I don't make God anything. He is eternal, not merely a big guy. If he were finite, then he would not be God.

I am not talking without precedent - l believe all Abrahamic faiths see God as eternal.

My definitions are based on the 99 Names of God in the Islamic faith, e.g. Az Zahir / The Evident (= actual), Al Qayyum or As Samad / The Eternal, Al Hayy / The Ever Living (= pure existence, maybe?).


How did God create changes, without time? I would conflate changes with time, actually. As per my previous post:

- It's a mystery to me, l just don't (yet) know
- I believe it was via the agency of the First Intelligence / Holy Spirit
- It involved the stepping down of infinite frequency into finite frequency.Just how this was done, is the major question.

Also note: l don't know if it is above time or under time, but the world of meanings could be one way to move, without a time axis - unless time is implicit in the world of meanings, in which case l am wrong.

Food for thought: Remember the final episode of Star Trek TNG, "All Good Things". As l recall, Q explains to Picard that there is a level of existence where time no longer matters, and it suddenly becomes clear that Q was not as malevolent as he seemed. He caused a lot of death on the Enterprise, but it was all to illustrate philosophical points. After all is said and done, everything that was lost could be reversed.

Ram, l've seen one of your posts wherein you declare a catechism of faith. I'll PM you about it


Just so people know though, other people that share your religion, do not think it's apt to just declare catechism of faith like that, out of context. You're not debating you're telling!

all are relatively infinitely small zones within him. That's why l have issues with trinitarian christianity, which has God bodily entering the cosmos. Infinity enters the finite. In the form of a person. Seems like materialism.

Ok tell me, as l have asked before, why would a deity trust another deity?

1. If hell exists, there would be Biblical evidence for its existence, or it exists only conceptually in the minds of human beings due to misinterpreting the Bible.
2. Things that only exist conceptually in the minds of human beings do not actually exist.
3. There is no Biblical evidence for the existence of hell.
4. Therefore, hell does not actually exist. — Francesco di Piertro

My opinions, point by point:
1. Bible isn't the only text dealing with it. Moreover, it's non sequitur that there must be evidence for it, it could just be. Where is the rule that says there must be evidence for it, considering it's a place nobody in this world has access to?
2. Circular definition - you say it only exists conceptually, then conclude it doesn't actually exist.
By the way, something can exist conceptually, and actually exist without any proof. For example, l have no proof that Ouagadougou exists, l cannot even recall which country it is meant to be the capital of, so l have no country to relate any facts about it to, so l really don't have anything on Ouagdougou other than the word and the concept in my mind that it's a place. I believe it also exists, nevertheless. This is basic stuff bro.
3. Says you. Maybe the Bible is uncannily right about a lot of things, therefore by extension, it can be right about hell existing.
4. And in other texts all over the world :)

It's non sequitur that a Great Goat must exist.

It's non sequitur that if A eats B, then B cannot eat A, for example, partially eaten B can still kill A, and also, B can just kill A before A is even aware that it's under attack.

It's arbitrary that goats eat everything. In fact they don't in reality eat everything.

It's counter-intuitive that an hypothetical Great Goat would devour itself, when it could devour something else, it's a Great Goat after all.

There haven't been any other goat threads that l know of.

Other than that, you seem a bit confused,

There are many ways of knowing God e.g.
- Rational argument
- Observing supernatural signs (which surpass mundane rationalisation)
- Just feeling it
- Divine inspiration

Maybe more ... So, rational argumentation is just one way of knowing God, not the only way as you seem to be making out.

I believe the reason for knowing God at all, is that he was a hidden treasure and desired to be known.

Personally, l consider the preponderance of the Phi ratio to be supernatural.

- It is not implicit in known laws of nature (is it?)
- It is an intellectual abstraction (phi ratio is the objective anchor of the subjective world of aesthetics, aesthetics being a world of abstraction)

Therefore it passes my test of the supernatural.

My defintion of supernatural would be:

- Something which defies the currently understood laws of nature
- AND shows evidence of an intellect at work

These two things combined could be, for example:

- A planet shaped like a kitten's head ... and it's only found orbiting the brightest star in Leo. So, you have the kitten's head which laws of nature don't seem to allow (it really looks like a kitten's head), and then there's the intellectual abstraction, that it's orbitting the brightest star in Leo, another feline connection.

So, you have breaking known laws of nature, strongly paired with an intellectual abstraction, so you have intellect at work + breaking known laws of nature.

Hi there, whilst l have sympathies for the Scientologists (people show their ignorance when they condemn it but on questioning haven't a clue why they think it's bad), l take issue with the claims of your OP (as l'm guessing you do too, as an ex-Scientologist) because:

- This seems to be a reaction to Abrahamic faiths, rather than a standalone religion
- Thetans have a huge age, lots of zeroes added, feels like somebody is trying to impress us. Of course, l say this in the absence of any evidence, but is there actually any evidence for "a 76,000,000,000,000 year old soul called a thetan"? If not, then it seems like someone's trying to impress us with how ancient they are.
- Seems like that someone is playing devil's advocate, literally. By trying to make us all like Satan disdaining mankind because he was there before, he was way more ancient. So now, we are all so very ancient.
- Also the idea that we will one day become gods, that seems like another concept in Abrahamic faiths, whereby Satan envies God and towering pride wells up because he would like to replace God. So, now, we can all be like Satan, by becoming gods too.
- Then there's the connection with Crowley & the defrauding of poor Jack Parsons, who himself was trying to literally create a demon and ended up burning to death. I think there's a lot of "devil's advocate" in this, whether you believe in the devil or not, it's clearly a subversion of the Abrahamic spectrum.

Yes it's me Snorring Kitten, back to answer a few criticisms.

You say that l imply that deities have wants. However, it was you that said you want eternal peace. I was answering to that. Plus the entire debate is predicated the reaction (= a positively existing thing, a new thing) of one omni deity to another.

In other words: something new that creeps in when one deity coexists with another. You could say there is no change, but that would mean they don't even acknowledge each other, which is hard to believe when they are omnipresent and omnipotent. Ignorance is not a trait one would associate with that.

So therefore, there a new thing that occurs between them.

I say the new thing is mutual annihilation or at the very least, eternal war. I gave my reasoning, much of which you have left unanswered.

You say the new thing is eternal peace, and then you say l am implying wants. However, your want for eternal peace (and it is a want, because it is a new thing that crops up between the deities) is a want, and moreover, the infinite paranoia - yes l suppose that is an emotion.

As is infinite pain.

However, it remains for you to show how infinite paranoia is avoidable.
Also, it now remains for you to show how such grand beings have no sense of emotion, no aesthetic, such that they cannot distinguish a Jackson Pollock from an infant messing around, and would invest heavily in the latter only to find out they've been had. Because they're not so grand if they fall so hard like that, over relatively basic stuff.

You say: I don't think you can exist within time without a start, that would make you undefined. God(s), if they exist, exist outside of time and are finite in spacial extent.
This is all non-sequitur. In the Bible (the O.T.) God is called "Ehieh" or "I Am That I Am". I believe this means "Pure existence". The Qur'an states he does not beget nor was begotten. So therefore the largest religions on earth have it that God was not born. If you can prove this is logically absurd, then you would change the world. In theory.

I say: As regards Gods necessarily being finite ... that is about as non-sequitur as one gets! Unless you typoed and meant "Infinite".



Previous stated:

2. Say you meet an Eternal being in your Eternal universe and you notice he is counting. You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’. What number is he on?

ANSWER: Never heard this question before but l do like it, bravo!

Essentially, the Eternal being is beyond time, he is pure existence, no becoming, no deceasing. Actual infinity = everything present. Nothing remaining, hence no change, no death, no becoming (change = something new)

Within himself, he sets up a virtual machine and steps down, say, an eternal frequency, via a series of transformers (these are known as Intelligences, some call them archangels, l don't know if they exist or not but this is prominent in classical and mediaeval thought).

f = 1/t

if f = infinity, t = 0, time does not exist

as f is stepped down, we have various spheres where time, and thus reality (physicality relates to spatial dimensions, right? Which related to time) are felt differently

Btw it's absurd that you will meet eternity in the world. The world is within him, and that includes you. — BaldMenFighting


You say: Im not sure I understand your argument, could you expand?

You are phrasing God as a growing thing, because infinity can be seen, relative to us, as an ever growing quantity, right? Think of infinity, add 1 to it, infinity is already past that now, so add another 1, infinity is already past that now, etc.
So you put a human right next to God, and you have God growing before that person's eyes (= God is counting higher and higher).

What l'm saying is, this is an absurd scenario because:
- God is actual infinity. Implicit in that is: he is beyond time (he is everything, there is no change), he is pure existence (he is everything, he is, therefore, is-ness itself, he is pure existence), there is no becoming (he is everything, there is nothing to change to, there is nothing new to be done), there is no passing away, no decrease (he is everything, plus also passing away = change, but as l just remarked, there is no change with actual Infinity).
- Therefore God will not be counting before your eyes
- And also you, as an infinitely small part of him that is actually an illusion, not positively existing beside him, cannot converse directly to him, because the finite cannot be juxtaposed directly to the infinite which spawned it, it is logically absurd (l've used this to decry trinitarian christianity to little effect, but l'm correct, it is fact, it is logically absurd for infinity to bodily enter the finite world, such that God is born in the world, and it is by the same token logically absurd for a person to interview God while God is counting (the counting being doubly absurd as explained above).


I then go on to explain how we came to exist when God = no change.

Actual infinity = infinite energy
E = energy, h = Planck's constant, f = frequency, t = time
E = hf (though h may no longer apply at God's level, we can still suppose that E is proportional to f)
Infinite E = something constant x f
therefore f = infinite

That is God's reality, pure existence, no gaps between the frequency peaks (l guess the frequency = fluctuation between existence and non existence = level of realness of a thing)

To create our reality, he would have stepped down that frequency into something finite.

The medieval philosophers (and l think the classical ones), i.e. the neoplatonists and illuminationists, held that creation was done in several stages, called Spheres, Intelligences (named after the beings that performed the task - because God will not touch anything finite), Emanations.

The intelligences are like transformers, stepping down frequency instead of voltage (like stepping down AC voltage? l don't know).

The first intelligence directly contacts infinity, and steps it down to finite frequency. This itself is unthinkable and a complete mystery. In Islamic Neoplatonist philosophy l think this First Intelligence was designated to be the Archangel Gabriel. In Islamic theology, Gabriel is known as Ruh al Quddus - the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost. So, l would guess that, just as the Spirit arises as a vapour from the Soul, so the Holy Spirit emerged from infinity as a sort of vapour, and as such, it stands between Infinity and the Finite. Maybe its like how Love is the taste, the appreciation of, actual infinity. So, the Holy Ghost is like love, something which arises from actual infinity whilst also being not anything new to actual infinity. Maybe the Holy Ghost is Love, Inspiration, i don't know.

Then you have successive intelligences stepping down the frequency even further.

The result at each stage, as base frequency is lowered, is that the perception of time is also changed, because after all, f = 1/t

Bringing it all back to actual infinity, we see that infinite frequency = 1 / t, therefore t = 0 at that level.

If we take t to mean the spacing between instants in time (the spacing between peaks of frequency), then at the level of actual infinity, the spacing = 0, meaning everything exists all at once.

Conclusion: God won't be counting up or down, God is everything all at once, and there is no existence besides him, so a person won't be sat there next to him interviewing him.

I feel the only leap of faith here is: The nature of the First Intelligence, who does the unthinkable task of stepping down Infinity to something finite. However, l gave a precedent: the relation of the Soul to the Spirit, and note also how, coincidentally, the First Intelligence is actually called the Holy Spirit in one neoplatonist system.



You said: I do agree there is a real possibility we are in a virtual machine. Time must of been created; it can't of existed Eternally. How do you create something like time? Virtualisation is the only solution I can think of.

I say: I believe it's the system of successive emanations / intelligences described above



You say: Actual Infinity is not allowed in the material world (discussed at length here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4073/do-you-believe-in-the-actually-infinite).

I know. I proposed the inverse - finite world as an infinitely small illusion of independent existence where time flows, within a perfect, unchanging, actual infinity where there is zero time flow.



You say: 7. The universe follows rules that are described by mathematics. Negative infinity does not exist mathematically; there is no number X such that X< all other numbers because X-1<X. Hence the universe is not Eternal

To model eternal time mathematically, we need -infinity to represent past eternal
-infinity is a quantity less than all other quantities
But -infinity - 1 < -infinity
So -infinity is not a quantity

I think l get what you are saying. This reality can't have any infinite aspect because its beginning would be in reciprocal infinity, and its end would be in positive infinity, neither of which are conceivable.

As l say: We are just an illusion within actual infinity where there is no change

OK granted with such mute randomness, we finally get an agnostic viewpoint we can all agree on as being agnostic.

However, in the God/No-God debate:
- There is obviously a debate (= the God/No-God debate), which implies there's been evidence thrown around - not a mere coin toss or a ball in a cupboard
- This debate especially, is about God/No-God, the fundamental axiom of the universe (for Atheists, it can be phrased as order vs. chaos, or the formula for a fundamental particle that has driven things since t=00, the formula representing Order, even if quantum mechanics gets involved, there's still a kernel of Order with this fundamental equation).

As it's something so fundamental to our universe, and we are so far downstream of that, it will absolutely not be mute chance, there will have been evidence one way or the other, in abundance.

I say: for there to be >0 pieces of evidence, it is impossible for a human (we have an overarching aesthetic, we are higher beings after all) to be sat on the fence, not even caving into feelings one way or another.

Football in/not in cupboard scenario = 0 evidence available = agnosticism possible.

1. What exactly is an eternal being? He has no start in time (no birthday so does not exist). Ask him how he came about. He cannot tell you. So he can’t exist. Because eternal is impossible

ANSWER: It is non-sequitur that one without a birthday does not exist. Maybe he always existed. Maybe he is existence itself. If so, then it is non-sequitur and counter-intuitive that existence itself, has to have assigned to it, a period of non-existence prior to it.



2. Say you meet an Eternal being in your Eternal universe and you notice he is counting. You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’. What number is he on?

ANSWER: Never heard this question before but l do like it, bravo!

Essentially, the Eternal being is beyond time, he is pure existence, no becoming, no deceasing. Actual infinity = everything present. Nothing remaining, hence no change, no death, no becoming (change = something new)

Within himself, he sets up a virtual machine and steps down, say, an eternal frequency, via a series of transformers (these are known as Intelligences, some call them archangels, l don't know if they exist or not but this is prominent in classical and mediaeval thought).

f = 1/t

if f = infinity, t = 0, time does not exist

as f is stepped down, we have various spheres where time, and thus reality (physicality relates to spatial dimensions, right? Which related to time) are felt differently


Btw it's absurd that you will meet eternity in the world. The world is within him, and that includes you.



3. Take any physical system with a clock/timer. Make the system Eternal. What does the clock read?

ANSWER: Unsure what this is saying but maybe previous answer answers it?



4. Assume time is eternal. If it can happen it will happen. An infinite number of times. No matter how unlikely it was in the first place! So all things happen an infinite number of times. So all things are equally likely. Reductio ad absurdum. Time is not eternal

ANSWER: It is non-sequitur that given infinite time, a thing will happen. Consider that an infinity of its not-happening would also happen, by the same token. So it's absurd to think this, and because it's non sequitur, l believe the absurdity is in the idea that anything can happen, rather than in infinity existing.



5. Relativity suggests the existence of multiple presents, whereas Presentism demands one present

ANSWER: I've no idea what presentism & relativity are but if that is what they are, then great!

However, please regard the answer to your point #2, there would be at least 2 presents - one that of the Infinite being, which is the eternal present, and then there's the present that we feel, in our fake virtual machine reality, staged within that infinite being.



6. Time clearly passes. Time cannot have started passing infinity long ago because there is no way to get to today (IE -oo +1 = -oo)

ANSWER: I believe the reply to your point #2 explains this. You have actual infinity where time does not pass, and within that, some virtual machines operating virtual realities such as ours, where time flows. I guess t=00 in those realities would be observed as Big Bang type events, which are backed up by modern science by the way



7. The universe follows rules that are described by mathematics. Negative infinity does not exist mathematically; there is no number X such that X< all other numbers because X-1<X. Hence the universe is not Eternal

ANSWER: I don't understand this, sorry, maybe explain deeper?
At least though, we can agree that the universe is not eternal.



8. If the universe has been around for ever then it should be in thermodynamic equilibrium by now. But the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium so time had a start

ANSWER: Right , so this actually supports point #6 of yours



9. Presentism is just so depressing why would anyone want to believe in it anyway?

ANSWER: If presentism = bound to this plane of existence then evenso, it can be fab, for example if it is filled with good things, but evenso l think there are higher, and lower, realities, as per my answer to Point #2

You say:
Let me clear something up here. The only properties we have agreed on for this deity are
A) omnipotence
B) omnipresence

Are you implying that l have said something arbitrary, something not logically derived from the above?
Let me clear something up: I have reasoned everything, and it falls to you to counter it, which you have consistently failed to do.


Your counterargument appears to be:
"It is very easy to imagine the existence of 2 omnipotent omnipresent beings working in tandom without any warring"
"As long as it is imaginable it is potentially possible as the first commenter has said so yes, deities working together is a possibility you can't just rule out"



Now as for your counter arguments

I say: "Evenso, the number of gods would be >1, and less than infinity, thus there would be a sort of materialism, and thus war is on the cards (= a struggle over something finite)."

You say: Agreed. As I've said before, this war could be what's happening right now and it would still fit an emperical observation of the world. Just as there are infinite potential combinations of forces that can create the force A, so are there infinite combinations of gods (as defined above) to create the current state of the world

You tell me that infinite harmony between multiple deities is conceivable therefore an absolute possibility. My counterargument is that conceiving of it is a fine thing but can you reason your concept out? For example, as l said: l could conceive of infinite war between multiple deities (at least until one dies) to be the only possibility. The difference between our opposition ideas is how we reason them out.

You seem to be offering, as reasoning, that there is war in the world.
How does that prove that infinite harmony between multiple deities is possible?

In my reasoning l said / am now saying such things as:
- Material world, the world of quantity = world of conflict
- We know from our own history that there has never been infinite peace, and that there has always been conflict over quantity of some sort (e.g. relative sphere of influence, ownership of resources)
- If we were both deities, you might want infinite peace with me, but you are unable to prove that l have any reason to trust your peaceful intentions
- Thus there will be infinite paranoia
- Infinite paranoia = infinite pain = absolute certainty that one deity will want to kill the other, if it were at all possible, assuming both deities want to exist (if any of them did not want to exist, then they would commit suicide if they could and if they could not, then they would at least war with, hopefully kill, whoever was adding to their misery by causing them infinite paranoia aka infinite pain)
- Also never forget that one deity may kill the other purely for the giggles

You say: I don't understand how either of these pass as a counter argument when I've already addressed them

No, you never addressed to me anything in the above list, never mind the new stuff l added to the list; you never addressed the old stuff in the list:
- about how the material world, the world of quantity = conflict,
- and how in our human history, we have never experienced infinite peace, thus your thoughts are unprecedented,
- moreover you have not addressed my assertion that infinite paranoia would result, and that would mean infinite pain, thus it would be reasonable, virtuous even, for one deity to eliminate all other deities.


I say: "What, you say l am projecting my own personal views of how a deity should behave / react to another deity? So are you, by insisting on infinite harmony, merely because you can conceive of it."

You say: I am not insisting on infinite harmony because I can conceive of it

Let me remind you of your counterargument as you have presented it to me:
"It is very easy to imagine the existence of 2 omnipotent omnipresent beings working in tandom without any warring"
"As long as it is imaginable it is potentially possible as the first commenter has said so yes, deities working together is a possibility you can't just rule out"

You then say:
I am insisting on it because God, as defined above, does not have emotions, thoughts or attitudes. Notice how I made no assumptions about this deity in any of my arguments

I say: No assumptions? Other than the assumption that God has no emotions, thoughts or attitudes, which l fail to even see the relevance of

You also say: you keep using hypotheticals where the god has children, brothers, wives, drama, etc.

I say: Hello? This is because we are debating the possibility of multiple deities existing, and you are saying this is impossible, plus l never created a hypothetical where God has a brother or wives or drama (though l made reference to Greek dramas and called you a brother deity to bolster a subtle point that you missed). Also, hypotheticals are not assumptions ...

You say: My version makes the fewest assumptions thus passing Occam's razor while yours does not.

I say: I make zero assumptions as far as l'm aware, whereas you assume the following:
- Multiple deities can exist, because multiple deities can live in peace, because you can conceive of multiple deities living in peace (which you then add to by saying the constant war on our world is an expression of conflict between multiple deities born at the same time)
- God has no emotions / thoughts / attitudes (not even sure how it relates to the discussion on whether it's possible for multiple deities to exist).


Let me restate my argument:
- Multiple deities cannot exist as they will wipe each other out or at least they'd destroy all creation in endless wars, in which case our existence proves that only one deity exists.
- The fact that love exists is demonstration of, if not proof of, the existence of one infinite God, a God who has no wars, a God who is at infinite peace, a God who is perfect (actual infinity = perfection). Peace + Perfection = Bliss. Infinite Peace + Perfection = Infinite Bliss = the wellspring of Love that we feel.

Love is transcendant, and thus that bolsters the idea that it is otherworldly, of the reality of God, which is infinite bliss unlike our reality.

So yeh, Love is another sign of One Infinite God, not multiple deities.

"What do you mean "lip profession?"
The profession of the lips, the declared profession of faith in this case.


Re: agnosticism = the knowability of God, maybe that is the current definition but it is erratic because:
- the debate about the knowability of God won't exist without the person giving the views lip service — SnoringKitten

What l'm trying to say is: the person's lip service is as important to the definition of -ism, as the -ism-per-se definition. So, you have Atheism the system (= the -ism per se), and you have the lip-profession of Atheism of the Atheist.

Consider this though: we don't know if God exists / does not exist. These are unfalsifiable beliefs.

So therefore what remains is what the person professes, the definition pivots on that only.




"I don't know what you're trying to say with this "lip" stuff. If you mean that "this is what atheists and agnostics actually profess", then you're just wrong. Atheists overwhelmingly do not claim to have proof no god's exist, and overwhelmingly do not claim to posses the positive belief that no possible gods could exist. Many people do misuse the term agnosticism to refer to some kind of fence-sitting position, but that definition is a complete departure from how it is used in philosophical literature."

You have not read the OP, please read the OP. I am arguing for a redefining. Whatever the previous definitions were, and whosoever was that much of a grand authority to have thought up of them, l care not.

If you think it is pertinent to reply with a restatement of the old definitions that l am arguing against, then you have not grasped the OP.

You say that Atheism = not KNOWING there is no God but thinking there is no God. Okay as l've said earlier in the replies: OK let's have it that Atheism = lip profession that "I have looked at the arguments for/against, and for NOW, l BELIEVE there to be no God".

As for Agnosticism NOT being fencesitting, then what is it? A belief that a person doesn't know either way? Seriously do you even consider this? It is the time-honoured basis of Theism / Atheism. Why deny for Theists the scientific confession that we don't know God exists / does not exist for a fact, and turn it into a cargo cult called Agnosticism and when someone comes to point out how illegit it is as a separate belief, you respond "ahhh but you don't get it, ahhh" well how about answering the objections to it in the OP? Those objections destroy Agnosticism.

I put it to you that the destruction of "Agnosticism" which l am proposing, leaves Atheism barenaked as a frail position, because previously Agnosticism had served as the basic truth of unfalsifiability of God/No-God, & Atheism chirps in by saying "give me proof, all i ask is that".

No, the unfalisifiability of God/No-God was the basis of Atheism & Theism before the newfangled term Agnosticism sashayed in.

So now that the confession that we do not KNOW God exists / does not exist has been restored as the universal basis for both Atheism AND Theism, what does Atheism have left to cling to? What evidence is there against God existing, compared to an endless stream of evidence FOR God existing? Maybe relegate that to another thread where it'd be more pertinent, a thread wherein if you bring up Neo-Darwinian evolution you will fail, just saying (maybe folks'll offer me a truce, likely at the start of the thread - "pssst ... you can believe in Neo-Darwinian Evo AND be religious, you know?").

To continue: Agnosticism is illegitimate & is done away with in my overhaul of the terminology. Agnosticism claims that a person doesn't know. Well golly, for millennia, we haven't known, that was the basis of belief. See my OP.

Why object when l claim Atheists claim to KNOW there is no God, when previously Agnosticism had been used to delegitimise Theism as if Theists claimed to KNOW there was a God, and you were fine with that because it gave a way to misrepresent and discredit Theism?

Also why does JornDoe (see below) add another axis, about the knowability of God, when either way, Atheism & Theism do not differ on this matter? They differ in the DEBATE about the existence of God, a debate which folks seem to run like mad from.

My redefinitions bring the debate back.




"The simplest and most elegant definitions for theism and atheism are as follows:

Theist: Someone who believes in god
Atheist: Someone who lacks belief in god (a.k.a non-theists)"


Atheism as the LACK of belief in God is a new-fangled redefinition of Atheism, when Atheism kept losing in debates, it is not the traditional definition of Atheism. How's that for redefining.

So, it was decided that Atheism says and does nothing, hence need not appear in court, it has no case to answer.

A lack of belief in God, if it were a negatively existing thing, would be best represented by a zero, or a complete silence. Yet, Atheists cluster around the axis of theological debates and philosophy, how strange.

Atheism literally defines itself in respect to God. It has a policy on God. It is on the plane of the debate about the existence of God, not, say, anything to do with the timber / food canning industry. You may note that timber and machinery and cans have an absence of belief in God and you are defining matters arbitrarily if you think they are excluded from your new-fangled "Atheism as lack of" definition.

Also: I wonder what you call the belief that God does not exist?

Also: you define Theist as someone who believes in God. However, as l've stated in the OP (did you read the OP fully?) faith wavers, and if we carve out a noun for every fluctuation in thought within one person, and throw into the works the spanner of Agnosticism which is totally illegit, then we end up with a carnival of chimaeric terms, each tracing their illegitimacy to the illegit term "Agnosticism" in one way or another.

Add to the chaos: now that we've given our inner feelings a noun, a station, these inner feelings become inviolable and cut off from debate. There is also a gradual subliminal teasing away from Theism into doubt enshrined (Atheism). Agnosticism was ever just a tool for Atheism, but it's an illegit term. Agnosticism is deleted.

My redefinitions:
* Simplify the terms
* Open up the debate
* Delete Agnosticism because it's completely illegit and a subverise tool to take doubt as a halfway house and eventually enshrine it as Atheism, which when exposed to debate tends to wilt away, so, the next measure is denial: l don't need to say nothing, l said nothing, l know of nothing because ... Atheism isa lack of belief






"you know, theism is the name of this game.
If theists didn't promote and obsess about Amun-Ra Zeus Vishnu Yahweh Asherah Allah Vedas Bible Quran etc, then there wouldn't be much to talk about here.
Leave it to theists to come up with all kinds of diversions (occasionally to avoid the onus probandi). :)

But, if we're talking belief disbelief doubt absence thereof etc, then we could perhaps come up with more general classifications.
This need not be about theism, but more about whatever attitudes (and absence thereof) towards propositions claims statements postulates etc."

Hello, this relates to my OP how?










"The more general the label the less it reveals, the more it misleads/confuses, and the less useful as a label it becomes (why have a 50 page argument about whether or not "babies are atheists" (they are ;) ) when we could just say exactly what we mean and get to the root of disagreements quickly?).

We do have an endless series of labels which denote various positions pertaining to these matters. Problem is they get so specific that less people are aware of them, and hashing the scope of their definitions takes just as long as stating your position without the use of labels in the first place. Here are some examples

Ignosticism
Apatheism
Practical atheism
Indifferentism
Non-theism
Theological noncognitivism
Ietsism
ignoramus et ignorabimus (hard agnosticism)
Possibilianism
Implicit atheism
Explicit atheism
Negative atheism
Positive atheism
And the list goes on (especially if we include every variation on theism)"


You realise that is what my OP solves, right?

And no, what misleads / confuses, is when different zones are mixed up. The back end arguments (Reasoning / Debate) are conflated with the lip profession (Conclusion), all given one composite noun.

You are Ruritanian. Maybe you are a Ruritanian with neo-liberal economic tendencies who supports the Orange party. But your nationality is Ruritanian. This is a generalisation. This makes things simpler, by segregating the reasoning from the conclusion. Or would you have specific passport categories for each Ruritanian?

In the same vein:
No longer are you an Agnostic Theist because you are an Agnostic Theist.
Conclusion is no longer conflated with the Reasoning and thereby ringfenced as your personal identity, inviolable, undebatable.
You are now a Theist by lip profession, and you have the following crisis in faith: A means B therefore surely C could also mean D?
So the debate is open.





As for your diagram, my redefinitions do away with all that.

The lip profession is either: Atheist or Theist.

The debate is there to prove itself. The debate is now alive with everything to play for. Who would sincerely put nouns on these stances whilst standing off from actually debating them? I would guess someone that always loses these debates (Atheists). Is God unknowable or knowable? Prove it via facts or reasoning. Instead of giving it names and colours and making it look like a pie, that's not even debate.

Btw, why add this other axis, about the knowability of God, to this context, when either way, Atheism & Theism do not differ on this matter? They differ in the DEBATE about the existence of God, a debate which folks seem to run like mad from.

[EDIT: Oh l get it, this is just another ploy to hide Agnosticism, smuggling it away from criticism (notice how Agnosticism doesn't raise its head above the parapets in your piechart, it is no longer an independent position, it can't be assailed, [b][i]but it still gets its own chimaeric nouns[/i][/b], woohoo!), so keeping it as a half way house toward Atheism, all the while forbidding debate because debate then attacks a person's self-identity which is a major no-no]