7 ms·

Atheists are well aware of the distinction, I can assure you. A statement like "I do not believe in God because there is no God" proves absolutely nothing. I co

by sklivvz1971 7y ago

Atheists are well aware of the distinction, I can assure you. A statement like "I do not believe in God because there is no God" proves absolutely nothing. I could tell you "I do not believe in pink unicorns because there are no pink unicorns" and you would not take it as a statement of faith, just as the obvious truth. Such a truth is also obvious about the Judeo-Muslim-Christian God to atheists: there is no evidence of God, and in particular, there is no evidence whatsoever of Yahweh. As a side note, the strange idea that Yahweh is the only "possible" God is taken as granted by religious people, but it makes really little sense to those who came to disbelief through a philosophical journey. A lot of atheists will tell you that the specificity problem is one of the most convincing reasons not to believe in God.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> As a side note, the strange idea that Yahweh is the only "possible" God is taken as granted by religious people, It's really not, especially by most people who follow non-Yahwistic religions. But even those who personally believe in Yahweh who pose arguments for the existence of a god often do so for a god of a far less defined nature; belief in the existence of a god (however that term is defined) and belief that the god that exists has, in addition to those traits which are reviewed as inherently defining being a god, also has the other traits classically identified with some particular image of Yahweh are often coinciding but distinguishable beliefs.
User23 7y ago
You ought to put some more effort into understanding the millennia of thought that has gone into the topic before making sophomoric errors. You've unintentionally acknowledged my original point with your obsession on the nonexistence of the biblical God. Why aren't you going on about your lack of belief in Susano-o? What you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity. Granted, the particulars of the incarnation are a matter of testimony. Setting that aside though, the logical argument for the necessity of a creator God is no different than the logical argument that we live in a "simulation."
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  > who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity Care to unpack that for me? Are you arguing for a "God", or a Prime Mover? I think they are very distinct - people attribute certain anthropomorphized qualities to a "God". I don't find an argument that there must being a prime mover particularly compelling, and if there were such a thing, I would very much doubt that it would represent any sort of deity as we define it - if anything I'd expect it to be energy and chaos. I'd just like to know which side of this argument you're going with.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    See "He Is There And He Is Not Silent" by Francis Schaeffer. However, be aware that this book is more a sketch or outline of an argument, not detailed at every step. You're going to have to do a lot of thinking about various points to decide whether you agree with his argument. You're also going to have to pay careful attention to his definitions of words, specifically his distinction between rationality and rationalism.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      Taking a weak sketch of an argument and then filling in what you want to see seems to me to be a realization of one's own desires, and not a convincing argument in and of itself. I've no interest in reading a Christian Apologists attempt to find a way to rationalize out a creator - if I'm going to be convinced of such a thing, I expect there to be convincing, obvious, evidence, and not to end up at the end of a metaphysical cul-de-sac and to have to "God" my way out of it.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        I never said it was weak. It's not. I said that you're going to have to think through whether the "but what about"s that you come up with really counter his point, because he's not going to address every "what about" that exists.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> As a side note, the strange idea that Yahweh is the only "possible" God is taken as granted by religious people, It's really not, especially by most people who follow non-Yahwistic religions. But even those who personally believe in Yahweh who pose arguments for the existence of a god often do so for a god of a far less defined nature; belief in the existence of a god (however that term is defined) and belief that the god that exists has, in addition to those traits which are reviewed as inherently defining being a god, also has the other traits classically identified with some particular image of Yahweh are often coinciding but distinguishable beliefs.

User23 7y ago

You ought to put some more effort into understanding the millennia of thought that has gone into the topic before making sophomoric errors. You've unintentionally acknowledged my original point with your obsession on the nonexistence of the biblical God. Why aren't you going on about your lack of belief in Susano-o? What you fail to understand is that there are those who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity. Granted, the particulars of the incarnation are a matter of testimony. Setting that aside though, the logical argument for the necessity of a creator God is no different than the logical argument that we live in a "simulation."

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
> who have come to a belief in a transcendental creator God in a philosophical journey, because it's a logical necessity Care to unpack that for me? Are you arguing for a "God", or a Prime Mover? I think they are very distinct - people attribute certain anthropomorphized qualities to a "God". I don't find an argument that there must being a prime mover particularly compelling, and if there were such a thing, I would very much doubt that it would represent any sort of deity as we define it - if anything I'd expect it to be energy and chaos. I'd just like to know which side of this argument you're going with.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  See "He Is There And He Is Not Silent" by Francis Schaeffer. However, be aware that this book is more a sketch or outline of an argument, not detailed at every step. You're going to have to do a lot of thinking about various points to decide whether you agree with his argument. You're also going to have to pay careful attention to his definitions of words, specifically his distinction between rationality and rationalism.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    Taking a weak sketch of an argument and then filling in what you want to see seems to me to be a realization of one's own desires, and not a convincing argument in and of itself. I've no interest in reading a Christian Apologists attempt to find a way to rationalize out a creator - if I'm going to be convinced of such a thing, I expect there to be convincing, obvious, evidence, and not to end up at the end of a metaphysical cul-de-sac and to have to "God" my way out of it.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      I never said it was weak. It's not. I said that you're going to have to think through whether the "but what about"s that you come up with really counter his point, because he's not going to address every "what about" that exists.