Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View

[fr0d0]

LOL didn't spot that

Well the hallmark of God is that we have a choice whether to believe or not. You have to be free to assume either way, and you are. So it's suggestive and not suggestive at the same time. Faith/ belief is a requirement ...it cannot be 'known'.

[chatpilot]

I don't agree that you have a choice to believe in god or not because if that were the case then there would be no penalty (hellfire/eternal torment) for not believing at all. The biblical god contrary to what you continue to assert is not present anywhere and has not revealed himself in a definite and unmistakable way to mankind. When it comes to searching for evidence for the existence of god all you run into is smoke and mirrors. You are correct to state that faith is a requirement but you left out the main word that precedes faith, blind, because that is what faith really is.

[fr0d0]

You're talking about yourself and your own personal experience chatty (and you obviously speak for Rabbit too). That's the complete opposite of my experience.

1. Yes belief is choice between something beneficial over something destructive. We make many such choices every day. Are they not choices? People choose to smoke even though they know it will damage their bodies.

2. The biblical God is defined as everywhere and in everything

There is one God who is father of all, over all, through all and within all. —Eph. 4.6

For from him, and through him and to him are all things. —Rm. 8.36 NIV

In him we live, and move, and have our being.... "We are his offspring." —Acts 17.28 NIV

Through him all things came to be, not one thing had its being but through him. All that came to be had life in him and that life was the light of men, a light that shines in the dark, a light that darkness could not overpower. —Jn. 1.2-

3. I never said God reveals himself in an unmistakeable way to mankind. read my preceding post: "it cannot be known"

[Zen Badger]

You don't have to know what a hand is to make the definition. You have a particular shape quite like nothing else. You have this incomplete idea of God that you're trying to tie down, and this is just a piece of the puzzle.

We don't have living examples of dinosaurs but that doesn't stop us approximating how they might look and act.


If we assume that God created the universe/ was the instigator/ first cause... then all that could emanate from God is part of God. In this assumption, God is in everything and is everywhere (the Christian viewpoint). You assume not, I assume so. You cannot categorically say that I am wrong, therefore everything existent could be part of God and evidence.

You cannot know, and neither can I.

Yes Frodo, If we assume that God created the universe.

There is no evidence that this is the case and pointing at the universe and saying that it is

the evidence is not convincing, not of Abrahams God anyway.

Can you entertain the idea of a first cause that is not biblical?

[fr0d0]

Yes Zen... I can't know and neither can you.

The idea of a non biblical first cause is the same as the biblical one. So yes, very easily.

[Purple Rabbit]

3. I never said God reveals himself in an unmistakeable way to mankind. read my preceding post: "it cannot be known"

Exactly, it's only attribution done in the human mind.

[Knight]

The idea of a non biblical first cause is the same as the biblical one. So yes, very easily.

It is most certainly not the same because the God in question has both different attributes and different intentions, at least in terms of the mind's of its followers. There is absolutely no way to know the attributes of a God who cannot be observed, therefore all religions who claim to know (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other religion with a God's attributes defined) are being deceitful. They do not know, they are guessing, but disguise the guessing as revelation.

[Welsh cake]

How to define God... Hmmm, a stumbling block for any Theist indeed.

I remember watching ProfMTH's video on YouTube that no believer could provide a positive, coherent ontology for "god", the root of the problem is they can't assert what they're trying to assert. Consequently they dig themselves into a deeper hole by assigning "x" number of attributes onto the concept, none of them can be justified, not to mention one of the popular characteristics of "god" is omnipotence, which is contradictory in and of itself.

[fr0d0]

The idea of a non biblical first cause is the same as the biblical one. So yes, very easily.

It is most certainly not the same because the God in question has both different attributes and different intentions, at least in terms of the mind's of its followers.

Please stop masturbating Knight. So what exactly was God doing with creation then than a natural first cause wasn't? I'm all yurs as Welsh cake would say.

[chatpilot]

fr0d0 said:"I never said God reveals himself in an unmistakeable way to mankind. read my preceding post: "it cannot be known"

That my friend is the nail in the coffin for all theists fr0d0. By stating that god cannot be known you have just contradicted every single argument you have posted in favor of god and his existence. Your god cannot be known in any natural and conventional way, so as is characteristic of all myths, you place him in the realm of the supernatural. Outside of space and time, away from the prying eyes of science and the curiosity of mankind.