Well, I've answered all these questions many times in this thread...
That's debatable. But what you most certainly haven't done is provide the definition of 'supernatural' that you are applying in order to conclude that only your GOD qualifies.
Straggler writes:
Can you give me an example of a god or a God that isn't supernatural or doesn't have supernatural abilities?
jar writes:
All of the Gods or gods.
What definition of supernatural are you applying such that GOD does qualify but Thor, Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu and Voldermort don't?
Okay, if that is what you believe then that is fine with me.
But it is not what I believe.
I believe that any God or god that we can discuss, define or describe is almost certainly not GOD.
What GOD is, an entity, a group, a committee, a force, an essence... I honestly have no idea. Is it the One True GOD or GOD(s) or something I cannot even imagine? Who knows. By being other than natural it is beyond my capability as a human to describe.
The other God(s) and god(s) are not flawed interpretations, they are the best interpretations a people made based on their culture and society.
For example I am a Christian and so subscribe to a Christian interpretation, worship a Christian concept of God. I understand that it is but an approximation of the reality but it's the path I have chosen.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
The other God(s) and god(s) are not flawed interpretations, they are the best interpretations a people made based on their culture and society.
A distinction without a difference.
jar writes:
I believe that any God or god that we can discuss, define or describe is almost certainly not GOD.
Yes. I get that. You are putting forward GOD as the ultimate god of the ultimate gap. The gap that is the concept of god itself.
jar writes:
What GOD is, an entity, a group, a committee, a force, an essence... I honestly have no idea.
How can you believe in the existence of something without having any idea what it is?
And is there any reason at all to give this GOD concept any more merit, consideration or credence than any other "unknowable" entity I can conceive of or is your reason for doing so entirely personal irrational belief?
So when you make these fact-like proclamations such as "GOD is NOT a god" are you merely expressing an "unreasonable, illogical and irrational" belief?
When you say that Yahweh (or indeed any other god) is NOT a supernatural being are you merely expressing an "unreasonable, illogical and irrational" belief?
So when you make these fact-like proclamations such as "GOD is NOT a god" are you merely expressing an "unreasonable, illogical and irrational" belief?
No. While my believe in GOD is irrational, illogical and unreasonable my statement that GOD is not a God or god is reasoned and I have explained my reasoning.
When you say that Yahweh (or indeed any other god) is NOT a supernatural being are you merely expressing an "unreasonable, illogical and irrational" belief?
No, for the same reasons expressed above.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
How can you believe in the existence of something without having any idea what it is?
This is the essence of being a believer. It is also why you are not one, seeing as how you find yourself unable to do such a thing.
And is there any reason at all to give this GOD concept any more merit, consideration or credence than any other "unknowable" entity I can conceive of or is your reason for doing so entirely personal irrational belief?
Jar answered you.
jar writes:
And again, I have answered your question many times.
Yes, my belief in GOD is unreasonable, illogical and irrational.
I've never said otherwise.
What you don't seem to get is that the difference between GOD, if GOD exists and all of the others is that the others have a cultural identity. As does the Christian God, as does Jesus, Allah, etc etc etc. the very definition of GOD, if GOD exists is exactly that. I Am that I AM.
Now...I DO see where you would label that GOD as the same as all the rest. Which is why by definition you are not a believer. You simply do not acknowledge the belief.
How can you believe in the existence of something without having any idea what it is?
this is where the IF comes in. You won't even allow yourself to entertain the idea of an IF without the assurance of evidence or substance or reason. Absence of Belief obviously negates the belief of anything.
There is no logical "winner" in any debate between a believer and an unbeliever. Logic cannot trump belief, nor can belief trump logic. It is a classic stalemate.
But as I pointed out above, it is only the belief that GOD does exist that I find unreasonable, illogical and irrational, the rest is reasoned I think.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
How can you believe in the existence of something without having any idea what it is?
Phat writes:
this is where the IF comes in.
IF what?
This idea that you can have a concept so undefined that it is utterly immune from any critical analysis whilst still being defined enough to be coherently believed in is self-serving nonsense. The only sane response to such a non-concept is to be ignostic.
ignostic (plural ignostics)
1. one who holds to ignosticism. 2. one who requires a definition of the term God or Gods as without sensible definition they find theism incoherent and thus non-cognitive.
If you want to talk about "unknowables" - Fine. We all agree that there unknowns and I suspect we can all agree that there are very probably unknowables. But when you start imposing your theistic inclinations on top we are no longer talking about "unknowns". We are talking about those things we commonly call "gods".
Phat writes:
What you don't seem to get is that the difference between GOD, if GOD exists and all of the others is that the others have a cultural identity.
All concepts have a "cultural identity". If you believe otherwise you are simply in denial. This thing you are calling GOD is simply the logical consequence of the god of the gaps. As science and knowledge expand to make gods shrink into ever smaller gaps believers such as yourself look for a niche. An unknowable. And what provides a better place to plant your unknowable god than in the ultimate gap. The gap that is the human notion of god itself!!!
This notion of GOD is very very much a product of our scientific age.
Phat writes:
There is no logical "winner" in any debate between a believer and an unbeliever. Logic cannot trump belief, nor can belief trump logic. It is a classic stalemate.
When the believer in question starts inventing self-serving definitions and then stating these as if they were facts despite contradicting both themselves and common definitions of the same terms - I will quite legitimately object.
Hi Straggler! I just did a quick search on that term, "ignostic". One definition that I saw was this:
quote:Ignosticism is the position that, before we can have a meaningful conversation about "God", we have to adequately define "God". Since most given descriptors of "God" are muddled, self-contradictory, linguistically empty, etc, it's pointless to talk about it at all. Basically the position boils down to saying "I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about 'God'".
We could start by agreeing to use the English language rather than inventing a bunch of self-serving definitions that are contradictory and merely reflections of (self-confessed "unreasonable, illogical and irrational") personal beliefs.
I just did a quick search on that term, "ignostic". One definition that I saw was this:
™ Version 4.0 Beta
