The only two reasonable positions on the existence of God?

[ThePainefulTruth]

Atheism and Deism? From our standpoint, those two philosophies are indistinguishable. All others can be dismissed on the basis of reason/science since other theologies inevitably have to resort to faith (blind faith) to justify ignoring reason and logic.

[McCulloch]

I don't presume to DEFINE God; that's all.

You seem to say that as if it is something noble. God, being who he is, should not be subservient to mere humans, how dare they presume to limit or define him.

I find that rather surprising coming from you. That's rather a LOT of words to stuff into my mouth at the same time.

I did not intend to metaphorically stuff words into your mouth. What I intended to express was my own perhaps emotional response to what you had said. The choice of words not to presume implies, to me, a kind of I'm-above-that attitude, whether or that was your intended message.

But then, once again, the theological content of one's religious beliefs, in the Jewish religion, are of little to no importance and are not standardized, beyond a few limitations. Read the post above to get a clearer idea of what I mean.

So, you don't know what it is you mean when you use the word God yet remain self-identified as Jewish. The conception of God in Judaism is strictly monotheistic. God is an absolute one, indivisible and incomparable being who is the ultimate cause of all existence. And, even though you don't know what you mean when you say the word God, you do claim to know that God is one, God is indivisible and God is the ultimate cause of all existence. That's a lot to believe about something you cannot define.

[cnorman18]

I don't presume to DEFINE God; that's all.

You seem to say that as if it is something noble. God, being who he is, should not be subservient to mere humans, how dare they presume to limit or define him.

I find that rather surprising coming from you. That's rather a LOT of words to stuff into my mouth at the same time.

I did not intend to metaphorically stuff words into your mouth. What I intended to express was my own perhaps emotional response to what you had said. The choice of words not to presume implies, to me, a kind of I'm-above-that attitude, whether or that was your intended message.

Wrong. "Presumption" here refers to presuming to know things about God that one does not. Some rabbis of old even regarded attempts to define God as a sort of idolatry -- making a "mental image" of God which would then be worshipped as if it were God itself. Considering the arguments here on this forum about what God supposedly likes and hates, that seems a very valid concern to me.

But then, once again, the theological content of one's religious beliefs, in the Jewish religion, are of little to no importance and are not standardized, beyond a few limitations. Read the post above to get a clearer idea of what I mean.

So, you don't know what it is you mean when you use the word God yet remain self-identified as Jewish. The conception of God in Judaism is strictly monotheistic. God is an absolute one, indivisible and incomparable being...

Yes, and that's where it stops. What do you now know about "the nature of God"? "God is One" isn't really much of a definition, is it? If I tell you than an object in my pocket is absolutely unique in all the world -- how far does that fact alone get you in telling me what it IS?

...who is the ultimate cause of all existence.

Um, no. That is a popular misconception, of course, but even then, no Jew would presume to tell you exactly how the Creation was brought about or how, in anything resembling a scientific sense, God did it.

But the fact is that God is NOT described in Genesis as creating the Universe ex nihilo. The text says that in the beginning, the earth was toho v'vohu, which, though usually translated as "without form and void," literally means something like "topsy-turvy" or "all mixed up." What follows is not creation from nothing at all, but the bringing of order to something that was much more terrifying to ancient peoples -- total chaos.

So you see, even the common "image" of God as Creator is not as firmly established as many think.

And, even though you don't know what you mean when you say the word God, you do claim to know that God is one, God is indivisible and God is the ultimate cause of all existence...

No, I don't, actually. That's what the TRADITION says; for myself, I'm not sure, and I don't claim to know that the tradition is correct. We Jews are allowed to dissent even on the most basic points. "God is One," sure; but what does that actually MEAN? The Kabbalah -- not a formal part of Judaism, but another ancient tradition long associated with it -- speaks of not three, but TEN "aspects" of God, the sefirot, and makes it clear that even studying those gets you no closer to understanding and knowing the Ein Sof, the "Totally Other," the God who is unlike anything in this Universe or anything that we know.

That's a lot to believe about something you cannot define.

Really?

Let's see. I have something in my pocket that is absolutely unique on Earth and unlike anything you've ever seen or even heard of before.

Now tell me what it is.

You can't even tell me that it's made of matter; it might be a work of the imagination, which is NOT the mere paper and ink it's written in -- and bear in mind that in Jewish teaching, God is neither matter nor energy anyway.

See? God is One -- but that's very far from a definition.

[cnorman18]

Like it or not, we're on a debate forum, specifically in a forum under the category of "DEBATE", there really is no option to just let everyone think what they want to think without challenging them on it.

Sorry for the belated reply.

You can "challenge" me all you like, but there's no rule of this forum that requires me to prove anything -- especially when I've said many times that I don't think it's provable, and that I see no need to prove anything anyway. People ask me about my views: I answer. That's all. I keep saying that I'm not trying to convince anybody of the truth or falsity of anything. You don't agree with me? So don't. No harm, no foul.

Besides, if you can't even define a thing, how you you believe in it if you don't even have a clear picture of what it is that you supposedly believe in? That's irrational.

I"ve also said many, MANY times that what I "believe in" is the tradition, the community, the ethic, and the heritage. Not "God" -- and certainly not "God" in any conventional sense. "God" is part of the language we use in that tradition. Is it more than that? Does that word refer to a real (in whatever sense) "thing" or "force" or "being," or is it a symbol or metaphor or mental construct that refers to a hope, an ideal, or only a concept? We do speak about the "God-concept" rather a lot around here. I don't know that, either. The teachings and traditions, as they have evolved into the present day, speak to me and resonate with my own experiences and observations about the world and human nature.

One simple and obvious example only: When the Psalms say, "The heavens declare the glory of God," that speaks to me. Saying that is not a formal declaration of any "proof of the existence of God," and I feel no obligation to defend it any more than to defend a statement, also true, that the music of James Taylor, John Denver and Paul Simon speaks to me, or that the writings of John Fowles, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Larry Niven speak to me.

To me, it's a matter of taste, and if others don't share it, I'm OK with that. I've said for a long time that I regard Christianity and Islam as ancient and honorable faiths, though they are not my own. I say the same of atheism; that is a perfectly honorable and defensible position to take -- but it is not my own.

I will say this; in my experience, atheists are more often good company and more interesting conversationalists and thinkers than dogmatic religious folk of ANY stripe, including Judaism -- but only those who don't insist on proselytizing ME. Perhaps that means that dogmatism is the problem, and not the type of belief or lack of belief.

[McCulloch]

[God] who is the ultimate cause of all existence.

Um, no. That is a popular misconception, of course, but even then, no Jew would presume to tell you exactly how the Creation was brought about or how, in anything resembling a scientific sense, God did it.

I did not make the claim, because it would be false, that the Jews presume to know how the Creation was brought about. Just that it is the Jewish belief that God is the ultimate cause of all existence. Maimonides describes God in this fashion: "The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence. All the beings of the heavens, the earth, and what is between them came into existence only from the truth of His being."

Really?

Let's see. I have something in my pocket that is absolutely unique on Earth and unlike anything you've ever seen or even heard of before.

Now tell me what it is.

You can't even tell me that it's made of matter; it might be a work of the imagination, which is NOT the mere paper and ink it's written in -- and bear in mind that in Jewish teaching, God is neither matter nor energy anyway.

See? God is One -- but that's very far from a definition.

I do know that whatever it is, it fits in your pocket.

God is neither matter nor energy

[cnorman18]

[God] who is the ultimate cause of all existence.

Um, no. That is a popular misconception, of course, but even then, no Jew would presume to tell you exactly how the Creation was brought about or how, in anything resembling a scientific sense, God did it.

I did not make the claim, because it would be false, that the Jews presume to know how the Creation was brought about. Just that it is the Jewish belief that God is the ultimate cause of all existence. Maimonides describes God in this fashion: "The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence. All the beings of the heavens, the earth, and what is between them came into existence only from the truth of His being."

Yes, that quote is from the opening of the Mishneh Torah, his famous commentary on the Torah. Even so: Maimonides did not, contrary to some, determine the teachings of the Jewish religion. His work was disputed at the time and has been ever since.

The dictum you quote here is, without a doubt, believed by the overwhelming majority of Jews; nevertheless, it is not a dogma, a required belief, in Judaism.

Really?

Let's see. I have something in my pocket that is absolutely unique on Earth and unlike anything you've ever seen or even heard of before.

Now tell me what it is.

You can't even tell me that it's made of matter; it might be a work of the imagination, which is NOT the mere paper and ink it's written in -- and bear in mind that in Jewish teaching, God is neither matter nor energy anyway.

See? God is One -- but that's very far from a definition.

I do know that whatever it is, it fits in your pocket.

That doesn't get you far in DEFINING it, i.e. telling what it IS, though, now does it?

(And I don't think that would apply to God.... )

God is neither matter nor energy

Oh, I would admit to NEGATIVE knowledge of God all day long. That was the primary way that Maimonides spoke of God, through "negative theology." From MyJewishLearning.com:

"That also means that, in Aristotelian terms, one cannot actually say "God is . . ." and proceed to enumerate God's attributes. To describe the Eternal One in such a sentence is to admit of a division between subject and predicate, in other words, a plurality. (Maimonides writes in Chapter 50 of the Guide [The Guide for the Perplexed, another famous work], "Those who believe that God is One and that He has many attributes declare the Unity with their lips and assume the plurality in their thoughts.") Therefore, he concludes, one cannot discuss God in terms of positive attributes.

"On the other hand, one can describe what God is not. God is not corporeal, does not occupy space, experiences neither generation nor corruption (in the Aristotelian sense of birth, decay, and death). For obvious reasons, Mai­monides' conception of the Supreme Being is usually characterized as "negative theology," that is, defining by the accumulation of negatives."

In another place, he put it another way: "Anything of which you can conceive, that is not God."

Saying what God ISN'T is no great matter; but, like anything else, that doesn't get us far toward saying what God IS.

I realize that this concept is difficult for some, but it works for us. It's hard to claim that one cannot believe in something without knowing what it is, since Jews have done just that for several thousand years now. Maybe those who say this cannot; but, again, different strokes for different folks. I, for one, don't care to be told what I must think, or how.

[Ooberman]

I dont know how the theist can claim they know what god isnt. Why cant god be physical? The source of all physicality? That we are physical, in gods image?

I dont see anything that precludes it. It seems theists simply try to define god as an undectable being because god is undetectable.
But this doesnt mean god is or isnt anything they claim.

How do they prove ANYTHING about God?

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 56 by Ooberman]

Who says anyone has to "prove anything about God"?

You know my own approach: You don't believe in God? Fine, so don't. It's not important. Neither belief nor unbelief have any "eternal consequences" -- belief or lack of it is a trivial matter.

What ISN'T trivial is how one treats others. "Theology" can be an interesting intellectual board game, but in practical terms, it's a waste of time and energy.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 57 by cnorman18]

I think the frustration we feel is that we both do care about believing in God.

To me, it appears those who believe in gods have some other reason than the ones they give, but they still appear as if believing is a virtue, or at least, pleasing.

To put it crudely, i want me some of that, but i cant do it if i dont believe it - like a placebo.

Yet, what frustrates me is that theists cant give me what i need. And gods, as you know, play with us mere mortals.

I suspect theists are a subset of optimists and pesimists, and i want an easy route to optimism. If i wasnt born an optimist, i might hear the right meme, i might be changed, but i never hear the right thing to be changed.

In fact, all talk of gods seem silly to me, and so i am told to stop listening because they are looking for willing listeners: converts or people who respect their brand of theism. As if one can talk reasonably about any and all god beliefs, even the most minimal.

I have no less desire than you to believe in gods, i simply have less patience.

[Cathar1950]

Atheism and Deism? From our standpoint, those two philosophies are indistinguishable. All others can be dismissed on the basis of reason/science since other theologies inevitably have to resort to faith (blind faith) to justify ignoring reason and logic.

I would like to put in my two cents as I have finally moved and have some space and time to jump back in.
I am on a mission to correct some of the metaphysical claims and understanding that seem to have little knowledge of the actual histories of philosophy and metaphysics.
By metaphysics I mean the quest for universals, or "the Universal", if that is the way it seems to roll along logically.
It isn't about presuppositions as they to are metaphysical questions and often must be teased out if not discovered or exposed. I had to smile when I heard the author of the OP was going to start from the conclusion and work his way backwards, it is sometimes called by one fallacy or another.
I admit that I have been actually studying, reading and even working on the subject of metaphysics one way or another for the last 35 yeas or more and I pretty much seem to have found myself as a process thinker or philosopher if you count studying philosophy in undergrad, grad and a couple of Doctorates as somewhat trained to be philosophical.
My favorite influences over the last 35 years or more were AN Whitehead and C Hartshorne. Hartshorne was the first I read that clearly stated the purpose of metaphysics which was to understand and find the Universal or what all particulars
have in common. He also called it Natural theology.

The first Christian theologian that Hartshorne claims to have had any metaphysical understanding about how this might all relate to theology or God talk was Anselm in his second definition of God where the existence of God is Necessary and Unsurpassable.
Hartshorne calls this insight a great discovery even though he sees Anselm's definition of God to be absurd.
The metaphysical alternatives are either some form of theism, and there are many or some form of positivism, these seem to exhaust the metaphysical alternatives, a least according to Hartshorne and others.
Deism is a subset of Theism as are Pantheism, Panentheism, Polytheism, Monotheism and Trinitarianism, just to name a few and there are variations within each label. As far as I see all you have to do to qualify as an atheist is to reject any or all gods and sometimes to even universals, while that might be more of a Positivist.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Atheism and Deism? From our standpoint, those two philosophies are indistinguishable. All others can be dismissed on the basis of reason/science since other theologies inevitably have to resort to faith (blind faith) to justify ignoring reason and logic.

I would like to put in my two cents as I have finally moved and have some space and time to jump back in.
I am on a mission to correct some of the metaphysical claims and understanding that seem to have little knowledge of the actual histories of philosophy and metaphysics.
By metaphysics I mean the quest for universals, or "the Universal", if that is the way it seems to roll along logically.
It isn't about presuppositions as they to are metaphysical questions and often must be teased out if not discovered or exposed. I had to smile when I heard the author of the OP was going to start from the conclusion and work his way backwards, it is sometimes called by one fallacy or another.
I admit that I have been actually studying, reading and even working on the subject of metaphysics one way or another for the last 35 yeas or more and I pretty much seem to have found myself as a process thinker or philosopher if you count studying philosophy in undergrad, grad and a couple of Doctorates as somewhat trained to be philosophical.
My favorite influences over the last 35 years or more were AN Whitehead and C Hartshorne. Hartshorne was the first I read that clearly stated the purpose of metaphysics which was to understand and find the Universal or what all particulars
have in common. He also called it Natural theology.

The first Christian theologian that Hartshorne claims to have had any metaphysical understanding about how this might all relate to theology or God talk was Anselm in his second definition of God where the existence of God is Necessary and Unsurpassable.
Hartshorne calls this insight a great discovery even though he sees Anselm's definition of God to be absurd.
The metaphysical alternatives are either some form of theism, and there are many or some form of positivism, these seem to exhaust the metaphysical alternatives, a least according to Hartshorne and others.
Deism is a subset of Theism as are Pantheism, Panentheism, Polytheism, Monotheism and Trinitarianism, just to name a few and there are variations within each label. As far as I see all you have to do to qualify as an atheist is to reject any or all gods and sometimes to even universals, while that might be more of a Positivist.

If there's a point in there, besides criticizing the OP for an unspecified logical fallacy, I don't see it. In fact you suffer from the appeal to authority fallacy because you don't make any points except to say that if A violates X, Y & Z's positions, then it's false. It isn't necessarily a fallacy except when you misuse is as you have here, mostly referring to them rather than their ideas. Better to put things in your own words.

As for mine, you're probably searching for the fallacy of Begging the Question where one is supposed to be presenting the conclusion then justifying it. It's a fine line between that, and offering a premise then inviting discussion pro or con, as I did. With revealed religion in the shambles it's in, there isn't much to contest it with but blind faith in hearsay. But it wasn't a closed mind that lead me away from Christianity/revealed religion, so if you do have something of substance, I'd like to hear it.