Mike

Koy,

Did anyone come up with a good answer to your original question (I don't have time to read all 10 pages, sorry). It's all in correctly defining God:

God is the first of our race. He certainly exists by this definition.

If you don't like that one, how about this: God is the most intelligent/perfect of our race. By this definition he very likely exists.

If you accept these definitions (which by the way, have biblical support), then all you have left is to understand his attributes.

You may argue that these definitions are not mainstream in the Abrahamic traditions. You would be right, but I would argue that the reason there are so many atheists is that the mainstream of believers have missed the boat. Once again, these claims have biblical support which I would be happy to share.

Tom Sawyer

Do they have any support based upon testable, verifiable data and not just a 2000 year old book?

Mike

My purpose in claiming biblical support was not to convince you that God exists, but to suggest that the definitions of God from my post were accurate biblically in contrast with the view of many mainstream christians that god is without body, parts or passion, that he is everywhere, but nowhere, etc. etc.

The definitions stand on their own as far as providing evidence for the existence of God. If God is defined as either the first or the best human being, then he naturally is likely to exist.
The only remaining question then would be whether he could be both, and what his other attributes are.

Phil TK

I said nothing of the sort, I don't question my 'non- beliefs' that is a ridiculous thing to say. Agnostics do not 'unbeleive' anything -if we did we would be atheists you clot!
Your posting is nothing more than a showcase for a third rate sense of humour -lets keep this subject cerebral -please!

Keith Russell

Phil said:
"Agnostics do not 'unbeleive' anything..."

And yet, everything that exists proves the impossibility of its opposite; everything is what it is, and not what it is not.

If you believe even one thing, you disbelieve its opposite.

So, Phil, do you believe that you exist?

Keith.

Phil TK

Yes, and I can believe in human love and its opposite -hate. I don't have to be a theist or atheist to realise that concept. Agnostic thoughts can be selective by their very nature because agnosticism is the admission of lack of 'know how' -not neccesarily by fault of the individual but in terms of general human reasoning and it's limits.

Devilnaut

Does thinking about agnosticism as "an admission" make it sound more reasonable in your mind?

Can you please demonstrate the limits of human reason and how they apply to the existence of God? If God exists, why shouldn't we be able to perceive him? What is lacking from human reasoning that would make it better? If we can't know what is lacking, how do we know it's not complete?

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

Phil, If I were joking I would have used a graemlin. I was dead serious.


To tronvillains post:

You said:

You may not realise it, you clot, but you have just admitted that you are equally agnostic towards both god and leprechauns. My question was trying to determine where you, personally draw the line at what things to be unsure of and what things you are fairly confident are not true.

If you cannot answer questions that are framed in a slightly absurd fashion, Then I hope this post will be serious enough for you to lower yourself to answering it.

Qualify thyself: are you, as you said above, agnostic to the proposition of leprechauns. If so, is there anything at all you are not agnostic towards? If not, please justify your position that we can be sure about there being no leprechauns, but can not be sure that there is no god?

Defiant Heretic

But how do you define perfect?

Koyaanisqatsi

Yes, they did. The "good" answer is the only answer, which is, of course, "no."

No one can think of a single sound theist argument because none exist, which was, of course, my point initially.

It's ironic that a glib little tautological question on my part (that should have actually been posted in the Rants section) spurred the longest post I've ever started. Go figure.

What is? A sound theist argument?

Good luck. The Judeo/Christian concept of God, for example, is necessarily ineffable and impossible to comprehend by humanity.

No, "he" does not, since you didn't actually define him, you simply named the first of homo sapiens "God."

I could just as easily name the first of homo sapiens "Gerrald."

It also means, of course, that Gerrald (aka, "God") was a human.

Once again, all you are doing is naming somebody from our race "God."

That name has no intrinisc meaning. You do understand that, right?

For example, your name is Mike. Does that make you a "Mike," i.e., the concept of Mikeness, whatever that might be?

No, it does not. It is simply what people call you in order for you to know you are being referred to.

So, for you to simply call the most intelligent/perfect human by the name "God," would not mean that the concept of Godhood is now in any way incarnate.

In other words, it isn't up to you (or anybody, for that matter) to define God. If such a being ever existed, then its "definition" would be intrinsic.

As you can see, there is no way to "accept" the definitions, primarily because they aren't definitions.

You've simply named a hypothetically existing human "God," like you would a pet.

I may, but I won't.

I'd love to read that argument.

It's a free thinker's website. You don't need anyone's permission, but I would simply caution you to the ultimate pointlessness of it.

Don't worry. That will never happen. Fictitious characters from ancient cult mythologies do not factually exist.

Well, again, fascinating, but fallacious, since you offered no definitions. You simply named hypothetical humans "God" the way you would name your cat.

No, they do not.

And if so, utterly irrelevant to the rest of humanity.

"Other" attributes? You mean, like, the size of his incisors? Color of his hair?

If you're talking about any versions of the omnimax attributes, then you're no longer talking about a human being, but I'd certainly enjoy reading your theory.