TooBad

Before we can seriously entertain the possibility that god is real, we require at least the following:

(1) A clear, intelligible, and internally consistent definition of the term "god".
(2) A demonstration that this definition has empirical content, i.e. a clear and comprehensible indication of what would count as
evidence for the real existence of this god, and of what would count as evidence to the contrary.
(3) An additional demonstration that (a) there is any evidence at all that this god exists, and (b) the evidence is of sufficient quality to merit serious consideration.

The history of human civilization has now entered its sixth millennium, and theists are still struggling to meet condition (1).

I'm a very patient man, but I don't anticipate a major breakthrough anytime soon.

eh

I'd like to add something. While we would like to say it is possible or not, we don't have enough knowledge to say what is possible. To be more detailed, we don't know what the actual fabric of existence is, giving us some limits as to what is and is not possible.

So with incomplete knowledge of possible worlds, we can't really can't say for sure.

Synaesthesia

1)God is a necessary being, omni-belevolent, scient etc. etc.
2)God is possible.

Therefore

3) God exists.

Jobar

Paul Kurtz coined the word 'igtheism'- which, roughly translated, means 'I don't know whatthehell you're talking about when you say 'God'.'

ashibaka

I think (1) is currently accepted as:

(1) God is a omnipotent, omniscient leader who looks just like us.

OK, that will make 2 and 3 sort of hard.

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: ashibaka ]</p>

Tercel

Really? You really require all of that before you entertain the notion that stuff is real???

I seem to remember playing this game before. Search function to my rescue:

I'll leave that as a homework exercise to the reader.

If you'd been paying attention you'd have seen the evidence explained about 10000 times over.

That's a bit naive. The problem is 1. That theists disagree about their definitions; and 2. That most definitions involve "Incomprehensibleness" or "Unknowableness" in them which is perfectly fine but your absurd demands trivially exclude them.

You're reaction to the idea of God sounds exactly like someone in the 18th century might have reacted on having quantum mechanics explaned to them. They might have thought it far from "clear, intelligible, and internally consistent": Yet it still exists.
Whether you are capable of understanding something or do understand it seems assuredly NOT a prerequite to it's existence or a reasonable belief in it's existence.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Tom Sawyer

Tercel,

Those sound to me like good questions to ask to define whether or not a thing is real. For most things, it's easy to define a thing and empirically show that it's real. For God, I've never seen any evidence that any such creature exists, regardless of the specific questions asked to determine that existence.

Those do seem to me to be good definitions for what would constitute 'God'.

Would you be able to give one of those many examples? Or better yet, could He? As He's omniscient, He knows I'm asking the question right now and also knows my phone number.

Good point. Reality is not based in any way upon our understanding of reality and things that exist are in existence whether or not we can define them or see them. But the fact that we can't define something does not, by that fact, mean that it's real but simply beyond our comprehension. If we want to understand something that was previously inexplicable - like quantum physics - then we must make assumptions about what that thing is and then test those assumptions and change our definition of that thing based of the results of those tests, then make new tests based on our new understanding of the thing, and so on and so on. So, what's a test we can use to lead us in the direction of showing the existence of God?

TooBad

Tercel, thanks for your response.

Yep. Santa Claus arguably satisfies conditions (1) and (2). I could grant that, but still rightly scoff at the idea that he is real.
All three criteria have to be met.

This is an example of what I'm talking about. For instance: Our ordinary understanding of terms like "will","purpose" and "intelligence" is limited to the context of observable sentient (human) behaviour. To take words out of their familiar context, and employ them in a totally different one, necessitates further explanation. What exactly do "will" and "purpose" mean when attributed to an "Immortal Supreme Power"?

You dismiss my criterion (2) as
Well, just this once, I'll have to ask you to do my homework for me. Burden of proof and all that.

Ten thousand unconvincing explanations are no substitute for a single half-decent one.

By the way, why is that? Are there lots of gods? Or are a lot of theists wrong?
Which ones are they? But I digress.

In what sense is it "perfectly fine" to adopt and promulgate a belief in something which cannot be characterized in any intelligible way? And in what sense is it "absurd" to insist on a clear and unambiguous statement of what you're being asked to sign up to before you consider signing up to it?

This seems to me to be a misguided analogy. There's no need to go back to the 18th century to find people for whom QM is a complete mystery. Today's Physics students are not born with an understanding of QM. But they can be taught about it. They can learn that it is internally coherent, and consistent with their knowledge of the world in general. The rational and evidential support is all spelt out and in the public domain. In the case of theism, this support is unforthcoming.

No, but if a claim is literally nonsensical there is no possibility whatsoever of its being true.

The point I'm trying to make is really a very simple one:
Until condition (1) is met, "god" is like a round square: literally meaningless.
Until condition (2) is met, "god" is like the aether: conceivable, but of no possible consequence to anyone.
Until condition (3) is met, "god" is like Santa Claus: empirically possible, but not a serious contender.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: TooBad ]</p>

WJ

TooBad!

As Syn half jokingly alluded, via self-reference analogy, it is not obviously absurd that God is logically necessary and therefore logically possible. Through words and language, that might be as close as you can get, assuming you wish to be convinced thru that method only.

In that light, God exists as a necessary Being.

TooBad

WJ

Sorry, you can't just slip "must exist" into a definition and then say "oh, look, this thing must exist, it says so in the definition". Nice try, though.