If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Belief in God is a very personal belief, so i am not sure how the proof of no God would look like, would it be scientific proof of something not existing?If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
As you suggest, not all theists do that; but those who do phrase the question so that they don't have to explain their own position ─ perhaps thereby giving rise to the reasonable suspicion they can't in fact explain it.If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
No.If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
No.
Besides, it would be like accepting the existence of a circular earth until someone provides physical evidence that it is flat.
IMO:If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist
Strange question, but:do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
Salixincendium said:If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
Why would existence not be a hard bar to clear?In any case, existence isn't exactly a hard bar to clear and fixating on that misses the point of a theistic worldview.
Why would existence not be a hard bar to clear?
The issue that I see with this approach is that our concepts are representations of objects; the concepts aren't the objects themselves.If one does not restrict "exists" to narrowed parameters of space and time, anything that can be discussed and debated at all already clears the bar.
My point is that we should also ask ourselves "is this thing that exists really X?"The question should never be "does X exist" but "in what manner does X exist" or "how can I as a human know and experience X."
The one who debate on existence of God is NOT a theist.If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
The issue that I see with this approach is that our concepts are representations of objects; the concepts aren't the objects themselves.
If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
That's not "the prevailing theism in Western culture" at all. In mainstream Christianity and Islam, God:What about concepts that are not representations of objects? There are a lot of those. Ask a random person to draw a picture of an idea. The best you will get is them drawing an object that represents the concept, usually with them knowing full well that the object is a symbolic stand-in for the concept. Gods in particular operate like this - many gods are concepts that are represented symbolically with objects (such as through anthropomorphisms) to help convey their meaning. Certainly the prevailing theism in Western culture - classical monotheism - is like this. Their god is isn't referring to an object and their theology goes out of its way to emphasize how the material world or objects isn't god.
If you can figure out which theologian suggested that "conceptual existence" and "spiritual existence" are the same thing, I'd love to know. I get the impression that this bit is an add-on from you.As part of their argument goes, god is that which is fundamentally greater and "spiritual" (conceptual, whatever) existence is fundamentally greater than "physical" (objective, whatever) existence. Or at least that's the general gist of what I was taught in a philosophy of religion class a while back. I forget which theologian made that particular argument.
The one who debate on existence of God is NOT a theist.
Am NOT theist, I try and love to become one.Yet you continue to post debate topics of God's existence in General Religious Debates. Is this your way of telling us you're not really a theist?
Am NOT theist, I try and love to become one.
Thank youI always knew you were in the closet.