Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spurly · 12-27-2002, 04:04 PM

I have been reading over the topics and posts in this category, "The existence of God", and something troubles me.

It seems like the general line of thought goes something like this:

1) This is what I think God should be like if he exists.
2) God is not like that.
3) Thus God does not exist.

It seems to me that the fallacy of most arguments in this category on the existence of God get into trouble with the ir assumption #1.

We are trying to set up all the terms by which God must be judged if God exists at all.

So here is my question. If God exists, should we be the ones to set up the terms by which to determine whether or not he is God. It seems to me, that if a God exists, he should be the one who sets up the terms that define him.

And if we are messed up on our very first assumption, how can assumptions #2 and #3 be correct.

I was talking to a teenage girl recently who was going through a struggle as to whether or not God really existed. She said, "I don't think God is who we think he is." I applauded her for this, and I told her that she is probably right. God, because he is God, is probably not like we think he is or we think he should be.

God is God, and as such he must set the definition of who God is.

What do you think?

Kevin

Mageth · 12-27-2002, 04:18 PM

I think that to make a decision about the existence or non-existence of a god, one has to have a working definition of that god. That's what you see in EoG quite commonly; arguments against a particular definition of god.

You seem to be saying that god is undefinable. How am I supposed to come to any sort of rational opinion on the existence or non-existence of something that's not defined?

God is God, and as such he must set the definition of who God is

I thought that's what the bible was supposed to be; a revelation of the Judeo-Christian God.

Mageth · 12-27-2002, 04:23 PM

BTW, in saying:

God is God, and as such he must set the definition of who God is.

aren't you, in a sense, assigning a definition to god?

Demigawd · 12-27-2002, 04:25 PM

Spurly sez "God is God, and as such he must set the definition of who God is."

Yeah, and if you're talking about the Christian god, The Holy Bible (tm) depicts him as an extraordinarily jealous Zeus-type god who gets owned by iron chariots and has to sacrifice himself to himself to stop being pissed off at how his own creation (ie. us) turned out.

Placed within historical context, Christianity is a medium-to-fair cult that has mutated all over Earth.

Philosoft · 12-27-2002, 04:33 PM

[rant mode]

The crux of the problem is, we don't have an intelligible definition of "exist" that is capable of encompassing a thing that is said to have the characteristics commonly ascribed to God.

Non-physical, eternal, infinite are all attributes that render the thing so described inconceivable. We can pretend to talk meaningfully about the concept "God" but when our conceptions consist entirely of shapes, sounds, smells and scents, to affirm that we can talk meaningfully about a "concept" that has none of these things is, frankly, nonsense.

When you see the word "God," you tend to picture something or someone, and perhaps hear a voice, in your head. Yet no two people have the same picture; no two people hear the same voice. Yet here we are, without a communicable concept to begin, trying to discuss the attributes we can't comprehend of a being we can't describe.

[/rant mode]

I suppose, in a way, you have a point Spurly. An omnipotent being certainly wouldn't rely on finite beings to provide its definition. So then what? Are all the god-concepts running around in people's heads wholly incorrect? Are they partially correct? If so, how do we know which parts are correct and which are not?

hinduwoman · 12-27-2002, 06:23 PM

Spurly people who tell us God exists, also describes his attributes and his commands. God, an omnipotent infinite being, is not the real problem here. The actual problem is those with faith ---- that is why their concepts are attacked.

Dr. Retard · 12-27-2002, 07:15 PM

How are we supposed to think about something if we're not allowed to use our own concepts? Once we throw out human concepts, "God" is like "Wsdlnseudfgsd".

B. H. Manners · 12-27-2002, 07:45 PM

Spurly,

If your objection is valid, we could never evaluate any god or any claims concerning a particular god.

Christians object to Allah and the Koran because:

1. They don't like how women are treated in Islam.

2. They don't like "Jihad."

3. Certain acts like polygamy are offensive to most Christians

4. They do not like Mohammed for various reasons

Now, the above is all irrelevant because Allah, being Allah, should be able to set the standards for us regarding whether or not he exists. Using your logic, you could never disbelieve in Allah any less than we could disbelieve in Jehovah Jireh.

The same would go for any god: Baal, Chemosh, Marduk, Odin, and Quezalicotl (sp?). What you are in fact asking us to do is just unquestioningly accept any preachings about about any god's existence without any critical evaluation.

Shadownought · 12-27-2002, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by B. H. Manners
The same would go for any god: Baal, Chemosh, Marduk, Odin, and Quezalicotl (sp?).

I believe it's Quetzalcoatl

Solsticin · 12-27-2002, 08:18 PM

Then the Deist position (whether they realize it or not):

1) This is what I think God should be like
2) God is like that
3) Thus, God exists.

God is in the eyes of the beholder (or non-beholder as it were). Actually, I should say god is in the eye of the beholder (since the capital 'G' version clearly HAS attributes, unlike a generic 'god').

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-27-2002, 04:04 PM	#1
spurly Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Oklahoma City Posts: 710	Knocking down a Straw God I have been reading over the topics and posts in this category, "The existence of God", and something troubles me. It seems like the general line of thought goes something like this: 1) This is what I think God should be like if he exists. 2) God is not like that. 3) Thus God does not exist. It seems to me that the fallacy of most arguments in this category on the existence of God get into trouble with the ir assumption #1. We are trying to set up all the terms by which God must be judged if God exists at all. So here is my question. If God exists, should we be the ones to set up the terms by which to determine whether or not he is God. It seems to me, that if a God exists, he should be the one who sets up the terms that define him. And if we are messed up on our very first assumption, how can assumptions #2 and #3 be correct. I was talking to a teenage girl recently who was going through a struggle as to whether or not God really existed. She said, "I don't think God is who we think he is." I applauded her for this, and I told her that she is probably right. God, because he is God, is probably not like we think he is or we think he should be. God is God, and as such he must set the definition of who God is. What do you think? Kevin

12-27-2002, 04:18 PM	#2
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I think that to make a decision about the existence or non-existence of a god, one has to have a working definition of that god. That's what you see in EoG quite commonly; arguments against a particular definition of god. You seem to be saying that god is undefinable. How am I supposed to come to any sort of rational opinion on the existence or non-existence of something that's not defined? God is God, and as such he must set the definition of who God is I thought that's what the bible was supposed to be; a revelation of the Judeo-Christian God.

12-27-2002, 04:23 PM	#3
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	BTW, in saying: God is God, and as such he must set the definition of who God is. aren't you, in a sense, assigning a definition to god?

12-27-2002, 04:25 PM	#4
Demigawd Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: On a sailing ship to nowhere, leaving any place Posts: 2,254	Spurly sez "God is God, and as such he must set the definition of who God is." Yeah, and if you're talking about the Christian god, The Holy Bible (tm) depicts him as an extraordinarily jealous Zeus-type god who gets owned by iron chariots and has to sacrifice himself to himself to stop being pissed off at how his own creation (ie. us) turned out. Placed within historical context, Christianity is a medium-to-fair cult that has mutated all over Earth.

12-27-2002, 04:33 PM	#5
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	[rant mode] The crux of the problem is, we don't have an intelligible definition of "exist" that is capable of encompassing a thing that is said to have the characteristics commonly ascribed to God. Non-physical, eternal, infinite are all attributes that render the thing so described inconceivable. We can pretend to talk meaningfully about the concept "God" but when our conceptions consist entirely of shapes, sounds, smells and scents, to affirm that we can talk meaningfully about a "concept" that has none of these things is, frankly, nonsense. When you see the word "God," you tend to picture something or someone, and perhaps hear a voice, in your head. Yet no two people have the same picture; no two people hear the same voice. Yet here we are, without a communicable concept to begin, trying to discuss the attributes we can't comprehend of a being we can't describe. [/rant mode] I suppose, in a way, you have a point Spurly. An omnipotent being certainly wouldn't rely on finite beings to provide its definition. So then what? Are all the god-concepts running around in people's heads wholly incorrect? Are they partially correct? If so, how do we know which parts are correct and which are not?

12-27-2002, 06:23 PM	#6
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Spurly people who tell us God exists, also describes his attributes and his commands. God, an omnipotent infinite being, is not the real problem here. The actual problem is those with faith ---- that is why their concepts are attacked.

12-27-2002, 07:15 PM	#7
Dr. Retard Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 735	How are we supposed to think about something if we're not allowed to use our own concepts? Once we throw out human concepts, "God" is like "Wsdlnseudfgsd".

12-27-2002, 07:45 PM	#8
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	Spurly, If your objection is valid, we could never evaluate any god or any claims concerning a particular god. Christians object to Allah and the Koran because: 1. They don't like how women are treated in Islam. 2. They don't like "Jihad." 3. Certain acts like polygamy are offensive to most Christians 4. They do not like Mohammed for various reasons Now, the above is all irrelevant because Allah, being Allah, should be able to set the standards for us regarding whether or not he exists. Using your logic, you could never disbelieve in Allah any less than we could disbelieve in Jehovah Jireh. The same would go for any god: Baal, Chemosh, Marduk, Odin, and Quezalicotl (sp?). What you are in fact asking us to do is just unquestioningly accept any preachings about about any god's existence without any critical evaluation.

12-27-2002, 08:18 PM	#10
Solsticin Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Grand Prairie, Texas Posts: 435	Then the Deist position (whether they realize it or not): 1) This is what I think God should be like 2) God is like that 3) Thus, God exists. God is in the eyes of the beholder (or non-beholder as it were). Actually, I should say god is in the eye of the beholder (since the capital 'G' version clearly HAS attributes, unlike a generic 'god').

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.