My position is grounded in the fact that many atheists use faulty logic in their position that because there is no evidence for gods, they do not exist. That in itself is faulty logic because lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence. A definition of god that can be proven has been requested of me, as has the evidence to support that “god’s” existence.
Definition: I propose the definition of one who is worshiped through invocation and sacrifice. This, unlike the supernatural requirements of many of the atheists’ definition, meet all standards of being deemed a god. To clarify, the word “god” is a title that originates in the early proto language of the Indo-European peoples. Not that I care for Wikipedia, but its handy and understandable:
>>> The Proto-Germanic meaning of *Ç¥uÄ‘Ã¡n and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ÇµÊ°u-tÃ³-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, either derived from a root *ÇµÊ°euÌ¯- “to pour, libate” (Sanskrit huta, see hotá¹›), or from a root *ÇµÊ°auÌ¯- (*ÇµÊ°euÌ¯h2-) “to call, to invoke” (Sanskrit hÅ«ta). Sanskrit hutÃ¡ = “having been sacrificed”, from the verb root hu = “sacrifice”, but a smallish shift of meaning could give the meaning “one who sacrifices are made to”.
Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the “pouring” case) “libation” or “that which is libated upon, idol” – or, as Watkins opines in the light of Greek Ï‡Ï…Ï„Î· Î³Î±Î¹Î± “poured earth” meaning “tumulus”, “the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound” – or (in the “invoke” case) “invocation, prayer” (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or “that which is invoked”. <<< The notion of worship is as follows: worship (n.) Look up worship at Dictionary.com O.E. worÃ°scip, wurÃ°scip (Anglian), weorÃ°scipe (W.Saxon) "condition of being worthy, honor, renown," from weorÃ° "worthy" (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship). Sense of "reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being" is first recorded c.1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful (c.1300). The verb is recorded from c.1200. Pay close attention to the above dates as regards the evolution of the word into their modern christian, and oddly enough atheist, usages. Now, the definitions being set the argument is simply this: We know that the Germanic tribes honored their ancestors, wells, trees, and kings with sacrifice, invocation and deemed them worthy of praise (worship). We also know that early tribal structures elevated their ancestors and heroes to godly status. Therefore, gods have existed and still exist. You cannot resort to the literary sources to deny the above definitions of "god" because, according to your responses in my other question, the literary evidence is not reliable. Likewise, the literary evidence does not necessarily support the actual cult of the time - not being contemporary and all. You cannot say that the above definition is invalid, because it is actually a real definition and not influenced by christian world-view. And apparently according to your fellow atheists, since atheists don't believe in gods, they don't have to define the subject matter of their arguments. So, can you, as atheists, still make the blanket, all encompassing claim that "no gods exist" ? Again, this is not about the christian god, because I'll side with atheists on that any day of the week. It is also not about the gods of literature, because again, I'll side with atheists. It is about what gods are themselves and the evidence to support them. Can you refute my position and provide evidence to support it? Happy Wife: Absolutely. Your definition does not refute my position, thank you though for answering an earlier question here. David M: Atheists do in fact make that claim. Refer to my previous questions. They are also not inventions because the word "god" is a title. If you were capable of following along, the premise of supernatural power is a different definition of god and does not refute or support my position but is a different world-view entirely. Andre: Definitions are the expression of the symbol system known as world-view by which someone defines and approaches the world around them. Therefore, any argument must be placed in context. Because we don't all speak the same language and approach things in the same manner, the groundwork must be laid for context. I'm sorry you don't understand the nature of argument. The definition sets the stage and the archaeological evidence of feast, ritual and adoration at the grave side or kings hall is the proof. Gorgeous: You are quite correct there is no evidence for any "God" to exist, a god that is with a capital "g". EverDemon: The definition is not arbitrary. But, I did offer for atheists to define their notion of what a god is in a previous question. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjiXHElOiYrWSgvgGEyWIs7sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080829075511AA1PNEz And if you'll notice I did agree with one of the definitions and logic. This is a test in logic and argument. If atheists want to rely on it, the have to demonstrate it. Just as they demand christians and others demonstrate their positions. Mr Samsa: Exactly! Thank you for the demonstration of logic. Christian the Atheist: Your logic is correct, except that I haven't lowered the bar, just cleared up the misconception that the notion of god is somehow related to the christian notion of a supreme being. AT THIS POINT I'm hard pressed to decide between Mr. Sams and Christian the Atheist for best answer. Green_meklar: Do you have proof that your aztec emperor would not have been recognized as a god to his people? You assume that his subjects attributed anything supernatural to him, that is your assumption and would be invalid unless you can supply the evidence to support it. In other words, they're claims not evidence. You define "god" according to the influence of a very-late world-view -- ie that of christianity and the influence on it from the Classical world. That definition may be sufficient for you, but does not meet the standards of other cultures who define what their gods are for themselves. Your definition may allow you to sleep at night, but it does not hold water when applied to world-view's other than your own. Your example of the element of water and the compounds of elemets is invalid because it does not relate. The notions are not mutually exclusive nor are they even remotely similar, because, wait for it... here it comes.... they are differing world-views.
>My position is grounded in the fact that many atheists use faulty logic in their position that because there is no evidence for gods, they do not exist. That in itself is faulty logic because lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence.
No evidence or lack thereof can logically imply certainty of existence or nonexistence in the real world. The real world has no axioms, and therefore we cannot deal in proofs with it, only in evidence and probabilities. That said, Occam’s Razor states that if there is no evidence for something, the logical position is to believe that it does not exist, because the simplest universe that logically explains everything is the most probable. You can read more about Occam’s Razor here:
>Definition: I propose the definition of one who is worshiped through invocation and sacrifice. This, unlike the supernatural requirements of many of the atheists’ definition, meet all standards of being deemed a god.
I reject that definition. If it were correct, then it would be possible for, say, an aztec emperor to be defined as a god so long as his subjects worship him, despite having no supernatural powers whatsoever. I don’t agree with this. Although his subjects may even believe he is a god, that doesn’t make him a god; he remains a human being who just happens to be worshipped, not because he possesses any actual supernatural powers but merely because he was the right person’s son or because he supposedly fulfilled some ancient prophecy that was probably changed dozens of times in the retelling anyway. He does not possess the supernatural qualities his subjects attribute to him, and therefore the god they worship does not actually match the human which they worship as being that god. He is simply not a god. To say that he is would be to redefine ‘god’ in a way that is not useful for actual discussion on religion, and if we were to use the word ‘god’ this way, we would simply have to think up another term to refer to what we currently name by the term ‘god’, in order to go on knowing what it is we’re arguing about. What’s the point in that? I mean, consider an analogy. One could say that since Aristotle said water was an element before we discovered that water is actually a compound of oxygen and hydrogen, we should consider the word ‘water’ to mean what we currently call ‘oxygen’. But what would that do for us? We would simply end up with two words for oxygen and no words for water, and have to think up a new word for water. There’s no point.
If a god exists, then it is not of this universe, it does not help, hinder or effect this universe in anyway, therefore, as far as beings living in this universe are concerned, the god doesn’t exist. In fact, it’s probably true to say that anything at all, outside of THIS universe, does not exist in concern to beings living inside of this universe. The possibility that a god (of which the definition is open to infinite interpretation) may exist in another universe is of absolutely no concern to anyone unless said god has the ability to cross from its universe into our, which it clearly does not. The definition of god is not worth debating, as to the vast majority of people, it means an all powerful entity that has the power to create universes and exist outside time. Again, anything that exists outside of time, to us, does not exist at all.
Some ancient peoples used to worship the Sun as a god (and some probably still do). Clearly, I don’t deny that the Sun exists. However, I do deny that the Sun has any consciousness or divine qualities which qualify it as a “god.” The simple act of worship of a person or object does not mean that they are a god to anyone other than the person doing the worshipping. Therefore, while there could be millions of different gods to millions of different people, none of those gods exist to me personally, because I do not invoke or sacrifice for any of them. Simply put, just because someone else worships the Sun as a god does not mean that I have to acknowledge that the Sun is a god as well.
There is no evidence that any God exists, but that has never stopped humans from inventing one. I suspect the Neanderthals had a god, like the sun for example.
We seek answers to questions for which there are no answers, like “What started life?” There is no provable answer to that question but there are many theories, including the God theory.
I am agnostic/deist. I think God was the ‘big bang’. I have no proof that is a fact, it is just my opinion.
Your overly long mess merely shows two things: The fallacy of argument by argument, and the fallacy of demanding a negative proof.
So, since your whole argument is fallacious, your results are equally fallacious.
Until someone CAN offer up some objective evidence FOR a deity, it is irrational to suggest that one exists. Just as it is irrational to believe in a tea pot orbiting Mars without any evidence for that claim…
Hint: Definitions AREN’T proof/evidence. I can give you a heckuva definition for Klingons, that doesn’t mean that they exist… Duh.
Fail from the start as you assume in your premise that atheists make a claim that no gods exist. In reality only a minority of strong atheists do that. Most of us are weak atheists, who simply don’t believe the arguments and “evidence” yet presented rise to the standard of validating claims for divine existence.
Even if you had not made that mistake, all you managed to do in that diatribe is prove that people have INVENTED gods. We already accept that of course, just not the idea that these gods are actually immanent phenomena.
Much simpler etymology than your cut and paste job would have shown you that atheist simply means one without a belief in gods, not one without a belief that others worship gods.