Originally posted by divegeester
Yes I do, good point.

It's difficult not to respond through my own glass, but broadly speaking yes that is what I'm saying. There are some quite deep spiritual (Christian) doctrines related to this point: the sovereignty of God and eternal salvation being the two most obvious.

So how is this not a "no true Scotsman" argument?

Originally posted by JS357
Your premise about the "convinced theist" needs rescue from sounding like the "no true Scotsman" argument, which would say in this case, that if an a theist DOES give up being a theist through rational reasoning, then your premise is preserved by saying that theist is by that fact, not a "convinced theist." That argument is empty of content.

Yes I see can that. However (see my post to ATC) there is some doctrinal/spiritual relevance to this point. Consider in 'Christian' speak the term "backslider"; I don't like this expression; partly because I suppose I would be considered one by some Christians, but mainly because it provides the backslidee with the option to 'choose'. So we bring in free will now...

Originally posted by JS357
So how is this not a "no true Scotsman" argument?

It is just that.

But that argument is usually used in judgement by other Scotsmen defending what another Scotsman would or wouldn't do - I'm internalising it - it's about the relationship between a person and their God.

Originally posted by JS357
Everyone knows their their own blanky is the best.

Might I suggest "Everyone knows their own binky is the best."?

I think that captures the truer spirit of what you meant, ce n'est pas si?

Originally posted by JS357
I think that the word "god" like all words can be defined descriptively (how people use it) or prescriptively (how people should use it). So can the word "God" which you also use in the this post. It sounds like you are proposing a prescriptive definition of god and God, to include any entity that can do one thing, that thing being "the absolute minimum to cre ...[text shortened]... creates the universe and then departs the scene. To me it might as well be "BB."

All atheists will become theists if we simply define God to be the natural laws of reality.

The problem is always the "personal" God. Why does God have to have consciousness, personality and be able to think? And what's there to think about if the God knows everything already? So thinking is unnecessary, and therefore so is consciousness and having a personality.

God is the natural laws of reality.

Originally posted by Soothfast
All atheists will become theists if we simply define God to be the natural laws of reality.

The problem is always the "personal" God. Why does God have to have consciousness, personality and be able to think? And what's there to think about if the God knows everything already? So thinking is unnecessary, and therefore so is consciousness and having a personality.

God is the natural laws of reality.

Interesting. This is suspiciously close to my own reckoning. Not exact, mind you, but heading in that direction.

Okay, throw out the whole middle paragraph, then it's close.

Originally posted by JS357
I think that the word "god" like all words can be defined descriptively (how people use it) or prescriptively (how people should use it). So can the word "God" which you also use in the this post. It sounds like you are proposing a prescriptive definition of god and God, to include any entity that can do one thing, that thing being "the absolute minimum to cre creates the universe and then departs the scene. To me it might as well be "BB."

One of the problems many of us have with the word "God" is that we don't know precisely what is meant from theist to the next. Though such things are usually invoked to account for the existence of our universe. It is for that reason I argue that for an entity to qualify for being a "god" it must be capable of creating at least our universe (somehow). Whatever else is not strictly necessary. Similarly (and shamelessy copy/pasting of wikipedia for the definition) a bicycle needs to be a human-powered, pedal-driven, single-track vehicle, having two wheels attached to a frame, one behind the other. What colour it is, how big it is, whether it has a "go faster" drinks can wedged between the back wheel and frame is irrelevant,

One of the problems I personally have with the word "God" or "god" is that for any attribute a theist pins upon it, this attribute must be maximal.

I agree that the least capable creator of some universe could be referred to as the big bang, but the point I'm trying to make is that there is a wide gulf between a god that is omni awesome, and a god that is omni-insipid. For example

- A god that is very powerful but can't do everything, and knows very little.
- A god like the one above that likes every creature (not necessary to the same extent) except those animals which have stripey coats (like tigers and bees), and that they are adorned with these stripes precisely because of it's hatred towards them.
- A cluster god which in ensemble can do absolutely anything but individually they cannot, and in ensemble knows nothing but individually know everything
- A god that can make no more than 2 universes
- A god that knows everything but can do nothing other than create universes
- A god that knows more than humans can possibly know (but not everything), is as potent as it is knowledgeable, and hates everything
.
.
.

and so on...

Essentially we cannot know anything about such an entity whether it existed or not yet the majority insist it MUST be maximally great at whatever it does; I see no basis for such a position.

Originally posted by Agerg
One of the problems many of us have with the word "God" is that we don't know precisely what is meant from theist to the next. Though such things are usually invoked to account for the existence of our universe. It is for that reason I argue that for an entity to qualify for being a "god" it must be capable of creating at least our universe (somehow). Whatever ...[text shortened]... t MUST be maximally great at whatever it does; I see no basis for such a position.

General agreement. Well stated. I think the maximal God idea is based on the maximal daddy idea, and came from the days when each tribe had either a superdaddy in the sk,y or a group of them (a cluster-god) in your words. Coming into contact with other tribes, each had to have the more powerful god(s). Often settled in combat.

Originally posted by Agerg
One of the problems many of us have with the word "God" is that we don't know precisely what is meant from theist to the next. Though such things are usually invoked to account for the existence of our universe. It is for that reason I argue that for an entity to qualify for being a "god" it must be capable of creating at least our universe (somehow). Whatever ...[text shortened]... t MUST be maximally great at whatever it does; I see no basis for such a position.

The most perfect circle that a square can make is a square, and therefore a square is a perfect circle.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Might I suggest "Everyone knows their own [b]binky is the best."?

I think that captures the truer spirit of what you meant, ce n'est pas si?[/b]

My daughter called hers a blanky, and that's good enough for me. 🙂

Originally posted by divegeester
It is just that.

But that argument is usually used in judgement by other Scotsmen defending what another Scotsman would or wouldn't do - I'm internalising it - it's about the relationship between a person and their God.

Well alrighty then.

No truly intelligent person would use a "no true Scotsman" argument. 😀

Originally posted by JS357
My daughter called hers a blanky, and that's good enough for me. 🙂

Well, blanky is a blanket, no? I meant a pacifier.

I can fully imagine the cuteness of your daughter saying that, though. 🙂

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, blanky is a blanket, no? I meant a pacifier.

I can fully imagine the cuteness of your daughter saying that, though. 🙂

I actually looked up both words on Wikipedia (this being a slow day). Worth a look if your day permits.

Are you suggesting I'd compare religion to a pacifier? Hmmm...

Originally posted by JS357
"I am an atheist, and I certainly accept there is some possibility that God exists."

Is there any formulation of God that you would say cannot exist? For example, one whose existence and attributes entail logical contradiction?

I assume you will say that the existence of such a God is logically impossible, and so to assert it is possible is to abandon ra ...[text shortened]... he attributes of the God. Not having done that, it seems like your statement is somewhat rash.

my opinion that the possibility of a particular formulation of God being instantiated in a real being, cannot be entertained rationally before all of the logical implications are examined, which requires specifying the attributes of the God. Not having done that, it seems like your statement is somewhat rash.

I am not sure how your opinion you mention here, even supposing it is true, would show that my earlier statement was rash when interpreted in context. My earlier statement was not really in regards to "a particular formulation" of God (and here I thought I was simply being faithful to the OP as well as to divegeesters' claims on page 3, all of which are general and not specific in this regard). It was more in the vein of prima facie, rather than ultima facie.

The point was that I, even as an atheist, am generally open to the possibility that 'God' exists. Of course, this general position would stand amenable to revision based on further particulars in context. So there could be some conversation that goes like this:

Some random person (SRM): "LemonJello, do you think it is possible that God exists?"
LemonJello: "Sure."
SRM: "By 'God' here, I mean a square circle."
Lemonjello: "Oh...then no."

Originally posted by divegeester
I've not been trolling, perhaps you are though.

So why is my question not relevant again?