The myriad proofs for the exsitence of God

[dorsk188]

Does consciousness exist? If "God" is existence, then. . .
Does a capacity for agency exist? If "God" is existence, then. . .

The question is "Does God exist". If you define God as existence, then you're really asking "Is God God?" You've rendered the question meaningless, and it's just avoiding the question. All things you can do when you want to remain as vague as possible about something so you can believe in it.

Unfortunately, some have. I don't agree with that, though, as it doesn't give any allowance to empower non-existence (which is also a thing).

Prove that nonexistence is a thing. And why does it need "empowering"?

Troublemane is just mangling the English language when he asserts that "God is X" unless God has other attributes. If God is just existence, then we should just call it existence and get on with our lives. You seem to be mistaking language with thought. I'm not a profound international relations thinker, pondering the imponderable, if I ask "Is the King of France bald?". All I've done is played a game with language.

 

[Thief]

Did I miss it? Did someone else already point out....

God is spirit...lacking physical form.
He does not occupy space and is not subject to linear existence.

 

[Willamena]

You are still doing it! Questioning my ability and perception. A classic theist evasion technique. Any ploy, bar answering the question it seems.

I'm still asking my question, yes, because it has yet to be addressed (but it's okay, I don't honestly expect you to listen to or care about the points that I make).

I'm not questioning any ability or perception that you have (it was a general-case "you"); I'm not a theist; I'm not evading anything; I'm just looking for someone to discuss the point I made. I get that you're interested in being that person.

 

[Willamena]

The question is "Does God exist". If you define God as existence, then you're really asking "Is God God?" You've rendered the question meaningless, and it's just avoiding the question. All things you can do when you want to remain as vague as possible about something so you can believe in it.

How is wording what is essentially a meaningless question the equivalent of avoiding it? That makes no sense to me.

Prove that nonexistence is a thing. And why does it need "empowering"?

*points at nonexistence* There.
It (like everything that exists) "needs" empowering so that we can make the use of it that we do.

Troublemane is just mangling the English language when he asserts that "God is X" unless God has other attributes. If God is just existence, then we should just call it existence and get on with our lives.

I tend to agree (except with the mangling part).
(I snipped the last part of your post, as it seemed entirely non sequitor.)

 

[dorsk188]

How is wording what is essentially a meaningless question the equivalent of avoiding it? That makes no sense to me.

That's why it's important to define God at the outset. You say it's a meaningless question. Explain why it is meaningless. "Is the King of France bald?" is a meaningless question because there is no King of France.

What makes "Does God exist?" a meaningless question?

*points at nonexistence* There.
It (like everything that exists) "needs" empowering so that we can make the use of it that we do.

How do you use non-existence?

I tend to agree (except with the mangling part).
(I snipped the last part of your post, as it seemed entirely non sequitor.)

This is why definitions of God are crucial in talking about possible existence. If God is "everything in existence", then everyone believes in that, but you're really talking the universe (or multiverse or whatever ultimately is the largest collection of everything that exists). If he is "everything in existence and also loves you", then we're no longer dealing with just the universe. We can start talking about evidence and reasoning, or lack thereof.

No one wants people to defend the Abrahamic God or whatever if that's not what they believe. But two people can't have a meaningful discussion about something that is only understood by one person (who won't offer an explanation).

 

[cottage]

I'm still asking my question, yes, because it has yet to be addressed (but it's okay, I don't honestly expect you to listen to or care about the points that I make).

It's difficult to draw out of you exactly what it is you want to say. There is no impending assault on your views and no profoundly right or wrong opinions. I can't see what the problem is.





I'm not questioning any ability or perception that you have (it was a general-case "you"); I'm not a theist; I'm not evading anything; I'm just looking for someone to discuss the point I made. I get that you're interested in being that person.

I'm sorry but you have been and continue to be extremely evasive. You put obstacles in the way and find reasons not to answer questions. It's like trying to get through someone's defence mechanisms before the discussion can begin.

 

[Troublemane]

The question is "Does God exist". If you define God as existence, then you're really asking "Is God God?" You've rendered the question meaningless, and it's just avoiding the question. All things you can do when you want to remain as vague as possible about something so you can believe in it.

No, i did not define God as existence, I took the already agreed upon ideas about what constitutes God and deduced logically what must God be in order to fulfill those qualifications. My definition was derived from those criteria, I did not start from that premise. Thats what makes my argument valid. I have not specified anything about the Bible or Quaran or anything else, as I dont necessarily believe in those books.

Besides, how well do we really understand what 'existence' is anyway, that we can dismiss it as something simple? And say, "aw thats not God, god's gotta be something besides existence"...maybe thats why we never see him/her/it? By looking for God where it isn't.

I mean how come you gotta think God is separate from existence? Because medieval writers said so?

Troublemane is just mangling the English language when he asserts that "God is X" unless God has other attributes. If God is just existence, then we should just call it existence and get on with our lives. You seem to be mistaking language with thought. I'm not a profound international relations thinker, pondering the imponderable, if I ask "Is the King of France bald?". All I've done is played a game with language.

I dislike being accused of mangling the english language, when I have gone to such great lengths to put this idea into words, using concise english. If you have no other argument than to attack my words, then I believe its because you have no valid logical ground to stand on. Is it possible you can address the argument itself or is call my words"bad language" all you can do? :angel2:

 

[Willamena]

That's why it's important to define God at the outset. You say it's a meaningless question. Explain why it is meaningless.

You already did. You said it was rendered meaningless, and described how. Nevermind.

How do you use non-existence?

When you declare something non-existent, which people do all the time. "Death" being the cessation of a life is a good example. After death we "cease to be," "are no more," "have ceased to exist," etc.

This is why definitions of God are crucial in talking about possible existence. If God is "everything in existence", then everyone believes in that, but you're really talking the universe (or multiverse or whatever ultimately is the largest collection of everything that exists). If he is "everything in existence and also loves you", then we're no longer dealing with just the universe. We can start talking about evidence and reasoning, or lack thereof.

No one wants people to defend the Abrahamic God or whatever if that's not what they believe. But two people can't have a meaningful discussion about something that is only understood by one person (who won't offer an explanation).

Why would everyone believe in one definition of "God"? As far as I can tell, there are as many definitions of "God" as there are people who've defined him.

 

[dorsk188]

No, i did not define God as existence...

Forgive me if I feel that you're blatantly lying to my face, then. You said: "it follows logically that God must be.....Existence Itself." You began every element of your proof claiming "if God is existence itself..."

How, then, are you not defining God as existence when that seems to be what you spent two posts doing?

I took the already agreed upon ideas about what constitutes God and deduced logically what must God be in order to fulfill those qualifications. My definition was derived from those criteria, I did not start from that premise. Thats what makes my argument valid. I have not specified anything about the Bible or Quaran or anything else, as I dont necessarily believe in those books.

I would argue that you forgot to include agency and self-awareness. Most people believe that God must be conscious in some form to be God (otherwise we may be talking about the Universe being "God's debris" or something). If you don't believe that God is conscious, you still need to define what God is beyond "existence itself".

Besides, how well do we really understand what 'existence' is anyway, that we can dismiss it as something simple? And say, "aw thats not God, god's gotta be something besides existence"...maybe thats why we never see him/her/it? By looking for God where it isn't.

Existence is a philosophical concept. A rock doesn't exist because a person philosophizes about it. Even if you define God as vaguely as "existence itself", you still haven't made God something "outside our brains". Perfect circles don't exist, either. Infinity doesn't exist. Not in the real world. They are concepts in our minds. (And if you're going to claim, as I suspect you are, that these things are trancendent, like God, you need to explain why that's the case. The perfect circle is a mathematical necessity, but God, unless defined so narrowly as "existence itself" or incorporating attributes like "existence itself" is not.)

I mean how come you gotta think God is separate from existence? Because medieval writers said so?

I didn't say he must be seperate from existence. I said that he can't be "merely existence" and still be God. If God is the same thing as existence, with no more attributes, then you're just talking about existence.

However, you still have to explain why God is "existence itself" in the first place. Just because it fits your proof, doesn't mean that it actually reflects the nature of God.

I dislike being accused of mangling the english language.

We already have a word for existence, it's existence. If your version of God is the same thing as existence itself, with no other attributes, then that is precisely what you are doing. If your version of God has more attributes, then you need to define them, which you haven't done.

All you've done in your "proof" is say "God exists because he's God". Using a similar logic, I can prove he doesn't exist:

Premise: God is the creator of the Universe (already established by you).
Premise: God is the most powerful being we can conceive.
Premise: A feat is more powerful when the one who performs it appears to lack the ability to perform it (Ant Lifting a Rubbertree Plant Theory).

Therefore, if God were not powerful enough to create the universe, but did anyway, it would be a more powerful feat than if he were powerful enough to create the universe easily.

Therefore, a nonexistent God who created the Universe would be the most powerful creator we could conceive, because he created the Universe without even having the power to exist.

Therefore, God doesn't exist.

(But this is why pure Aristotelian logic is fundementally flawed. You can create a logical proof of something, but that doesn't mean it's true. Just like I can make a fact claim that is neither true nor false. It's an artifact of language. Nothing more.)

 

[dorsk188]

You already did. You said it was rendered meaningless, and described how. Nevermind.

The question is rendered meaningless if you define God as existence. I thought you were saying that "Does God exist?" is a meaningless question. Sorry if I misunderstood.

When you declare something non-existent, which people do all the time. "Death" being the cessation of a life is a good example. After death we "cease to be," "are no more," "have ceased to exist," etc.

But why must we "empower" the concept?

Why would everyone believe in one definition of "God"? As far as I can tell, there are as many definitions of "God" as there are people who've defined him.

I'm not saying everyone has to believe in one definition. I'm saying: "If we're going to discuss God, according to you, then I need to know your definition."

 

[Willamena]

But why must we "empower" the concept?

We do that to make use of it. We also minimize or deny concepts in order to push them out of use.

Relating that back to earlier discussion, my image of "God" includes both the existence and non-existence of things (necessarily including "God" embodied in the image of God).

Originally Posted by dorsk188
But two people can't have a meaningful discussion about something that is only understood by one person (who won't offer an explanation).

I'm not saying everyone has to believe in one definition. I'm saying: "If we're going to discuss God, according to you, then I need to know your definition."

Sorry that I misunderstood. And I agree (and have suggested eariler) that in order to discuss a topic we must each hear the other's definition. But before we each can supply a definition, we each must have a definition to supply, and this is what I've been arguing for a few pages. If we don't have a definition, then discussion wouldn't be meaningful.

Yet it seems some people are content to declare they have no definition of "God" and are still willing to participate in judging other's views.

 

[Troublemane]

Forgive me if I feel that you're blatantly lying to my face, then. You said: "it follows logically that God must be.....Existence Itself." You began every element of your proof claiming "if God is existence itself..."

How, then, are you not defining God as existence when that seems to be what you spent two posts doing?

Ill forgive you for calling me a liar. LoL...nice debate etiquette. sheesh

again, my identification of God as existence followed the definition set out previously as God being Omnipotent, etc....I did not start off with a defintion of God as existence. I derived it. Theres a difference.:angel2:

I would argue that you forgot to include agency and self-awareness. Most people believe that God must be conscious in some form to be God (otherwise we may be talking about the Universe being "God's debris" or something). If you don't believe that God is conscious, you still need to define what God is beyond "existence itself".

I did include self-awareness, as a property of God i said he/she/it was OMNISCIENT. That should include self-awareness, in any possible definition of the term. as well as all other forms of awreness, beyond/beside mere self-awareness....:angel2:

Existence is a philosophical concept.

Is it?--I thought it was something you experience. Philosophy tends to be more full of itself, awk awk.

A rock doesn't exist because a person philosophizes about it.

Nope, neither does existence itself go away because a person denies it.

Even if you define God as vaguely as "existence itself", you still haven't made God something "outside our brains".

Are you now making the case that existence is something which is not independent of our perceptual awareness?

Perfect circles don't exist, either. Infinity doesn't exist. Not in the real world. They are concepts in our minds. (And if you're going to claim, as I suspect you are, that these things are trancendent, like God, you need to explain why that's the case. The perfect circle is a mathematical necessity, but God, unless defined so narrowly as "existence itself" or incorporating attributes like "existence itself" is not.)

No thanks, I will determine what i think about these things. No need to anticipate me. Yes, perfect circles are abstractions, mathematical concepts, but they exist in our minds. As ideas. Much like we can talk about other mathematical concepts, such as the number Pi, for example. So, yeah, whereas God may be transcendent he/she/it is also conceiveable. Much like Pi. we may not be able to calculate the last digit of Pi, but I dont need to know what it is to conceptualize it.
Same with God.


[qoute]I didn't say he must be seperate from existence. I said that he can't be "merely existence" and still be God. If God is the same thing as existence, with no more attributes, then you're just talking about existence.

I think the idea that we exist PERIOD is the prime mystery of all religion. Worship of God is just a convenient name for it, we could call it celebrating our existence. I think thats probably a more mature way to look at it.

However, you still have to explain why God is "existence itself" in the first place. Just because it fits your proof, doesn't mean that it actually reflects the nature of God.

Ok, i thought i was just coming up with a good concept of how to build a logical proof of God, not defining a full on theology on it! LoL...I really have no wish to go there, so ya,...Ill pass. lol thnx:angel2:

We already have a word for existence, it's existence. If your version of God is the same thing as existence itself, with no other attributes, then that is precisely what you are doing. If your version of God has more attributes, then you need to define them, which you haven't done.

Nope, my idea goes no further than that. I think its perfectly acceptable to just worship the mystery of existence. Thats it. i am quite happy to leave it thus. :angel2:

All you've done in your "proof" is say "God exists because he's God". Using a similar logic, I can prove he doesn't exist:

Premise: God is the creator of the Universe (already established by you).
Premise: God is the most powerful being we can conceive.
Premise: A feat is more powerful when the one who performs it appears to lack the ability to perform it (Ant Lifting a Rubbertree Plant Theory).

Therefore, if God were not powerful enough to create the universe, but did anyway, it would be a more powerful feat than if he were powerful enough to create the universe easily.

Therefore, a nonexistent God who created the Universe would be the most powerful creator we could conceive, because he created the Universe without even having the power to exist.

Therefore, God doesn't exist.

(But this is why pure Aristotelian logic is fundementally flawed. You can create a logical proof of something, but that doesn't mean it's true. Just like I can make a fact claim that is neither true nor false. It's an artifact of language. Nothing more.)

so you are saying a nonexistent god that created the universe would be infintely more impressive than a being which did it easily. Ok ill buy that. Its far more likely it came from the void anyways. :angel2:

 

[dorsk188]

If we don't have a definition, then discussion wouldn't be meaningful.

Yet it seems some people are content to declare they have no definition of "God" and are still willing to participate in judging other's views.

If we don't have a shared definition, for the sake of the conversation, I agree.

If a wiccan and a Christian were going to discuss God, then they could either discuss the wiccan's concept or the Christian's concept. The Christian accepts, for the sake of argument, the wiccan's concept, or vice versa. If they both talk about their own view of God, then they are going to be talking past each other.

Atheists don't bring a definition to the discussion. We just want to talk about your version of God. (Generic you.) To me, that should make it easier to have a discussion. Rather than two people with different views of something claiming they're right, the theist proposes their view of God and the atheist tries to disprove it. (I'm making it sound more antagonistic than it really is, but I hope you get my point.)

This is why there's been so much effort in this thread to get theists to define God. It would then be a shared definition, for the sake of the conversation, and a real discussion can take place. Atheists not having their own definition of God has nothing to do with it.

 

[Willamena]

If we don't have a shared definition, for the sake of the conversation, I agree.

Right; and in order to agree on a definition, we must each have a definition.

If they both talk about their own view of God, then they are going to be talking past each other.

Unless, of course, they find points on which to agree, which could be many.

Atheists don't bring a definition to the discussion. We just want to talk about your version of God. (Generic you.) To me, that should make it easier to have a discussion. Rather than two people with different views of something claiming they're right...

But that still happens --the atheist isn't exempt from thinking he's right and the other wrong. In fact, he'd be a stange debate participant if he was exempt.

...the theist proposes their view of God and the atheist tries to disprove it.

Based on what? What does he compare the other's image of God to in order to disprove anything about it (as obviously he can't disprove God)? More often, the perspective he choses to compare ends up being other's stated definitions of God, or an image of nature (each indicating that he hasn't a clue what God is--right?).

And still nothing is agreed upon. No shared definition can happen between them.

This is why there's been so much effort in this thread to get theists to define God. It would then be a shared definition, for the sake of the conversation, and a real discussion can take place. Atheists not having their own definition of God has nothing to do with it.

I think it necessarily does have something to do with it. Whatever resulted image of God that may be shared by theists will never be compelling to athesists who have not, themselves, defined God; who cannot share in image-building.

And all this is aside from the idea that there is no "the Proof" that the OP calls for.

 

[dorsk188]

Ill forgive you for calling me a liar. LoL...nice debate etiquette. sheesh

again, my identification of God as existence followed the definition set out previously as God being Omnipotent, etc....I did not start off with a defintion of God as existence. I derived it. Theres a difference.

No, there's not. What you did was tailor your definition of God to suit your premises. It doesn't matter how you come to a definition, you're defining it. If I say "I can prove pigs fly" then define pigs as "anything that can fly", I'm discarding the original definition of a pig to suit my new definition. You did precisely the same thing, by saying that God exists because God is existence.

But I see where we had some degree of miscommunication of what it means to "define". I apologize for insinuating that you were lying, but as far as I can tell, there's no significant distinction between "define" and "derive" in this case.

I did include self-awareness, as a property of God i said he/she/it was OMNISCIENT. That should include self-awareness, in any possible definition of the term. as well as all other forms of awreness, beyond/beside mere self-awareness....:angel2:

There are concepts of the Universe itself is the mind of a slumbering God. Omniscience does not require awareness any more than omnipotenct requires the capacity for agency.

Worship of God is just a convenient name for it, we could call it celebrating our existence. I think thats probably a more mature way to look at it.

Why not just call it celebrating existence, then? How convenient is calling something God when it means different, very specific things to different people? It's been my experience that using the label of God just leads to confusion.

so you are saying a nonexistent god that created the universe would be infintely more impressive than a being which did it easily. Ok ill buy that. Its far more likely it came from the void anyways. :angel2:

Agreed. My point is that logical proofs (even without logical fallacies) can be used to "prove" just about anything. They're really not that useful in "Does God Exist" discussions.

 

[dorsk188]

Right; and in order to agree on a definition, we must each have a definition.

No, we must have a shared definition. If two people want to purely discuss Person 1's definition, it becomes a shared definition for that conversation.

Unless, of course, they find points on which to agree, which could be many.

But not all. My point is that, if they want to have a fruitful debate, they must agree on a shared definition, which could be the wiccan's, the Christian's, or some third construction that neither believes in for the purposes of the conversation.

But that still happens --the atheist isn't exempt from thinking he's right and the other wrong. In fact, he'd be a stange debate participant if he was exempt.

But a responsible atheist doesn't claim: "God doesn't exist because the Bible is full of contradictions" to a Hindu. I'm perfectly happy to let every theist define their God, without my input. To do otherwise usually results in strawmen, anyway.

To be honest, most atheists don't claim that they are right (because they don't have any affirmative beliefs to begin with). They claim theists are wrong, and irrational or deluded in their beliefs.

Based on what? What does he compare the other's image of God to in order to disprove anything about it (as obviously he can't disprove God)? More often, the perspective he choses to compare ends up being other's stated definitions of God, or an image of nature (each indicating that he hasn't a clue what God is--right?).

You can disprove certain versions of God, depending on the attributed characteristics. That's why the theist should be upfront about their views of God (and I suspect why so few are).

Atheists are not necessarily proposing an image of nature as a counter-argument. The theist proposes that God exists. The counter-argument is "No he/she/it doesn't." We are debating the theist worldview, in essence. There is no need to bring in a second worldview for the sake of comparison. The theist may be wrong even if the atheist isn't right either.

In a debate over raising taxes, the proposer must advocate doing so, and the opponent defend doing nothing. If the opponent had to propose an alternative, then there would be many unrepresented sides in any debate. This is why it's best to debate one issue at a time. In this case: "Does God exist?".

And still nothing is agreed upon. No shared definition can happen between them.

Again, the shared definition is the theist's definition. Atheists (at least I do) accept whatever definition theists want to make for the sake of conversation. (As long as it's not just a redefinition of an already established concept.)

I think it necessarily does have something to do with it. Whatever resulted image of God that may be shared by theists will never be compelling to athesists who have not, themselves, defined God; who cannot share in image-building.

So, the Christian and wiccan can get together, rap about their respective Gods, "build a shared image" of him/her, and that's productive. But when an atheist wants to examine any one version of God to verify it, that will be unfruitful? This sounds like you're in favor of evading tough questions and building a consensus, without critical review. Which is fine if you want to end up with a mushy, contradiction-laden pantheistic God or maybe a restrained deist God (depending on whether you're constructive or destructive.). But you're avoiding the central question of whether this being exists in the first place.

 

[Willamena]

No, we must have a shared definition. If two people want to purely discuss Person 1's definition, it becomes a shared definition for that conversation.

But that's not the case of having agreed on a shared definition, rather it's the case of one person having adopting another person's stated definition (which, of course, comes with all implied ambiguity). So, okay, if that's what you meant. . .

You can disprove certain versions of God, depending on the attributed characteristics. That's why the theist should be upfront about their views of God (and I suspect why so few are).

Atheists are not necessarily proposing an image of nature as a counter-argument. The theist proposes that God exists. The counter-argument is "No he/she/it doesn't." We are debating the theist worldview, in essence. There is no need to bring in a second worldview for the sake of comparison. The theist may be wrong even if the atheist isn't right either.

Disproving dependent on attributed characteristics is utilizing an image of nature. It is by its characteristics that the nature of a thing is defined. Atheists looking for characteristics are looking for the nature of God (which, if the god so discussed is Creator, is the nature of the creator of the nature) (which I suppose is rendered as meaningless as the "is God God?" god).

A judgement of right or wrong, good or bad, accruate or inaccruate, correct or incorrect, and proven or disproven requires something with which to compare the thing so judged; i.e, what makes it "wrong" and what would be "right"?

In a debate over raising taxes, the proposer must advocate doing so, and the opponent defend doing nothing. If the opponent had to propose an alternative, then there would be many unrepresented sides in any debate. This is why it's best to debate one issue at a time. In this case: "Does God exist?".

"Doing nothing" with taxes is an alternative to raising taxes. Both parties in your example have defined "taxes" and use a shared definition to debate it.

Again, the shared definition is the theist's definition. Atheists (at least I do) accept whatever definition theists want to make for the sake of conversation. (As long as it's not just a redefinition of an already established concept.)

And they haven't defined it, themselves, for the most part --right. So again on what basis do they judge? Usually nature (i.e. something they know well).

So, the Christian and wiccan can get together, rap about their respective Gods, "build a shared image" of him/her, and that's productive. But when an atheist wants to examine any one version of God to verify it, that will be unfruitful? This sounds like you're in favor of evading tough questions and building a consensus, without critical review. Which is fine if you want to end up with a mushy, contradiction-laden pantheistic God or maybe a restrained deist God (depending on whether you're constructive or destructive.). But you're avoiding the central question of whether this being exists in the first place.

What "tough questions" can be asked about a stated image that is not a definition shared by the person asking the "tough questions"? More often, they are necessarily "misunderstood" questions rather than "tough". Sometimes even unanswerable. Like the question of "what is God?" that wishes to see an answer addressing characteristics.

 

[dorsk188]

But that's not the case of having agreed on a shared definition, rather it's the case of one person having adopting another person's stated definition (which, of course, comes with all implied ambiguity). So, okay, if that's what you meant. . .

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if there was confusion.

A judgement of right or wrong, good or bad, accruate or inaccruate, correct or incorrect, and proven or disproven requires something with which to compare the thing so judged; i.e, what makes it "wrong" and what would be "right"?

Which is why I used the example of taxes. One person proposes raising taxes (my idea of God exists) and the other doing nothing (no it doesn't). There is no need for the atheist to present an alternative worldview, just a contradictory one in this case.

"Doing nothing" with taxes is an alternative to raising taxes. Both parties in your example have defined "taxes" and use a shared definition to debate it.

Well, we hope so. American politics has an interesting history of this lately...

And they haven't defined it, themselves, for the most part --right. So again on what basis do they judge? Usually nature (i.e. something they know well).

I would never presume to tell someone else what they believe in. That's why I ask. Try as you might to make me defend my godless worldview, I'm not interested. This thread is about proof that God exists, not "why dorsk188's worldview makes sense or doesn't".

What "tough questions" can be asked about a stated image that is not a definition shared by the person asking the "tough questions"?

So only people who drink the kool-aid understand the subject enough to ask reasonable questions? Everyone outside the club "just doesn't get it".

Isolating oneself from criticism is not usually sign of strong, reasonable, accurate views. Just my opinion.

 

[Willamena]

Which is why I used the example of taxes. One person proposes raising taxes (my idea of God exists) and the other doing nothing (no it doesn't). There is no need for the atheist to present an alternative worldview, just a contradictory one in this case.

Well, we hope so. . .

But in the example of taxes both parties have defined "taxes". In the discussion of "God" between atheist and theist that's not the case. One freely admits to not having defined "God" and is examining something entirely alien. (With all implied ambuguity.)
Edit: Note, this isn't supposed to be about all atheists or all theists, but the general cases that have supported my argument to date.

So only people who drink the kool-aid understand the subject enough to ask reasonable questions? Everyone outside the club "just doesn't get it".

It's not about "clubs". Both atheist and theist can have defined "God" and have a shared definition with which to discuss it.* What I'm saying is that the atheist who hasn't defined it (and most have, whether they will admit it or not) has no basis from which to launch questions about the subject.

In other words, the people who haven't even defined kool-aid cannot understand enough to ask reasonable questions.

*They can equally have not defined "God" and have no clue what they are taking about.

 

[dorsk188]

*They can equally have not defined "God" and have no clue what they are taking about.

I've been a devoted theist, so it's not as though the concept of "God" is alien to me. But even so, I know my old view of God are not necessarily anyone else's, and would not ascribe them to anyone. But you're creating a situation where no atheist can ever have a conversation about God.

If an atheist says: "What do you mean when you say God?", you accuse him of not being able to understand what God is because he doesn't believe in one.
If an atheist says: "God doesn't exist because X, Y, and Z", you would accuse him of creating strawmen, or misrepresenting your view of God, or again not understanding God. (You'd be very justified in saying that, in my opinion).

That's why I, and many atheists, ask you to define what you believe. If atheists just can't understand because we don't believe, then you are either unable or unwilling to describe it, or clearly evading any chance of criticism. And if that's your intent, then no one is forcing you to post in a religious debate forum.