As of this current point, it is still unclear whether you are entering an infinite regress, an axiomatic claim, or in the midst of a circular argument.
Regarding your multiple choice question, it seems to be irrelevant to this discussion. Why? Because it is part of the basic questions we all ask.
We don't have the answer to the question with regard to a building up from the basics. If we did, everybody would be on the same page with religion... be it God religion or atheism religion.
That seems strange, because I know many philosophers that establish themselves with coherentism, foundationalism, and infinitism. This is not a simple matter of "which do you prefer, apples or peaches?" but rather a core aspect of how you determine truth.
Even if you don't know your
own belief structure, you may still be able to discover the underlying core behind it by use of the Socratic method or logical/syllogistic deconstruction.
Since you would rather focus on our "talk" as the point, rather than on atheism, and to attempt to make the "points" and "articles" of talking into the topic, you are going off-topic regarding this thread.
I'm not sure why this is a problem. If certain points of discussion lead to the reason for Atheism (whatever one's definition of that is) then would they not be on-topic? For that matter, if we were following in sequence, we reach a Sorites paradox of determining the point at which we breached on-topicness. Aren't words fun?
Note that each person who believes or thinks about science or God, does so at least slightly differently than every other person. So, essentially, when a person says that he believes the same as anyone else - has the same religion - if he doesn't include in his saying that he is speaking in simple, general ways, he is lying... whether he knows it or not.
Interesting! Correct me if you so choose: interpretations of this Great First Mover (GFM) may differ between individuals yet the essence of the GFM remains constant? Certainly, this can be seen in various other conceptual ideas (your previous example of 'love' serves as a proper example).
God is not the simple thing that has to do with B and B0. Such talk is getting down to the basics (sort of) which are so basic that the discussion could go on for a long time before showing the reality of God or atheism. Fun to talk, but there are other things in life than this basic kind of talk in a forum... other things that show the reality of God's existence.
This would have been much simpler had you started with this idea rather than mentioning anything Biblical. If GFM is detached from tangible objects, then let's discard the Biblical and Dead Sea Scroll topic and focus on GFM itself.
Atheists - people who try to make themselves out to be God above the real God
I fail to recognize where I have made this claim.
Thank Goodness that we have dictionaries and encyclopedias!
Of which, show slight variations in their definitions. Just as you do not know
my definition of free will, I do not know
yours. The existence of a dictionary definition doesn't mean that someone has their own ideas of some term X. Regardless, we can abandon this topic if you do not wish to delve further.
This is an interesting theory albeit unclear in its origin.
I didn't know it was a theory. I thought it was a story, one that might be used as some kind of parable at times. I would ask for your source for it being a theory... if I were interested.
Replace theory with story, if you want. That was my intended semantic construction, anyway.
Still having fun here.
If I were to be honest, I would say that my belief in a GFM has no pragmatic influence upon my actions and experiences in the world and thus the tautological nature is of no substance to my life. You may have a different conclusion from your belief structure, which is why I want to ascertain its nature.
If its nature is indeterminable, then no problem: whether I believe in it or not won't matter, since we have no causal link behind belief/non-belief and some arbitrary event.
If its nature
is determinable, then it should be determinable in absolution, since any lack of understanding of an entity should pose doubt behind causal links derived thereof.
A simple example of the latter would be a basic "doubling" algorithm, with one word hidden:
If you send some amount of money to me, I will return twice the amount
negatively.
There you have it: comprehension of
almost the entirety of the algorithm could lead to any possibility of events
(note that my word addition could be placed anywhere in the algorithm and does not have to be limited to a singular word)
