U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-03-2013, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Downtown Raleigh
1,650 posts, read 3,012,410 times
Reputation: 2122

Advertisements

Actually, you didn't present much of anything. Is your concept of a god one who/that creates - nothing more? And does that concept include knowledge of creation or just being a force that creates? What you have said presents and explains nothing about what you believe a god to be.

Last edited by roscomac; 11-03-2013 at 12:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-03-2013, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,097,133 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Here is my concept of God:
In concept God for myself as a theist of the Christian faith, in His relation to man and the physical universe God is the creator of everything that is not God Himself.
If you are treating this as a definition, it seems circular, rather like saying that a chair is everything that is not a chair. I don't see how it sheds light on anything.

When I was a theist, my definition of god would have been, "The all powerful, all knowing, completely benevolent supreme being as revealed in the scriptures". Since in the beginning I did not understand the sheer diversity of doctrine, dogma and opinion about god even within the Christian church, I did not have the presence of mind (or the honesty) to add to this definition, " as understood and approved by my denomination". Later, i realized that one more phrase needed to be added to accurately describe the situation, so that you end up with,

"The all powerful, all knowing, completely benevolent supreme being as revealed in the scriptures as understood and approved by my denomination, which I personally chose to join and/or remain a part of".

We can then condense this to:

"The supreme being I fancy for myself."

Or,

"My projection of my idealized self, reflecting what I would do if I ruled the universe."

I am convinced this is the honest definition for most people. Some, who are more self aware and delve more deeply, will have more thought-out philosophical definitions than that, but most people simply go with their own projections as it is the most comfortable / comforting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 12:47 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,935 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by roscomac View Post
Actually, you didn't present much of anything. If your concept of a god one who/that creates - nothing more? And does that concept include knowledge of creation or just being a force that creates? What you have said presents and explains nothing about what you believe a god to be.

Please forgive me, but may I just with all earnestness and humility request of you to also now present your concept of God according of course to your own thinking.


Our purpose at present is to work together on a concept of God acceptable to us both, if there is an impasse, then in all earnestness and humility, I will again invite you to work with me to determine the rational grounds and also the psychological grounds from respectively each side why there is an impasse.


Please be also giving your concept of God, as I have already given mine.


Tell you what, in all earnestness and humility, when you have given your concept of God, mind you just the concept, then we can proceed to analyze our concepts, is that all right with you?

You see and forgive me, it is like I say there exists money, but you say there does not exist money, so I ask you whether you have a concept of money, and you ask me also whether I have a concept of money, so I give you my concept of money, and ask you to produce your concept of money, but so far you have not produced your concept of money, and therefore you have to accept and use my concept of money to determine whether there is such a thing as money existing; or you produce your concept of money and then we will analyze together our respective concepts of money, in order to finally come to a concurred on concept of money, for the end of finding out together whether there exists money or not.



In all earnestness and humility, and forgive me, the way you are proceeding, it is not, may I use the word, 'balanced', it is not a balanced procedure, I produce my concept and you have not produced your concept.


Forgive me again, another illustration if I may, it is like I am your girlfriend and you tell me that you think I am unfaithful, so I ask you what is your concept of unfaithfulness, but you ask me also what is my concept of unfaithfulness, so I tell you my concept of unfaithfulness starting with my concept of what is faithfulness, but you do not produce your concept of unfaithfulness, instead you proceed to question my concept and nothing more, not even and most importantly present your concept of what is faithfulness.




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Downtown Raleigh
1,650 posts, read 3,012,410 times
Reputation: 2122
You have defined the concept of a god as a creator of all that is not that god. If that is truly your entire concept of god, it is too thin to be worthy of discussion.

Let's say that I agree with your concept of a god and that the only "evidence" that I require is your belief in something. I so fully trust in your beliefs that I accept whatever "evidence" you accept as valid and need no more.

So, you believe in a god that is a creator of all that is not god. Now I believe it. Absolutely nothing is changed for me. I am still here, exactly as I was before. Your concept of a god does not include sentience or continued existence. So it could be a "force" that no longer exists. Now that I believe it, why would I care?

That is why I asked if your concept of a god as presented was complete. I take your repetition of it twice after I asked that question to mean that it is complete. Very uninteresting concept.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 01:52 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,935 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by roscomac View Post
You have defined the concept of a god as a creator of all that is not that god. If that is truly your entire concept of god, it is too thin to be worthy of discussion.

Let's say that I agree with your concept of a god and that the only "evidence" that I require is your belief in something. I so fully trust in your beliefs that I accept whatever "evidence" you accept as valid and need no more.

So, you believe in a god that is a creator of all that is not god. Now I believe it. Absolutely nothing is changed for me. I am still here, exactly as I was before. Your concept of a god does not include sentience or continued existence. So it could be a "force" that no longer exists. Now that I believe it, why would I care?

That is why I asked if your concept of a god as presented was complete. I take your repetition of it twice after I asked that question to mean that it is complete. Very uninteresting concept.


Forgive me, but may I just ask you and me to concentrate on this text from your post above:
[Enumeration from Ryrge]

1. Let's say that I agree with your concept of a god
2. and that the only "evidence" that I require is your belief in something.
3. I so fully trust in your beliefs that I accept whatever "evidence" you accept as valid and need no more.

So, do you agree with me that we are talking in the realm of concepts, for you state:
1. Let's say that I agree with your concept of a god.
We are not yet in the realm of actual objective existence, namely, going forth in the totality of existence or even just in the physical universe to look for God as per my concept of God which you conceptually accept from me as follows:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge [post #76]
Here is my concept of God:
In concept God for myself as a theist of the Christian faith, in His relation to man and the physical universe God is the creator of everything that is not God Himself.

Let us now proceed to produce our respective concept of what is evidence, even though you already in the realm of concepts i.e. of thinking concede that you accept my evidence whatever.

Is that all right with you?

Or you will just concede that in the realm of thinking i.e. in concepts only you agree with me that God exists, only in the realm of our thinking, but you will not go further to search with me the presence of God in the totality of existence or just in the physical universe.

But still, and forgive me, you have a last word that:
"Now that I believe it, why would I care?"

So, forgive me, but you have just stated in a categorical declaratory statement that you will not give a care that in the realm of concepts you agree with me that God as per my concept exists.

Wherefore, the impasse the way I see it is be from your part: that even though in the realm of concepts God exists, in actual objective life, you do not give a care, namely, that you will not take up the search for God in the totality of existence or just in the physical universe, even though on whatever evidence you will accept from me as the way and means whereby we will come to the presence of God.

Forgive me, that is what I call the or your psychological ground for not going forth with me to look for the presence of God, namely,
"Now that I believe it, why would I care?"

Allow me to conclude: You have accepted the existence of God insofar as in the realm of concepts, of thinking in our mind, but you don't care to go forth and look for the presence of God in the actual objective reality of existence.


Is there, therefore, the proof of God's existence in and from our exchange?

I submit there is, but it is based predominantly on your concession in the realm of thinking: in the realm of thinking, you accept that God exists, but in the realm of actual objective reality you do not care.

Forgive me and if I may, I like to go back to your acceptance of my invitation to work together to come to a concurrence on the concept of God, evidence, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roscomac View Post
Let's start here, Ryrge. Share with us your concept of god. No games, no tricks...just put it out there.

May I request of you to declare that in my exchange with you on the concept of God, etc., you have come to know the existence of God insofar as in the realm of concepts, i.e. in the mind of our thinking, but you do not give a care, and most importantly, I have observed your requirement of
No games, no tricks...just put it out there.



Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 02:05 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,935 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
Here is my concept of God:
In concept God for myself as a theist of the Christian faith, in His relation to man and the physical universe God is the creator of everything that is not God Himself.

[...]


Forgive me for not reproducing your whole post, but readers can read it right away by clicking on the link to your post at the start of the present post from me.

Let us start from the beginning, you and I, but I have already presented my concept of God, now let you present your concept of God.


So:
May I in all earnestness and humility request from you your present concept of God from your present thinking on reason and intelligence as an atheist today.



Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Downtown Raleigh
1,650 posts, read 3,012,410 times
Reputation: 2122
Um, no. You did not fully explain a concept enough to make me care. It is not reasonable to assume that my (not) caring would extend to a meaningfully explained concept.

Going back to the faithfulness analogy:

If you call me and tell me that my spouse is being unfaithful to me on me on Tuesdays and Thursdays at noon at the Hampton Inn on 43rd Street, you've got my attention. I will not believe you, but I will ask you some questions. Depending on your answers, I may take a trip down to 43rd this week. But if I ask what you mean by "unfaithful" and you say that you mean speaking, then I will no longer be interested in the conversation.

If you call me and tell me that someone is being unfaithful to his/her spouse on Tuesdays and Thursdays at the Hampton Inn on 43rd Street, I will ask you who. If you just repeat what you said, you won't even have my attention that long.

Summarized, I do not accept your concept of god as meaningful. If it is your concept and it fulfills your needs, so be it. But there's not enough there for me to consider it as a concept.

In answer to your question, I don't have a concept of a god. I grew up with a Southern Baptist concept of a god being an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent being/creator that has existed everywhere and at all times. Now I find that a concept of a god is the concept of the god one believes to exist. Humans do not have a concept first and then find the god. I do not believe in a god, so I have not developed a concept of what one would be for me.

Last edited by roscomac; 11-03-2013 at 02:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 02:55 PM
 
608 posts, read 530,935 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by roscomac View Post
Um, no. You did not fully explain a concept enough to make me care. It is not reasonable to assume that my (not) caring would extend to a meaningfully explained concept.

[...]

Okay, you do not accept my concept of God, and I thought, forgive me, that you accept it.

So that we will not now go into endless exchange about your previously conceding to my concept of God, and also everything else, just that you don't care at all.


So, now and forgive me, you want us to resume our exchange, like as from square 1, from my part that I have presented my concept of God, and you have not presented your concept of God.


Please, and I an not being stubborn, but begging your forbearance, and I try to be earnest and humble, now present your concept of God.


Because, please again forgive me, it is our understanding that we will work together to concur on a concept of God: I have presented mine, but you have not.




Ryrge
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 03:12 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,253,561 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post
Okay, you do not accept my concept of God, and I thought, forgive me, that you accept it.
We can posit it for the sake of argument, but you appear to be asking us to concede some particular version of god at the outset. We have no version of god to discuss. There is only your's. The point was that your god concept seems awfully lacking, and to be honest is probably not what you actually believe.

There is no point in trying to nail down an atheist on the concept of god. We will discuss whichever one you put forth. Part of that discussion may include a critique of the validity or meaningfullness of the underlying god hypothesis, but that is a reasonable portion of the discussion.

The best way for you to proceed is to lay out what you believe god to be (your hypothesis), the observations of reality that lead you to believe it to be true, and the evidence or observations you believe would falisify your idea, in other words what evidence would contradict your hypothesis.

Then we can discuss the evidence for and against your god hypothesis, as well as the soundness of the hypothesis itself.

All we need do is agree on what kind of a god you are discussing, and you are the best available person to nail that down.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2013, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Downtown Raleigh
1,650 posts, read 3,012,410 times
Reputation: 2122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge View Post

Because, please again forgive me, it is our understanding that we will work together to concur on a concept of God: I have presented mine, but you have not.




Ryrge
Here it is:


Quote:
Originally Posted by roscomac View Post

In answer to your question, I don't have a concept of a god. I grew up with a Southern Baptist concept of a god being an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent being/creator that has existed everywhere and at all times. Now I find that a concept of a god is the concept of the god one believes to exist. Humans do not have a concept first and then find the god. I do not believe in a god, so I have not developed a concept of what one would be for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top