Hi, not Atheist

[bicycle]

No, God exists...

Bald assertion. Your repeated reference to ideas of a god do not carry any weight.  Ideas do not necessarily equate to reality. I referenced this before, and you've yet to address it.  

Clarification: In context what I meant was, No I was not implying that since there is an idea of God, that this is proof that God exists...I'm saying God is an idea...and what would you know about reality? All there is, is perspective and speculation...What do I need to address?

...thousands of "God's" would just be dividing up the same idea into however people see fit, which would be ridiculous IMO

When those ideas plainly contradict each other, how are they "the same idea"?

The idea of God, or higher power than ourselves, in those religions the different God's have different powers...ridiculous IMO

There's a difference between knowing and believing, how would you know god does not exist, if there is no evidence[?]

Please cite any instance of me saying that I know a god doesn't exist.  Lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it does present an issue for those who assert existence.  For a deeper look at this you might read an article by Victor Stenger which looks at the issue of how lack of evidence presents a problem for those who assert the existence of a deity.
[/quote]

So lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it is for existence?

Do you feel that people came up with the idea of God for no reason? Contrarily that's almost how I feel about atheism.

The fact that people came up with the idea of a god doesn't mean that any such god exists.  People came up with the idea of phlogiston, but that doesn't mean that it actually exists.  They had reasons for coming up with the idea, just as people have reasons for coming up with the idea of a god or gods. It doesn't necessarily follow that having a reason for coming up with an idea means that the idea has congruence with reality.
[/quote]
So are you implying that ideas come to be by fluke?

[Whitney]

bicycle...do not use multiple post entries in a row.  Take a few moments to gather your thoughts then respond in one post or edit that post if you need to add more to it.  We don't need half a page to be just you posting multiple times in a spastic manner.

[bicycle]

sorry admin 

[Recusant]

Bicycle, please read "How do I use the quote feature?" and follow the instructions you find there.  Sorting through posts presented as one long quote in which you've inserted occasional comments with no differentiation is tiresome. I think you're quite capable of formatting your posts correctly if you want to. *(See note below; thanks for editing your post.)

Clarification: In context what I meant was, No I was not implying that since there is an idea of God, that this is proof that God exists...I'm saying God is an idea...

The Wicked Witch of the West is an idea.  Phlogiston is an idea.  

...and what would you know about reality? All there is, is perspective and speculation.

So are you a solipsist?

What do I need to address?

You don't need to address anything. However, discussion is an exchange.  I've asked you to address the relation between ideas and reality.  Does the existence of an idea necessarily mean that the subject of that idea exists in reality independent of anybody's mind?

When those ideas plainly contradict each other, how are they "the same idea"?

The idea of God, or higher power than ourselves, in those religions the different God's have different powers...ridiculous IMO

It isn't a single idea though.  Is the idea of Shiva the same as the idea of YHVH? Is the Dao the same as Jesus?  You seem to be trying to say that because various cultures have come up with concepts of the supernatural, that means that it's the same idea.  A council of gods living in Valhalla or on Olympus is not the same idea as the Christian trinity.  Animism isn't the same as Scientology.

So lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it is for existence?

I have a feeling you didn't even bother to read the article by Stenger.  Your question doesn't make any sense.  When I try to parse it, I get "So lack of evidence is conclusive proof for existence?" What are you trying to say?

The fact that people came up with the idea of a god doesn't mean that any such god exists.  People came up with the idea of phlogiston, but that doesn't mean that it actually exists.  They had reasons for coming up with the idea, just as people have reasons for coming up with the idea of a god or gods. It doesn't necessarily follow that having a reason for coming up with an idea means that the idea has congruence with reality.

So are you implying that ideas come to be by fluke?

Obviously not, and that is clear to anybody who reads what I've written.  This disingenuous tack you've chosen isn't getting us anywhere.  Please address what I actually wrote.

* * *

*Edited to add: I see that you've edited your post to make it more readable.  Thank you; I appreciate the effort. You're getting there, but you need to make sure that you have quote tags around all quotes.  As it stands now, the incomplete quote tags still result in a confusing post.

[bicycle]

The Wicked Witch of the West is an idea.  Phlogiston is an idea. 

good point, but God and the wicked witch of the west do not equate, in the fact that The Wicked Witch of the West was used for a story and God is used for life...Phlogiston is an idea that is proven to be inaccurate do you suppose you are going to disprove god?

So are you a solipsist?

Do you know what the reality is or not? Since your perspective is only relative I would say no. I happen to believe others exist as much as I do so no I'm not a Solipsist I guess...

You don't need to address anything. However, discussion is an exchange.  I've asked you to address the relation between ideas and reality.  Does the existence of an idea necessarily mean that the subject of that idea exists in reality independent of anybody's mind?

Like I said, what would you know about reality? Are you saying if I was dead, my ideas would also be gone forever? concepts that really have no meaning without consciousness to begin with...In this case I would see God as the existence of all of those ideas as they were...

It isn't a single idea though.  Is the idea of Shiva the same as the idea of YHVH? Is the Dao the same as Jesus?  You seem to be trying to say that because various cultures have come up with concepts of the supernatural, that means that it's the same idea.  A council of gods living in Valhalla or on Olympus is not the same idea as the Christian trinity.  Animism isn't the same as Scientology.

You're just not looking at it like I am, take a step back from that, Ideas come from previous ones, how could there be a Shiva and YHVH without the idea of higher being or higher perspective aka God..IMO the idea of God as a being is just a personification of the concept, humans personify everything...

I have a feeling you didn't even bother to read the article by Stenger.  Your question doesn't make any sense.  When I try to parse it, I get "So lack of evidence is conclusive proof for existence?" What are you trying to say?

Lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it does present an issue for those who assert existence.

No I didn't, I have a feeling I already know what it's going to say...What I am saying is, you had a double-negative, "Lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence"

Obviously not, and that is clear to anybody who reads what I've written.  This disingenuous tack you've adopted isn't getting us anywhere.  Please address what I actually wrote.

So ideas do not come up by fluke, but the idea of God does not make any sense to you how?

[DeterminedJuliet]

God told me he didn't exist, that's why I don't believe in him.

And, since he's God, he can do anything. 

[bicycle]

your either trolling or tripping lol

[xSilverPhinx]

This really isn't going to go anywhere until you define or describe what you mean by the word or idea "god".

I get the feeling that people are talking about different things as if there were the same. Even among believers I get the feeling that happens.

[Recusant]

The Wicked Witch of the West is an idea.  Phlogiston is an idea.  

good point, but God and the wicked witch of the west do not equate, in the fact that The Wicked Witch of the West was used for a story and God is used for life...

God is used for a story; the fact that people base their beliefs on that story doesn't mean that the story is any more true than The Wizard of Oz.

Phlogiston is an idea that is proven to be inaccurate do you suppose you are going to disprove god?

I don't have to do that.  All I'm doing is pointing out that ideas don't necessarily correspond to reality.

So are you a solipsist?

Do you know what the reality is or not?

Short answer?  "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
doesn't go away." — Philip K. Dick

Since your perspective is only relative I would say no. I happen to believe others exist as much as I do so no I'm not a Solipsist I guess...

Good.  Then you agree that reality has existence independent of perspective and speculation.  Do you think that human beings are capable of perceiving reality?

You don't need to address anything. However, discussion is an exchange.  I've asked you to address the relation between ideas and reality.  Does the existence of an idea necessarily mean that the subject of that idea exists in reality independent of anybody's mind?

Like I said, what would you know about reality?

I know more or less as much about reality (in the sense of whether it's actually real or not) as any human being.  What I try not to do is confuse ideas in my head or those of other people for reality, especially when there is no evidence that those ideas have any bearing on reality. You're dodging my question.  Why is that?

Are you saying if I was dead, my ideas would also be gone forever?

Unless you've written them down or otherwise shared them, yes; we are ephemeral beings and our thoughts and ideas are generally even more ephemeral than we are.

concepts that really have no meaning without consciousness to begin with...In this case I would see God as the existence of all of those ideas as they were...

The first part I agree with, the second doesn't make any sense at all to me.  What does "God as the existence of all of those ideas as they were..." mean?

You're just not looking at it like I am, take a step back from that, Ideas come from previous ones, how could there be a Shiva and YHVH without the idea of higher being or higher perspective aka God..IMO the idea of God as a being is just a personification of the concept, humans personify everything...

When people see something for which there is no clear explanation, they often come up with conjecture or surmise to explain that phenomenon.  It's not hard to imagine a process by which a surmised unseen "entity" behind thunder and lightning gradually becomes the mysterious mover behind some or all phenomena, for instance.  None of this implies that the idea of a god or gods has anything to do with reality.

I have a feeling you didn't even bother to read the article by Stenger.  Your question doesn't make any sense.  When I try to parse it, I get "So lack of evidence is conclusive proof for existence?" What are you trying to say?

Lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it does present an issue for those who assert existence.

No I didn't, I have a feeling I already know what it's going to say...What I am saying is, you had a double-negative, "Lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence"

I appreciate your honesty, if not your apparent lack of desire to understand the concept I'm talking about here.

Your explanation doesn't correspond to the original question, and since you aren't going to bother to understand what I'm saying, nor produce a coherent response, I feel that it's justifiable to dismiss your line of thinking here as bafflegab.

So ideas do not come up by fluke, but the idea of God does not make any sense to you how?

It's easy to understand how ideas of deities might arise.  What I question is whether they have any correspondence to reality.  There is no reasonable evidence that they do.

[DeterminedJuliet]

your either trolling or tripping lol

No man, it's the mystical power of God. He's so powerful he can make himself not exist. And he did. And then he told me about it.
Because HE CAN DO ANYTHING. Right?

[bicycle]

God is used for a story; the fact that people base their beliefs on that story doesn't mean that the story is any more true than The Wizard of Oz.

If this is the case, then what is the title of the story? Religion?

Short answer?  "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
doesn't go away." — Philip K. Dick

I like that, so that would include God then. IMO if you think God does not exist, he never did, in which case, God did not go away when you stopped believing in it.

Good.  Then you agree that reality has existence independent of perspective and speculation.  Do you think that human beings are capable of perceiving reality?

Obviously we perceive reality, but that does not mean that it is Reality. That is perception.

I've asked you to address the relation between ideas and reality.

Ideas are a part of Reality. I didn't mean to "dodge" your question, sorry.

especially when there is no evidence that those ideas have any bearing on reality.

So when terrorists blow up sh*t in the name of God, that is not proof that ideas have any bearing on reality?
What about math or science? Are those ideas?

Unless you've written them down or otherwise shared them, yes; we are ephemeral beings and our thoughts and ideas are generally even more ephemeral than we are.

I actually agree with that, time would also be considered an ephemeral concept...That doesn't mean it does not exist, at least the illusion does.

What does "God as the existence of all of those ideas as they were..." mean?

It means that concepts are discovered out of necessity, part of our consciousness, they are the reason we have gotten to this point. IMO that's part of what God is; The very thing that holds reality together.

When people see something for which there is no clear explanation, they often come up with conjecture or surmise to explain that phenomenon.  It's not hard to imagine a process by which a surmised unseen "entity" behind thunder and lightning gradually becomes the mysterious mover behind some or all phenomena, for instance.  None of this implies that the idea of a god or gods has anything to do with reality.

I wouldn't argue with that, unless I was gonna say God is the reason you can even perceive thunder and lightning.

Your explanation doesn't correspond to the original question, and since you aren't going to bother to understand what I'm saying, nor produce a coherent response, I feel that it's justifiable to dismiss your line of thinking here as bafflegab.

My explanation was to answer the question, "what are you trying to say?" What I was implying was you made a double negative, I was just trying to clarify what you said without a double negative...I am trying to understand, so please bother to elaborate, I'm not bafflegabbing or whatever.

It's easy to understand how ideas of deities might arise.  What I question is whether they have any correspondence to reality.  There is no reasonable evidence that they do.

One aspect of Philosophy is that spiritual things cannot be proven. The only problem I have is that time is a concept which is not real because when you are dead, time would technically not exist. I believe in it still, everything takes time.



Edit:typos

[Sweetdeath]

There are both ideas with evidence, and ideas without. I believe this genre is divided into fiction and non-fiction.

God is an idea without evidence. Just because a bible exists, doesn't mean squat.  I've read some amazing fantasy stories with vivid detail. But that is all they are: fantasies.

Despite how much I love pegasus, I know by a proven fact, they do not exist.

[The Magic Pudding]

It means that concepts are discovered out of necessity, part of our consciousness, they are the reason we have gotten to this point. IMO that's part of what God is; The very thing that holds reality together.

People were scared, the world is scary, they had a need, relief from fear was a necessity.  Some people may have the need for a god to hold their reality together, doesn't mean thinking a thing draws it into existence outside of thought.  Thoughts, ideas are in the mind, you may discover things in the world that confirm your thoughts.  I don't see any thing in the world to confirm god is anything but an idea, I just see the fear and the reasons for fear.

What is this, all the problems we are going to face are known to god and he's pre-programmed us to solve them, or does he download them as we need them?  If you talk to him can you hurry him up on the new clean energy and a new source of nutrition.

I wouldn't argue with that, unless I was gonna say God is the reason you can even perceive thunder and lightning.

It's probably best you don't say that.

One aspect of Philosophy is that spiritual things cannot be proven. The only problem I have is that time is a concept which is not real because when you are dead, time would technically not exist. I believe in it still, everything takes time.

If a philosopher is telling you time doesn't exist after you die, you should probably find a new philosopher.  How do they explain your parents attaining the required maturity to conceive you?

[bicycle]

sweetdeath,

There are both ideas with evidence, and ideas without. I believe this genre is divided into fiction and non-fiction.

There have been plenty of ideas that have gone from fiction to non-fiction.

God is an idea with evidence.

typo?

Despite how much I love pegasus, I know by a proven fact, they do not exist.

A flying horse would be a physical creature, I don't believe in God as a physical thing. God would be a more metaphysical or even existence itself IMO.

magic pudding,

People were scared, the world is scary, they had a need, relief from fear was a necessity.

I don't see how a concept of God would alleviate people's fears of the world, please elaborate...Are you trying to explain why God was created? Have you ever heard the phrase "Fear of God?"

Some people may have the need for a god to hold their reality together,

Reality is held together...what are you talking about?

I don't see any thing in the world to confirm god is anything but an idea, I just see the fear and the reasons for fear.

You can see the world, but not god maybe because you think god is something in the world...I don't find that to be the case, and you don't really, "just see fear," do you? There is obviously more than that...

What is this, all the problems we are going to face are known to god and he's pre-programmed us to solve them, or does he download them as we need them? 

I don't know where you got that from, sounds like you are just mocking someone, but I am supposedly the one playing games, said Whitney.
Mankind has problems, period. You cannot escape problems, you can only accept them or change the ones you have. Are you asking me what God does as if I am his messenger or I would know what he does? I have no idea what he does, to answer your question, let's see if you answer mine...

If a philosopher is telling you time doesn't exist after you die, you should probably find a new philosopher.  How do they explain your parents attaining the required maturity to conceive you?

great reading comprehension yourself, I never said a philosopher said time doesn't exist after we die, but whatever I can't control what you hear...How would I explain parents attaining the required maturity to conceive me? Well, obviously through time, but if you knew anything about physics, you would know time is relative, for example answer these questions: How long are you gonna wait to be born? Or after you die, how long do you wait for everyone else to die?
i

[Recusant]

God is used for a story; the fact that people base their beliefs on that story doesn't mean that the story is any more true than The Wizard of Oz.

If this is the case, then what is the title of the story? Religion?

I would consider that to be unnecessarily vague.  The story might be the Bible, the Quran, or any number of other systems of mythology.  There are religions which don't include the concept of a deity.

Short answer?  "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
doesn't go away." — Philip K. Dick

I like that, so that would include God then. IMO if you think God does not exist, he never did, in which case, God did not go away when you stopped believing in it.

This fails to take into account the large percentage of people who have ceased to believe in a deity.  At one time they believed in a particular god and it seemed to them that that god was present in the world; when they stopped believing in that god, it went away.

Or are you actually saying that a deity only exists if you believe in it?

Good.  Then you agree that reality has existence independent of perspective and speculation.  Do you think that human beings are capable of perceiving reality?

Obviously we perceive reality, but that does not mean that it is Reality. That is perception.

Agreed. Why do you capitalize "reality"?  Are you a pantheist?

I've asked you to address the relation between ideas and reality.

Ideas are a part of Reality. I didn't mean to "dodge" your question, sorry.

No problem.  I agree that ideas are a part of reality.  So is reality determined by ideas, or does reality exist independently of ideas? Does the Wicked Witch of the West exist outside of the pages of a book, a movie screen and people's minds?

What I try not to do is confuse ideas in my head or those of other people for reality, especially when there is no evidence that those ideas have any bearing on reality. (Full sentence restored)

So when terrorists blow up sh*t in the name of God, that is not proof that ideas have any bearing on reality?
What about math or science? Are those ideas?

Actions motivated by ideas exist in reality.  That is not evidence that the idea of a god means that that god exists.  Math and science are mental constructs; there is no evidence that they exist independently of minds and books.

Unless you've written them down or otherwise shared them, yes; we are ephemeral beings and our thoughts and ideas are generally even more ephemeral than we are.

I actually agree with that, time would also be considered an ephemeral concept...That doesn't mean it does not exist, at least the illusion does.

Right, but the illusion of time, or any other illusion doesn't determine what is real. As you alluded to, there are physicists who think that time as we perceive it doesn't actually exist.  We already agreed that perception and reality are not synonymous.

What does "God as the existence of all of those ideas as they were..." mean?

It means that concepts are discovered out of necessity, part of our consciousness, they are the reason we have gotten to this point. IMO that's part of what God is; The very thing that holds reality together.

Thanks for the clarification.  Was it necessary that the concept of the Wicked Witch of the West be "discovered"?  About that: There is no evidence that the world of platonic ideals actually exists, so I think that the more reasonable terminology would be "invented" rather than "discovered" when it comes to abstract concepts like "god."  

Your explanation doesn't correspond to the original question, and since you aren't going to bother to understand what I'm saying, nor produce a coherent response, I feel that it's justifiable to dismiss your line of thinking here as bafflegab.

My explanation was to answer the question, "what are you trying to say?" What I was implying was you made a double negative, I was just trying to clarify what you said without a double negative...I am trying to understand, so please bother to elaborate, I'm not bafflegabbing or whatever.

I wrote what I meant, and your rewording changes the meaning of what I wrote. Do you think that because there are two negatives in a sentence, that means the sentence is grammatically (or in some other way) incorrect?  If so you're mistaken.  The thing is, the arrangement of negatives written in the way that I wrote them actually doesn't make a double negative in the sense that you seem to be implying that it does. The sentence I wrote: "Lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it does present an issue for those who assert existence." Your rewording (correction? not!) in the form of a question: "So lack of evidence isn't conclusive proof of non-existence, but it is for existence?" This obviously changes the meaning of the sentence.  I'm not sure why you would do such a thing, and I stand by my analysis.  You mangled the meaning of what I wrote, either intentionally or not.

It's easy to understand how ideas of deities might arise.  What I question is whether they have any correspondence to reality.  There is no reasonable evidence that they do.

One aspect of Philosophy is that spiritual things cannot be proven. The only problem I have is that time is a concept which is not real because when you are dead, time would technically not exist. I believe in it still, everything takes time.

When a spiritual entity such as a deity is believed to have the ability to have a direct effect on reality, that effect should be detectable.  There is no reliable, reasonable evidence of any such effect.