A relative God

How can someone deny God? If they cannot prove God exists…

If we are all interrelating beings with different interpretations of the thought of God; surely the Greek idea of ‘Gods’ is more plausible?

Ask 10 people what is a chair and you may get 5 interpretations. (Try it as an experiment, and verify what I am asserting here.)

But it is clear a chair is a chair is a chair, right?

This can be differentiated with the sense’s and verified through other experiences of chairs. Rationally, the chair at the moment of interpretation is more important then God, as God would be something other than rational. God’s are only elocutionary and relative to disposition.

Why not God’s too?

You cant even begin to speak such for you have not established what this thing call God is. If you are speaking personally, from your own notions of God is, it is admissible, but you have to explain to me why your “God” is such a god that is “other than rational”.

I did. And all I got were approximations in representation of the appearances of the phenomena. [takes a deep breath]

Plato struggled with this. This business about Forms and Ideas. I, personally, find a nomenal reality to be no less ambigious than a phenomenological one. The point?

The objective truth of the “chair” is irrelevent, and when Wittgenstein asks if there is a rinosarus in the room, there might as well be because if there wasn’t, words and approximations certainly won’t verify it.

Let us believe that a thing isn’t entirely complete unless it is observed. But position affects the observation and subjectivity emerges from the impossibility for two points of view to occur from one position or one position taken from all points of view.

[laughing]

Yes, of course I know what a chair is. But please, Chan, don’t turn this into a philosophical discussion. Some things are just meant to be granted. A chair is one of them.

Am I in the wrong place? :astonished:

Good point. Then the issue becomes when why and how you are not to take something for granted?

Why must God’s be experienced?

Can such terms as God’s be interpretated?

It would not be your God, therefore admissible and irrational.

Oh absolutely not. It is only if it is. Period.

Could God’s not be intertwined within the fabric of motion, movement and rationality? Perhaps there is more than only rationality.

Only there not experienced, thus there only God’s.

“How can someone deny God? If they cannot prove God exists…”

Why does the atheist bother to deny god?

Since he doesn’t believe in god why the need to deny him?

If god doesn’t exist in the firat place then it’s pretty stupid denying him!

You literally become an affirmer!!!

Children go through a stage of development when they say ‘no’ to everthing. It is amusing to watch. They discover they can say ‘no’ and then go through a period doing precisely that. Could it be that the atheist is some sort of child intellectually and has not advanced beyond a particular stage of growth and development?

Or what?

Surely, any true atheist will simply say ‘no comment’ whenever and wherever the subject of god or no is discussed.

Yeah, I always though the so-called strong atheist was pretty silly.

Of course God is possible (well some definitions just defy logic, but not all), its also possible that the universe was created by an awakened apple from another universe.

I consider myself an atheist in the way that a rock is an atheist, neither of us have a belife in Deities.