On Secular Outpost, I was asked to define by terms about God and clarify what I believe about God. I did that only to be told that my terms are totally inconsistent and meaningless and incoherent ect. ect, This is just another anti-intellectual attack of gnu: atheism, I will use the opportunity to explain my views on Tillich and theology better. That attack was made with an anti-intellectual attitude that is typical of the gnu atheism. It;s an opportunity, The inconsistency is clearly theirs. The discusssion started with one of them saying:
I did then they sway i'ts not clear and simple because they don't know what the terms mean the way I use them.,, It's only clear and sprinkle if I use their terns and reduce my concept of God to the conept they want to attack.
Here is the definition I gave,
Belief in God is not merely accepting one more thing in the universe, It's a world view involving the basis of reality. So to say:I believe God is...is also saying: I believable reality involves and an understanding of x y and z, that's going to get complex.
Ok with that understood, to satisfy the urge for a brief description: I do think God is not another thing in the cosmos but is the basis of all reality and thus a framework in which reality happens. That framework is analogous to mind in certain ways but can also be understood as the eternal and necessary aspect of being. In any case the important thing to note is that it is beyond our understanding but not beyond experience, therefore God cannot be a subject of empirical knowledge except indirectly, It is a subject of intimate existential and phenomenological apprehension.
Comparing a philosophical debate with a demand for an explanation of a speculative sub-atomic theory is a false equivalence. If you made a claim regarding an alleged real-world phenomenon, I would by justified in not accepting your claim until you provided some form of real-world verification. Again, if this were something you did understand, you would be expected to explain it to me, even if by analogy. If you didn’t understand, you ought rightly to say so, but that as far as you were able you accepted that the alleged phenomenon was scientifically verifiable, and that tests had demonstrated such. Do you see the difference?
‘Belief’ is a word that requires context, and when the words, ‘in God’ are appended, it takes on a special meaning. It becomes a reality claim that there exists a concept, ‘God’, and that concept is real, valid, and true, but is not falsifiable. In contrast, it is not necessary to ‘believe’ in reason or logic. We *use* reason and logic.
“It’s a world view involving the basis of reality”
Belief in the untestable may indeed encompass a world view. Hence religions and various other toxic ideologies. However, the phrase, ‘basis of reality’, requires some expansion. ‘Basis’ usually means the support, foundation, system of principles, justification or reasoning underlying an idea, activity or ‘something’. That something could even be a concept. This seems to say that reality is wholly dependent upon an undefined principle(?), and that this undefined ‘thing that isn’t a thing’, is God.
Is belief in reality required? What would happen if I were to cease believing in it? I personally don’t believe in reality, in the sense that events seem to occur with or without my belief in them. Again, belief in the sense of faith in the untestable, seems hardly necessary. But perhaps that’s not what you’re talking about.Now he's actually defending solipsism to ward off God. If we cam't assume reality (like truth) as a basic staple that we agree with the there is no point in discussion.
God does not exist as a definable entity. Check.
Ibid:God is the underlying principle upon which the Universe depends. Is that what you mean?Sure that will do.
Ibid:It seems to me, there is an implied distinction between the foundation, (God), and that which is founded upon it, (reality).
Put another way, you seem to be saying God is a required foundation *for* reality, but not reality itself - therefore accordingly, God is being defined as transcendent, above and necessary for the functioning of the Universe, but not contained within, or immanent.
Ok let's say the frame in which the observable qualia happens, Then he will probably say that I'm discounting that which we cant observe as not part of reality, Obviously the framework concept is analogy so it's silly to try to use that to discomfit the whole concept,.As though I can't include the framework in reality.
then he takes it up a notch:
But that contradicts your proposition that God is not another thing in the cosmos - does not exist as a definable entity.
What is ‘mind’? And please provide some of those ‘certain ways’ in which this alleged framework is analogous to it. One or two will do.In a sense that is a reasonable question since we don't really know what mind is, But I think in drawing analogy to mind it;s pretty clear I am saying God is the source of consciousnesses and thus has consciousness. Like a mind thinking a thought God thinks the universe, This is why I speak of a framework. God frames reality thorough his consciousnesses similar to Berkeleys concept to be is to be perceived,
 Ibid., comment section,