As I said, I can only infer that the concept of God, having created consciousness, must have super-natural and transcendent capabilities or properties. Kind of the same idea as Kant's transcendentalism. Or as an example, if you prefer the infamous judgement that humans make quite often: all events must have a cause... . — 3017amen

Depends on how you define causation and what it is which can then determine what things do have causes and what it means for things to not be caused or perhaps even be a-casual.

Think about why human's utter such things and how universally effective that notion of wonder is viz physical science. — 3017amen

Human beings can use the word wonder to apply to something sort of feeling in relation to stimuli from greater reality, yes.

I have tried to figure out a way to say this nicely, but I really could not.

You are full of shit, Sub.

I've answered the question of what I mean by "god"...SEVERAL TIMES. — Frank Apisa

Didn't recall you noting it in one of your replies giving a definition of god that you and I can discuss, of course remember that you do not speak for every other religious individual on the matter.

When I speak of a god, I mean, "An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider 'the Universe.'"

I can give you the longer version if you need it...but you shouldn't.

We both know what I mean when I say "a god"...and we both know what you mean when you say "define."

But you are lost here...and all you can do is spin the subject so that you do not have to acknowledge you have failed.

I truly am sorry about that. I wish things could be different. I'll continue to reply, hoping you finally develop what is needed to make the acknowledgment. — Frank Apisa

Well you just gave a definition of god and (though you haven't specified much of the specifics beyond gave rise to the universe with no other connotations on required properties) is for all intensive purposes something i'm agnostic (weakly) towards. . . so was that so hard? You specified a definition then I gave my position on it which has been the whole point of being tentatively ignostic, the discussion is void until you can actually have one with predefined terms that both parties agree on as well as understand.

All i've done is be extremely pedantic about this because you can really only be ignorant (or undecided) on the existence of an entity when you know what that entity is or that you are even talking about an entity at all. Agnostic to me is that position of ignorance towards the god concept AFTER you assume it's an entity of sorts, a word, that means something to someone and you can say you don't know if it exists or not. Are you still agnostic if you don't get what the point of a discussion is with undefined terms or incoherent definitions? You could stretch the word that way so it just becomes the universal word for "I don't know" whether were talking about meta-concepts or the concepts directly but usually most i've seen also just use the word to specify they understand what god means and they don't know whether it exists.

When I think agnostic should I think of: Person who doesn't know what god is?
Or that it's a person who doesn't know if a god exists?
Clearly these are not the same.

How am I doing?

Does that metaphor speak to it? — 3017amen

You're onto something here. The sentence "God is consciousness" is not a definition - it is a poetic metaphor.

I like to think that I appreciate a good poem at least as much as the average person you'd meet on the street. One of my favorite metaphors is that old cliche I was taught in junior school -

"The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas"

Oooooh. It's a classic line that conjures up all sorts of visual images. Alfred Noyes must have patted himself on the back when he came up with that one. But of course we all know that the moon is not really a ghostly galleon - it's a huge hunk of rock orbiting around the earth.

Now I'm not questioning your faith. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious and I can see how it helps them cope with life's difficulties and gives structure and meaning to their lives.

But there is no logic to a belief in god(s) - faith is totally irrational.

Any efforts to give a reasonably coherent explanation of the phrase "God exists" are doomed to failure.

Not too shabby. I liked the way you responded to Frank's asking you to define "definition" and "coherent". Much better than anything I would have come up with.

You're onto something here. The sentence "God is consciousness" is not a definition - it is a poetic metaphor. — EricH

I can define God. God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas" — EricH

I like mine better because it's more germane than yours : God is a mottled color of Truth.

Now I'm not questioning your faith. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious and I can see how it helps them cope with life's difficulties and gives structure and meaning to their lives. — EricH

Do you mean it has impacts on their conscious existence?

But there is no logic to a belief in god(s) - faith is totally irrational. — EricH

Is the nature of your consciousness itself logical?

Any efforts to give a reasonably coherent explanation of the phrase "God exists" are doomed to failure. — EricH

Really? In Christianity Jesus existed, no?

But there is no logic to a belief in god(s) - faith is totally irrational — EricH

If you believe faith to be irrational, you could always stop believing without proof that human reason is qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods. Just saying, an option...

REALLY REALLY BIG: The God concept is typically some claim about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner.

REALLY REALLY SMALL: Human reason is the poorly developed ability of a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, a species only recently living in caves, a species with thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat, a subject it typically finds too boring to bother discussing.

So, , those nebulous indeterminate definitions typically put forth by faith apologists (and I think some were posted earlier in this thread) means nihilism? Odd. I doubt that's what they wanted.

God is consciousness — 3017amen

One more definition...? By all means, add to the ridiculous amount of definitions. :) I wonder how many definitions can be found on this forum alone. Shiva, "the greatest", The Triune, the universe (or a supposed sentient creator thereof), your oceanic feelings, "the great unknown" (or "unknowable"), personified nature, ... What a circus. No wonder there are things like ignosticism.

Since the term was first invented, atheists have been trying to make their blind guesses that gods do not exist seem like something other than "beliefs." — Frank Apisa

When gods were (are) invented, others have asked (ask) the inventors "Why the tall tales?" ;)

Jesus was known to be part God — 3017amen

It was recording in history that Jesus was both God and man — 3017amen

Jesus was part God and man as recorded in history — 3017amen

More tall tales, stories of a Jewish carpenter in Middle Eastern antiquity supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food, magically walking on water and turning water into wine, cursing a fig tree to make it wither, after whose demise there was a zombie outbreak in Jerusalem, ... Taking this stuff to be literal history is where uncritical naïveté gullibility malleability credulity "seeing faces in the clouds" (mentioned by @Punshhh) is applicable.

those nebulous indeterminate definitions typically put forth by faith apologists (and I think some were posted earlier in this thread) means nihilism? Odd. I doubt that's what they wanted. — jorndoe

What's indeterminate about Jesus existing in history? I'm not following you...

One more definition...? By all means, add to the ridiculous amount of definitions. :) I wonder how many definitions can be found on this forum alone. Shiva, "the greatest", The Triune, the universe (or a supposed sentient creator thereof), your oceanic feelings, that over there :point: , "the great unknown" (or "unknowable"), ghosts of imagined entities, ... What a circus. No wonder there are things like ignosticism. — jorndoe

Is that basically another approach or version of hiding behind ad hominem ? Oh, that's right you were the guy that intriduced ad hominem into my argument that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God. LOL

Tall tales, stories of a Jewish carpenter in Middle Eastern antiquity supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food, magically walking on water and turning water into wine, cursing a fig tree to make it wither, after whose demise there was a zombie outbreak in Jerusalem, ... Taking this stuff to be literal history is where uncritical naïveté gullibility malleability credulity "seeing faces in the clouds" (mentioned by Punshhh) is applicable. — jorndoe

Not sure I'm following that, are you suggesting that all history books are fiction?

I'm not following you — 3017amen

Seems like it. (Alternatively, you don't want to.) Try again?

Oh, that's right you were the guy that intriduced ad hominem into my argument that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God.

Sorry for the redundancy, but I think your credibility is highly suspect LOL

Is that basically another approach or version of hiding behind ad hominem ? — 3017amen

No.

Repeating: ad hominem is typically when someone's argument is dismissed because of their (perceived) character, or something similar that's irrelevant to their argument, a kind of non sequitur.

Do you have a point or are you just trolling?

LOL

or something similar that's irrelevant to their argument, a kind of non sequitur. — jorndoe

Is the fact that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God a non sequitur?

I don't know Frank, so far I haven't heard any persuasive arguments from any atheists on this site. I mean I've given them every opportunity to save-face, but it seem as though they got nothing. Oh well, the more things change the more they stay the same. Or in Christian philosophy; nothing new under the sun.

Speaking of [atheists] saving face: “The fanatical atheists are like...who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres--Albert Einstein

God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus. — 3017amen

Again, still not a definition. What does the word "that" mean?

you could always stop believing without proof that human reason is qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods — Hippyhead

I'm having a bit of difficulty parsing this. While I would phrase it differently, I would basically agree with the statement that human reason is NOT qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods. Is this what you're saying?

Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof

I don't know Frank, so far I haven't heard any persuasive arguments from any atheists on this site. I mean I've given them every opportunity to save-face, but it seem as though they got nothing. Oh well, the more things change the more they stay the same. Or in Christian philosophy; nothing new under the sun. — 3017amen

Probably because you never get past the define your terms phase of the discussion either being intentionally obscure (i've personally now experienced that) or just seemingly refusing to do so post after post.

Speaking of [atheists] saving face: “The fanatical atheists are like...who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres--Albert Einstein — 3017amen

Great, an argument from authority or a useless quote mine which isn't a definition of god.

Is the fact that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God a non sequitur? — 3017amen

A particular definition of god with predefined attributes something which you have actually failed to provide on every occasion and I wouldn't ever dare to put you among those respectable apologists/theistic philosophers that make up such a statistic.

What's indeterminate about Jesus existing in history? I'm not following you... — 3017amen

Jesus may have existed and if he did at most we could suppose only what the Jefferson Bible would clue us into what he potentially said or how he potentially acted as. If there was ever a single person deserving of the title of Jesus. You're for some reason either sneaking in every miracle of the new testament into the word historical fact or merely pick pocketing a particular theological interpretation of Jesus (being the son of god perhaps) that needs to be supported externally to the bible itself to have credence. I'm not talking about whether it's a proper interpretation of the bible (mythologically) but if this person (Jesus) was actually the son of god or had some special relation to god. I know the bible claims that but I want to see you support it.

Is that basically another approach or version of hiding behind ad hominem ? Oh, that's right you were the guy that introduced ad hominem into my argument that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God. LOL — 3017amen

You know he was basically elaborating on the fact that the word god is molested left and right by bystanders as well as philosophers to the point that it doesn't really have a central meaning anymore, perhaps certain popular conceptions but that's where the buck stops. Saying you believe in god, not supposing any popular interpretation or conception of god to probably hold, makes it indeterminate as to what you would mean by such a term without further elaboration. Nor what i'm to be agnostic, atheistic, or theistic towards.

Not sure I'm following that, are you suggesting that all history books are fiction? — 3017amen

Some contain fiction and those can be rather obvious; mythological stories, stories which conflict with an abundant collection of historical fact/knowledge, etc. The main point being that if your story has a person walking on water even though every person (you could perform an experiment here) you could or have interacted with have never been able to walk on water it then seems nomologically not possible to due so without changing our understanding of physics (we are not assuming he looked like he was walking on water when he was walking on wooden rods that were submerged). He walked on water without any fancy physics tricks so he defied our understanding of modern day physics knowledge. So then, how can you support both historically as well as philosophically that such a thing did occur?

I have tried to figure out a way to say this nicely, but I really could not.

You are full of shit, Sub.

I've answered the question of what I mean by "god"...SEVERAL TIMES.
— Frank Apisa

Didn't recall you noting it in one of your replies giving a definition of god that you and I can discuss, of course remember that you do not speak for every other religious individual on the matter. — substantivalism

Read the thread. I have given several definitions (all variations of the same thought expressed here) of what I mean when I use the word "god" in these discussions.

I have not said I speak for anyone else. I am telling you what I mean. What is so difficult for you to understand about that?

And to use the words "you do not speak for every other religious individual " is an absurdity. I am NOT a religious individual... as that comment suggests.

When I speak of a god, I mean, "An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider 'the Universe.'"

I can give you the longer version if you need it...but you shouldn't.

We both know what I mean when I say "a god"...and we both know what you mean when you say "define."

But you are lost here...and all you can do is spin the subject so that you do not have to acknowledge you have failed.

I truly am sorry about that. I wish things could be different. I'll continue to reply, hoping you finally develop what is needed to make the acknowledgment.

— Frank Apisa

Well you just gave a definition of god and (though you haven't specified much of the specifics beyond gave rise to the universe with no other connotations on required properties) is for all intensive purposes something i'm agnostic (weakly) towards. . . so was that so hard? You specified a definition then I gave my position on it which has been the whole point of being tentatively ignostic, the discussion is void until you can actually have one with predefined terms that both parties agree on as well as understand. — substantivalism

Ahhh..like that omniscience or omnipresent bullshit, so you can show what a whiz you are in defeating thesits.

I am not a theist. And nothing was hard about what I said. I have said it a dozen times in this thread. You just haven't read the thread.

Ignosticism, Sub, is just one more way for atheist to pretend they are not just people guessing in the opposite direction from theists. You atheists are nothing more than "believers"...but in the other direction from the "believers" who guess there are gods. You are the reverse of the coin of which the obverse is theism.

That FACT bothers you folk...and you go into denial and pretense.

All i've done is be extremely pedantic about this because you can really only be ignorant (or undecided) on the existence of an entity when you know what that entity is or that you are even talking about an entity at all. Agnostic to me is that position of ignorance towards the god concept AFTER you assume it's an entity of sorts, a word, that means something to someone and you can say you don't know if it exists or not. Are you still agnostic if you don't get what the point of a discussion is with undefined terms or incoherent definitions? You could stretch the word that way so it just becomes the universal word for "I don't know" whether were talking about meta-concepts or the concepts directly but usually most i've seen also just use the word to specify they understand what god means and they don't know whether it exists. — substantivalism

I can only hope you eventually grow up and see what you said there to be bullshit.

When I think agnostic should I think of: Person who doesn't know what god is?
Or that it's a person who doesn't know if a god exists?
Clearly these are not the same.

I don't care what you think...but it would be great to think that you DO think.

Read the statement of my agnosticism...and tell me the part with which you disagree...and why you disagree. Stop with the "ignostic" bullshit. Stop being pedantic...start having a discussion. Be ethical.

180 Proof
1.6k
Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE.
— 180 Proof
↪Frank Apisa — 180 Proof

You'd be better off in the shallow end of the pool, 180.

I would basically agree with the statement that human reason is NOT qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods. Is this what you're saying? — EricH

I'm saying reason has not been proven qualified for that job.

We look at holy books and see their qualifications for the largest subjects has not been proven. And so we withhold belief in that authority until such proof is provided.

We look at human reason and see it's qualifications for the largest subjects has not been proven. And so we withhold belief in that authority until such proof is provided.

, could you at least try to stick with the comment? Your response indicated that you didn't quite read it (or didn't understand it, or didn't want to understand it).

Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof

Probably because you never get past the define your terms phase of the discussion either being intentionally obscure (i've personally now experienced that) or just seemingly refusing to do so post after post. — substantivalism

In Christianity Jesus existed.

Great, an argument from authority or a useless quote mine which isn't a definition of god. — substantivalism

It's useless to those who lack understanding.

particular definition of god with predefined attributes something which you have actually failed to provide on every occasion and I wouldn't ever dare to put you among those respectable apologists/theistic philosophers that make up such a statistic. — substantivalism

So are you ignoring that over 75% of philosophicsl domain's posit God's existence?

I know the bible claims that but I want to see you support it. — substantivalism

Do you need support that, say, Immanuel Kant existed? Not sure what else to tell you. Jesus existed in a history book known as the Christian Bible. I don't understand what your argument is... .

So then, how can you support both historically as well as philosophically that such a thing did occur? — substantivalism

For the same reason you don't understand your own conscious existence. In other words, I could invent something to explain your own conscious existence but, would that really prove anything? Otherwise, just like other accounts of historical events about existing things, you can choose to believe them, or not to believe them. Not sure what the fuss is about. Maybe the foregoing will help you.

With regard to philosophical concerns, sure, that's a great question. Let's dive into it shall we? Philosophically, your argument seems to center around understanding the nature of a particular person's existence (Jesus who was known to be part God). How can one understand another person when that particular person can't even understand themselves? It's kind of like blind leading the blind, no? Philosophically, you are expecting to perform something that is not possible because to begin with, you can't tell me how you can have knowledge about the thing-in-itself. And thing-in-itself is you; your existence. Otherwise, we are simply back to whether one can have knowledge about the mind of God.

In the alternative, maybe try to explain cosmological existence for a start. For example, tell me how consciousness emerged from a warm pool of soup, a piece of wood, or from quantum mechanics. Or, what is the nature of space and time itelf viz. the big bang? That would be a great start. Explain the nature of time itself to all of us here on the forum. That, for one, would certainly enhance your credibility wouldn't it?

The main theme is: the nature of your existence and/or the thing-in-itself. I look forward to your reply!

God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus. — 3017amen
Again, still not a definition. What does the word "that" mean? — EricH

It's referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. Typically, 'that' is a pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the observer/speaker.

One of the great things about this forum is that there are a lot of pretty articulate & intelligent people here. I've gotten a lot of good feedback - even from people who I completely disagree with. If I get a response that is completely at odds with what I thought I was saying, then perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly and there's a better way.

Of course there will be many situations where the differences are so great that there is no communication possible - in which case I gently bow out.

Anyway, with that in mind? I think we're sort of saying the same thing in different words. So please take what I'm going to say not a criticism of your views but rather as suggestions on how you can better express what I think you're trying to say. Of course I could be totally off base here, but even then we will have learned something.

I'm saying reason has not been proven qualified for that job. — Hippyhead

I am not qualified to be a plumber, although I would likely be a decent plumber if I had training. Reason is a tool. So I would phrase this something like "Reason is an inadequate tool for this job".

We look at holy books and see their qualifications for the largest subjects has not been proven. And so we withhold belief in that authority until such proof is provided. — Hippyhead

There's a similar problem here with these formulations. Books are not qualified to do anything. One way of phrasing this might be "There is no reason to accept any holy book as being authoritative on these largest subjects. They all disagree with one another so at best only one is correct, and there is no way that you can use reason to tell which - if any - of these books is accurate"

We look at human reason and see it's qualifications for the largest subjects has not been proven. And so we withhold belief in that authority until such proof is provided. — Hippyhead

Likewise.

BTW - if you think there's a better way for me to express my thoughts I accept all constructive criticism. :smile:

180 Proof
1.6k
Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE.
— 180 Proof
↪Frank Apisa — 180 Proof

I've explained that.

You really should go to the shallow end of the pool, 180.

Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof↪Frank Apisa — 180 Proof

Hello angry atheist!

Frank's Agnosticism can be summed-up in the concept/principle of Bivalence/Vagueness:

Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:
This apple is red.
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:
This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.

Or if you like, quantum indeterminacy and/or Gödel and Heisenberg might help... .

He still seems angry Frank LOL

Jesus who was known to be part God — 3017amen

Here's another take on that claim...

One theory could be that when Jesus went out in to the desert and subjected himself to extreme stress, he somehow overcame the illusion that he was a separate thing divided from everything else. If God is a word for everything, and Jesus realized that he was one with everything, he may have concluded that therefore he personally was everything, or in the language of his time, God.

Let's recall that Jesus was reportedly a very enthusiastic and charismatic person, who was only 30 years old. Given his age, it's possible he misinterpreted and over personalized a very real and profound experience he had. The problem may not be with his experience, but with his explanation of it.

Or, maybe he did understand the experience correctly, but when he came back in to town and tried to explain it to people who hadn't had such a transformative experience, they mangled his explanations, turning them in to something other than what Jesus intended. Given that Jesus never wrote anything down himself, we're never going to know what his words really were.

↪Frank Apisa He still seems angry Frank LOL — 3017amen

He does seem angry, Amen.

I suspect he is trying to bait me into saying something that gets me banned.

Atheists do not like having agnostics around to debate. They inevitably lose.