As I said, I can only infer that the concept of God, having created consciousness, must have super-natural and transcendent capabilities or properties. Kind of the same idea as Kant's transcendentalism. Or as an example, if you prefer the infamous judgement that humans make quite often: all events must have a cause... . — 3017amen
Think about why human's utter such things and how universally effective that notion of wonder is viz physical science. — 3017amen
I have tried to figure out a way to say this nicely, but I really could not.
You are full of shit, Sub.
I've answered the question of what I mean by "god"...SEVERAL TIMES. — Frank Apisa
When I speak of a god, I mean, "An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider 'the Universe.'"
I can give you the longer version if you need it...but you shouldn't.
We both know what I mean when I say "a god"...and we both know what you mean when you say "define."
But you are lost here...and all you can do is spin the subject so that you do not have to acknowledge you have failed.
I truly am sorry about that. I wish things could be different. I'll continue to reply, hoping you finally develop what is needed to make the acknowledgment. — Frank Apisa
Does that metaphor speak to it? — 3017amen
You're onto something here. The sentence "God is consciousness" is not a definition - it is a poetic metaphor. — EricH
The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas" — EricH
Now I'm not questioning your faith. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious and I can see how it helps them cope with life's difficulties and gives structure and meaning to their lives. — EricH
But there is no logic to a belief in god(s) - faith is totally irrational. — EricH
Any efforts to give a reasonably coherent explanation of the phrase "God exists" are doomed to failure. — EricH
But there is no logic to a belief in god(s) - faith is totally irrational — EricH
God is consciousness — 3017amen
Since the term was first invented, atheists have been trying to make their blind guesses that gods do not exist seem like something other than "beliefs." — Frank Apisa
Jesus was known to be part God — 3017amen
It was recording in history that Jesus was both God and man — 3017amen
Jesus was part God and man as recorded in history — 3017amen
those nebulous indeterminate definitions typically put forth by faith apologists (and I think some were posted earlier in this thread) means nihilism? Odd. I doubt that's what they wanted. — jorndoe
One more definition...? By all means, add to the ridiculous amount of definitions. :) I wonder how many definitions can be found on this forum alone. Shiva, "the greatest", The Triune, the universe (or a supposed sentient creator thereof), your oceanic feelings, that over there :point: , "the great unknown" (or "unknowable"), ghosts of imagined entities, ... What a circus. No wonder there are things like ignosticism. — jorndoe
Tall tales, stories of a Jewish carpenter in Middle Eastern antiquity supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food, magically walking on water and turning water into wine, cursing a fig tree to make it wither, after whose demise there was a zombie outbreak in Jerusalem, ... Taking this stuff to be literal history is where uncritical naïveté gullibility malleability credulity "seeing faces in the clouds" (mentioned by Punshhh) is applicable. — jorndoe
you could always stop believing without proof that human reason is qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods — Hippyhead
I don't know Frank, so far I haven't heard any persuasive arguments from any atheists on this site. I mean I've given them every opportunity to save-face, but it seem as though they got nothing. Oh well, the more things change the more they stay the same. Or in Christian philosophy; nothing new under the sun. — 3017amen
Speaking of [atheists] saving face: “The fanatical atheists are like...who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres--Albert Einstein — 3017amen
Is the fact that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God a non sequitur? — 3017amen
What's indeterminate about Jesus existing in history? I'm not following you... — 3017amen
Is that basically another approach or version of hiding behind ad hominem ? Oh, that's right you were the guy that introduced ad hominem into my argument that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God. LOL — 3017amen
Not sure I'm following that, are you suggesting that all history books are fiction? — 3017amen
I have tried to figure out a way to say this nicely, but I really could not.
You are full of shit, Sub.
I've answered the question of what I mean by "god"...SEVERAL TIMES.
— Frank Apisa
Didn't recall you noting it in one of your replies giving a definition of god that you and I can discuss, of course remember that you do not speak for every other religious individual on the matter. — substantivalism
— Frank ApisaI can give you the longer version if you need it...but you shouldn't.
We both know what I mean when I say "a god"...and we both know what you mean when you say "define."
But you are lost here...and all you can do is spin the subject so that you do not have to acknowledge you have failed.
I truly am sorry about that. I wish things could be different. I'll continue to reply, hoping you finally develop what is needed to make the acknowledgment.
Well you just gave a definition of god and (though you haven't specified much of the specifics beyond gave rise to the universe with no other connotations on required properties) is for all intensive purposes something i'm agnostic (weakly) towards. . . so was that so hard? You specified a definition then I gave my position on it which has been the whole point of being tentatively ignostic, the discussion is void until you can actually have one with predefined terms that both parties agree on as well as understand. — substantivalism
All i've done is be extremely pedantic about this because you can really only be ignorant (or undecided) on the existence of an entity when you know what that entity is or that you are even talking about an entity at all. Agnostic to me is that position of ignorance towards the god concept AFTER you assume it's an entity of sorts, a word, that means something to someone and you can say you don't know if it exists or not. Are you still agnostic if you don't get what the point of a discussion is with undefined terms or incoherent definitions? You could stretch the word that way so it just becomes the universal word for "I don't know" whether were talking about meta-concepts or the concepts directly but usually most i've seen also just use the word to specify they understand what god means and they don't know whether it exists. — substantivalism
When I think agnostic should I think of: Person who doesn't know what god is?
Or that it's a person who doesn't know if a god exists?
Clearly these are not the same.
180 Proof
1.6k
Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE.
— 180 Proof
↪Frank Apisa — 180 Proof
I would basically agree with the statement that human reason is NOT qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods. Is this what you're saying? — EricH
Probably because you never get past the define your terms phase of the discussion either being intentionally obscure (i've personally now experienced that) or just seemingly refusing to do so post after post. — substantivalism
Great, an argument from authority or a useless quote mine which isn't a definition of god. — substantivalism
particular definition of god with predefined attributes something which you have actually failed to provide on every occasion and I wouldn't ever dare to put you among those respectable apologists/theistic philosophers that make up such a statistic. — substantivalism
I know the bible claims that but I want to see you support it. — substantivalism
So then, how can you support both historically as well as philosophically that such a thing did occur? — substantivalism
God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus. — 3017amen
Again, still not a definition. What does the word "that" mean? — EricH
I am not qualified to be a plumber, although I would likely be a decent plumber if I had training. Reason is a tool. So I would phrase this something like "Reason is an inadequate tool for this job".I'm saying reason has not been proven qualified for that job. — Hippyhead
There's a similar problem here with these formulations. Books are not qualified to do anything. One way of phrasing this might be "There is no reason to accept any holy book as being authoritative on these largest subjects. They all disagree with one another so at best only one is correct, and there is no way that you can use reason to tell which - if any - of these books is accurate"We look at holy books and see their qualifications for the largest subjects has not been proven. And so we withhold belief in that authority until such proof is provided. — Hippyhead
Likewise.We look at human reason and see it's qualifications for the largest subjects has not been proven. And so we withhold belief in that authority until such proof is provided. — Hippyhead
180 Proof
1.6k
Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE.
— 180 Proof
↪Frank Apisa — 180 Proof
Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof↪Frank Apisa — 180 Proof
Jesus who was known to be part God — 3017amen
↪Frank Apisa He still seems angry Frank LOL — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.