God?

[Thomas123]

Is there a God?
Is there no God?

These two enquiries are identical.
There are assumptions in both.
You assume that you will recognize the presence or absence of something called God.
How can such an assumption be reasonable?
What do you think?

Personally, I can have a God, hanging around in the background without feeling the urge to decorate it for whatever purpose I might have.

[Miles]

Only if the answers to each are identical. Are they? Nope.

What I think he means by implying they're the same question is whether one question can be easily rephrased as the other and there is not a single departure from the binary nature of what is being asked.

1. "Is there a fish?"
2. "Is there no such thing as a fish?"

These are apparently similarly identical questions where the answer is always either A) yes to 1 and therefore no to 2, or B) no to 1 and yes to 2. However, what spoils the identical nature of the (1 v 0) binary thing asked, would be if there were fish at one time and they went extinct. Then the answer would be no to 1 and no to 2, because there would not at the time of asking be a fish, but there would still be such a thing as a fish. 1 and 2 are not asking a question that refers to the same state of the same binary option's position.

My thinking

Is there a God?
Is there no God?

These two enquiries are identical.

Only if the answers to each are identical. Are they? Nope.

If a person contended there is a god he would answer:

Is there a god? YES
Is there no God? NO

But If a person contended there is no god he would answer:

Is there a god? NO
Is there no God? YES

In neither case are the two inquiries identical, hence the different answers.

.

[Thomas123]

Thanks Purple Knight, Miles, for engaging with this topic.

I pride myself in plain talking and I generally avoid riddles. There is no trick here. I feel that you both miss the fundamentals of my point. The two enquiries if responded to, make those responses, predicated on the following, as previously stated

'You assume that you will recognize the presence or absence of something called God.'

The presence or absence of God is beyond truth.


I believe in God because I believe in God.
I don't believe in God because I don't believe in God.

People have to do better than that, but very few do!

[JoeyKnothead]

My position is that gods are only ever shown to be concepts, and often poorly formed concepts at that.

I think the data best supports gods are more like placeholders, and even comforters for our gaps in knowledge. Here I'd refer to such notions as "volcano gods", "thunder gods", and all such as that. As our knowledge grows greater, our gods grow smaller.

There's also some indication that for many, gods help comfort our realization of our own impending deaths. What better salve than to think that after one dies, no he didn't? After I die, no I didn't?

While it's true we can't disprove a god's existence, the fact they can't be proven, combined with the above, should lead to a logically derived dismissal.

[Thomas123]

Thank You ,JoeyKnothead, for your participation here.

I generally disagree with all of your submission, JK....for example! (Please excuse abbreviation)

JK 'As our knowledge grows greater, our gods grow smaller'

Thomas123: Surely the opposite of this occurring is far more likely.

Very few God beliefs offer solace to people regarding 'impending death's, as you imply. Many that I can think of attempt the opposite.

JK:'My position is that gods are only ever shown to be concepts, and often poorly formed concepts at that'

Thomas123:On a whim you presume a God belief to be fake!

JK:'While it's true we can't disprove a god's existence, the fact they can't be proven, combined with the above, should lead to a logically derived dismissal'

Thomas123:Finally you dismiss them and bat them out of the park.
Work Done!

How rational is all that JK?

[Purple Knight]

I believe in God because I believe in God.
I don't believe in God because I don't believe in God.

People have to do better than that, but very few do!

It's a valid point, and why I've said in the past that you can't just rest on the laurels of not having to prove a negative.

Often, which statement is negative/positive is a matter of phrasing.

For example, take these statements, which are opposed - contradictory - and have both been phrased to be positive:

The election was fair.

There was some sort of fraud or cheating.

[JoeyKnothead]

Thank You ,JoeyKnothead, for your participation here.

I generally disagree with all of your submission, JK....for example! (Please excuse abbreviation)

JK 'As our knowledge grows greater, our gods grow smaller'

Thomas123: Surely the opposite of this occurring is far more likely.

In light of recent US election trends, I'd agree with you here. That data clearly indicates that as knowledge grows smaller, gods grow bigger.

Very few God beliefs offer solace to people regarding 'impending death's, as you imply. Many that I can think of attempt the opposite.

Yet we see in so many religious beliefs there's that whole "afterlife" promise.

JK:'My position is that gods are only ever shown to be concepts, and often poorly formed concepts at that'

Thomas123:On a whim you presume a God belief to be fake!

On a whim? I've been debating religious beliefs on this site for a decade or more, and throughout my life before.

I do trust that religious folks are sincere in their beliefs. As I trust they'll never put em much truth to em.

JK:'While it's true we can't disprove a god's existence, the fact they can't be proven, combined with the above, should lead to a logically derived dismissal'

Thomas123:Finally you dismiss them and bat them out of the park.
Work Done!
How rational is all that JK?

I present my argument as a reasonable, logical conclusion based on the data I have available to me.

I'm curious to know what data you have that might lead you to a different conclusion.

[Thomas123]

JoeyKnothead:I'm curious to know what data you have that might lead you to a different conclusion.

Thomas123: If we are playing for fun, I might risk, Heads or Tails. If it were more serious I might choose Rock Paper Scissors.

Imagine I had a choice of two identical houses, neither has a lawn but 1 has a broken down lawnmower in it's garage. I'd take the 1 with the mower ,every time. I might regret it come bin day but that is just my nature.

On a serious note, JK ...there are many well evolved 'God concepts',as you call them. Like the lawnmower, they have their brandings, their histories, their user manuals, their faults and their pitfalls.

It's them or ?. Start from scratch?

I believe that the Judaic Yahweh, is a 'salvagable ' God concept. I believe that the Jewish insights of the Jesus preacher could still be extracted from the nonsense of Christendom.

Now I have a chassis and an engine and if I uTube some basic God fundamentals ,I might have a machine that can run.

Everyone should have a lawn!

[JoeyKnothead]

JoeyKnothead:I'm curious to know what data you have that might lead you to a different conclusion.

Thomas123: If we are playing for fun, I might risk, Heads or Tails. If it were more serious I might choose Rock Paper Scissors.

I've never seen the value of risk / reward arguments for evaluating the truth of something.

Imagine I had a choice of two identical houses, neither has a lawn but 1 has a broken down lawnmower in it's garage. I'd take the 1 with the mower ,every time. I might regret it come bin day but that is just my nature.

Give me the one in the sticks, mower or not. I've got goats if the grass gets too high.

On a serious note, JK ...there are many well evolved 'God concepts',as you call them. Like the lawnmower, they have their brandings, their histories, their user manuals, their faults and their pitfalls.

Worst of which is their ability to impose their superstitions on everyone else.

It's them or ?. Start from scratch?

L. Ron Hubbard did a booming business starting from scratch.

I believe that the Judaic Yahweh, is a 'salvagable ' God concept. I believe that the Jewish insights of the Jesus preacher could still be extracted from the nonsense of Christendom.

Now to winnow out the nonsense of Judaism.

Now I have a chassis and an engine and if I uTube some basic God fundamentals ,I might have a machine that can run.

Everyone should have a lawn!

What of those who don't want a lawn?

That's kinda the thing with metaphors, they all break down at some point.

[Thomas123]

Be fair JK, you asked how I come to different conclusions than those which you adopt yourself. You cannot resist a ',coup de 'grace' dismissive conclusion. Apparently metaphors, by their nature, are to be dismissed in their effectiveness.

You do your own thing as is your wish, but you continuously run away from rationality ,by doing it in the manner that appears your norm.

You refuse to consider any efficacy that might be extractable from established God concepts. You dismiss them as being contaminated beyond purpose despite the undeniable value contained within their walls. You mention American politics. Do you dismiss that too, in the same manner?

You advocate starting religion from scratch as an option B, as if it were not , a logical absurdity to attempt. What is the last significant sect of religion to be formed by humans.

Your Volcano, Thunder God type cameos are dated and funny to the listenership of a 2023 Forum.

If you are going to dismiss Theism with zeal expect to place yourself in the glare of rational scrutiny.

Why are you hitting me with these negative waves?

JK. Think 'lawnmower', think 'lawn'. Thanks for the interaction JK. We are probably both 'clones" to our type!

[JoeyKnothead]

Be fair JK, you asked how I come to different conclusions than those which you adopt yourself. You cannot resist a ',coup de 'grace' dismissive conclusion. Apparently metaphors, by their nature, are to be dismissed in their effectiveness.

I can be dismissive when I feel the data warrants.

I see little value in religious beliefs and claims, except for the harms they cause to innocents.

You do your own thing as is your wish, but you continuously run away from rationality ,by doing it in the manner that appears your norm.

My continuing to respond to your statements puts the lie to any charge that I "run away", and I'm content having the observer figure on where's the rationality in our conversation.

You refuse to consider any efficacy that might be extractable from established God concepts. You dismiss them as being contaminated beyond purpose despite the undeniable value contained within their walls.

My seeing no efficacy, or negative efficacy in religion should not be misconstrued as me thinking others don't find religious beliefs of value.

There's some religious folks doing good works, and I commend em.

You mention American politics. Do you dismiss that too, in the same manner?

I reject a system that affords more protection to people's religious beliefs over that of individuals.

You advocate starting religion from scratch as an option B, as if it were not , a logical absurdity to attempt.

I merely noted than a man created a religion, to a handsome profit.

What is the last significant sect of religion to be formed by humans.

"Significant" is a subjective term, so I'm not sure how to respond.

The most significant religion impacting my life, or those I hold dear, is Christian Evangelicalism / Christian Nationalism.

Your Volcano, Thunder God type cameos are dated and funny to the listenership of a 2023 Forum.

Just as I find Christianity comically amusing, but scarily powerful.

If you are going to dismiss Theism with zeal expect to place yourself in the glare of rational scrutiny.

Considering Christian attempts to monitor everyone's bedrooms, I'd say you're correct in your assessment here.

That said, I'd be interested to explore your brand of theism.

Why are you hitting me with these negative waves?

I'm simply a messenger, if my words bum folks out, I can't help it.

Think 'lawnmower', think 'lawn'. Thanks for the interaction JK. We are probably both 'clones" to our type!

And thank you. I always find discussion with folks who think differently to be the most enlightening.

Sincerely I say, and 'differently' ain't the least bit of a slur here.