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.
You still didn't get the "friend" analogy...I explained, they are the exact same person in relation to both of you.
The difference is in HOW you perceive the attributes of that person.
I get perfectly what you mean. But you still don't answer the question. You haven't explained the HOW. You have merely insisted that you perceive it differently. The HOW would be the particulars of what you perceive that's different than what you think an atheist perceives. I gave an example of HOW I might perceive a person we both know differently than you do, by describing things our friendship is based on. You cant seem to articulate what exactly this different perception is, even as you claim you do actually perceive differently than atheists. Unless all you can say is " well, I perceive it as God".
::Sigh::My view does NOT fit with an unthinking, non-conscious collection of natural laws. Pretending that consciousness can come from non-consciousness is illogical. It requires your euphemistic non-explanation of "emergence. "95% of the universe exists beyond the physical one we can measure and there is nothing in the materialist pantheon that can account for it but consciousness. Consciousness is produced by the physical universe but is itself not physical. It is beyond the physical and its content is not constrained by the limitations of the physical universe, viz. Imagination. The very existence of consciousness in concert with the other obvious attributes demands the existence of God. I realize that materialists do not seem to understand that their materialist views are philosophically bankrupt because of the existence of consciousness and subjectivity.
Nice try. When you can offer some actual evidence that consciousness requires a God to create it, be sure to share it here.
Just don't mistake your opinion or speculation for evidence.
Actually, it simply means that you believe it to be true, not that it is true in an objective sense.
Same as with a friend or a hero. To objectively define it, you would need to agree on a testable, falsifiable definition of friend, or here. Then you can apply those criteria and see if it meets them. Problem solved.
Without that, you cannot objective define someone as a friend, or a hero, or anything else. You are just giving your subjective opinion and demanding that everyone else accept it as fact...
In fact, this would be the exact equivalent of me perceiving you as a rapist. I might perceive that... you don't but since I do perceive it as such, then it IS... your lack of perception notwithstanding. Should that be sufficient to throw you in jail? I think not, but if me perceiving something about you doesn't make it objectively true, if we agree that there should be evidence, and facts, and an agreed upon definition of rape in the first place before someone throws you in jail, why doesn't the same apply to God?
This idea that one person's perception defines reality for everyone seems a bit ridiculous. You can believe what you like, but it doesn't make it so...
-NoCapo
The assessment of the attributes is subjective. But once that subjective perception has been made...that it has been made is now something that can be determined to have objectively occurred. The designation/title is now objectively known to have actually been assigned...and thus objectively defines as such.
My assessment of Military Service to determine the assignment of the designation/title "Hero" may be subjective.
But if I, in fact, do subjectively determine that...it is now an objective fact that they have been perceived as such...and are thus objectively "Heros".
To say otherwise would be to claim that "friends" and "heros" (or "good" music, food, etc...even love & hate) do not actually objectively exist...since the base determination is subjective.
Same with my assessment of the attributes of The Universe as worthy of the assignment of the title "God".
The assessment of the attributes is subjective. But once that subjective perception has been made...that it has been made is now something that can be determined to have objectively occurred. The designation/title is now objectively known to have actually been assigned...and thus objectively defines as such.
My assessment of Military Service to determine the assignment of the designation/title "Hero" may be subjective.
But if I, in fact, do subjectively determine that...it is now an objective fact that they have been perceived as such...and are thus objectively "Heros".
To say otherwise would be to claim that "friends" and "heros" (or "good" music, food, etc...even love & hate) do not actually objectively exist...since the base determination is subjective.
Same with my assessment of the attributes of The Universe as worthy of the assignment of the title "God".
Moving the goal posts, I see. As you say, it is an objective fact that someone has the subjective opinion that a person is a friend or a hero, or even a god.
But that still does not make that subjective opinion objectively true. And, if we cannot agree on an objective definition of friend, hero, or god which we can then hold up as a yardstick to reality and see how it measures up, then objectively speaking, I don't think they would exist.
As an example, good music. We can compare notes about what music we each subjectively believe to be good, but unless we can define some objective standard by which to measure music, there cannot be said to be any objectively good music. Not because the music isn't there, but because we do not have an objective standard by which to judge it.
So I can agree with your example that it is objectively true that you subjectively believe the Universe is God. Unfortunately for you, that isn't the same thing as agreeing that it is objectively true that the Universe is God.
Is, "Lack of belief in the existence of God" = "Belief that God does exist"
How would lack of belief in the existence of god be the same as believing god exists?
Lack of belief in the existence of God is self explanatory. It is lack of belief in the existence of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
OR
"Lack of belief in the existence of God" = "I don't know if God exists".
Belief positions and knowledge positions are two different things. They can influence each other but vary independently. So having "belief" on one side of an equal sign and "knowledge" on the other is fundamentally incorrect. It is rather like asking if apples are the same thing as fruit trees. Again, I refer you to the graphic in the atheist FAQ to get a grasp of how belief positions and knowledge positions interact.
Belief positions that are defensible require that the belief be substantiated. I do not believe things that I do not see valid evidence or logical argument for.
In fact as Nozz likes to point out, atheism is not simply a label describing one's unbelief in god, it is also a natural result of being a person who uniformly and consistently does not believe unsubstantiated and unsupported things. For that reason many of us don't self-identify on a routine daily basis as atheists. We ARE atheists, but that arises out of us being empiricists and rationalists. So it is not even primarily about god; god is simply one of the casualties (the first one, often) of regarding skepticism as the rational default in all areas of life and all subject matter, whenever there is insufficient data or logical argument to conclude that a thing is likely to be true. Hopefully I would be no more credulous about other unsubstantiated things (Nigerian Internet scams, Santa, the tooth fairy, etc) than I am concerning truth claims asserted about gods.
Moving the goal posts, I see. As you say, it is an objective fact that someone has the subjective opinion that a person is a friend or a hero, or even a god.
But that still does not make that subjective opinion objectively true. And, if we cannot agree on an objective definition of friend, hero, or god which we can then hold up as a yardstick to reality and see how it measures up, then objectively speaking, I don't think they would exist.
As an example, good music. We can compare notes about what music we each subjectively believe to be good, but unless we can define some objective standard by which to measure music, there cannot be said to be any objectively good music. Not because the music isn't there, but because we do not have an objective standard by which to judge it.
So I can agree with your example that it is objectively true that you subjectively believe the Universe is God. Unfortunately for you, that isn't the same thing as agreeing that it is objectively true that the Universe is God.
-NoCapo
I have never moved the goal posts. I have always explained that all that is needed is a perception...by anyone, at any time...to assign a designation/title.
We have definitions...in every language.
Love, hate, fear, happiness, justice, friends, heros, God, enemies, etc...all have been defined. The info is easy to find in any 1st world country...and even in lesser societies.
Once it can be verified that a subjective perception of a nonmaterial designation has actually been determined and assigned...it is now a fact (and objectively true) that which has been assessed had been imbued with that designation.
Otherwise, you'd have to claim that it cannot ever be true that anything that is subjectively determined actually exists.
Nothing is good, or bad, or God. No one is actually your friend or hero. There is no love, no hate, no fear, no justice, no joy or happiness, no sorrow, no anger, etc, etc, etc.
We all know these objectively exist...through certain knowledge that a subjective determination has been made to perceive in some way.
Some fail to grasp this simple concept...but very few that are not either actually or willfully ignorant.
The Universe doesn't have to be GOD to everyone. As long as it is for anyone...it IS.
It appears you are ignorant of the full and complete definition of "G-O-D".
The definition of Tom Brady, Unicorn, or Harvard is not applicable in this case. Though "G-O-D" can be.
Let's see you prove that Tom Brady, Unicorn, and Harvard comport as definitively applicable to "The Universe".
The problem is your ignorance...and your need to educate yourself on definitions and how they may be applicable.
The ignorance you just displayed with Unicorn, Harvard, etc as applicable to "The Universe" is epic. Very little on this board is demonstrative of such a magnitude of ignorance.
But please don't stop...I LOVE it!!
Your perception of me being "wrong" about something is accurate if "w-r-o-n-g" is definitively applicable. It would be up to you to prove if it is.
I can (and did) prove my perception of "G-O-D" as definitively applicable to "The Universe".
So the definition of God is what makes you believe in God, and proves God exists?
Please tell me you aren't that stupid? I mean, seriously, that is one of the dumbest things I have read today.
If your perception and my perception is different, then who is right? Just because you perceive something to be true, doesn't make it so. Even my 4 year old could understand that.
Either way, everyone here sees through your continued dishonesty. So keep on trolling along, since apparently this site is the only thing that gets you off.
How would lack of belief in the existence of god be the same as believing god exists?
Lack of belief in the existence of God is self explanatory. It is lack of belief in the existence of God.
Belief positions and knowledge positions are two different things. They can influence each other but vary independently. So having "belief" on one side of an equal sign and "knowledge" on the other is fundamentally incorrect. It is rather like asking if apples are the same thing as fruit trees. Again, I refer you to the graphic in the atheist FAQ to get a grasp of how belief positions and knowledge positions interact.
Belief positions that are defensible require that the belief be substantiated. I do not believe things that I do not see valid evidence or logical argument for.
In fact as Nozz likes to point out, atheism is not simply a label describing one's unbelief in god, it is also a natural result of being a person who uniformly and consistently does not believe unsubstantiated and unsupported things. For that reason many of us don't self-identify on a routine daily basis as atheists. We ARE atheists, but that arises out of us being empiricists and rationalists. So it is not even primarily about god; god is simply one of the casualties (the first one, often) of regarding skepticism as the rational default in all areas of life and all subject matter, whenever there is insufficient data or logical argument to conclude that a thing is likely to be true. Hopefully I would be no more credulous about other unsubstantiated things (Nigerian Internet scams, Santa, the tooth fairy, etc) than I am concerning truth claims asserted about gods.
Correct. Of course, not all atheists are empiricists and rationalists, but the rationale of atheism pe se is as a subset of the rationalist position specifically relating to the god -claims.
Once it can be verified that a subjective perception of a nonmaterial designation has actually been determined and assigned...it is now a fact (and objectively true) that which has been assessed had been imbued with that designation.
A thoughtfully worded way of saying " whatever I want to believe is true merely because I believe it to be so".
LOL. Based on your quoted statement above , Santa is real since millions of kids believe in him . Ditto the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster , aliens that kidnap humans for experiments , and the Force of the Jedi Knights .
I have never moved the goal posts. I have always explained that all that is needed is a perception...by anyone, at any time...to assign a designation/title.
We have definitions...in every language.
Love, hate, fear, happiness, justice, friends, heros, God, enemies, etc...all have been defined. The info is easy to find in any 1st world country...and even in lesser societies.
Once it can be verified that a subjective perception of a nonmaterial designation has actually been determined and assigned...it is now a fact (and objectively true) that which has been assessed had been imbued with that designation.
Otherwise, you'd have to claim that it cannot ever be true that anything that is subjectively determined actually exists.
Nothing is good, or bad, or God. No one is actually your friend or hero. There is no love, no hate, no fear, no justice, no joy or happiness, no sorrow, no anger, etc, etc, etc.
We all know these objectively exist...through certain knowledge that a subjective determination has been made to perceive in some way.
Some fail to grasp this simple concept...but very few that are not either actually or willfully ignorant.
The Universe doesn't have to be GOD to everyone. As long as it is for anyone...it IS.
So you aren't arguing for what is true, you are playing word games. Just because you perceive something to be god, doesn't actually MAKE it God, it simply means you THINK it is.
According to you logic, if one would dare call it that, everything that anyone had ever believed is true, simply because they believe it to be true. Every god is real, while simultaneously being fake.
It's like we are playing chess, and you are playing checkers.
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.
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.
