use the phrase "True Christian", so I do not know why you are using it.

You don´t need to use a certain phrase to implicitly employ a fallacy.

I have used the phrase "Christian in the Biblical Sense", which simply means one who believes what the Bible teaches specifically regarding the deity of Christ.

Ok, so when you asked the question "If a person you knew was a Christian..." you meant to ask "If a person of whom you knew he was a Christian in the Biblical Sense...."?
So how could I possibly tell or judge who is a "Christian in the Biblical Sense"? Are you saying you give me, the non-Christian, authority over judging that which even self-professed Christians can´t agree upon?

If this is really what you meant, you are proposing circular reasoning. In order correctly assume what a self-professed Christian means when saying "God caused the sunshine..." I would first have to have compared his god concept to what I think a Christian in the Biblical Sense must mean by "God".

I cannot force you to make an assumption by asking you a question.

Yes, you can ask a question to which giving an answer forces me to make assumptions.

I did not ask you for the various possibilities regarding one's interpretation of the Biblical God of Christianity, i.e. erroneous or true interpretation.

What I asked was:

What do you think the Christian could be talking about that had the ability to determine the weather and would be labeled as "God", if it were not the God of Christianity?

And my answer was: I know plenty of partly very diverse god concepts that self-professing Christians hold and which they consider the God of Christianity. So I have no idea what a particular person means when suddenly throwing in "God" into a small talk.

Whether or not the Christian's view of God is erroneous or in accordance with Biblical Christianity is moot.

And that wasn´t my point. My point was that I can´t know, can´t tell and am not in the position to judge whether the god concept of a self-professed Christian matches that which think of as the "Christian´s view of God".

It is not pertinent to what I asked. I simply asked what could fit the criteria of being able to determine the weather and be labeled as "God" by a person who you know to be a Christian.

And I answered accordingly.

You would not assume that such a person was talking about Zeus, or Adonysius, of Hermes, or Vishnu, or Brahman, or Molech, or Allah or any of the thousands of gods within the Hindu pantheon.

No, since I am not willing to make assumptions, I wouldn´t assume that.

You would rightfully infer that a Christian was referring to God i.e. the God of Christianity.

No, I would rightfully infer that a self-professed Christian refers to the god concept which he considers the God of Christianity.

If you wanted clarification on what their specific views were regarding God's essential nature, you would then ask them, i.e is God a Trinity etc. etc.

Except that was not what you were asking. You were asking what I would assume at the point the person whom I knew to be a self-professing Christians made the statement.
Of course, if I would then ask him "What do you mean? God??" I might get a better idea. But that was not what you were asking about. You were asking what I would assume if only knowing that the guy professes to be a Christian.

The fact that people within Christianity have slightly divergent views regarding certain aspects of theology is not a warrant for claiming one cannot know that a Christian is referring to the God of Christianity when they use the word "God" unless the context furnishes some reason for this uncertainty.

Slightly divergent? You must be kidding.
And, yes, of course he is referring to what he considers to be the God of Christianity. That doesn´t mean I know much about his god concept without making assumptions.

And if in anything we are unclear after this, we simply ask for clarification.

Well, for the question you asked: "What would you assume...?" (when I only knew the person was a self-professing Christian without further individual explanation) it is completely irrelevant what I would assume in a scenario later when I have asked for clarification.
I mean it´s obvious that all information he´d give me about his god concept later would become part of my idea of his god concept - I wouldn´t need to make assumptions then anymore, after all.
So don´t change the goalposts in the midst of a discussion, please.

 

[quatona]

Christians do not generally understand "God" to be "the universe",

Quite a few self-professed Christians do.

nor do they generally understand "God" to be some "unspecified natural force"

Quite a few self-professing Christians do.

so assuming those two would be unwarranted.

Indeed, just as any assumption as to what god concept a particular self-professing Christian might hold.
That´s why I am going to assume anything in this case.

 

[quatona]

And something else:

I would recommend studying Anselmian Perfect Being Theology.
It will help you understood what all is entailed in "The Greatest Conceivable Being" descriptor.

That´s completely irrelevant for the discussion of your scenario, unless your scenario silently assumed that when facing this situation I had already read Anselmian Perfect Being Theology (which probably only even a tiny fraction of self-professed Christians have read, I may add).

You are not telling me that when I want to talk about the weather I need to have read Anselm just in case a self-professed Christian will start talking about "God", are you?

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Doesn´t make sure that the person we are talking about
1. has studied it
2. agrees with Anselm
3. interpretes it in the same way as I do.

That was not my intention in advising you to study Anselm Perfect Being Theology. My intent was for you to study it in order that you might be familiar with it.

So your point was that I can´t know what a self-professed Christian refers to when saying "God"?

No.

This was my point in your own words:

I am facing a guy who professes to be a Christian and when he says "God" I must conclude that he is talking about the god of his concept (which he considers to be the god of Christianity).

Ok, then.
So what was your point in bringing up your question?

Reference the above.

You don´t need to use a certain phrase to implicitly employ a fallacy.

Saying that a Christian in the biblical sense is one who affirms certain teachings regarding the deity of Christ is not a fallacy.

Ok, so when you asked the question "If a person you knew was a Christian..." you meant to ask "If a person of whom you knew he was a Christian in the Biblical Sense...."?

Why infer that I was using the word in any other way? If someone tells me they are an atheist, I am going to infer that they lack belief in God or gods. I am not going to infer anything else unless I have warrant to.

When a Christian on a Christian forum uses the word Christian in a hypothetical you need to infer that they are using the term to refer to one who is a Christian in the Biblical sense, not some non-biblical sense (whatever that would be).

So how could I possibly tell or judge who is a "Christian in the Biblical Sense"?

By judging what their view is regarding the deity of Christ.

Are you saying you give me, the non-Christian, authority over judging that which even self-professed Christians can´t agree upon?

The vast majority of adherents to Christianity view Christ as God incarnate. This is the one view that is commonly shared. Christians agree on this, so simply judge the person by what they say regarding the deity of Christ.

If this is really what you meant, you are proposing circular reasoning. In order correctly assume what a self-professed Christian means when saying "God caused the sunshine..." I would first have to have compared his god concept to what I think a Christian in the Biblical Sense must mean by "God".

If a Christian is talking with you and you know they are a Christian (this was entailed in the hypothetical) then you know that they believe Christ is God and that they worship the God of the Bible. All of this was implicit in the hypothetical. I see now that you do not know what I was referring to when I used the word Christian and the one time I assumed you would know something, I was wrong. I have learned a valuable lesson.

Yes, you can ask a question to which giving an answer forces me to make assumptions.

If you have an aversion to answering such questions, please, refrain from answering them and let me know you would rather me rephrase it.

And my answer was: I know plenty of partly very diverse god concepts that self-professing Christians hold and which they consider the God of Christianity. So I have no idea what a particular person means when suddenly throwing in "God" into a small talk.

These "partly very diverse god concepts" are???

And that wasn´t my point. My point was that I can´t know, can´t tell and am not in the position to judge whether the god concept of a self-professed Christian matches that which think of as the "Christian´s view of God".

And I answered accordingly.


No, since I am not willing to make assumptions, I wouldn´t assume that.


No, I would rightfully infer that a self-professed Christian refers to the god concept which he considers the God of Christianity.

Except that was not what you were asking. You were asking what I would assume at the point the person whom I knew to be a self-professing Christians made the statement.
Of course, if I would then ask him "What do you mean? God??" I might get a better idea. But that was not what you were asking about. You were asking what I would assume if only knowing that the guy professes to be a Christian.

Slightly divergent? You must be kidding.
And, yes, of course he is referring to what he considers to be the God of Christianity. That doesn´t mean I know much about his god concept without making assumptions.


Well, for the question you asked: "What would you assume...?" (when I only knew the person was a self-professing Christian without further individual explanation) it is completely irrelevant what I would assume in a scenario later when I have asked for clarification.
I mean it´s obvious that all information he´d give me about his god concept later would become part of my idea of his god concept - I wouldn´t need to make assumptions then anymore, after all.
So don´t change the goalposts in the midst of a discussion, please.

I see you are struggling to understand my hypothetical. So what I will do is spell it out as best as I can.


"If you are talking with a Christian whom you personally know to be a Christian (a person who believes Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Son of God (God as revealed to the Old Testament prophets as The Almighty God, Creator of heaven and earth), a person who views the Old and New Testaments to be God's Word to mankind, and a person who has placed their faith in Christ for the salvation of their soul) about the weather, and the Christian says to you: 'God sure has caused the sun to shine brilliantly today has He not?'"

Who would you infer that the Christian was referring to when he used the word "God"?

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Quite a few self-professed Christians do.

Quite a few self-professing Christians do.

Indeed, just as any assumption as to what god concept a particular self-professing Christian might hold.
That´s why I am going to assume anything in this case.

Who are these self-professed Christians?

Do you have any names?

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

And something else:

That´s completely irrelevant for the discussion of your scenario, unless your scenario silently assumed that when facing this situation I had already read Anselmian Perfect Being Theology (which probably only even a tiny fraction of self-professed Christians have read, I may add).

You are not telling me that when I want to talk about the weather I need to have read Anselm just in case a self-professed Christian will start talking about "God", are you?

I suggest you study it so when someone on a philosophy forum uses the term you can know what they are talking about.

That is just some advice.

 

[quatona]

"If you are talking with a Christian whom you personally know to be a Christian (a person who believes Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Son of God (God as revealed to the Old Testament prophets as The Almighty God, Creator of heaven and earth), a person who views the Old and New Testaments to be God's Word to mankind, and a person who has placed their faith in Christ for the salvation of their soul) about the weather, and the Christian says to you: 'God sure has caused the sun to shine brilliantly today has He not?'"

Who would you infer that the Christian was referring to when he used the word "God"?

I would infer that his god concept involves what in your hypothetical he has already explained to me it involves:
- The father of "Jesus Christ of Nazareth"
- Revealed to the Old Testament prophets as The Almighty God, Creator of heaven and earth
- the entity whose words are the OT and NT
- the entity the son of which he has faith will salavate his sould.

Whereas I wouldn´t assume any of those things about a person of whom I merely know that he calls himself "Christians" and has started to talk about "God" when I talked about the weather.

Now, what was your point in asking what I would think what his god concept includes from what a person has already told me about the god of his concept?