| Aielyn said: 2. Once again, you're making the faulty assumption that, because this god has a relationship, that the person at the other end of the relationship identifies it as a "relationship with god". You assume that awareness means understanding. You assume that the relationship can only exist if the person calls it "god". You assume that one must be introduced to scripture, or taught of this god, in order to form a relationship. 3. I didn't say that your courage, conscience, or inner voice is god. I said that you can't be 100% sure that it isn't. You can't be absolutely certain that you have no relationship with god, just because you don't identify that relationship as a "relationship with god". Keep in mind, I'm an atheist myself; I just recognise that logical arguments can't disprove the existence of god, because one can't disprove existence of "real" things (as opposed to, for instance, mathematical things, where you can indeed prove that there are no non-trivial solutions to a^n+b^n=c^n for integer n>2). And what you've said about "if that's the case" is precisely my point - if it's the case, then your premise, that there exists people who lack awareness of their relationship with god and do not resist god, is false. And since you can't prove that it isn't the case, I have shown that the truth value of your premise has not been determined. |
2. This point is based on point 3.
3. Well no, I can't disprove God if you conjure it up as something is meaningless as a "precense". You could make the argument that God is just a pencil. I wouldn't be able to disprove it, but it would mean the word "God" is completely meanignless. So if that's what we're calling God now, then no, I can't disprove "God".
But most people (including myself) are interested in the meaningful and discernable interpretations of God. No one takes the definition you said seriously, so there's no reason to discuss them seriously.
