“Damien AtHope. Hi I hope you’re having a great day. Do you think there could be a possibility that God does exist?” Questioner

My response, what is a god?

“A God is a being who is eternal, that is wise, has unlimited power, and knows everything.” Questioner

My response, you did not answer the question, what is a god? you said a claim about a god not what a god is. If I asked you what a dog was who you say a pet as if I did not know what a dog was you get saying it is a pet, loyal, loving, or protector still could be many possible things that fall under the many labels none of which clarifies I know what a dog is. Just how I want what a dog is or what is a god, needs more than some titles or claimed behaviors without first defining that the thing is that we are talking. So What is a god?

“Damien, I think Questioner actually did answer the question “what is a god” under your parameters. tbh. A god is a being, A dog is an animal, who is eternal, that is mortal ….etc.” – Challenger

My responce, what is a hod? A being, so now you know what it is right?

“Well a being that is eternal, fills in more gaps. The rest of the sentence fills in enough gaps that it eliminates 99 percent of the known world for most people. So it’s a clear enough description to define a god to most people.” – Challenger

My responce, A dog is an animal, a human is an animal and that is so broad possibly pertaining to so many possible things, it merely clarifies anything and thus not a valid ontology? Well, a dog is a member of genus Canis (canines) that forms part of the wolf-like canids, and is the most widely abundant carnivore.

“Which is a good first start. Start with a the broadest description, then narrow it down. Science also uses this descriptive method. Questioner did a pretty good job of describing questioners version of what a god is.” – Challenger

My responce, see I want a good ontology of a god, not more empty talk and unjustified labels, and the science labels are justified.

“It even eliminates the vast majority of gods.” – Challenger

My responce, what is a god?

“A god doesn’t have to have ontology. it is a myth. myths, as such get reprieve from such rigorous classifications. God is a being that knows everything, eternal, and has unlimited power, is a pretty good description. If that being is a dog, then that dog is a god.” – Challenger

My responce, well, those are all made up claims with no attachment to the real world, as a being is a thing we know as we have actual tangible living entities we can point to you nor anyone can point to a “god property” as there is none and fallaciously saying it is the unjustified properties of other things s not an answer it’s is a unsupported claim(s).

“Perhaps, but even science classifies things in that manner. The “god particle” is a way of describing something with those properties.” – Challenger

My responce, if god is a myth then why try to explain it as whatever is added it is not reality attached anyway?

“Because myths have a strong effect in real life. Good or bad. Describing them is possible.” – Challenger

And as far as the term god particle, science did not classify the Higgs boson as the “god particle” people did and Dr Higgs hates that people call it a god anything as he is an atheist. The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics.

“True. The god particle was a bad analogy on my part. But the premise that the questioner answered your question, still stands in my mind.” – Challenger

My responce, here is why the Higgs Boson Is Not “The God Particle” while scientists believe they have found the elusive Higgs boson, a particle that was essential to completing our understanding of the Universe, we can begin to narrow down just what the Higgs particle is—and what it isn’t. One thing it assuredly is not, says Dr. Dave Goldberg, professor of physics at Drexel University, is “The God Particle.” For starters, the Higgs particle is a particle like any other. “It interacts with other particles, and those interactions take the form of changes in energy.” And despite the Higgs’ fame for giving mass to matter, it is not the only thing that confers mass. Einstein’s famous E=mc^2, which equivocates mass with energy, is relevant here. Given the size of particles, most solid things are empty space, but the energy exchanged between supercharged atoms creates mass. In fact, almost none of your mass comes from the Higgs. Ref

My responce, no, god claims about what a proposed god can do is not a valid thingness of the thing only the secondary claims about it just like using other non-reality terms to try to do the same unjustifiably, thus explained nothing about the thingness of a thing they wish to claim.

“Perhaps, but the word “eternal” is describing something. It describes something that lasts forever and has no beginning or end. As such, it is a descriptor word that defines the “thing”, and eliminates most dogs. Wise” “unlimited power” and “knows everything” are also ways of describing something that narrow down the field enough to get a pretty good picture of what questioner is talking about.” – Challenger

My responce, what do you mean something last forever? What lasts forever is not a justified statment as even stars or black holes dont last forever.

“Is there a possibility that such a thing exists? If you can ascertain that nothing last forever, then your answer is no.” – Challenger

My responce, what do you mean by unlimited power? Unlimited power is not a justified statment as even stars or black holes have a limit of power. Is there a possibility that such a thing exists? What thing are you talking about?

“If you are sure that unlimited power is impossible, then you can answer the question “no” with certainty.” – Challenger

My responce, we can ascertain the nothing lasts for ever it is a glaring factor in reality unless you can demonstrate otherwise? So are you claiming surety that unlimited power is possible?

“Is there a possibility that such a thing exists” refers to god. The original question. Is it possible that god exists? The questioner defined god, and you tore apart the definition, solidifying your answer. No. The argument, that the words used to describe something don’t suit you, is lackluster. The description the questioner gave, has enough validity to describe something, and to formulate an articulate answer.” – Challenger

My responce, I have a rational standard to what I believe. I am epistemically rational and value the ethics of belief. Addressing The Ethics of Belief: My blog addressing the Ethics of Beliefs

“Sadly, the idea that you are rational, doesn’t hold water, if you think a person can’t define something, using words you don’t agree with. Those descriptor words actually do define. The question holds water, even if you don’t like the adjectives. Not answering a question, just because there are words within the question that you don’t agree with, is not rational. Tearing apart the descriptor words themselves, still is a rational move. Pretending that they aren’t actually describing something, is not rational.” – Challenger

My responce, we begin to confront the thingness of things when they stop working from what we think about it to what it actually is in a way that accurately fits the qualities in a real way. Stating I have a partner relationship that tells you nothing of what (gender) or who my partner is and that is what I am questioning trying to make people see holds are opinions not facts of anything, gods are a mental construct. So, the circus of claims, upon unjustified claims that are the production of a mind making things up and this distribution of unjustified claims still leaves you empty with nothing more than unjustified claims, empty nonfactual consumption and thus an invalid exhibition has been arrested in any claims. The story of objects being asserted needs warrant and justification which no god claims do/ Gods are wishful thinking assertions that don’t validate themselves as things, then, they (god claims) are the story of its believer or supports relationship to the human subject inventing them or using the invented claims of others and thus the unjustified and unwarranted god stories of how such mental concepts are this non-thing given thing names does not then somehow fix a beingness to a mental object than demonstrate that god claims are limited to a particular subject-object relation, not a fact or possible fact in reality to add real thingness to the thing labeled gods. “The Ethics of Belief” was published in 1877 by philosopher William Kingdon Clifford outlined the famous principle “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” Arguing that it was immoral to believe things for which one lacks evidence, in direct opposition to religious thinkers for whom “blind faith” (i.e. belief in things in spite of the lack of evidence for them) was seen as a virtue. Epistemic rationality is that part of rationality which involves achieving accurate beliefs about the world. It involves updating on receiving new evidence, mitigating cognitive biases, and examining why you believe what you believe. It can be seen as a form of instrumental rationality in which knowledge and truth are goals in themselves, whereas in other forms of instrumental rationality, knowledge and truth are only potential aids to achieving goals. Someone practising instrumental rationality might even find falsehood useful. https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Rationality

My responce, ontology is the study in philosophy of the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. And god claims all totally lack a standard of meeting any warrant or justification in their burden of proof, thus the claim as offered debunks itself as any kind of viable claim. Would you be intellectually honest enough to want to know if your belief was completely false, and once knowing it was an unjustified belief, realize it lacks warrant and the qualities needed for belief-retention, as well as grasp the rationality that certain beliefs are epistemically unfounded which compels belief-relinquishment due to the beliefs insufficient supporting reason and evidence, realizing that belief. To me, belief in gods is intellectually flawed and dishonest compared to the evidence of the natural world being not only explainable on every level as only natural, but also there is not a shred of anything supernatural and every claim tested ever has time and again debunked such nonsense. If anything supernatural or paranormal was provable, the believers would have taken James Randi’s famous million-dollar challenge, or they would have gone and got their Nobel Prize in proving the supernatural or open up a 100% faith-based prayer and miracles hospital. Where the cure for anything and everything is guaranteed because “prayer and miracles works” and the only education was being a religious or spiritual leader. Prove it or it is not really worthy for true belief and if there was actual scientific proof it would silence us rationalists, atheists, and skeptics forever.

“Posting a lot of definitions, doesn’t change the fact that you don’t like the descriptor words the questioner used to describe god, and were too lazy to answer the actual question.” – Challenger

My responce, questioning and challenging and holding people accountable to their offered ideas as I do is rational, its critical thinking asking and expecting a valid as well as reliable with reason and evidence. Why give you explanations? I am helping as it seems you are not understanding what I am doing aso I am trying to explain it to you.

“You were not just questioning and challenging in this case. You were trying to pretend that the adjectives that the questioner was using to decribe god weren’t good enough. When in reality, they were just fine adjectives. You just didn’t like them, so you pretended they weren’t real. The definitions you keep posting are distracting from the original question and the original problem. That you inaccurately pretended that the adjectives didn’t describe anything. They do describe something. If you think they don’t describe something real, be rational enough to explain that. Dismissively pretending the adjectives don’t describe, is wrong.” – Challenger

My responce, I am asking for a valid thingness of things an ontology, thus addressing the lack of reality in claims and how attaching unjustified attributes you have no valid reason other than just willfully adding as it suits you not telling what a god is because there is no thing as its a mental invention not a real thing and I challenge all god talk to validate not add empty claim after empty unconnected thing and that requires challenge and questions. The original problem, what is a god? I address the philosophy of language as it pertains to the claims of gods. Philosophy of language explores the relationship between language and reality. Philosophy of religion is the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions. It involves all the main areas of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics and value theory, the philosophy of language, philosophy of science, law, sociology, politics, history, and so on. In particular, philosophy of language studies issues that cannot be addressed by other fields, like linguistics, or psychology. Major topics in philosophy of language include the nature of meaning, intentionality, reference, the constitution of sentences, concepts, learning, and thought. The topic that has received the most attention in philosophy of language has been the nature of meaning, to explain what “meaning” is, and what we mean when we talk about meaning. Similar to my questioning others to explain what “god” is, and what is god when we talk about god. People all the time talk about I believe. No, likely you never had a chance to first investigate all the facts then choose what to believe or not believe. You like everyone else raised in a religious house where indoctrinated to the same religion your family held before your birth so you did not much believe as give in and slavishly agree. Thus you are more rightly called an agreer then a believer, especially when you don’t read the holy book you say you totally believe in.

Empirical verificationism

According to Charles Taliaferro at the The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “the following empiricist principle is representative: for a propositional claim (statement) to be meaningful, it must either be about the bare formal relations between ideas such as those enshrined in mathematics and analytic definitions (“A is A,” “triangles are three-sided”) or there must in principle be perceptual experience providing evidence of whether the claim is true or false. (The stronger version of positivism is that claims about the world must be verifiable at least in principle). Both the weaker view (with its more open ended reference to evidence) and the strict view (in principle confirmation) delimit meaningful discourse about the world. Ostensibly factual claims that have no implications for our empirical experience are empty of content. In line with this form of positivism, A. J. Ayer (1910–1989) and others claimed that religious beliefs were meaningless. How might one empirically confirm that God is omnipresent or loving or that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu? In an important debate in the 1950s and 1960s, philosophical arguments about God were likened to debates about the existence and habits of an unobservable gardener, based on a parable by John Wisdom in 1944–1945. The idea of a gardener who is not just invisible but who also cannot be detected by any sensory faculty seemed nonsense. It seemed like nonsense because they said there was no difference between an imperceptible gardener and no gardener at all. Using this garden analogy and others crafted with the same design, Antony Flew (see his essay in Mitchell 1971) made the case that religious claims do not pass the empirical test of meaning. The field of philosophy of religion in the 1950s and 1960s was largely an intellectual battlefield where the debates centered on whether religious beliefs were meaningful or conceptually absurd. Today Empirical verificationism is seen in critics of the belief in an incorporeal God continue to advance the same critique as that of Flew and Ayer, albeit with further refinements. Michael Martin and Kai Nielsen are representatives of this approach. And yet despite these efforts, empiricist challenges to the meaningfulness of religious belief are now deemed less impressive than they once were. Consider first the philosophical project of articulating theism and then the philosophy of divine attributes. Terms applied both to God and to any aspect of the world have been classified as either univocal (sharing the same sense), equivocal (used in different senses), or analogical. There is a range of accounts of analogous predication, but the most common—and the one assumed here—is that terms are used analogously when their use in different cases is based on what is believed to be a resemblance. It seems clear that many terms used to describe God in theistic traditions are used analogously, as when God is referred to as a father, shepherd, or fountain. More difficult to classify are descriptions of God as good, personal, knowing, omnipresent, and creative. Heated philosophical and theological disputes centre on unpacking the meaning of such descriptions, disputes that are often carried out with the use of thought experiments. In thought experiments, hypothetical cases are described—cases that may or may not represent the way things are. In these descriptions, terms normally used in one context are employed in expanded settings.” Ref