Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
28 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (4 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,617 Year: 16,653/19,786 Month: 778/2,598 Week: 24/251 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can You define God?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 4 of 318 (584663)
10-03-2010 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by 2ndReign
10-03-2010 1:24 AM


I will concede that he does exist for the simple fact how can there be any kind of in-depth discussion on God if we are still arguing weather God exists or not.

Until we've established that he actually exists, why would we want to have an "in-depth discussion" of God?

The greatest fault with religion/theology is that it doesn't even bother to establish the existence of the thing it claims to study, it just skips ahead to presuming the qualities of that entity. I think the conversation should remain at the level of "does God exist or not" until that issue is settled. And if it's settled on the side of "no, he doesn't" then I don't see what further conversation is to be had, aside from "if God doesn't exist, why is the deluded belief in him so widespread?"

This has been a good thing for our species in many circumstances but in the case of God the ability to define or even name him is an impossibility.

Why? His name is "God", and he could be defined as "the mythical being who is the focus of several of the world's religions and suggested to be the creator of all things." There's absolutely nothing mysterious about God. It's a perfectly simple concept. The sense of "mystery" is really nothing more than the mental tension created by fervent belief in an obvious falsity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 2ndReign, posted 10-03-2010 1:24 AM 2ndReign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by 2ndReign, posted 10-03-2010 7:55 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 8 of 318 (584717)
10-03-2010 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ringo
10-03-2010 6:37 PM


Isn't that evidence there's no such thing, though?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 10-03-2010 6:37 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 10-03-2010 6:47 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 13 of 318 (584725)
10-03-2010 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by 2ndReign
10-03-2010 7:55 PM


Which is why I conceded this fact for the sake of discussion in order to have one, instead of remonstrating a point that will never be settled.

Ok, but this question won't ever be settled, either. So why trade one for the other? Why skip ahead?

but you have those that believe he does exist and IMO some concessions have to be made if you want to have a discussion past that point.

Why would anyone want to have a discussion past that point?

How can you name something that doesn't exist?

With my mouth. Are the following words really meaningless to you?

"Warp drive"
"Vulcan"
"Lightsaber"
"Hobbit"
"Elf"
"Dragon"

Naming things that don't exist? Child's play. Literally, no more difficult than a child's game.

I understand and agree,but you haven't defined him,you've just told me what he wasn't.

No, not at all. If you go back and read you'll see that every portion of my definition is a positive term describing what God is, not a negative term describing what he's not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by 2ndReign, posted 10-03-2010 7:55 PM 2ndReign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by 2ndReign, posted 10-03-2010 8:28 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 17 of 318 (584729)
10-03-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by 2ndReign
10-03-2010 8:28 PM


Me saying that you are human only says that you are not a dog,horse,cow,etc.

No, quite the opposite. You could say that I was not a dog, not a horse, not a cow, and you'd have to go on down the list of 100 million different species or so. Saying that I'm "human" is saying what I am; being human is more than not being not human.

I mean by your construction it's simply impossible to define anything "in terms of what it is", since every positive term connotes the absence of that term's opposites. (I mean "positive" in the sense of "making a logically positive claim", not "positive" as in "favorable" or "good.") I can't say you're greedy without saying you're not charitable, but that doesn't mean that the term "greedy" only describes you in terms of what you're not. There's more to being greedy than simply not being not greedy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by 2ndReign, posted 10-03-2010 8:28 PM 2ndReign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by 2ndReign, posted 10-04-2010 12:04 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 21 of 318 (584761)
10-04-2010 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by 2ndReign
10-04-2010 12:04 AM


So by saying what you are,also says what you are not.

So, in other words, it's not going to be possible to say what something is without also saying some things that it is not.

So the basis from which you've been rejecting all these definitions, like mine, is spurious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by 2ndReign, posted 10-04-2010 12:04 AM 2ndReign has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by 2ndReign, posted 10-04-2010 12:31 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019