tergiversant

Define "God" coherently, if you can. That is, define "God" such that "God exists" is a thinkable and coherent proposition.

I doubt that it can be done without a radical departure from the traditional conceptions of deity.

- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org

<a href="http://www.OklahomaAtheists.org" target="_blank">ATHEISTS of OKLAHOMA</a>

"Atheists are OK."

Gemma Therese

Tergiversant,

I have to ask: Of what benefit would this information be to you? Amusement? To provide proof of atheism? Regardless of what any theist posts, you will laugh at and / or totally debunk anything they say. You know that you are an atheist. Are you so insecure in your atheism that you need the "blind, ignorant theists", with their impossible, improvable claims about the existence of a superior being, to help you confirm your atheism?

I am very curious to read your your response.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

Gemma Therese

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

Samhain

Gemma:

You still haven't answered my question in previous threads on to the point of worship of a god which is not known and is not possible to be known. If you wish me to restate my question here, I'd be happy to do so in toto.

Gemma Therese

Samhain:

Just because you do not know God, that does not make Him immpossible to be known. We, with our human limitations, cannot fully understand God, but we can still know, serve, and love Him. I do not fully understand my mother, but I know her, and I know her attributes.

In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

geoff

I would argue that for a statement to be coherent it cannot express a logical contradiction, it must express something meaningful (i.e., adheres to grammatical rules), and it must represent a state of affairs. The statement "the sky is blue" is coherent because it is non-contradictory, meaningful, and represents a state of affairs. (Whether it’s true is another story). The statement "God exists" likewise is coherent because it is non-contradictory, is meaningful, and represents a state of affairs.

Samhain

Then do you concur that it is possible to discuss the how such a being could possibly logically exist? If we are able to know at least a few of "God's" attributes, then why is arguing for the logical consistency of this "God" or the logical possibility of "His" attributes a taboo area? If one has the ability to know the attributes of "God" then why should we not discuss what "God" is given the amount of information we know of "God" as provided by the Bible. You've argued (or implied the argument) that "God" is loving. Does this not go against what we know from the OT? Ok, we do have the NT, but what are the implications of "God" changing his mind or character or even having the ability to do so? I do not wish to offend you, really, Gemma. Before I was just a little hot-headed and spoke rashly, for that I apologize. But why are these things not to be discussed? Why would it seem that we do not have free-will? Why is it so improbable that the JC god is a vengeful tyrant? Why is it improbable that the JC god is logically impossible when perceived by human reason? Why are there hundreds of inconsistancies and self-refutations and basic fantasy accounts in the Bible? Why does one take the word of men thousands of years dead, who lived in a time when psychological illnesses were considered demon-possession? What truly gives credibility to the statements of these men? How do we know what they tell us is the "Truth"? Why does the Bible, the accounts of the NT especially, blantantly contradict things we know as truth from a human perspective in regards to science, history, the human mind, etc.? Why should we put stock in what seems to be nothing more than a cleverly devised fairy-tale book at face value? Of course, the answer would boil down to "faith" would it not? I guess it is this thing which is what truly separates the atheists from the theists. A hope for something more meaningful, and a faith that that something is out there, and that it will all be ice-cream skys and paths of gold; a truly happy place. Does this faith or hope solve the problem of whether the JC god exists or not, though? If there is something more to this than just completely blind faith, more so, irrational blind faith, then please, tell me now. But assuming that that faith is the only thing which one holds as proof of "God" then what truly does seperates your argument from the countless different religions or denominations of the world? What reason, as a rational human being, do I have to put faith in your "God"? I remember reading a quote once, but the author escapes me "Faith can be a good thing, but doubt is what gives one an education." We are only skeptics, Gemma, we are atheists because we are skeptics. Humans have made millions of advances by just questioning tradition, and by doubting the masses. Do you think we'd where we are medically if not for those who thought they could do something better? Do you think our government would be as powerful as it is today if it were a government based on religion? Do you think that the world would be as advanced as it currently is in the fields of science, technology, etc. if all governments ruled under some kind of religious faith? Those were the times of the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Dark Ages. Forgive me, I divert.

I guess the main reason of why I wished to respond to your message has to do with the burden of proof. Do you feel that the idea of "God" has shifted the burden of proof so far that we cannot logically comprehend the idea of "God"? Or do you feel that discussion of "God" can be valid and thus applying reason, logic, science and all other methods of human knowledge of truth is a viable solution to the god-argument? Or do you feel that all negative aspects of "God" are somehow so mysterious that we cannot comprehend his ways? Of course, you realize, the last idea is basically a form of shifting the burden of proof to disprove any idea of an "evil" or even incompetant god, but rather focuses upon only the "good" aspects of "God". Selective and circular arguments of "God" prove nothing. So, is it possible to discuss "God" and "God's" attributes/aspects or not?

HRG

Only if the term "God" has been defined, and it was that definition that Samhain asked for. Otherwise it as meaningless as the statement "Quosh exists".

Regards,
HRG.

Gemma Therese

HRG:

Just because it is meaningless to you, it does not necessarily make it objectively false or meaningless.

Gemma Therese

Ron Singh

definition of God = Creator

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh