What a perfect example of what I am talking about. Thank you for pointing out that, for some people, the subject of God’s existence cannot be questioned in any language.
Probably on account of being inherently ridiculous (and deliberately so, I suggest). Santa, IPU, or teapot orbiting Saturn, it’s still a thinly disguised Appeal to Ridicule - and Czarcasm has said in the thread that spawned this one that he thinks it most unfair that he should be restrained from using ridicule as a debating tool. I’m not sure how we get from that to “Believers’ intransigence is the one true obstacle to honest debate”, but then I’ve been poorly lately and I’m still running a slight temperature.
It seems to me that there is no way, in some people’s opinions, to posit some entity that has all of the qualities of god without it being a matter of ridicule.
Hmmm. I wonder why that is?
Well, for sufficient values of “all”. AIUI all we have to know about the IPU is that it is impossible to disprove its existence - which when I last heard, was some way short of what many people consider “all” the qualities of God.
Hmmm. I wonder why that is?
I pointed out nothing of the kind. Nobody cares if you say God doesn’t exist. (As I’ve said over and over.) But again, why must you say that we are brain damaged in some way because we believe He does? That’s the issue. Ignoring it does not help your case.
Point taken. I revise my observation to note that it seems that it is inherently ridiculous to many people, the majority of whom express some religious devotion, to propose that some entity exists who has even a few of the supernatural qualities of god.
I wonder why that is?
I said this where? Cite, please.
Are you actually claiming that my use of the term “devout belief” is the equivilant of “blind hostility”? I just assumed that, since you have said that your God is not subject to the rules of scientific evidence, you had a devout belief in his existence. It wasn’t meant as an insult, but as a description.
I’m sure I don’t know. Suppose we don’t worry too much about the supernatural, if that’s too big a stumbling block, and compare and contrast the poster known here as Hentor the Barbarian with Fred, the invisible green goblin who lives up my chimney. They’re both identical in a number of important respects - presumably humanoid, masculine, never personally seen by me - and they’d both be equally hard for me to prove the existence of. Does either of these sound remotely ridiculous? Are there any attributes of Fred that tell me anything worth knowing about Hentor?
At this point in time, what you do is go to the next step-pointing out where Fred and Hentor the Barbarian differ, such as the fact that(unless you are stipulating that everything that you have experienced springs from your imagination, including what I am posting here) one has paid for membership to this board, posted messages directed at you and others, has probably been seen by other posters in real life, and has the ability to provide physical evidence of his existence if he so wishes, and the other hasn’t.
Thus, he can be assumed to be more real than Fred, baring evidence provided by the said Fred.
Do you seriously not understand why that is condescending? There are lots of perfectly legitimate claims that are not “subject to the rules of scientific evidence”. Your claim not to believe in God, for example. Prove that’s your belief scientifically in a way that I can replicate independent of your participation.
Sorry, but I don’t have such a “belief”-I simply have no reason to have your belief. Not the same thing, as has been pointed out before.
Does anyone else here find the term “devout belief” to be condescending or insulting? I am willing to quit using the term if a fair number of people do-live and learn, I always say.
I don’t see anything condescending or insulting in the phrase “devout belief”. I’m a believer, and I certainly hope I am an earnest, devoted believer. I think you created a false dichotomy in the post where that phrase was used, though: not all devout believers are insulted or otherwise disturbed by references to our beliefs as myths or mythology. Overt appeals to ridicule don’t bother me much, either.
Malacandra! Thou shalt have no other posters before me! I am devine love! I am all the good feelings that you experience! If you don’t agree, you’ll roast in The Pit for all eternity!
Excellent observation about me and Fred. Let’s take it back to the issue at hand. How about this: Can you please describe a supernatural entity for me THAT IS NOT GOD, and is not just another way of thinking about god, who has at least some of the properties of god? Can you please make sure that it is not ridiculous?
How about an angel?
True, good point. It will only work for this example for people who reject the existence of angels but do believe in the existence of god. I’m looking for something that is divested of the pre-existing authority of established religion. Something that people aren’t going to believe in because of tradition, culture or shared belief set.
I’m particularly interested in whether it is possible to describe an entity de novo that has at least some of the properties of god but isn’t ridiculous. My hypothesis is that it is not possible to do so because the idea of a belief in a supernatural entity is inherently ridiculous if it is not already supported by a commonly accepted mythos. If it is possible, then it should serve well in place of Santa Claus for the comparisons between accepted supernatural entities and non-accepted supernatural entities.
If used sincerely, I personally would consider it a compliment, and probably more than my due given my frequent failure to present in anything like a Christlike fashion. Also, in the context you used it, I didn’t read it as an insult.
Wasn’t she that two-bit hooker who famously blew Hugh Grant? As for The Pit, the one time I got hauled in there I came out of the whole business not too poorly, I thought, so I’m not scared of a little flame. 
Hmm, tricky. It would depend upon what properties you had in mind. Omnipotence and omniscience, for a start, would be right out as they fall foul of “another way of thinking about God”. Can we agree terms here?
The big problem with that attempt (though I thoroughly approve of your intention to be respectful) is that any de novo supernatural entity comes bundled with an irreproachable reason to file it under “non-accepted” - the fact that we both understand it not to exist. Granted, I might be pushed to come up with a formal proof of the non-existence of Dea Nova Hentoris, but I would “know” that you just made her up with the same certainty that I would “know”, were we face to face, that you were not about to brain me with an axe.
Then how about “spirit” or “soul”? Many Western, Eastern, and Indian cultures have all shared the notion of a noncorporeal supernatural entity.