Your best argument that G-d does not exist

[leibowde84]

Uh. No, what's convenient is to say that "no, you're not allowed to define God in a personal way, or in a way that we can't disprove."

The issue here is actually that there are many, many different views of what God is. But unfortunately, we are steeped and shaped to only think of the monotheistic external abrahamic sentient being God that neither atheists nor pantheists believe in. So when the question comes up, and it's open ended, then it's fair game.

I've learned a very good lesson from this thread, I'm not going to bring up pantheism again or pantheistic God concepts, since this forum is supposed to only be about Abrahamic monotheistic external anthropomorphic God, not other kinds, especially not pantheistic.

That is a straw man argument. You are merely putting words in my mouth. You are welcome to define God in any way that you want to. But, if you fail to define God (or anything) sufficiently (and saying God is everything certainly does not pass muster in this way), you cannot expect anyone to be able to disprove God's exstence. It is impossible to disprove an insufficiently defined entity. If God were in fact believed to be everything in this situation, I would say that it is unreasonable to expect the logical possibility that anyone could disprove God's existence.

 

[leibowde84]

Uh. No, what's convenient is to say that "no, you're not allowed to define God in a personal way, or in a way that we can't disprove."

The issue here is actually that there are many, many different views of what God is. But unfortunately, we are steeped and shaped to only think of the monotheistic external abrahamic sentient being God that neither atheists nor pantheists believe in. So when the question comes up, and it's open ended, then it's fair game.

I've learned a very good lesson from this thread, I'm not going to bring up pantheism again or pantheistic God concepts, since this forum is supposed to only be about Abrahamic monotheistic external anthropomorphic God, not other kinds, especially not pantheistic.

You are welcome to discuss pantheistic, abrahamic or any other notion on this site. Why would you think otherwise? I certainly would love to discuss all of the above.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are welcome to discuss pantheistic, abrahamic or any other notion on this site. Why would you think otherwise? I certainly would love to discuss all of the above.

Well, it's not my impression from this thread. I'm wrong about my view because it's told to me that it's a word game, it's subjective (my view is my view, gasp!), and it's not traditional.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, it's not my impression from this thread. I'm wrong about my view because it's told to me that it's a word game, it's subjective (my view is my view, gasp!), and it's not traditional.

Fair enough. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Ouroboros]

That is a straw man argument. You are merely putting words in my mouth.

I'm putting the words from many participants into one post and respond to the overall reaction and response towards me and my views.

You are welcome to define God in any way that you want to. But, if you fail to define God (or anything) sufficiently (and saying God is everything certainly does not pass muster in this way),

Hang on. Now you're doing it anyway. I can define God anyway I want as long as it is defined in a way that it is sufficient to you, and to say that it is everything is not good enough for you. Therefore, I can't define God that way according to you. That's how I read what you're saying there. I can do it any way I want, as long as it's not the way you don't want.

you cannot expect anyone to be able to disprove God's exstence.

That's the point! You can only disprove certain kinds of God definitions, like the abrahamic, and such. That's exactly the point I wanted you to get to!

To have a thread where any kind of God concept should be disproved to exist is an impossible task simply because there are millions of God concepts. You have to disprove every single one. And when you can't, you have to prove that the person is not allowed to have that view.

This is the dilemma of when atheists say that no kind of God exist at all. What atheists can say is that God of this kind or that kind don't exist, but not the broad spectrum rejection.

It is impossible to disprove an insufficiently defined entity. If God were in fact believed to be everything in this situation, I would say that it is unreasonable to expect the logical possibility that anyone could disprove God's existence.

That's right. That's why it's important to not make such grandstanding expressions that "no God exists!" Simply because the term isn't well defined for anyone at all, anywhere. The term itself is a reference to the "thing" in our world that we do not understand. So, really, an atheist's stand is a rejection of particular, specific God definitions, not a general rejection of God of every kind.

 

[Ouroboros]

Fair enough. Nothing wrong with that.

Let me explain my motivation for stepping into this hornet's nest of discussion.

I've seen several atheist members on this site, members I respect and actually do read and agree with many times, expressing that "No God Exist!" or "Doesn't matter how you define God, God doesn't exist." And I find it silly. It's a very vague rejection. It's basically rejecting pantheism and essentially rejecting the universe by saying that. And the only defense for the atheist then is to attack the personal views of the God. To me, it's just unacceptable. The atheist, which I consider myself being, should not become yet another dogmatic cult in society where moderation and modesty has been thrown out. We should, we have to be, intelligent, understanding, level headed, see things from all points of perspective and not dig our heads into the sand and scream "I'm right, I'm right, and screw everyone else!" We're replaced religious dogmatism with atheistic, and that's a shame, and won't lead humanity forward. I expect people to be smart enough to understand that the idea of "God" is so varied, complex, and colorful, that it should be impossible to reject every single one before even encountering them. We're smarter than that. Aren't we? And I hope I got a few people to wake up to this, or perhaps everyone hates me instead. A risk I was willing to take.

 

[jonathan180iq]

or perhaps everyone hates me instead

I hope you don't think I'm being personal in my rebuttal of your pantheistic argument... If you read it that way then you're going to misconstrue some things.

A lot of theists get insulted when their ideas are debated (or lambasted...) There's nothing personal in that, I don't think... Ideas absolutely need to be criticized in order to develop better ideas.
For example, using your pantheistic thing, if you're describing the entirety of existence, the sum of all parts and nothing more, as something completely awesome and awe-inspiring, then you and I are in the same boat. What boggles my mind, however, is your choosing to title exact same thing that I observe along side you as "god". I simply don't understand why you add the weight of divinity to something which we both agree exists. I don't see how the pantheistic god is a thing, rather than an interpretation of a thing.

That's not personal. I query you to know you. I don't query you to belittle you.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't see how the pantheistic god is a thing, rather than an interpretation of a thing.

That's not personal. I query you to know you. I don't query you to belittle you.

It is a personal thing. And it was belittling to be told that's just a wordplay. There's no away around that.

I've discussed my reasons before, but it's not easy to convey. The resistance to try to understand, and the misconceptions and preconceived notions are too strong to overcome.

 

[Blastcat]

Let me explain my motivation for stepping into this hornet's nest of discussion.

I've seen several atheist members on this site, members I respect and actually do read and agree with many times, expressing that "No God Exist!" or "Doesn't matter how you define God, God doesn't exist." And I find it silly.

Ok, they're silly. You presumably told them they were silly. How about the non silly atheists?... I don't say that.. are you currently discussing this issue with someone who IS saying that ?

Haven't actually SEEN one ... How about you talk about what the atheists who are talking to you say?

The atheist, which I consider myself being, should not become yet another dogmatic cult in society where moderation and modesty has been thrown out.

Well, that would be silly..

We should, we have to be, intelligent, understanding, level headed, see things from all points of perspective and not dig our heads into the sand and scream "I'm right, I'm right, and screw everyone else!"

Well, that would be wise.

I We're replaced religious dogmatism with atheistic, and that's a shame, and won't lead humanity forward.

I am not part of that "WE".

Who are you talking about?... Some silly people who happen to be atheists?.. how about we deal with the smart ones.. and the ones you happen to be addressing yourself to?

 

[Whiterain]

For Christ sake you do not have to hyphenate God like G-d...

This branch of the forum isn't good for my suicidal tenancies. That's not a cry for help its a cry for laughter.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm putting the words from many participants into one post and respond to the overall reaction and response towards me and my views.


Hang on. Now you're doing it anyway. I can define God anyway I want as long as it is defined in a way that it is sufficient to you, and to say that it is everything is not good enough for you. Therefore, I can't define God that way according to you. That's how I read what you're saying there. I can do it any way I want, as long as it's not the way you don't want.


That's the point! You can only disprove certain kinds of God definitions, like the abrahamic, and such. That's exactly the point I wanted you to get to!

To have a thread where any kind of God concept should be disproved to exist is an impossible task simply because there are millions of God concepts. You have to disprove every single one. And when you can't, you have to prove that the person is not allowed to have that view.

This is the dilemma of when atheists say that no kind of God exist at all. What atheists can say is that God of this kind or that kind don't exist, but not the broad spectrum rejection.


That's right. That's why it's important to not make such grandstanding expressions that "no God exists!" Simply because the term isn't well defined for anyone at all, anywhere. The term itself is a reference to the "thing" in our world that we do not understand. So, really, an atheist's stand is a rejection of particular, specific God definitions, not a general rejection of God of every kind.

Again, not sufficient for me, sufficiently and objectively defined. All I am pointing out is it is impossible to disprove anything unless that thing is defined specifically. I personally do not think that possible, so I find the OP question flawed/unfair.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ok, they're silly. You presumably told them they were silly. How about the non silly atheists?... I don't say that.. are you currently discussing this issue with someone who IS saying that ?

I consider myself a non-silly atheist. No, seriously, I don't think they are personally silly. I consider the attitude to be silly. People can be normal human beings and have some silly ideas without them being whole-person silly.

Besides, I really do consider myself an atheist still.

Haven't actually SEEN one ... How about you talk about what the atheists who are talking to you say?

One or two of them were part of this discussion. And perhaps I'm getting through, don't know.

Well, that would be silly..

Yes it would.

To bring the point further, the idea that the God-concept is too convoluted to be useful for discussion or even argue for or against such an entities existence is called ignosticism. Just to throw it out there.

 

[leibowde84]

Let me explain my motivation for stepping into this hornet's nest of discussion.

I've seen several atheist members on this site, members I respect and actually do read and agree with many times, expressing that "No God Exist!" or "Doesn't matter how you define God, God doesn't exist." And I find it silly. It's a very vague rejection. It's basically rejecting pantheism and essentially rejecting the universe by saying that. And the only defense for the atheist then is to attack the personal views of the God. To me, it's just unacceptable. The atheist, which I consider myself being, should not become yet another dogmatic cult in society where moderation and modesty has been thrown out. We should, we have to be, intelligent, understanding, level headed, see things from all points of perspective and not dig our heads into the sand and scream "I'm right, I'm right, and screw everyone else!" We're replaced religious dogmatism with atheistic, and that's a shame, and won't lead humanity forward. I expect people to be smart enough to understand that the idea of "God" is so varied, complex, and colorful, that it should be impossible to reject every single one before even encountering them. We're smarter than that. Aren't we? And I hope I got a few people to wake up to this, or perhaps everyone hates me instead. A risk I was willing to take.

Then I think we are in agreement. coming to the same conclusion from different points of view.

 

[Ouroboros]

Again, not sufficient for me, sufficiently and objectively defined. All I am pointing out is it is impossible to disprove anything unless that thing is defined specifically. I personally do not think that possible, so I find the OP question flawed/unfair.

Bingo! The OP question is seriously flawed. It's an open ended, vague, nondescript, unrestricted, unqualified question that can lead to anything.

 

[Ouroboros]

Then I think we are in agreement. coming to the same conclusion from different points of view.

Yes. I just tried to do it in a very unorthodox way by introducing a view that's not shared by many here. There are two ways to get to zero. One from the positive side of the axis, but also one from the negative. I just took the negative one instead to prove my point.

 

[Blastcat]

I consider myself a non-silly atheist. No, seriously, I don't think they are personally silly. I consider the attitude to be silly. People can be normal human beings and have some silly ideas without them being whole-person silly.

I didn't mean they were silly, yes yes.. sorry.. yes yes.. THEIR ATTITUDES are silly.. But I haven't seen anyone espousing what you claim that they do here.. in this thread.. WHO... who have said this in this thread?

One or two of them were part of this discussion. And perhaps I'm getting through, don't know.

Ohhhhhhhh .. those.. right. Maybe they can identify themselves.. those one or two of them...

 

[Ouroboros]

I didn't mean they were silly, yes yes.. sorry.. yes yes.. THEIR ATTITUDES are silly.. But I haven't seen anyone espousing what you claim that they do here.. in this thread.. WHO... who have said this in this thread?

Other threads. It was just a good opportunity.

Ohhhhhhhh .. those.. right. Maybe they can identify themselves.. those one or two of them...

That would be their choice.

 

[Nakosis]

Being an atheist is the position of a skeptic. To question, doubt and ask for proof.

Once you start claiming the truth of something, you are no longer a skeptic.

However, I reject the concepts of God based on morality. The morals of God should be untouchable/unquestionable. I don't find this to be the case especially for Christian, Muslim or Jewish Gods. Man should not be able to be morally superior to God.

Since man is capable of moral superiority I have to presume the God of these concepts don't exist.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes. I just tried to do it in a very unorthodox way by introducing a view that's not shared by many here. There are two ways to get to zero. One from the positive side of the axis, but also one from the negative. I just took the negative one instead to prove my point.

And proved it well ... I might add. It forced me to examine my own view that much more.

 

[jonathan180iq]

It is a personal thing. And it was belittling to be told that's just a wordplay. There's no away around that.

One or two of them were part of this discussion. And perhaps I'm getting through, don't know.

But I haven't seen anyone espousing what you claim that they do here.. in this thread.. WHO... who have said this in this thread?

Ohhhhhhhh .. those.. right. Maybe they can identify themselves.. those one or two of them...

That would be their choice.

So are we talking about me, or what?

I really don't see how anything I've said or asked in this discussion is volatile.
I certainly understand that you dislike my referring to the pantheistic deity as word-play, but I still haven't even gotten a valid response as to why it isn't. If you've address why in other threads or posts, I wasn't a part of those so how would I know otherwise?