Why do you believe in God?

Author: TheAtheist

Posts

Total: 393
#91
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheAtheist
The content of someone's mind does not exist in the real world. Just because you can perceive God does not mean that God is real. You finally understand my argument, you did it Athias!
I've always understood your argument. Your argument, however, is logically inconsistent. The issue is that you don't understand that.


Topic's author
#92
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@Athias
Okay, I think you've got me. My earlier arguments were logically inconsistent. I think I'm going to have to change my phrasing a bit. Something can either exist in reality or exist in our imagination. The concept of God, for example, exists in our imagination. God, if he were to exist, would have to exist in reality. Something cannot exist both in reality and in imagination at the same time. So while the concept of God exists in our imagination, the concept of God does not exist in the real world. And while God may or may not exist in reality, he does not exist inside our imagination, only the concept of him does.

I'm sure we would both agree that God does not follow the rules of our reality, for example he can create something out of nothing and has omniscience and omnipotence. Therefore, God cannot exist in our reality, because if God were to exist he would break the rules of that reality. So, that means God does not exist, since something that cannot exist automatically does not exist. Therefore, only the concept of God exists, and that concept exists only in our imagination. Does this sound logical to you, or no?

Concerning your argument about numbers. Numbers are adjectives, not nouns. Something that is not a noun can exist neither in reality nor in imagination. The concept of numbers exists in imagination, because a concept is a noun; but numbers themselves do not exist anywhere. Same with colors, which are also adjectives. Does blue exist? No it doesn't, blue is an adjective. A blue object can exist, as well as the concept of blue, but not the color blue itself. 

#93
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheAtheist
I think I'm going to have to change my phrasing a bit. Something can either exist in reality or exist in our imagination. The concept of God, for example, exists in our imagination. God, if he were to exist, would have to exist in reality. Something cannot exist both in reality and in imagination at the same time. So while the concept of God exists in our imagination, the concept of God does not exist in the real world. And while God may or may not exist in reality, he does not exist inside our imagination, only the concept of him does.
Your phrasing is not the issue; your logical consistency is. You're using two distinct descriptions of existence in the very same argument. You're stating concepts can exist while simultaneously stating that they can't exist. You believe that by partitioning existence into "imaginary" and "reality" that you've somehow reconciled this inconsistency. You haven't. Because, you're still stating that one of the partitions does not exist even though it's a partition of existence.

I'm sure we would both agree that God does not follow the rules of our reality, for example he can create something out of nothing and has omniscience and omnipotence. Therefore, God cannot exist in our reality, because if God were to exist he would break the rules of that reality. So, that means God does not exist
This is the most logically fallacious argument I've seen thus far. "The rules" of that reality don't exist because the concepts on which they're based are not of that reality, according to your rationale. And once again, stay focused. We're not arguing totum pro parte and parsing through aspects. We are discussing existence.

Therefore, only the concept of God exists, and that concept exists only in our imagination. Does this sound logical to you, or no?
No. Because it's not logical at all. You believe you've made a distinction between the "concept of God" and "God."  Everything you perceive in your experience is subject to your thoughts, even the "reality" you claim exists outside of it. Even your physical senses are rationalized through your thoughts. How do you discern the differences between vision, audition, gustation, olfaction, and somatosensation without your thoughts?  How do you know they even exist? You can cite brain scans, but even then, processing that information must be subject to thought. How are "the rules of reality" determined without thought? Let me guess, you read someone's thoughts about how reality works (a concept) and believed them. They were able to delineate information using science (a concept) and reason (another concept) in a manner which you value (yet another concept.) You think that you've created a substantial distinction by creating these partitions. Rather, in "reality," you've only proposed, as I already told keithprosser, an epistemological insignificance. Your mind is chief in reality.
#94
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
'X' and the 'concept of X' are distinct.  It is obvious that in many, many cases the concept of X exists but X does not exist
You think this makes sense, but it does not. The concept x does not hold without x. You mean to say that there's a distinction between a material x and an immaterial x, and that an immaterial x can exist even if a material x doesn't. This isn't necessarily true, but it provides a more substantial line of reasoning to your original statement.
If that is what I meant then I would have said that! 

Underneath your excess of verbiage what you are saying is that god exists because we have the idea of god.   If don't think that is right, nor do I think it is wrong in an interesting way - so I'll stop there.


#95
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@keithprosser
If that is what I meant then I would have said that! 
Fair enough. As far as the record is concerned, you too will sustain a logically inconsistent argument.

what you are saying is that god exists because we have the idea of god
No.

If don't think that is right, nor do I think it is wrong in an interesting way
You've declared no concerns thus far about inconsistency; that much is clear. 




#96
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Athias

what you are saying is that god exists because we have the idea of god
No.
Then what are you saying?   You said "one cannot perceive that which does not exist, therefore everything one perceives must exist" was axiomatic.  Do you stand by that?  It seems to be saying that because god is perceived then god must exist, but you just said that isn't what you meant. 

It is hard to criticise your argument when it's not clear what it is.

#97
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@keithprosser
It seems to be saying that because god is perceived then god must exist
Yes.

It is hard to criticise your argument when it's not clear what it is.
When you construct the argument properly, it should become clear.
#98
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
How do you define perceive?
#99
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@janesix
How do you define perceive?
to experience through organizing sensory information and the information in consciousness (e.g. thoughts, intuition, rationality, etc.)
#100
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
Do you perceive god?
#101
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@janesix
Do you perceive god?
Yes.
#102
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
Do you mind if I ask how, specifically?
#103
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Athias
Once again, one cannot perceive that which does not exist, therefore everything one perceives must exist.
You must mean conceive since that is the discussion, if you don't then your god doesn't exist because it can't be perceived.
Meaning all gods exist as do Leprechauns and Cyclops, intergalactic spacecraft exist along with time travel. Your world must be incredible, where is it?

#104
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted
I'm fairly sure he believes that he perceives God.

That would explain some of his posting style...  if you can plainly see (ie 'perceive') something - such as God - you are not going to be impressed by any one who says it doesn't exist - ie atheists.


#105
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
He definitely said he perceives God. As do many.
#106
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
What he believes about gods doesn't make it true.
#107
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@janesix
@keithprosser
@disgusted
@janesix:

Do you mind if I ask how, specifically?
The "how" is irrelevant to me.

@disgusted

You must mean conceive since that is the discussion, if you don't then your god doesn't exist because it can't be perceived.
Conception and perception aren't mutually exclusive.

Meaning all gods exist as do Leprechauns and Cyclops, intergalactic spacecraft exist along with time travel
Yes.

Your world must be incredible, where is it?
My apologies. Only those who sustain a grasp of a consistent logic can ascertain its location.

@keithprosser

That would explain some of his posting style...  if you can plainly see (ie 'perceive') something - such as God - you are not going to be impressed by any one who says it doesn't exist - ie atheists.
Posting style? I'm not "unimpressed" by atheists in and of themselves; I'm unimpressed by atheism;  I'm "unimpressed" by the materialist rationalizations and the unsubstantiated ontological statements of some atheists; I'm "unimpressed" by the logical inconsistency; I'm "unimpressed" by the flip-flop descriptions and semantic gymnastics. If one can provide a logically consistent argument that is logically consistent without switching descriptions at whim while substantiating their ontological statements, then I'd be "impressed." But as I've told Brutal and TheAtheist, "impressions have no place in a debate," not even my own. So would you like to explain the relevance my "posting style" has in this discussion?


#108
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
It is not irrelevant to me. But I understand you may not want to talk about it. That is unfortunate for me, as I am really interested in how other people perceive God, and their experiences.
#109
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
So would you like to explain the relevance my "posting style" has in this discussion?
You post pretentious nonsense. 
Topic's author
#110
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@Athias
I would love to have this discussion about reality with you elsewhere, not on this topic. It's getting too crowded for me to reply to everyone that posts here. Maybe I could create a separate topic about what we are discussing? What do you think the name of that topic should be?

#111
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Call it.  Do you believe in God orrrrrrrrrr The ultimate reality.
Topic's author
#112
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Wtf is the "ultimate reality"?
#113
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@janesix
The God you know was created by you.

It's simply all about the brains storage, assimilation and utilisation of data. 

God and your own version of theism or atheism which ever the case may be, only exists inside your head, not outside of it.

As such, the notion of a God is within every normally functioning human being. How we choose to utilise this data is obviously variable.

The Christian God story that we are all familiar with is nothing more than a collection of brain derived assumptions, resultant of ongoing, internal data processing. 

Whether or not an extra-human creator actually exists is unknown and therefore cannot be discounted as a possible hypothesis. It's a Catch 22 situation; one cannot disprove something that cannot be proven.

Nonetheless; if you consider logically and rationally, such a being would surely be far more intelligent and sensible, than the central character of  the biblical tales is portrayed as being.


#114
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheAtheist
The ultimate reality would be the collapse of the universe back to a zero state. Perhaps.
#115
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@TheAtheist
Wtf is the "ultimate reality"?
You're new!  According to Mopac, the Ultimate Reality is God.


#116
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@janesix
@keithprosser
@TheAtheist
@janesix:

I've not said that it's irrelevant to you or anyone else. I said that it's irrelevant to me because it is. I don't concern myself with "how."

@keithprosser

You post pretentious nonsense. 
Ah, the tone argument. "When all else fails...," I guess.

@TheAtheist

I would love to have this discussion about reality with you elsewhere, not on this topic.
It's unavoidable; your concept of reality serves as a basis of your argument as mine does for my argument. We can discuss it elsewhere, but it will come up regardless.


It's getting too crowded for me to reply to everyone that posts here.
That is the nature of the beast you created.


Maybe I could create a separate topic about what we are discussing? What do you think the name of that topic should be?
You can name it "Existence," or "Mind vs Matter," or "God: a history or legend?" As long as it suffices in meeting the parameters of that which you consider relevant, I'll participate.

#117
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Whether or not an extra-human creator actually exists is unknown and therefore cannot be discounted as a possible hypothesis. It's a Catch 22 situation; one cannot disprove something that cannot be proven.

Thus, it's epistemologically insignificant.

if you consider logically and rationally, such a being would surely be far more intelligent and sensible, than the central character of  the biblical tales is portrayed as being.
Logic and reason is oft not considered when giving an impression, and yours is no different.
#118
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Athias

Meaning all gods exist as do Leprechauns and Cyclops, intergalactic spacecraft exist along with time travel
Yes.

That must be because you perceive them. Just WOW. Or do you mean conceive? WOW
Where did you say your planet was? Oh that's right you can't find it.
You bring a different level of comedy to this forum.
I'm unimpressed by people who believe in gods who are the creation of men and that is all gods.
#119
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Athias
It's unavoidable; your concept of reality serves as a basis of your argument as mine does for my argument. We can discuss it elsewhere, but it will come up regardless.
But what you consider reality relies on the fictional gods created by man being factual. Reality doesn't work like that.


#120
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted

You post pretentious nonsense. 
Ah, the tone argument. "When all else fails...," I guess.
It's not an argument - it's an opinion.  I wouldn't expect you to get that right... you haven't got anything right so far!   I wonder if you know you are posting verbose crap - I think you may actually believe you are some kind of 'logic genius'.   If so, you are in a minority of two... you and your ego.