No, formally, the burden of proof doesn't work both ways. Those supporting a proposition have to provide the evidence. Those who don't support it counter that evidence. All those who don't support the proposition have to do is show the supporters have not made their case, not that they are wrong. — T Clark

Yes, I agree, although I agreed with him that it works both ways because I interpreted that differently.

While writing this reply I clicked the "reply" button using my left hand. I just made a claim. So the burden of proof is on me then? Well, I can't prove it. Does this prove I did not use the mouse with my left hand? No. You simply have no knowledge of whether I used my right or left hand or maybe my leg to click the "reply" button.

Ironically, you are guilty of what you insinuate of me above. "That's ridiculous" is not an argument. Neither is "That's snotty" or "That's arrogant". Not outside of a context in which that's the topic of discussion. — Sapientia

I think you're right. I'll try to stop.

I guess my take is somewhere in the middle. Completely within the bounds of the natural, I think it is reasonable to consider our world as ....sentient?....a person?.....alive? None of those are right. — T Clark

Yes, none of those are right. I'm glad we agree. — Sapientia

I should have said "None of those is quite right." I think you know that.

Hmm. Maybe. You'd have to elaborate. — Sapientia

This isn't the post to do it on.

I think you know that. — T Clark

X-)

While writing this reply I clicked the "reply" button using my left hand. I just made a claim. So the burden of proof is on me then? Well, I can't prove it. Does this prove I did not use the mouse with my left hand? No. You simply have no knowledge of whether I used my right or left hand or maybe my leg to click the "reply" button. — BlueBanana

If there were a good reason to doubt your statement and if it mattered and if I were interested in arguing, which there isn't and it doesn't and I'm not, the burden of proof would be on you.

the burden of proof would be on you — T Clark

Of that we agree then, but you still wouldn't have the certain knowledge that what I claimed wasn't true.

Of that we agree then, but you still wouldn't have the certain knowledge that what I claimed wasn't true. — BlueBanana

That's not necessary.

While it may be heresy to claim that God would ask someone to kill one of their children (or someone else) in order to please him, IT IS RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE OF HIM (or her/it/they if God so happens not to be a 'he') DOING SO. — dclements

To the extent that I am qualified to be a judge of what is heresy, which is zero, I don't think claiming that God would ask someone to kill one of their children is heresy. We are not talking about God, we are talking about Christians. I have no statistics to back this up, but it seems unlikely that Christians are any more likely to kill children than any other religious or secular group. If you consider abortion to be child killing, they are probably less likely.

I agree with this point. However, to move the argument forward, I think we all hit a wall. In all presentations about theism, determinism and the antithesis; we come to an “uncertainty” principle. We all reach this chasm in which the final proof is absent. I have heard you say before Sapientia “I don’t have to prove the antithesis”. I think you do – and – if you can’t “things” are uncertain. That is what we are left with – I call it the uncertainty principle. I wrote this in another thread:
— Thinker

I don't have to prove the antithesis unless that's my position. And yes, most things are uncertain. — Sapientia

A very convenient position. Not explaining the criteria for your position is also very convenient. So, how do you make decisions? As I recall, you don't like talking about emotions. I wonder why?

God does not need us – quite the contrary – we need God. Or perhaps I should say we desire God.
— Thinker

Speak for yourself. — Sapientia

I do speak for myself and I project to others - does that seem unreasonable to you? I hear you do that all the time - we all do - That is the only card we have to play.

We are almost nothing to God – a speck of dust.
— Thinker

No, we're real. Even a speck of dust is real. That's more than can knowingly be said about God. God is almost nothing to me besides being an interesting talking point, a subject of enquiry into human psychology, and that sort of thing. God is not a crutch for me. — Sapientia

You either missed my point or chose to ignore it. To argue whether or not we are real is absurd. Why you go there, I suspect, is to avoid my point. My point is that we are not very significant - I did not say insignificant - quite the contrary. God provided us with an "equation for life" - as I previously denoted. This is how I see the available evidence which is reasonable to my mind. You counter that the universe is not organized and that a nice planet, consciousness & love is just luck. Ok, I hear you and I cannot gainsay your logic (simple as it is) – but – when I hear you say – “God is not a crutch for me.” I hear an emotion. You don’t want crutches. There is something else afoot here. You don’t like to talk about your emotions – but – you reveal them.

If our sun blows up – I doubt we will be missed. What is our consequence in the scheme of things?
— Thinker

Many theists would find the notion that God is destructible to be absurd, but there is reason to believe that God would die along with us. Some have said that he's already dead. In actually living my life, seizing the day is more important to me than the grand scheme of things. My concern is thisworldliness, rather than otherworldliness. — Sapientia

You completely changed what I said. I was clear – God is blowing up large parts of the universe as we speak. Talking about whether God is dead was nowhere in my conversation. I don’t know if God can die, reincarnate – be born or whatever. It is not my area of expertise. What I said is God is blowing up large parts of the universe as we speak – because – “It” is a mad scientist – pyromaniac. That means is that a part of the universe is being destroyed with better planets and beings than us. If we are the most intelligent beings in the universe – then I agree with you – God does not exist!

This is false, Jesus DID claim to not only be the Son of God, but to be one with the Father. This is actually one of the charges of the Pharisees against Him before the Crucifixion. — Agustino

You seem to misunderstand the facts Agustino. The charge against him was indeed a charge of claiming to be the Son of God, but when asked if that's what he calls himself, he said that's what you call me, or they call me, I call myself Son of Man. He always claimed to be Son of man, but did not discourage others from calling him Son of God. He got himself falsely accused.

Mark 1:1 starts by mentioning this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Luke 1:35 which details the birth of Jesus, where again, the angels say that he will be the Son of God.

John 10:30 - Jesus says "I and the Father are One"

John 10:36 where Jesus handles the accusation of blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God.

Etc.

Really the evidence is very clear, I can't understand how anyone who has read the Gospels can claim that Jesus did NOT claim to be the Son of God. — Agustino

I see absolutely no evidence here that Jesus called himself Son of God. You'll have to find something better than that to back up your claim. But, if you read completely, a good translation of the gospels of the New Testament you will see clearly that he called himself Son of Man.

Actually it is Saul who was adamant to say that Jesus wanted us to believe that he was Son of God. But Saul was Jewish, and wanted to defend the act of crucifixion. The only way to vindicate the Jews who put Jesus to death, was to insist that Jesus claimed to be Son of God. While vindicating the Jews in this way, the only way to support Christianity was to claim that Jesus actually is Son of God.

But Saul was Jewish, and wanted to defend the act of crucifixion. The only way to vindicate the Jews who put Jesus to death, was to insist that Jesus claimed to be Son of God. — Metaphysician Undercover

What evidence do you have that St. Paul wanted to defend the act of crucifixion and vindicate the Jews? As in what sources are you basing this on?

A very convenient position. — Thinker

But that's incidental. I am not of this position because it is convenient. I have positions which aren't as convenient in this way.

And it's very convenient for the person who purports that God has communicated with them that this is apparently private and cannot be demonstrated. Just as it's very convenient for people who purport all kinds of things which they do not demonstrate, from back flips to telekinesis!

Not explaining the criteria for your position is also very convenient. — Thinker

You haven't asked. But I have been doing that quite a bit, actually, both here and in the other discussion you were involved in.

So, how do you make decisions? — Thinker

If you've been reading what I've been saying, then you should have some idea.

I do speak for myself and I project to others - does that seem unreasonable to you? I hear you do that all the time - we all do - That is the only card we have to play. — Thinker

If you were lumping myself and countless others like me in to what you were saying, then yes, that seems unreasonable to me.

You either missed my point or chose to ignore it. To argue whether or not we are real is absurd. Why you go there, I suspect, is to avoid my point. My point is that we are not very significant - I did not say insignificant - quite the contrary. God provided us with an "equation for life" - as I previously denoted. This is how I see the available evidence which is reasonable to my mind. You counter that the universe is not organized and that a nice planet, consciousness & love is just luck. Ok, I hear you and I cannot gainsay your logic (simple as it is) – but – when I hear you say – “God is not a crutch for me.” I hear an emotion. You don’t want crutches. There is something else afoot here. You don’t like to talk about your emotions – but – you reveal them. — Thinker

No, I neither missed your point nor chose to ignore it. You seemed to have missed my counterpoint, which addresses and contradicts yours. You strongly suggested that we have next to no significance in comparison to God, and I rejected that and suggested that it is in fact more the other way around for the reason that I gave. It's not at all absurd to suggest that that which is known to be real is of much greater significance than that which is not known to be real, and, as you yourself have claimed, is merely speculative.

Please do not misrepresent my position. I have not claimed that the universe is not organised and that a nice planet, consciousness and love is just luck. If you aren't competent enough to represent my position in your own words, please quote me instead.

And please stop trying to make this about me and my emotions.

These are fallacies of irrelevance. I had given up on you once already, but I changed my mind and decided to engage you again. You're making me start to regret that decision, and I'm tempted to stop replying to you altogether.

You completely changed what I said. — Thinker

No I didn't. It wasn't intended as a direct response to what you said. I just picked up on parts of what you said and expressed my thoughts in relation to it.

Needless to say, I don't believe in such nonsense as that God is blowing up large parts of the universe as we speak.

My short list, then, is "god" as assurance, reason, authority. But isn't this a little strange? "God" appears to be just exactly that, that in every case meets a human need, and meets it, furthermore, without ever being an efficient cause of anything. I think it a useful exercise to recast any question that has ever been answered by "god" so that it can be answered more accessibly. — tim wood

First, if we are made in God's image, why would it be strange that what he provides matches human needs?

Also - your separation of the uses of God as assurance, reason, and authority is artificial. If you believe in him, God made the universe. He is the reason for everything. He made the rules - the laws of science and the laws of right and wrong. Those laws don't have to be consistent if he doesn't want them to be. According to some accounts, he can overrule them whenever he wants.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's part and parcel of living life. We all do it. But when it comes to God, you get a double standard and special pleading. — Sapientia

I understand that extraordinary claims, and extraordinary evidence, are part and parcel of living life. I also understand that life itself is extraordinary. Therefore life itself is extraordinary evidence. And extraordinary evidence is what is required to back up extraordinary claims. I don't understand why you employ a double standard "when it comes to God".

You haven't clarified the ambiguity at all, you've just repeated it. What does it mean to say that God comes to an individual from within, and that God makes his presence known from within? We can't make much progress until I know what you're talking about. I suspect you're hiding behind obscurity - exploiting it. — Sapientia

Ok, sorry I didn't explain, because you didn't ask. I think you were being ambiguous and obscure. Do you understand anything about the inner self, anything about the soul? If so, do you not recognize that God could make His presence known to you through your inner self? The very fact that you are alive, and therefore have a soul, is God making his presence known to you, but you ignore Him.

I'm not really asking anything, except rhetorically. If they can't justify it, I can't believe it. Anecdotal evidence isn't enough. — Sapientia

Well, I guess if God makes Himself present to you, through your inner self, and anecdotal evidence isn't enough to convince you of anything, then it is impossible that you will ever recognize God, because you will even reject your own anecdotes as evidence of anything. I do not resist, reject, and lock up my inner self, subduing it with the deception of denial. I allow freedom to my self, and even allow that God might give my free spirit some guidance.

We think of many people who make these kind of claims and genuinely believe them as whacks. Why should we think of people who believe that God has communicated with them any differently? A clairvoyant who isn't just a charlatan should be put in the whack box. — Sapientia

Yes, it is common to believe that people who think God has communicated to them are "whacks". So what? Does believing something make it true?

I understand that extraordinary claims, and extraordinary evidence, are part and parcel of living life. I also understand that life itself is extraordinary. Therefore life itself is extraordinary evidence. And extraordinary evidence is what is required to back up extraordinary claims. I don't understand why you employ a double standard "when it comes to God". — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you missing the point intentionally? How is life, assuming it counts as extraordinary evidence, relevant to someone making the claim that God communicates with them?

Ok, sorry I didn't explain, because you didn't ask. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes I did! You even quoted me asking you what that means.

I think you were being ambiguous and obscure. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you're playing games, so I'm going to cut this short and read no further.

OK, suppose we remove this distinction then, between what is internal and what is external, because it is ambiguous. How would anyone justify any claims, if they cannot demonstrate external correspondence with what they are claiming that they know within themselves?

With ghosts and such, the claim is that the ghost is out there, so to justify the claim the individual must demonstrate where that ghost is. If God comes to an individual from within, and , makes His presence known to that individual from within, how can we ask that individual to demonstrate God's existence by referring to what is external to the individual. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're are just repeating the distinction. Since all knowledge is internal, nothing can be justified by external correspondence. Any account of correspondence relies on the presence of an experience which intuits states of the world. It's still trapped within the internal. All our knowledge, including empirical states, is given within the internal space of our experience. We cannot get outside to derive knowledge.

In the sense you are asking, there is no justification to give.

So how do we justify our claims? We do so internally. Our experience is compared to our experience. With empirical states, for example, we compare our internal notion of some state with out internal experience at a particular moment, demonstrating to ourselves whether some state is present--e.g. if I don't experience the sugar jar after looking through the cupboard, then it's not there. Insofar as the claim carries, that the sugar jar I experience is present in the cupboard goes, it is falsified.

With regards to God, the question is at first logical. We need to define the experienced state which constitutes the existence of God. If we do not, the question of justifying the existence of God is meaningless, for no possible state of existence is defined. In such a case, we do not even have a concept of the existing God with which to check internally against our experiences.

The question is, therefore, what does it mean to say "God comes to an individual from within?"

In the context of the external/internal knowledge, it doesn't make sense because the dichotomy is incoherent.-- all knowledge comes from within.

One can, as you do, draw a distinction between betwene claims which need to be demonstrated in experience (e.g. ghosts) and ones which do not (e.g. God), but what does this mean?

If God is meant to be a state of existence, independent from other states, which makes some sort of difference in the experienced world, then it's a claim to be demonstrated-- like the sugar jar, God is another state of the world which makes a difference to how we experience it. To say God is that without demonstration is to render God incoherent in terms of existence.

What evidence do you have that St. Paul wanted to defend the act of crucifixion and vindicate the Jews? As in what sources are you basing this on? — Agustino

1, He was Jewish, a Pharisee, opposed to the followers of Jesus.
2. He upheld the conviction that Jesus claimed to be Son of God.

How much more evidence do you need? Put two and two together. That Jesus claimed to be Son of God is the conviction the Jews passed, which cost Jesus his life. The only reason to insist that Jesus made this claim, when he clearly didn't, is to uphold that conviction.

St. Paul saw that he could appease both the Jews and the Christians, create consistency between them, if he fostered the belief that Jesus actually is Son of God (which would support the Christian resurrection, and also justify the Jews putting Jesus to death for claiming to be Son of God) . This was Saul's epiphany from God, on route to Damascus, "to reveal His Son in me". Therefore the tradition began, that Jesus is Son of God.

You're are just repeating the distinction. Since all knowledge is internal, nothing can be justified by external correspondence. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is manifestly untrue. We justify things, one to another, and when we do this we use words, symbols, or some other form of demonstration. The demonstration is external correspondence. Therefore what you say is the exact opposite of the truth, in reality, all justification is by means of external correspondence.

So how do we justify our claims? We do so internally. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The entirety of your post follows from this falsity.

I am asking now - and - I have asked before and you replied - "I don't have to prove the antithesis" All I see and have seen is remarks like – absurd – irrelevant – straw man – crazy - supernatural or miraculous kind - "Good sense" according to whose assessment? These are your refutation remarks. You defend your position by attacking the affirmative. I don’t see you proving atheism; just attacking theism. — Thinker

What do you think atheism is? There are different types. I have not claimed that I can prove that God doesn't exist, so that is not my burden. If you think of that as atheism, then perhaps it would help if you think of me instead as an agnostic. I do indeed defend my position by criticising the affirmative claims of theism. What of it?

I think I already made clear the kind of standards of justification that I'd expect to be met. I don't enjoy repeating myself. If it can't be empirically verified, then what evidence is there? Anecdotal evidence. But anecdotal evidence is stronger with regards to ordinary claims and weaker with regards to extraordinary claims. The difference is obvious, as the article I linked to in a previous comment makes clear in an illustration.

Ok - I am sorry if I have misrepresented you. I can't find what you said about these things - can you repeat it - please? — Thinker

No. It's not even relevant here, is it? You seem to have trouble sticking to the topic.

That may be a common human experience, and one that I would take you at your word when you say that you've had it.

Interpreting it as God might be understandable, but that doesn't make it any less "crazy" in my sense — Sapientia

And no, if I have had such an experience, I haven't jumped to the conclusion that it was God - I'm not crazy. — Sapientia

This is the part I'm curious about.

Is it your position that (a) one cannot have an experience of God, or (b) one cannot know that one has had an experience of God? You seem to accept that there is something reliable about a person's description of their own experience; but there is also something you describe as interpreting that experience, and this part requires justification.

I'd like to understand how you see this distinction.

My short list, then, is "god" as assurance, reason, authority. But isn't this a little strange? "God" appears to be just exactly that, that in every case meets a human need, and meets it, furthermore, without ever being an efficient cause of anything. I think it a useful exercise to recast any question that has ever been answered by "god" so that it can be answered more accessibly. — tim wood

First, if we are made in God's image, why would it be strange that what he provides matches human needs?

Also - your separation of the uses of God as assurance, reason, and authority is artificial. If you believe in him, God made the universe. He is the reason for everything. He made the rules - the laws of science and the laws of right and wrong. Those laws don't have to be consistent if he doesn't want them to be. According to some accounts, he can overrule them whenever he wants. — T Clark

The first "first" of concern is whether you know anything at all about your topic. Ah! You start with "if." On this topic, anything that starts with "if" is a waste of our time, certainly of mine, and if you're interest here is honest, then of yours. Your question is facile: "If we are made in god's image why would it be strange that what he provides matches human needs?" If in his image, then why would we have needs? Does god have needs, that you or I can know of? Or, if just in his image, do you mean we all look something like god? How would you know? Have you seen Him? Or in his image, somehow, but distinct in having human needs, then how can our identifying him through his meeting our needs tell us anything about him, himself? Your question doesn't have a bottom, it just descends further and further into nonsense.

Second. In what sense is my belief or non-belief, or anyone else's, constitutive of any real god? He either is as you claim, or not. I don't get a vote, and neither does anyone else.

Perhaps your entire post is an exercise in rhetorical irony. That is, If this or that, or if I believe this or that, or if anyone believed whatever, then from that belief any nonsensical proposition could be supported. That was your point, that it all hinges on belief, not that the beliefs constitute or in themselves evidence anything at all, but that as axioms of argument, can be used to prove anything. Clearly this is what you meant, and I repent in sackcloth and ashes any harshness in the paragraphs above; I simply didn't get it at first.

The first "first" of concern is whether you know anything at all about your topic. Ah! You start with "if." On this topic, anything that starts with "if" is a waste of our time, certainly of mine, and if you're interest here is honest, then of yours. Your question is facile: "If we are made in god's image why would it be strange that what he provides matches human needs?" If in his image, then why would we have needs? Does god have needs, that you or I can know of? Or, if just in his image, do you mean we all look something like god? How would you know? Have you seen Him? Or in his image, somehow, but distinct in having human needs, then how can our identifying him through his meeting our needs tell us anything about him, himself? Your question doesn't have a bottom, it just descends further and further into nonsense. — tim wood

I choose not to respond to an insulting comment.

Perhaps your entire post is an exercise in rhetorical irony. That is, If this or that, or if I believe this or that, or if anyone believed whatever, then from that belief any nonsensical proposition could be supported. That was your point, that it all hinges on belief, not that the beliefs constitute or in themselves evidence anything at all, but that as axioms of argument, can be used to prove anything. Clearly this is what you meant, and I repent in sackcloth and ashes any harshness in the paragraphs above; I simply didn't get it at first. — tim wood

See my response above.

Interpreting it as God might be understandable, but that doesn't make it any less "crazy" in my sense...if I have had such an experience, I haven't jumped to the conclusion that it was God - I'm not crazy. — Sapientia

That's funny: a person who calls themself 'Sapientia' (Wisdom), calls other people 'crazy', and says "I'm not crazy." Is there any evidence of psychoanalytic insight in such a case?

Because people are stupid and it causes them to believe stupid things.

This is the part I'm curious about.

Is it your position that (a) one cannot have an experience of God, or (b) one cannot know that one has had an experience of God? You seem to accept that there is something reliable about a person's description of their own experience; but there is also something you describe as interpreting that experience, and this part requires justification.

I'd like to understand how you see this distinction. — Srap Tasmaner

Almost definitely (b) with a few reservations (I could be wrong) and possibly (a). With regards to the latter, one cannot have an experience of God if, upon analysis, this makes no sense or implies a contradiction. And with regards to the former, how could one know that the experience is an experience of God and not an experience of something else? I'm not convinced that one could. One could of course be certain that it's the former, but that doesn't say much. I might be certain that my experience the other day was of ghosts, when it could in fact turn out to be just of a dim, candle lit, shadowy hallway, when I was tired, and in a heightened emotional state. Of course, I'd need to justify that it was of ghosts, but how?

Why wouldn't I take someone at their word when they give a description of their experience that doesn't contain anything controversial, like it being of God or ghosts or whatnot? That's being charitable, and it goes back to what I said in relation to anecdotal evidence. We know that people can and do have experiences which are profound or shocking or which they find remarkable in some way. It's quite natural and ordinary for someone to have such an experience or even multiple experiences of this kind in their lifetime. We also know that people can and do jump to the wrong conclusions after having certain experiences. I can relate both of these to my own experience.

That's funny: a person who calls themself Sapientia (Wisdom), calls other people crazy, and says "I'm not crazy." Is there any evidence of psychoanalytic insight in such a case? — Galuchat

That person must be crazy. (Or, possibly, there's an element of tongue-in-cheek in there).

Second. In what sense is my belief or non-belief, or anyone else's, constitutive of any real god? He either is as you claim, or not. I don't get a vote, and neither does anyone else. — tim wood

This may be a slight misunderstanding because things are not so straight forward as you imply. There are two distinct ways in which we name things. We can use a name to refer directly to a thing, or phenomenon, even though we do not have a proper understanding of that thing. Or we can use a name referring to an understanding, or concept, without referring directly to any particular thing or phenomenon. So, take for example, in Physics, some fundamental particle like the Higgs boson. Physicists can talk about the about this particle, as a concept, without pointing to any existing thing or particular phenomenon, they discuss the concept. Or they might point to some phenomenon and say that is the Higgs boson.

So it is very possible to have a disjunction between the concept which the word refers to, and the thing which the word refers to, and this would be a misunderstanding. Since human knowledge is never perfect, there is always some degree of separation between the concept and the thing, some degree of misunderstanding, where the concept of the thing doesn't exactly match the thing. Therefore it doesn't make sense to say "either God is as you claim or not". The person may have an understanding of "God" which is completely consistent with the accepted concept, just like the physicist may have an understanding of the "Higgs boson" which is completely consistent with accepted principles, but this concept of "God", or "Higgs boson" may not be a proper understanding of the real thing, or phenomenon which is referred to by these words.

If you desire to determine whether God is as so and so claims, or not, you must go beyond the concept of God, to compare the claims with the real thing, God. If you simply compare so and so's claims of God, with the accepted concept of God, your endeavor will be futile. Due to existing deficiencies in the concept, we must assume that the accepted concept is not completely as God is, and so and so's claims might vary at optimum places.. In this way, we really do get a vote as to whether any particular person's belief in God is representative of the real God, but not the atheist, the atheist is deprived of that capacity.

Is there any evidence of psychoanalytic insight in such a case? — Galuchat

possibly, there's an element of tongue-in-cheek in there — Sapientia

I'll take that as a "no."

I'll take that as a "no." — Galuchat

When I was an owlet, my mother threw me out of the nest because I didn't live up to her expectations of wisdom. I survived - flourished even, to the extent that I far surpassed her expectations, hence my name. I eventually returned to the nest to take revenge upon her, only to be met by her cold, lifeless corpse. Because of this childhood trauma, I now associate anyone who dares to criticise me with my mother, and I take my revenge upon them as a substitute.

I'm not crazy. I'm not my mother. You are.

There are two distinct ways in which we name things. We can use a name to refer directly to a thing, or phenomenon, even though we do not have a proper understanding of that thing. Or we can use a name referring to an understanding, or concept, without referring directly to any particular thing or phenomenon.

So it is very possible to have a disjunction between the concept which the word refers to, and the thing which the word refers to, and this would be a misunderstanding. Since human knowledge is never perfect, there is always some degree of separation between the concept and the thing, some degree of misunderstanding, where the concept of the thing doesn't exactly match the thing. Therefore it doesn't make sense to say "either God is as you claim or not". The person may have an understanding of "God" which is completely consistent with the accepted concept, just like the physicist may have an understanding of the "Higgs boson" which is completely consistent with accepted principles, but this concept of "God", or "Higgs boson" may not be a proper understanding of the real thing, or phenomenon which is referred to by these words. — MU

Intelligent, wise, challenging, but we expect nothing less from MU. Certainly the distinction between a real god and a concept of god is a distinction that makes a difference. And it is one I wish everyone would make. How much more insightful, fruitful, and fair would be theology/religion and all discussions flowing therefrom if only participants understood the difference, and that it makes a difference!

The problem, of course, is when folks talk about a concept without understanding that it is a concept, thereby depriving themselves of the benefit of that distinction, while simultaneously hamstringing their efforts by supposing their concept to be real - and at the same time opening a wide door for any snake-oil salesman or other species of fraud to glide right through.

I happen to think the concept of god is uniquely valuable. When understood as a concept, I think much good results. Affirming a god in reality, on the other hand, has a uniquely evil history.

Two nitpicks: confusion over the two you call a misunderstanding. I suppose, if it really is a misunderstanding. What it really is, is error, and depending on the who and why, maybe a deeply vicious error. At any rate, history is so full violence based on this error, among others, that the possibility of error not due to misunderstanding needs accounting for. Second. "either X is Y or X is not Y" may be infelicitous in a discussion, but it's scarcely meaningless or nonsensical. If there is a real god, then he either is, or is not, as claimed. Whether or not anyone is capable of evaluating the claim is another question.