Dear Athiests:

[sickles]

Im not an athiest, but nor would i classify myself as a thiest. From my pecarious viewpoint upon the fence, i would like to ask a few questions that perhaps hadnt occured to you.

There are some rules id like to follow in responding to this thread.

1. Leave your ego at the door. I understand that you have been convinced /experienced convicing evidence/lack of evidence. I respect that. We should also understand that these are subjective and therefore irrelevant. Even science is objective at a point.

2. I want you to inquire with me. We are going to make a non-scientific inquiry, and so we dont need science. No arrogance or certaintude please. Lets not kid ourselves.

3. As a fence balancer, I must insist that we not talk to each other in an "unprofessional" way. Lets all pretend we are all "professional humans" as we can all read, talk, type and converse, and manipulate things with our thumbs (sorry if you cant) . Addressing each other an undue amount can produce tangents that are irrelevant and non constructive.

4. Assume you know nothing.

Question for debate:

If you were curious about the existance of a god (athiests, before you QQ please read rule 1,2 and 4.) and you had no knowledge of god and neither did anyone else, where would you look? Im not saying what kind of evidence may be found there, or wether that evidence convinced you of a god or of no god. Im asking, where would you look? would you look in a book? would you look amongst man? amongst the universe? where (please please for the love of all that is holy *snicker* be VERY VERY specific.)

There is more about this debate, but I wish to read some responses first. Thanks.

[sickles]

...Yes. Now can you show that it is useful in any way?...

Do you mean to say, "useful in some other way"? Useful in ways other than clearing away untenable, vacuous claims?

...such paradoxes can only be thought of as involving a higher-order of rationality than anything we have yet been able to fathom...

Can you expand on the bolded please?...

Yes, any time we have an apparent paradox, we can either work to resolve the paradox in terms of existing theory and existing rationality, or else we can posit some higher-order of theory or rationality which subsumes the prior theory or rationality--much like Relativity transcends Newtonian theory, and Quantum theory transcends relativity. Now since science cannot reach Ultimate Reality, there is little prospect for our being able to resolve the paradox (uncaused cause, infinite loop/regression, unexplainable explanation) in terms of our existing thought patterns; therefore, an appeal to some higher context of rationality must be posited.

...So the understanding that you have gathered from it is that it makes the standard atheist arguments impotent? That seems like an opinion, not useful understanding.

Since standard atheistic arguments depend on a contingent "god," whose existence can be questioned without violating logical necessity, it follows that those arguments cannot succeed against the logically necessary Ultimate Reality.

Educhris,

Uncaused cause is simply either a matter of faith, as you prescribe, or a lack of knowledge, as most other people prescribe. The ultimate reality that you insist is necessary for reality turns out to be an optional opinionated thing. Possibly only necessary for reality on one hand and possibly useless drivel in the other. infinite regression just shows philosophical inconsistancy, not incomprehension. An unexplainable explanation falls within the domain of human intuition and within the bailiwick of animism. I do not see the necessity of an Ultimate Reality. You keep saying it is necessary , but I do not see its form and function , even when encapsulated within your black box. If it has no form and function, then what is the purpose of contemplating it to begin with? You're right, atheistic criticism is pointless. It's teeth can find no purchase. Normal philosophical discourse will do.

There is discord in my mind when I think of your arguement and points here, however, I cannot put my finger on it. What is the link between your idea here and the intent of the OP?

[EduChris]

...The ultimate reality that you insist is necessary for reality turns out to be an optional opinionated thing...I do not see the necessity of an Ultimate Reality...

Okay, I see you're not interested in philosophical debate about philosophical matters. So be it.

...What is the link between your idea here and the intent of the OP?

You asked "If one were curious about God, where would you begin to look for answers." My suggestion was that we begin with ourselves, and move outward with philosophical reasoning and discussion/debate with other serious, intelligent folks.

[Sonclad]

again, im not asking exactly what you would be looking for. Im asking where you would look.

If you didnt know anything about divinity , god, spirits, etc, and you wished to learn, where would you look? Where would you direct the inquiry "is there a god(s) and what can i learn about them?"?Would you ask your fellow man? Would you look in nature for proof of god? Would you look in your own life? Would you look in yourself? Where would you go actively searching?

Good Q... I guess I would begin by examining claims of various religions, since they purport to know something on the subject. By comparing and contrasting each, I would expect to discover a better plan for deeper investigation. For me personally, this approach led to an understanding that there were mutually exclusive claims being made by Christianity... The Q then becomes, what is true? Jesus was an historical figure that several religions acknowledge, but only Christianity make the bold claim that he was God. OK, so is that true? The Bible is where we can start learning about it. After much study (personally speaking), I found several things stood out with respect to this book (the Bible) which claims to be the inspired word of God (again, is this claim true? The following should reveal the answer): 1) Prophecy, 2) Unity throughout the 66 books penned by 40+authors, 3) it addresses the BIG questions like good and evil, life and death... 4) Index into history; is it accurate historically and does archeology findings support it? 5) Does it really change lives like it is claimed? Wile examining these Q's, one kept coming to the forefront for me personally... "who is this Jesus"? If what the Bible says is true, then all other religions cannot be, for they contradict this fundamental point. So, based upon my experience, I would pick up a Bible and start investigating it with an open, seeking mind.

[Flail]

Im not an athiest, but nor would i classify myself as a thiest. From my pecarious viewpoint upon the fence, i would like to ask a few questions that perhaps hadnt occured to you.

There are some rules id like to follow in responding to this thread.

1. Leave your ego at the door. I understand that you have been convinced /experienced convicing evidence/lack of evidence. I respect that. We should also understand that these are subjective and therefore irrelevant. Even science is objective at a point.

2. I want you to inquire with me. We are going to make a non-scientific inquiry, and so we dont need science. No arrogance or certaintude please. Lets not kid ourselves.

3. As a fence balancer, I must insist that we not talk to each other in an "unprofessional" way. Lets all pretend we are all "professional humans" as we can all read, talk, type and converse, and manipulate things with our thumbs (sorry if you cant) . Addressing each other an undue amount can produce tangents that are irrelevant and non constructive.

4. Assume you know nothing.

Question for debate:

If you were curious about the existance of a god (athiests, before you QQ please read rule 1,2 and 4.) and you had no knowledge of god and neither did anyone else, where would you look? Im not saying what kind of evidence may be found there, or wether that evidence convinced you of a god or of no god. Im asking, where would you look? would you look in a book? would you look amongst man? amongst the universe? where (please please for the love of all that is holy *snicker* be VERY VERY specific.)

There is more about this debate, but I wish to read some responses first. Thanks.

I wouldn't look; I wouldn't know where to look because I would have absolutely no idea what I would be looking for as there is no coherent definition of what a 'God' would be. If one thought there were all powerful, omniscient beings existing somewhere, one might expect such a beings to be beyond our 'finding' else such a beings would come find us or refuse to be found.

[Sonclad]

I wouldn't look; I wouldn't know where to look because I would have absolutely no idea what I would be looking for as there is no coherent definition of what a 'God' would be. If one thought there were all powerful, omniscient beings existing somewhere, one might expect such a beings to be beyond our 'finding' else such a beings would come find us or refuse to be found.

How did you come to the conclusion that there is no coherent definition of God and if God meets the criteria you've specified, why do you expect such a being would be beyond "finding"?

[Flail]

I wouldn't look; I wouldn't know where to look because I would have absolutely no idea what I would be looking for as there is no coherent definition of what a 'God' would be. If one thought there were all powerful, omniscient beings existing somewhere, one might expect such a beings to be beyond our 'finding' else such a beings would come find us or refuse to be found.

How did you come to the conclusion that there is no coherent definition of God and if God meets the criteria you've specified, why do you expect such a being would be beyond "finding"?

Do you have or is there a logical, coherent definition of an actual/factual discernible God? If so, what is it?

An all powerful, all wise supernatural being would be in total control it would seem and thus his locale and 'findability' would be entirely within his power. But of course until we can define what it is we are looking for such speculation is meaningless.

[Sonclad]

Do you have or is there a logical, coherent definition of an actual/factual discernible God? If so, what is it?

An all powerful, all wise supernatural being would be in total control it would seem and thus his locale and 'findability' would be entirely within his power. But of course until we can define what it is we are looking for such speculation is meaningless.

So, God would be omnipotent, omniscient and discoverable?... I think that's a commonly accepted starting point of what it would mean to be God (and I would agree with that). Omnipresent is another characteristic often attributed to God, and if we begin with those attributes alone, it ought to be enough to identify if we discover Him. Let's start there...

[Artie]

So, God would be omnipotent, omniscient and discoverable?... I think that's a commonly accepted starting point of what it would mean to be God (and I would agree with that). Omnipresent is another characteristic often attributed to God, and if we begin with those attributes alone, it ought to be enough to identify if we discover Him. Let's start there...

Actually you can't start there. You would have to first define qualities that are unique to God as opposed to any other god, such as Allah.

[Sonclad]

So, God would be omnipotent, omniscient and discoverable?... I think that's a commonly accepted starting point of what it would mean to be God (and I would agree with that). Omnipresent is another characteristic often attributed to God, and if we begin with those attributes alone, it ought to be enough to identify if we discover Him. Let's start there...

Actually you can't start there. You would have to first define qualities that are unique to God as opposed to any other god, such as Allah.

Very well, let's throw in Personal, since God would have to be personal if He is discoverable.

[Artie]

Very well, let's throw in Personal, since God would have to be personal if He is discoverable.

Well, actually there are several personal gods see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god. To define God we must have a property that can uniquely differentiate God from any other god.