What iamwhoiam is saying, is that we can define god such that god is everything good, moral, compassionate, etc. From this definition, it is relatively straightforward to demonstrate that god exists. In fact, there are some very convincing philosophical arguments that follow this line of reasoning. Furthermore, if the principle of causality is accepted, then god must exist. Anyone familiar with the science of philosophy will recognize this. No one is arguing that this god is in any way, shape, or form similar to the god of most organized religions. I think it is even more interesting that god may exist without relying on any sort of faith; logic alone leads to the existence of this god.
What iamwhoiam is saying, is that we can define god such that god is everything good, moral, compassionate, etc. From this definition, it is relatively straightforward to demonstrate that god exists. In fact, there are some very convincing philosophical arguments that follow this line of reasoning. Furthermore, if the principle of causality is accepted, then god must exist. Anyone familiar with the science of philosophy will recognize this. No one is arguing that this god is in any way, shape, or form similar to the god of most organized religions. I think it is even more interesting that god may exist without relying on any sort of faith; logic alone leads to the existence of this god.
In that case you can replace the word god with unicorn, zeitgeist, or anything silly you like.
Relabelling something, or giving a bunch of ideas a collective term does not change the fact that you are still talking about those ideas and not the object/word you just made up to label it.
Let's not confuse the issue. We all know very well that iamwhoiam means the christian religious god as per the bible, and you likely just insulted him by saying that's not what he means!
Dave.
I'm inoffendable
No, he didn't offend me; he makes sense.
So you disagree that god is everything good, moral, compassionate...? God is typically defined as the supreme being; this supreme being is the definition I gave. You can certainly disagree with that definition, but this is the definition used by philosophers. And I think I already demonstrated that there is nothing mythical or illogical about this thing we call god. Any other definition that you come up with is rather arbitrary and meaningless.
It is trolling when it has nothing to do with the orignal thread it was posted in, has nothing to do with the reason of existence of this forum, and is initiated by a person who uses the name of the mythical being you want to promote. I do not call this trolling based on my refusal to believe in fantasies. And don't use the word "conviction" for what I do NOT believe. Look the word up if you want to make any kind of argument. I am opposed to convictions. I want only truth and fact.
You can say what you want, believe what you want. I only believe what is evident, not what I wish were true.
It is trolling when it has nothing to do with the orignal thread it was posted in,funny thing is the thread split started before me in the original thread.. somehow i got the 'honor' to be the split point ...
So you disagree that god is everything good, moral, compassionate...? God is typically defined as the supreme being; this supreme being is the definition I gave. You can certainly disagree with that definition, but this is the definition used by philosophers. And I think I already demonstrated that there is nothing mythical or illogical about this thing we call god. Any other definition that you come up with is rather arbitrary and meaningless.
Yes, I absolutely disagree. And I suspect that the only 'philosophers' who use that definition are theologians.
Nor did you demonstrate anything of the kind. Since I don't believe there is a god, any definition of such a hypothetical entity is bound to be arbitrary.
No, he doesn't. As soon as you use the 'god' word for that purpose you are associating real concepts with a mythical being - you may not be 'arguing' that overtly, but the history of religion makes that argument for you, and consequently looks like another devious attempt to subvert rationality to religious dogma.
Incidentally, iamwhoiam (that name reminds me irresistibly of Popeye), is the faint air of sanctimony which pervades your posts part of your mission to infuriate this community of rationalists into irrationality?
You've hit the nail ON THE HEAD! God is not conformed to "rationality" - he is God. If you're testing him with human knowledge and "science", squeezing him into a nice cozy shape that fits into your box, and then putting him on the shelf, that tells me you don't know God, or his heart.
For the sake of peace, I hereby suggest this thread be closed.
Umm, every atheistic philosopher will agree with my definition of god. What were you saying again? I suggest you read a little more about the arguments for and against the existence of god before making a statement like this. All arguments against the existence of god use the definition I gave. Yes, I will agree that there are strong arguments against the existence of god, but you're taking completely the wrong approach Hint: it has to do with causality.
I will state it again, to be perfectly clear. I am not describing the god of the old testemant or the god of any other religion; I am simply using the commonly accepted philosophical definition. So do not put words in my mouth.
Yes, I absolutely disagree. And I suspect that the only 'philosophers' who use that definition are theologians.
I will state it again, to be perfectly clear. I am not describing the god of the old testemant or the god of any other religion; I am simply using the commonly accepted philosophical definition. So do not put words in my mouth.
I always found it somewhat entertaining that a lot of atheists are completely clueless when it comes to rationalizing their choice; not unlike many of their religious counterparts. I've spent considerable time studying the philosophical arguments on both sides and found them to be very educational.
I will state it again, to be perfectly clear. I am not describing the god of the old testemant or the god of any other religion; I am simply using the commonly accepted philosophical definition. So do not put words in my mouth.
Absolutely, the definition of god exists as you have presented it. But the existence of a definition says nothing about the existence of the thing defined.
One only needs to rationalize something that is not rational. Seeing as atheists do not make up wild stories and fantasies nor believe in wild stories nor fantasies, there is nothing to rationalize!
Fair enough. Suppose I clarify my definition a bit and restrict it to the following: god is all the goodness we observe in this world. Now will you say that god doesn't exist?
Of course. Goodness is a quality, but the kind of god discussed in this thread is an actor. You are not talking about what everyone else is talking about.
God is not conformed to "rationality" - he is God. If you're testing him with human knowledge and "science", squeezing him into a nice cozy shape that fits into your box, and then putting him on the shelf, that tells me you don't know God, or his heart.
Proverbs 3:Quote5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not unto your own understanding.
I always found it somewhat entertaining that a lot of atheists are completely clueless when it comes to rationalizing their choice; not unlike many of their religious counterparts. I've spent considerable time studying the philosophical arguments on both sides and found them to be very educational.
Fair enough. Suppose I clarify my definition a bit and restrict it to the following: god is all the goodness we observe in this world. Now will you say that god doesn't exist?
I will state it again, to be perfectly clear. I am not describing the god of the old testemant or the god of any other religion.