For the sake of argument, let’s admit that God exists.

For the sake of argument, let’s admit that God exists.

If it doesn’t exist, then what are we talking about? What is it that atheists are denying? What is it that theists pray to? What is it agnostics care not to decide about?

We cannot logically deny nothing, for there is nothing there to logically deny. We cannot pray to nothing, for there is nothing there to pray to. We cannot choose not to decide about nothing, because there is nothing there to choose not to decide about. Ex nihilo nihil fit. “God doesn’t exist” is an incomplete proposition.

The question isn’t whether God exists or not, but how it exists—or more clearly—what it exists as. What is it we are talking about in regards to “God”?

To move this ancient stalemate forward, it might be a good idea to come to terms over what we are actually talking about in its regard.

“God” exists at least as the subject of our propositions. Every subject of every proposition requires an existing subject to form a proposition about. Therefor, God exists as the subject of our propositions. But what existing subject, what idea, are these propositions derived from? Where does the subject of God come from? All theological sources for God comes from biblical sources. “God” is a word in those bibles denoting and describing a specific character of these books. Therefor, God exists as a character in a book. In many classical forms of art, God is often depicted as a bearded being in the clouds. Therefor, God exists as an artist’s depiction and interpretation of this character from biblical sources.

Plainly stated, since God is only ever found within books, art, rhetoric and from various forms of human expression—indeed, we cannot know about God any other way—we must assume that this is as what, as where, and as how, God exists. This subject we can deny or have an opinion about; this character we pray to; this character we refuse to contemplate. From what we can confirm, it exists as a word in its fundamental form. All talk about God is talk about this word.

With this idea, and the admittance of the existence of God as apparent and real in these formats, we no longer need to debate the non-existence of something (a contradiction), as we admit that it exists as at least something (not nothing) that we can have an opinion on. We can instead prove that it does exist, and this is what it exists as, and we can logically discuss its properties. We may even open scripture to prove it’s existence as scripture. If it exists as anything else wiil need to be proven otherwise.

Therefor, I agree with the theists that God exists, but only insofar as it exists as a word in a book. But does it exist as anything else?

A believer don't need to prove anything as they got faith and in the end they don't need to convince you because you are goin to hell for not believing.

Why is so hard for you people to understand believers won't stop believing and trying to change that is a waste of valuable time and energy

Sounds good to me. Now we can argue about his name.

reply to post by Aphorism


If I believe in god and you don't and he does not exist, I lose nothing. But If I am right and I believe in god and you don't, you lose everything.

reply to post by Aphorism


Interesting perspective and as what you would call an "agnostic" one I can agree with for I cannot deny the CONCEPT of god that is illustrated in writing and art.

I've always thought atheism was more of a challenge to religion than anything else...Religion making conclusions of destination determined by beliefs rather than actions. Ie: believe in Jesus go to heaven deny him and go to hell. (heaven and hell again being sub-concepts of a more general concept). The atheists challenge to religion being that believing in Jesus doesn't make one a "good" person...it is not a prerequisite for kindness, love or any other attribute monopolized by religion.

Not to derail further as to your OP, I would have to agree that one cannot deny the concept of GOD that has taken form through various written and artistic mediums. The stated properties of said concept however seemingly are up for debate as writings and works of art are OUR creations...there for logically from this stance, in the only unarguable medium in which god (the concept or illustration of ie: art, writings) truly does exist, WE created god when we wrote chose to bring forth the concept from the conceptual mental world into an illustration.

itsallgonenow
reply to post by Aphorism

 

If I believe in god and you don't and he does not exist, I lose nothing. But If I am right and I believe in god and you don't, you lose everything.

Actually if you believe in god and he doesn't exist...to a degree you lose the only thing worth living for...FREE WILL.

reply to post by Sly1one


No way, I am free to do as I choose. I do onto others as I would want done to me. 10 commandments are good morals. 600,000 laws and climbing is what is going to take my free will away.

itsallgonenow
reply to post by Aphorism

 

If I believe in god and you don't and he does not exist, I lose nothing. But If I am right and I believe in god and you don't, you lose everything.

Im fairly certain that both apply and are allowed within the threshold. I can believe or disbelieve and both are correct as long as its a positive revelation (Im speaking of a belief system false, or an individual path Iam taking to find relevance as in I am my makers expression of). I am growing the system; not cuckholding it. What is the point of the negative; disbelief, rubberband string or reminder to 'grow' a system. What isnt wanted is high entropy, sticky ugly thoughtform molasses that wont MOVE or disapate.

Sly1one

itsallgonenow
reply to post by Aphorism

 

If I believe in god and you don't and he does not exist, I lose nothing. But If I am right and I believe in god and you don't, you lose everything.

Actually if you believe in god and he doesn't exist...to a degree you lose the only thing worth living for...FREE WILL.

So, free will is the whole point and could be
'God' saying to you "take this gift" and run with it Humans and express Me Further.

Aphorism
We cannot logically deny nothing, for there is nothing there to logically deny.

Certainly.

If you hand me an empty black box of insignificant weight and tell me it's full of love, I'll say it's just empty air inside. I don't have to "deny" your claim to be certain of my observation.

The logic doesn't hold up.

SkepticOverlord

Aphorism
We cannot logically deny nothing, for there is nothing there to logically deny.

SkepticOverlordCertainly.
If you hand me an empty black box of insignificant weight and tell me it's full of love, I'll say it's just empty air inside. I don't have to "deny" your claim to be certain of my observation.
The logic doesn't hold up.

Its all about the individual observation/perspective, this is key; the individuals perception/perspective, (for its own soul growth). I will give you a roan as example. "You are sitting at your kitchen table and witness this": (looking out of your window) someone is leading a cow halter roped; you see the head of that cow its horns, the neck of same cow the backbone of that cow; and its hindquarters walking by in rhythm. You missed witnessing the tail . Why or what did you miss ? Is it logic that doesnt hold or faulty human observation? Or did the cow ever exist? Any answer works, because its about you in the first place.

itsallgonenow
reply to post by Aphorism

 

If I believe in god and you don't and he does not exist, I lose nothing. But If I am right and I believe in god and you don't, you lose everything.

Under the assumption that god is a small minded being who have chosen one single religion that is gods true followers. From my point of view Jesus say one thing and Paul says the opposite. The whole faith without works is dead vs faith is all.

You can't go wrong with following the golden rule and not judging.

This Abrahamic "God" You speak of is probably just a low lying being that has mastered inter-dimensional/ interstellar/ possibly intergalactic travel.
I do not deny the existance of a god, I only doubt the definition he has been given.
Maybe God is the devil and Lucifer is actually the one to save humanity?

So what you're saying is, this topic was pointless?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Certainly.

If you hand me an empty black box of insignificant weight and tell me it's full of love, I'll say it's just empty air inside. I don't have to "deny" your claim to be certain of my observation.

The logic doesn't hold up.

What if the word love is written on the inside? Would you still deny it?

reply to post by Ghost147


Let me guess. You spend your time arguing about nothing? That's what I'm saying is pointless. This at least deals with real facts. What is it you talk about when speaking of god?

reply to post by Aphorism


AHA! I have you. Air does not EXIST anywhere in the known Universe, yet you believe it exists inside the box! You have benn fooled HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. God exists. Does he care if I don't believe. No. God doesn't exist. Do I care if something that I dosen't exist doesn't care. No. Does God have on hell of a sense of humor? Well, at least we can all agree on that !

Aphorism
This at least deals with real facts.

Really?

I used to consider myself agnostic (which by the way doesn't mean a person refuses to choose a side. It is a belief that one holds which states it is impossible to know one way or the other) but I am coming around to the idea that we WILL one day know.

We will find God when we confirm that consciousness exists outside of the body.
We will still have trouble understanding what God is, but we will know he/she exists.

And I feel that day is drawing near.

Until then however, this debate is gridlocked. Personally I am convinced there is a higher power.

Whether God or a Creator exists is a question that cannot be answered with proof either way. Faith in God drives people of Faith, while faith God does not exist drives the Atheist which makes both a belief system based on faith.

When either side insists that everyone believe as they do and if they do not, there is something wrong with them or something will happen to them I find it absurd.

It's a meaningless debate, driven by either a desire to control or hate in my opinion. Those who have faith cannot share it or adequately explain it to an Atheist any more than an Atheist can prove their view to a person of faith. The argument is an exercise in futility.