Guess i need to define what I mean by non-contingent - necessary being - by that I mean.

A being whose existence is not contingent on anything, and whose existence is necessary for everything.

You feel that theists are ignorant because they haven't proven anything, and I agree. — Jake

Failure to prove something doesn’t necessarily indicate ignorance. You can’t prove to me, for instance, that you’ve visited the Eiffel Tower, at least not with language or reason.

I call myself a "Fundamentalist Agnostic", a silly ironic label which points to a position outside of the theist vs. atheist paradigm. — Jake

Outside and gratifyingly above, sounds like.

Well, I won't explain what you mean by the words you are using. So no circle here. Only a full stop. — Mariner

That's circling back to an issue that I've already addressed, which you're stuck on, and which is preventing any progress. But I don't want to circle back to an issue that I've already addressed, especially when your replies just repeat the same misunderstanding, seemingly oblivious to what I've actually said. So it's a dead end.

I probably should have learnt my lesson by now, since I've had problems with you in past discussions.

A being whose existence is not contingent on anything, and whose existence is necessary for everything. — Rank Amateur

Well, does "being" (implicitly) include abstracts (in particular), relations, processes, things that are conserved, ...?
Or, conversely, does "being" implicitly exclude anything?
I'm asking because we can reason about necessities, which is what modal logic is about.

any inclusions or exclusions on my "being" above would be anthropomorphic, and an exercise in hubris to think I in anyway would have the tools to put limits on " a being" who was caused by nothing - and caused everything.

We, within the limits of our ability to communicate to each other about an issue like this are forced to pick some word. This very act is anthropomorphic, inadequate and incomplete - but is the only tool we have, so we press on.

I probably should have learnt my lesson by now, since I've had problems with you in past discussions. — S

You were probably using a different name then (I searched all of my comments for an interaction with you and didn't find it; perhaps the search was incomplete).

Now, if you were using a different name, this would be such a fitting illustration of the problem of not clarifying the meaning of the symbols being used in a discussion that I could not help but point it out. Even though we have reached a dead end. (Or you don't have patience. Or whatever will be the next excuse for not answering a direct question; of course, with a clear explanation of why I am to blame for it).

Outside and gratifyingly above, sounds like. — praxis

Well, I am a forum poster after all.

There is a lot of confusion today between the terms Atheism / Agnosticism / Theism

It would be better if people would just give a percentage: 0%->100% Theist. Then we'd know exactly where everyone stands.

Why is the default position that religious ought to be taken seriously? — StreetlightX

There's an asymmetry underlying this question though. From the atheist point of view, all that is at stake is a fallacious belief; because it has no real content, losing it is losing nothing - other than an impediment. Indeed that is all that can be at stake. But from the believer's point of view, what is at stake is literally everything. Not understanding it correctly, or performing it correctly, or whatever is required by the particular faith tradition the believer belongs to, is literally a matter of life and death - even more than that. It's crucial, it's the most important thing about life. So the assertion that it's not important could only be from atheism, from those who have no sense that there's anything at stake.

Of course there's no way to reconcile these attitudes, as they're incommensurable. That is why one model of religious life is actually just getting on with it, and not bothering with interminable debates about it, except for the sake of others who are still on the fence about it.

To be fair, as a disclosure, I’m a disbeliever in both Theist and Atheism thus understood. Yup, I uphold both these types of theists and atheists are plain wrong. And this conviction, fully independent of anything else, makes me a very liked guy everywhere I go (My sarcasm, if it’s not clear. No, both hardcore theists and atheist detest any such belief as an abomination to be spit upon—this for gutturally emotive reasons rather than reasoning itself). At any rate, these are my beliefs/non-beliefs laid bare.

To address some concrete examples, here are some philosophers’ notions of divinity: Aristotle’s principle teleological cause as “unmoved mover”, Neo-Platonic notions of the “the One”, Spinoza’s understanding of Nature as being Divinity and vice versa, many an Eastern philosophical notion of, roughly expressed, a perfect (and non-hypocritical) state of non-duality wherein all suffering and impermanence eternally cease, this being what is professed as our ultimate reality … I’ll stop short, but there are other examples to be found. — javra

Interesting. I'm increasingly of the view that 'religion' encodes some fundamental understanding, among other things. But this fundamental understanding or insight has been encoded in cultural forms that are no longer intelligible due to the enormous rate of social and cultural change ushered in by modernity. Indeed the whole idea of Gods, sacrificial religion, 'sheep', the 'lamb of God' and other sacred imagery of the Western cultural tradition, are remote from the reality of post-industrial society and culture.

And yet, there is something of vast importance preserved in the cultural traditions of religion. The problem, or one of them, in the Western sense, is that the mainstream notion of religion is obviously dogmatic and conformist - believe and be saved. The experiential dimension of spirituality has been lost - well, not entirely - it is actually embedded in many faith traditions, but again, the myths and metaphors in which it is encoded are often impossible to appreciate 'from the outside' as it were.

Hence the upsurge of interest in Eastern religious cultures, which are experiential and self-directed and concerned with changing the practitioner's understanding and perspective. So it kind of intersects with self-help/self-improvement which was evident in movements like New Thought and many modern derivatives of those kinds of forms of spirituality that are found in today's 'spiritual supermarket'.

of course where or whether 'God' fits into all this is a difficult question, perhaps that is why one of the underground movements that has always existed is Hermeticism, from Hermes - quicksilver, the messenger of the Gods.

But meanwhile, most atheism comprises the negation of historical and orthodox religious ideas - it is defined by what it is not, what it excludes, what it is obliged to deny, Sartre's 'God-shaped hole'.

From the atheist point of view, all that is at stake is a fallacious belief — Wayfarer

Yes, and it should be said that most discussion of religion on philosophy (and atheist) forums is typically hopelessly lost in the illusion that religion is about little other than ideological assertions.

Why is the default position that religious ought to be taken seriously?
— StreetlightX

There's an asymmetry underlying this question though. From the atheist point of view, all that is at stake is a fallacious belief; because it has no real content, losing it is losing nothing - other than an impediment. Indeed that is all that can be at stake. But from the believer's point of view, what is at stake is literally everything. Not understanding it correctly, or performing it correctly, or whatever is required by the particular faith tradition the believer belongs to, is literally a matter of life and death - even more than that. It's crucial, it's the most important thing about life. So the assertion that it's not important could only be from atheism, from those who have no sense that there's anything at stake. — Wayfarer

It may be “literally everything” for some but not the vast majority. That it can be so important, combined with its tendency to devalue reason and promote faith, is exactly why atheists should take it seriously.

There's an asymmetry underlying this question though — Wayfarer

So? People are insufferable fanatics. As if this is not all the more reason to marginalize and ostracize these monomaniacs - your description being an apt portrait of a Daesh fighter.

But from the believer's point of view, what is at stake is literally everything. Not understanding it correctly, or performing it correctly, or whatever is required by the particular faith tradition the believer belongs to, is literally a matter of life and death - even more than that. It's crucial, it's the most important thing about life. — Wayfarer

I don't believe that God exists, and it means that I don't believe that any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all exist. — S

I don't know if I agree or not with you, since I don't know what you mean by the word "god". — Mariner

I must be out of my mind for carrying this on, but you never know.

Given that I've explained to you what I meant in the above quote, namely that out of the various ways that I can think of to define "god", there are none of which I believe that any god exists, with the exception of those wordplay cases which I've told you that I'm discounting, your excuse that you don't know what I mean by "god" is not a valid reason for not knowing whether or not you agree. It's not a valid reason because there are several meanings which I've provided, and other meanings which you yourself can provide, and I've set out three categories regarding definitions of god which cover numerous meanings, and expressed my stance with regard to these categories. There is no "my meaning" unless by that you're referring to every meaning I've covered, or unless you want to pick one of these meanings in particular. So you can address these meanings if you wanted to, but it seems that you don't want to do so, because I've given you plenty of opportunities. What it seems that you'd rather do is block out what I'm saying and stubbornly revert back to your "I don't know what you mean by 'god'" invalid excuse of a response.

Another way to explain it is that my stance is conditional. As in, "If this is the way that you define "god", then this is what I think".

So, if, say, "a vague sense of justice yada yada yada nothing which contradicts atheism" is how you define "god", then what I think is that that shouldn't count. It shouldn't count because an atheist can believe in that without contradiction, so it's not actually theism, it's sophism.

I was not asking for a definition, by the way, but for the meaning of a word. These are not synonyms, and the two kinds of questions are often addressed in different ways.

Anyway.

By your initial (in quotation marks) sentence in this last post, coupled with your commentary, your position seems to be , "If my interlocutor takes 'god' to mean something that I don't believe in, then I don't believe in it and I can say I'm an atheist. If my interlocutor takes 'god' to means something that I believe in (because it does not contradict atheism), then I can say that his usage of 'god' is irregular, accuse him of sophistry, and say that I'm still an atheist."

A funny position, to be sure. (And the idea that the way other people use words in their discourse is somehow amenable to refereeing of this sort is quite weird).

But let's see if we find a breach in the wall.

What is the kind of evidence that would convince you that you should no longer be an atheist?

(Perhaps by this indirect route we can, at long last, ascertain what you, rather than your imaginary interlocutor, mean by 'god').

I was not asking for a definition, by the way, but for the meaning of a word. These are not synonyms, and the two kinds of questions are often addressed in different ways. — Mariner

Fine, "meaning of a word" then. Tomaydo-tomarto.

By your initial (in quotation marks) sentence in this last post, coupled with your commentary, your position seems to be , "If my interlocutor takes 'god' to mean something that I don't believe in, then I don't believe in it and I can say I'm an atheist. If my interlocutor takes 'god' to means something that I believe in (because it does not contradict atheism), then I can say that his usage of 'god' is irregular, accuse him of sophistry, and say that I'm still an atheist." — Mariner

In a nutshell, yeah. I'd add rightly say/accuse, because I'm both right and arrogant enough to say so. :grin: :up:

A funny position, to be sure. (And the idea that the way other people use words in their discourse is somehow amenable to refereeing of this sort is quite weird). — Mariner

Interesting opinion.

But let's see if we find a breach in the wall. — Mariner

Good luck. :grin:

What is the kind of evidence that would convince you that you should no longer be an atheist? — Mariner

I went over that with Wayfarer, so I refer you to my comments to him earlier on in this discussion.

(Perhaps by this indirect route we can, at long last, ascertain what you, rather than your imaginary interlocutor, mean by 'god'). — Mariner

But what I mean by that word will depend on what an interlocutor, whether real or imagined, wants to go with. So what meaning do you want talk about? We've mentioned some already.

I could pick a meaning if you want me to, but it wouldn't really be "my" meaning. It'd just be "a" meaning that I've picked for sake of discussion.

I could pick a meaning if you want me to, but it wouldn't really be "my" meaning. It'd just be "a" meaning that I've picked for sake of discussion. — S

It would be a start.

It would be a start. — Mariner

Okay, but what would be the purpose of going down that road? I've already covered this to some extent. I don't get why you don't just get stuck in to what I've already said. This way, I'll end up repeating myself to some extent.

Let's go with a being who created the world, is the source of what's right and wrong, and intervenes in the world.

If this being intervenes in the world, wouldn't that leave an evidential trail that we could detect, and that we should have detected by now? If so, why haven't we detected it? Or are you going to say that we have, but that I'm just not aware?

If we haven't detected it, then why should I believe that it exists? In the opening post, I gave an example involving a filthy dog. I wouldn't believe that filthy dog had ran through my house and jumped onto my bed if it had left no trace, and if there lacked no other reason for me to believe that, like evidence that there'd been a really good cover up or something. There'd be the question of why we haven't detected it when we can detect other beings?

Is god undetectable? Then why should I believe in god? And if I were to believe, then why shouldn't I also believe in a vast number of other proposed undetectable beings or objects, even if they sound silly, like Russell's teapot, fairies, and the flying spaghetti monster?

Let's go with a being who created the world, is the source of what's right and wrong, and intervenes in the world. — S

Is this "a being" another object in the world? Or perhaps an object in a meta-world (inside which he/she/it created "the world")?

If you say "yes" to any of these questions, then I agree with you that I don't believe in him/her/it, and we can live happily ever after.

So you don’t believe in theistic or cosmological dualism. In relation to what S wrote this could mean that you believe that God is the world (everything). If that’s the case then atheism is validated with occam's razor. God is an unnecessary label for everything and the concept is meaningless.

Is this "a being" another object in the world? Or perhaps an object in a meta-world (inside which he/she/it created "the world")? — Mariner

How am I supposed to know? I don't believe in this stuff to begin with. It's all hypothetical. Either.

If you say "yes" to any of these questions, then I agree with you that I don't believe in him/her/it, and we can live happily ever after. — Mariner

Ok, fine. But that exercise seemed pointless, as I'm an atheist, and that's just one version of theism, and not even one which you hold. It'd be more productive to discuss my broader position than my position in relation to one specific position which I pulled out of a hat.

I don't think that God can be called "a being" among other beings. God is Being. But that does not equate to saying that God is everything. If I look at a pencil, I don't think that the pencil is Being. But, to the extent that the pencil is (i.e. shares in Being), he has something from God.

It seems just as sensible to say that ‘everything’ is ‘being’, or with reverence, Being. It’s what allows being. A pencil shares in everything and has something from everything. What am I missing?

I don't think that God can be called "a being" among other beings. God is Being. But that does not equate to saying that God is everything. If I look at a pencil, I don't think that the pencil is Being. But, to the extent that the pencil is (i.e. shares in Being), he has something from God. — Mariner

In trying to make sense of that, I would translate it to something like the following:

I don't think that God can be called "a thing" among other things. God is existence. But that does not equate to saying that God is everything. If I look at a pencil, I don't think that the pencil is existence. But, to the extent that the pencil exists (i.e. shares in existence), it has something from existence.

If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean? And in any case, why do we need another word for Being? (Or existence, if that's what you mean). Why call that "God"? And what about atheists who believe in Being or existence? Don't you think that it's a problem to call "God" something which an atheist can believe in? Isn't there supposed to be a meaningful difference between theism and atheism?

Being and existence don't have the same meaning.

In the old forum there was a long thread in which (mainly) I and Banno discussed the meaning of "fact", and how it is not (as I argued) synonym with "truth". That distinction is analogous to the distinction between being and existence. Existence is a subset of being, and facts are a kind of truth, but existence does not exhaust being, and facts do not exhaust truth.

This is a very old distinction, of course, and (e.g.) the Platonic dialogues deal with it in great detail. But if one wants a short and illuminating book about it, it is hard to do better than Aquinas' "Ente et Essentia".

To give an old Platonic (well, Pythagorean) example, numbers do not exist (as ordinary objects do), but that does not stop us from using them.

Don't you think that it's a problem to call "God" something which an atheist can believe in? — S

I don't decide upon the meaning of words by looking at how others react to them.

Existence is a subset of being — Mariner

Everything is not a subset of being. You've suggested non-dualism in reference to God but haven't followed through on what that may imply. What about mind-body dualism, for instance? Is our separation from God only an illusion?

What about mind-body dualism, for instance? — praxis

What about it? (I think it is nonsense).

Is our separation from God only an illusion? — praxis

It depends, as usual, on what you mean by separation. Ontologically, sure, it is an illusion, since our being is derived from God and constantly sustained by Him. Morally, we are absolutely separated from Him. Cognitively, we are absolutely separated from Him. Etc.

Morally, we are absolutely separated from Him. Cognitively, we are absolutely separated from Him. Etc. — Mariner

Earlier you wrote that you didn't think God could be called "a being" among other beings, and yet here you say that God has 'a morality', 'a cognition', 'a Etc.' that is separate. Incidentally, 'He' also appears to have 'a gender'. A distinct morality, cognition, etc., appears to constitute a being, and a being which exists among other beings.

A distinct morality, cognition, etc., appears to constitute a being, and a being which exists among other beings. — praxis

It "appears" because it is symbolic language. (Same goes for God's gender). We are trying to talk about something of which we don't have any experience. It is necessary to use symbolic language for that.

Are you familiar with the distinction between cataphatic and apophatic theology? When we talk about God, we must use one of these two techniques.