(February 22, 2010 at 12:21 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't believe in the existence of God. I believe in God.

Does that mean you do or you don't believe God exists?

Or is it that in your mind, existence itself is an attribute of the physical universe and therefore the question has no meaning? A bit like asking what happened before time?

Help me out here a little

The latter Dar - spot on.

(February 22, 2010 at 12:21 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 22, 2010 at 11:17 am)theVOID Wrote: 1) Why do you believe in the existence of a god(s) and why do you think it is reasonable to hold this belief?

I don't believe in the existence of God. I believe in God.

@ Tav

Read your post. I have stated that there are no subjective experiences that lead to belief in God. There cannot be verifiable proof of God. God does not need personal verification. Sure you get verification after the event but that does not enter into the question of belief.

You also wrote that it's a "personal verification thing" and that "Christians can verify God personally". Regardless if it's after the fact or before, what is the subjective evidence that leads you to believe in God on a daily basis?

You would have to believe in existence of a deity on at least some level if you believe in him. Believing in something for no apparent reason, and something which is by your account non-existent is absolutely and utterly delusional and without logic.

It's always after the fact. No subjective evidence leads me to believe in God. It provides nice warm fuzzy feeling and perhaps more intensely than anything else I've known. But that certainly doesn't come any where near equating leading me to believe.

Isn't that special pleading for you to want God to fit into un-godlike constraints? Limiting 'apparent reason' to 'existent'?

(February 22, 2010 at 12:21 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 22, 2010 at 11:17 am)theVOID Wrote: 1) Why do you believe in the existence of a god(s) and why do you think it is reasonable to hold this belief?

I don't believe in the existence of God. I believe in God.

You believe in a God that doesn't exist? I'm pretty sure that's entirely impossible, unless you are admitting that God is nothing but a concept, but how is that consistent with Christianity? Jesus cannot be the son of a concept, therefore not divine and just another street preacher.

I'm not sure I get what you are trying to say.

---

(February 22, 2010 at 2:31 pm)Darwinian Wrote:

(February 22, 2010 at 12:21 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't believe in the existence of God. I believe in God.

Does that mean you do or you don't believe God exists?

Or is it that in your mind, existence itself is an attribute of the physical universe and therefore the question has no meaning? A bit like asking what happened before time?

Help me out here a little

That makes no sense, existence is not an attribute, rather something must have at least one attribute to exist.

---

(February 22, 2010 at 4:19 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It's always after the fact. No subjective evidence leads me to believe in God. It provides nice warm fuzzy feeling and perhaps more intensely than anything else I've known. But that certainly doesn't come any where near equating leading me to believe.

Isn't that special pleading for you to want God to fit into un-godlike constraints? Limiting 'apparent reason' to 'existent'?

So what specifically lead you to believe in God?

What would constitute 'exist'? Something tangible we don't yet have evidence 'for'? God just 'is'. To believe in him you believe that he just is. To believe, you need to accept that this isn't something you will ever limit to validatable evidence.

As part of my faith, I believe that Jesus existed as a man, who was also completely God. 'Is' as well as existent in time. (putting aside the trinity question that I know is also a faith stance that of course you could not 'accept' as non validatable)

VOID Wrote:That makes no sense, existence is not an attribute, rather something must have at least one attribute to exist.

With transcendental as an attribute does that infer existence then?

What led me personally to believe in God was the consideration of relevant questions. My actual conversion on the second occasion a couple of years ago was after discussion with a committed atheist considering all the points we currently discuss here. I realised that my logical position had changed and that my personal belief stance was such that it warranted the leap of faith to believe. So I took that leap.

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What would constitute 'exist'? Something tangible we don't yet have evidence 'for'? God just 'is'. To believe in him you believe that he just is. To believe, you need to accept that this isn't something you will ever limit to validatable evidence.

Is = be = exist.

Either you believe that he exists or you don't. You're contradicting yourself on almost every post now.

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: As part of my faith, I believe that Jesus existed as a man, who was also completely God. 'Is' as well as existent in time. (putting aside the trinity question that I know is also a faith stance that of course you could not 'accept' as non validatable)

As part of your faith, you make an assertion that something in the physical world occured (Jesus' existence). This is demonstrable and falsifiable, and therefore a valid argument. What you must do now is provide evidence to support such a claim.

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: With transcendental as an attribute does that infer existence then?

It's kind of a buzz word when you try to make the point that he can't exist in reality. Saying he's transcendental doesn't give us any more information about his existence. Here's another term that's perhaps better suited for your description - conceptual.

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What led me personally to believe in God was the consideration of relevant questions. My actual conversion on the second occasion a couple of years ago was after discussion with a committed atheist considering all the points we currently discuss here. I realised that my logical position had changed and that my personal belief stance was such that it warranted the leap of faith to believe. So I took that leap.

What were these questions?

And what's all this poppycock about you not having an experience that led you to believe when you obviously illustrated that you did? You got your personal confirmation right here. Just do a little more and say what specific questions drew you to the religion and we'll be on the same page.

(February 23, 2010 at 1:53 am)tavarish Wrote:

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What would constitute 'exist'? Something tangible we don't yet have evidence 'for'? God just 'is'. To believe in him you believe that he just is. To believe, you need to accept that this isn't something you will ever limit to validatable evidence.

Is = be = exist.

Either you believe that he exists or you don't. You're contradicting yourself on almost every post now.

No, you are refusing to address the subject. That's what it looks like when you refuse to consider something.

(February 23, 2010 at 1:53 am)tavarish Wrote:

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: As part of my faith, I believe that Jesus existed as a man, who was also completely God. 'Is' as well as existent in time. (putting aside the trinity question that I know is also a faith stance that of course you could not 'accept' as non validatable)

As part of your faith, you make an assertion that something in the physical world occured (Jesus' existence). This is demonstrable and falsifiable, and therefore a valid argument. What you must do now is provide evidence to support such a claim.

Why do I have to support it? For what purpose? Perhaps if I thought you were genuinely interested I'd relate my reasoning to you. Otherwise I have no reason whatsoever to convince you of what I rationalise.

And you do realise all we would be talking about would be the person and not his God attribute. His God attribute follows exactly the rest of God.. ie, the Father and the Spirit. And whilst I understand the sway of academic historian opinion is that the person did exist. Still I place no importance on that fact. My belief is in the wider person that is a combination of the attributes, and what that means to my belief.

(February 23, 2010 at 1:53 am)tavarish Wrote:

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: With transcendental as an attribute does that infer existence then?

It's kind of a buzz word when you try to make the point that he can't exist in reality. Saying he's transcendental doesn't give us any more information about his existence. Here's another term that's perhaps better suited for your description - conceptual.

You need to move the subject to existence, which is of course unrelated. Hence your issue. You can play with any words you like to come up with your formation of a god concept. That concept is basically flawed and I find it very odd that you can't see that.

(February 23, 2010 at 1:53 am)tavarish Wrote:

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What led me personally to believe in God was the consideration of relevant questions. My actual conversion on the second occasion a couple of years ago was after discussion with a committed atheist considering all the points we currently discuss here. I realised that my logical position had changed and that my personal belief stance was such that it warranted the leap of faith to believe. So I took that leap.

What were these questions?

And what's all this poppycock about you not having an experience that led you to believe when you obviously illustrated that you did? You got your personal confirmation right here. Just do a little more and say what specific questions drew you to the religion and we'll be on the same page.

What was this experience that I'm not aware of then? Please enlighten me. The questions were too numerous to mention, and of course my rationalising went a hell of a lot further than that. Always people think there's some magic answer that will enable them to decide something without thinking for themselves. I'm really sorry to have to break it to you... but this isn't how it works. you need to do some thinking.. no one can do it for you.

(February 23, 2010 at 9:20 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(February 23, 2010 at 1:53 am)tavarish Wrote:

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What would constitute 'exist'? Something tangible we don't yet have evidence 'for'? God just 'is'. To believe in him you believe that he just is. To believe, you need to accept that this isn't something you will ever limit to validatable evidence.

Is = be = exist.

Either you believe that he exists or you don't. You're contradicting yourself on almost every post now.

No, you are refusing to address the subject. That's what it looks like when you refuse to consider something.

You said "God just is".

"Is" is a conjugation of the verb "be".

The definition of "be" is to exist.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=be

exist: have an existence, be extant;

In another post you said "I don't believe in God's existence, I believe in God".

Seriously, what does that mean?

You don't believe in God's existence, but he just "is" (exists).

It makes no sense.

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why do I have to support it? For what purpose? Perhaps if I thought you were genuinely interested I'd relate my reasoning to you. Otherwise I have no reason whatsoever to convince you of what I rationalise.

And you do realise all we would be talking about would be the person and not his God attribute. His God attribute follows exactly the rest of God.. ie, the Father and the Spirit. And whilst I understand the sway of academic historian opinion is that the person did exist. Still I place no importance on that fact. My belief is in the wider person that is a combination of the attributes, and what that means to my belief.

I am genuinely interested. I can assure you that. If you mean genuinely interested and not skeptical then that's a different story. What is a God attribute? Can you explain it a bit more?

(February 23, 2010 at 1:53 am)tavarish Wrote:

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: With transcendental as an attribute does that infer existence then?

It's kind of a buzz word when you try to make the point that he can't exist in reality. Saying he's transcendental doesn't give us any more information about his existence. Here's another term that's perhaps better suited for your description - conceptual.

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You need to move the subject to existence, which is of course unrelated. Hence your issue. You can play with any words you like to come up with your formation of a god concept. That concept is basically flawed and I find it very odd that you can't see that.

Did I commit a logical fallacy? Did I beg the question? Transcendence doesn't attribute anything to an entity, which is for all intents and purposes, purely conceptual and subjective. I've stopped asking you for objective evidence for God a while ago, if you hadn't noticed. I asked you for your subjective reasoning and experience.

(February 23, 2010 at 1:53 am)tavarish Wrote:

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What led me personally to believe in God was the consideration of relevant questions. My actual conversion on the second occasion a couple of years ago was after discussion with a committed atheist considering all the points we currently discuss here. I realised that my logical position had changed and that my personal belief stance was such that it warranted the leap of faith to believe. So I took that leap.

What were these questions?

And what's all this poppycock about you not having an experience that led you to believe when you obviously illustrated that you did? You got your personal confirmation right here. Just do a little more and say what specific questions drew you to the religion and we'll be on the same page.

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What was this experience that I'm not aware of then? Please enlighten me.

Certainly. By your words:

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: My actual conversion on the second occasion a couple of years ago was after discussion with a committed atheist considering all the points we currently discuss here. I realised that my logical position had changed and that my personal belief stance was such that it warranted the leap of faith to believe. So I took that leap.

This is a realization leading to a leap of faith. It is contingent with an experience that leads you to a religious worldview.

(February 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The questions were too numerous to mention, and of course my rationalising went a hell of a lot further than that. Always people think there's some magic answer that will enable them to decide something without thinking for themselves. I'm really sorry to have to break it to you... but this isn't how it works. you need to do some thinking.. no one can do it for you.

You're digressing from the topic a bit. I'm not saying anything about people making decisions for themselves or not. I'm asking you what experiences YOU HAVE HAD personally to affirm this belief in God. Specific examples por favor. I'm not asking you to speak for anyone else.

Thanks.

(February 21, 2010 at 8:41 pm)Shell B Wrote: Haha, shit, I have a deadline and I've been goofing off in here too much today, but I'll argue with you.

..., there is no way that atheism is a worldview...

Well, how about this then...standard philosophy...Worldviews are comprised of a set of a priori beliefs that serve as a filter through which we interpret information to arrive at our beliefs. At a minimum, Worldviews have a Metaphysic, an Epistemology and an Ethic. Atheism's metaphysic filter is "there are no Metaphysics". (Naturalism) It's Epistemology is "Logic and Reason". (Scientific Method) Finally it's Ethic is "Might makes right". (Majority Rules)

Since it has the basic elements of a world view, why do you believe it is not a world view? let me save you some time. You claim it is not a worldview because you know deep down inside that if you admitted that, you'd have to defend your inability to behave in a manner that comports with the presuppositions of the belief.

In short, the claim Atheism is not a world view is nothing more than an avoidance technique for Atheists to not have an honest debate. You fear having to explain why you believe rape and murder are "wrong" when in Atheism, there can exist no absolute morality.