A request to fr0d0 to elaborate

[Violet]

The existence of the essence precedes all other characteristics of that essence.

No, it can also be the other way around. As in.. you sense the essence and conclude existence.

For something to have any other characteristics... it must first possess the characteristic of existence (in some form or another). If 'God' is a feeling... then he must exist as a feeling. If he is an idea... then he must exist as an idea.

Observations have obviously been made, and we can conclude the aspect 'exists'. But this doesn't include the whole thing, just an aspect.

Essence is existence... to be without essence is to not exist. How do you justify the belief that 'God' does not exist... when you also state that he still 'is'?

Due to the fact that we don't know everything there is to know about God, therefore we cannot pinpoint 'existence', only 'is'.

You conclude existence because without it there would be no essence.

I have absolutely no idea how to take the second sentence, please rephrase?

You have to know everything to 'pinpoint?' existence...? I don't know everything about cars... does the car that ran me over not exist?

(I was going to write something else here... I played WoW and have now forgotten what it was )

[Amphora]

Our resident - and most active - theist, fr0d0, has said quite a few times now - including to me on MSN - that he doesn't believe God 'exists', or he believes that his existent is "irrelevant"... and that God "just "IS" ".

"Please elaborate on this..."

How can something "be" without existing?

Do you not believe that "God" is anything more than a concept, or a fantasy, imaginary?

Frodo for me could you please elaborate on the topic on hand?
I am interested in hearing your reply.

That you can believe something could "be" without existing.

[fr0d0]

I have absolutely no idea how to take the second sentence, please rephrase?

I'm talking biblical observations of God

You have to know everything to 'pinpoint?' existence...? I don't know everything about cars... does the car that ran me over not exist?

You accept the car 'is' without knowing everything about it ...interesting

But you 'know' that car exists as a 'whole' because you've seen it. If you didn't know about a car you'd just have the evidence of tyre tracks and the weight of their impression. What could you conclude? ...well existence of a physical entity with the properties of weight and it's distribution.

Less than this would you be able to ascertain existence? Trying to be honest people have concluded that God just 'is'.

[Edwardo Piet]

What is the difference between concluding that God 'IS' - or probably/possibly 'is' - and concluding that he exists(or probably/possibly exists)?

If God is to 'be', if God 'is', then that means he is something otherwise he, by definition, cannot 'be'. Because if he is not something then he is nothing, and nothing cannot 'do' or 'BE' anything... because it does not exist. It makes no sense to say that something non-existent can just 'be', that it just 'is'... it isn't anything if it doesn't exist because if it doesn't exist that means it isn't anything. Non-existent=nothing, and nothing can't do or 'be', anything. Once more: It makes no sense whatsoever to say that something just 'IS' without existing... so yes, please do elaborate because it seems to me that so far you have failed to get around the fact that it makes no sense in language to say that what does not exist can still 'be', still somehow 'is'...

/end rant

EvF

[fr0d0]

rant?

What I saw was...



Evie_dog!

[Edwardo Piet]

I repeated myself yes, but that just means that, in your failure to refute it, you have missed my point repeatedly.

If I typed the same word three words, say, "cabbage donkey orange" repeatedly in small print, you could conclude that I'm going round in circles.... but - it should be a lot easier for you to spot than if I'd just typed it up once in small (finely small) print.

Considering how many times I made my point I think you are deliberately side-stepping it. It matters not if I'm being 'circular' if it's not a circular argument, but rather me repeating myself in a circular way due to my exasperation that you have repeatedly ignored my point.

Got it?!

EvF

[Ace Otana]

Umm...um...teacher....Is santa just is? Is the toothfairy just is? Is the FSM just is?
Just wondering...

[Edwardo Piet]

That certainly is the case.

But do they exist? Prolly not.

EvF

[chatpilot]

If there is one thing I hate it's when theists try to compare common mundane things to the so called spiritual and supernatural in order to compose some sort of analogy that in the end makes no sense at all. To say you sense the reality of God is also nonsensical since feelings are completely subjective and unreliable since they are influenced by so many internal and external factors. Indoctrination, upbringing, society, traditions, and so many other things influence what we believe and what we feel relative to those beliefs.

[downbeatplumb]

I have absolutely no idea how to take the second sentence, please rephrase?

I'm talking biblical observations of God

You have to know everything to 'pinpoint?' existence...? I don't know everything about cars... does the car that ran me over not exist?

You accept the car 'is' without knowing everything about it ...interesting

But you 'know' that car exists as a 'whole' because you've seen it. If you didn't know about a car you'd just have the evidence of tyre tracks and the weight of their impression. What could you conclude? ...well existence of a physical entity with the properties of weight and it's distribution.

Less than this would you be able to ascertain existence? Trying to be honest people have concluded that God just 'is'.

God leaves 'tracks'!! that would be some form of evidence then. Evidence that you claim time and time again is impossible...interesting.