What is God?

[ekim]

Oh, I dunno. What about Spinoza or Berkley? Lots of ideas in there about existence being defined entirely by consciousness and experience and a one-ness with an original creator force or being (a Christian God according to them of course)

Yes, perhaps I didn't choose my words well enough.  I was attempting to distinguish between 'knowing' as experiential (or in-periential if there was such a word) and 'knowing' from a collection of concepts arising from philosophical discussion.  From the 'Eastern' perspective experiential knowing is more relevant than bandying around 'lots of ideas'.  The former tends towards inner stillness and the latter towards inner agitation.

[ippy]

Wouldn't the answer be, a god is only an 'idea' that's frequently developed by the imaginations of disparate groups of humans.

ippy

[Maeght]

I think that in the sense you mean it, the idea of Gods and God(s) are not mutually exclusive.

No idea what you mean there.

I think though that in the sense LittleRoses means it, the idea of Gods is a deduction from her oft-repeated statement that there is no (verifiable) evidence to support the existence of God.

Best deal with what is said thiough rather than what you deduce.

[Roses]

A positive claim, therefore:

1. What would you consider as verifiable evidence

2. Where is your verifiable evidence to support your hypothesis that The idea of god/gods is created by humans?

When have you provided evidence to support the existence of a god? It is in the same league as claiming fairies exist.

[SusanDoris]

When have you provided evidence to support the existence of a god? It is in the same league as claiming fairies exist.

Seconded. The posters like SotS and AB have these impenetrable  metaphorical blinkers on, past  which theycannot and will not see. They will not even acknowledge that such barriers might exist. It is sad.

[ippy]

When have you provided evidence to support the existence of a god? It is in the same league as claiming fairies exist.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"  Douglas Adams.

Makes more sense to me than A B's or Sword's daft utterances, (assertions). 

Regards ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"  Douglas Adams.

I don't why he asked this question since if he is right he will never know.

[Shaker]

I don't why he asked this question since if he is right he will never know.

So that's philosophy summarily dispensed with, then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So that's philosophy summarily dispensed with, then.

I don't understand why Adams felt he was being made to believe in God.

[Shaker]

Who says he was?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who says he was?

Why else would he say it? What other philosophy is it supposed to embody?

[Maeght]

Why else would he say it? What other philosophy is it supposed to embody?

That people feel they have to add some supernatural element to the natural world?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That people feel they have to add some supernatural element to the natural world?

OK that is what people like Adams feel. How do they know that's what is going on rather than people assuming that the natural world is all there is?

Alternatively how do we know that Adams and his ilk are not subtracting something?

[ProfessorDavey]

Alternatively how do we know that Adams and his ilk are not subtracting something?

Well a good starting point would be to prove that the something that you suggest is being subtracted actually exists. And the onus for that rests entirely with those making that claim of course - Adams doesn't have to prove that there is something in the garden beyond that which we can verifiably demonstrate exists. The onus rests with those that may claim something to be in the garden for which there is not one jot of evidence for its existences.

And Adams is also perfectly justified in asking why some people need to add to that which we know to exist, something that there is no evidence for its existence.

[Maeght]

OK that is what people like Adams feel. How do they know that's what is going on rather than people assuming that the natural world is all there is?

Alternatively how do we know that Adams and his ilk are not subtracting something?

No idea. I was explaining the quote.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well a good starting point would be to prove that the something that you suggest is being subtracted actually exists. And the onus for that rests entirely with those making that claim of course - Adams doesn't have to prove that there is something in the garden beyond that which we can verifiably demonstrate exists. The onus rests with those that may claim something to be in the garden for which there is not one jot of evidence for its existences.

And Adams is also perfectly justified in asking why some people need to add to that which we know to exist, something that there is no evidence for its existence.

No the GOOD starting point would be to prove Adams assertions and premise rather than for me to prove my basis for having the temerity to question Adams.

Believers are not claiming anything here since the quote is all Adams.

I certainly don't claim that there is anything extra in the garden since I don't believe it to be godless.

Adams is making a straw man argument....

[Shaker]

I certainly don't claim that there is anything extra in the garden since I don't believe it to be godless.

Rarely have I seen such a self-refuting, internally contradictory statement served up hot and steaming straight from the northern end of a southbound horse.

If you don't think the garden is godless then you are indeed claiming that there's something extra in it - namely, a god.

I think that that stands in need of demonstration.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Rarely have I seen such a self-refuting, internally contradictory statement served up hot and steaming straight from the northern end of a southbound horse.

If you don't think the garden is godless then you are indeed claiming that there's something extra in it - namely, a god.

I'm claiming God is there in the same way I would claim a lawn is there...I e. Nothing particularly extra.

What Adams suffers from and thus provides the genome for spawn of Dawkins like yourself is mistaking whimsical antitheist humour aka argumentum ad ridiculum for philosophy.

[Shaker]

I'm claiming God is there in the same way I would claim a lawn is there...I e. Nothing particularly extra.

Are you claiming that we can tell that a god is present in the same way that we can tell a lawn is present? If not, what other method are you using?

What Adams suffers from and thus provides the genome for spawn of Dawkins like yourself is mistaking whimsical antitheist humour aka argumentum ad ridiculum for philosophy.

Word salad - very refreshing on a warm day.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you claiming that we can tell that a god is present in the same way that we can tell a lawn is present? If not, what other method are you using?
Word salad - very refreshing on a warm day.

No you are trying to limit me to an empiricist frame.
What I am saying is that God is, just like a lawn is.
I cannot say that Gos is there I.e. Located. But I am claiming that he exists and being trumps argument.
I am also claiming that Adams statement is really a statement of scientism, physicalism and especicially empiricism.

Given that he has a lot to try and justify and if you are going to be stupid enough to quote him then you've got that whole burden of justification.

If you are claiming a philosophy behind the whimsy, Shaker, get cracking.

[Shaker]

No you are trying to limit me to an empiricist frame.
What I am saying is that God is, just like a lawn is.
I cannot say that Gos is there I.e. Located. But I am claiming that he is.

So simply asserting it, then. Hitchens's Razor applies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So simply asserting it, then. Hitchens's Razor applies.

No, Ippy quotes Adams, Adams makes assertions.

Hitchens razor? Apply it to Adams.

[ProfessorDavey]

No the GOOD starting point would be to prove Adams assertions and premise rather than for me to prove my basis for having the temerity to question Adams.

No it wouldn't - a good starting point would be to prove what is in the garden and what isn't. And given that Adams is basing his arguments on that which we know to exist in the garden there is no onus for him to go further, on that basis that he makes no controversial and baseless statements.

To suggest he is subtracting (as you do) is, by inference, to suggest that there is something in the garden beyond that which we know to exist. That being the case the onus is on you to prove that something to actually exist.

[Shaker]

No, Ippy quotes Adams, Adams makes assertions.

What assertion does Adams make? His quote ends with a question mark if I recall correctly.

Hitchens razor? Apply it to Adams.

Although Adams's quote predates Hitchens's by some years, Adams is applying the same principle. The specific formulation is Hitchens's own and dates from 2003, but it's actually a restatement of the old Latin principle quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What assertion does Adams make? His quote ends with a question mark if I recall correctly.

Here's you remarking on my criticism of Adams' statement

''So that's philosophy summarily dispensed with, then.''


So Shaker let's see a justification for the philosophy.
...The philosophies asserted being of course Empiricism, physicalism, Scientism.


To which, at the risk of being accused of argumentum ad ridiculum, I could add Dawkinism.


Many theists are arguing that God is fundemental to the Garden. That is hardly a claim that God is in anyway extra.


Adams proposes a theist who thinks like an empiricist. That's the type of 'cleverness' which can propel someone up their own rectum.