Are Atheists doing it wrong?

Originally Posted by NOBLE

You contradict yourself a bit. On one hand, you say we invent objects or concepts in our mind. On the other hand, you say to conceptualize isn't to create. Isn't inventing concepts in the mind the same as conceptualizing, and isn't to invent the same thing as to create? You're right that just by having a concept doesn't mean there's a material reality of what we are conceptualizing. My whole point is that there are different forms of existence and things can be said to have nominal existence. Something that exists nominally doesn't need to have physical existence. Let's take truth, for example. Truth is just a value. It's not a material or concrete object. Would you argue that truth doesn't exist? If not, what would you call it, for example, when people calculate that 2 + 2 equals 4?

Invert and create have some differences. Both words have some scale. You can create a dragon, it doesn't mean dragons exist.

Concepitalizing something doesn't create it.

Reality doesn't have to be material. "Truth" isn't a material thing, but it exists.

I just kept that in because I legit read through your shit line by line, and then read your example haha. Ironic.

It doesn't have to be something you can grab or hold, it just has to be something real. A concept can be real. Concepts are things on their own. But whatever they are conceptualizing, isn't automatically made reality.

The concept of God is a definitive, real and existing thing.

God itself, we are unsure about.

Originally Posted by NOBLE

You contradict yourself a bit. On one hand, you say we invent objects or concepts in our mind. On the other hand, you say to conceptualize isn't to create. Isn't inventing concepts in the mind the same as conceptualizing, and isn't to invent the same thing as to create? You're right that just by having a concept doesn't mean there's a material reality of what we are conceptualizing. My whole point is that there are different forms of existence and things can be said to have nominal existence. Something that exists nominally doesn't need to have physical existence. Let's take truth, for example. Truth is just a value. It's not a material or concrete object. Would you argue that truth doesn't exist? If not, what would you call it, for example, when people calculate that 2 + 2 equals 4?

Invert and create have some differences. Both words have some scale. You can create a dragon, it doesn't mean dragons exist.

Concepitalizing something doesn't create it.

Reality doesn't have to be material. "Truth" isn't a material thing, but it exists.

I just kept that in because I legit read through your shit line by line, and then read your example haha. Ironic.

It doesn't have to be something you can grab or hold, it just has to be something real. A concept can be real. Concepts are things on their own. But whatever they are conceptualizing, isn't automatically made reality.

The concept of God is a definitive, real and existing thing.

God itself, we are unsure about.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by EtHnic Cleansing

Invert and create have some differences. Both words have some scale. You can create a dragon, it doesn't mean dragons exist.

Concepitalizing something doesn't create it.

Reality doesn't have to be material. "Truth" isn't a material thing, but it exists.

I just kept that in because I legit read through your shit line by line, and then read your example haha. Ironic.

It doesn't have to be something you can grab or hold, it just has to be something real. A concept can be real. Concepts are things on their own. But whatever they are conceptualizing, isn't automatically made reality.

The concept of God is a definitive, real and existing thing.

God itself, we are unsure about.

cre·ate
krēˈāt/Submit
verb
bring (something) into existence.

If you look up the definition of create, it literally means to bring something into existence. Explain to me how one can go about "creating" dragons and yet it doesn't mean dragons exist.
I'm glad you agree that truth exists despite that it is not a physical object. Earlier when you were saying that God doesn't exist because he (or she) isn't a concrete object, I thought you were meaning to imply that only things that exist physically can be said to exist. Now that we're past that hurdle, you still maintain (correct me if I'm wrong) that actual things are separate from our concept of those things and that we may have concepts of things for which there's no actual (or physical) existence, and that moreover, simply having a conception doesn't mean what we are conceptualizing exists. Is that an accurate description of your argument? If that is the case, I'd ask you to prove that things exist independent of our perception. Give an example of something that exists that we haven't perceived or conceived. If you can't point to such a thing, how do we know that a thing is truly separate from our concept of it?

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by EtHnic Cleansing

Invert and create have some differences. Both words have some scale. You can create a dragon, it doesn't mean dragons exist.

Concepitalizing something doesn't create it.

Reality doesn't have to be material. "Truth" isn't a material thing, but it exists.

I just kept that in because I legit read through your shit line by line, and then read your example haha. Ironic.

It doesn't have to be something you can grab or hold, it just has to be something real. A concept can be real. Concepts are things on their own. But whatever they are conceptualizing, isn't automatically made reality.

The concept of God is a definitive, real and existing thing.

God itself, we are unsure about.

cre·ate
krēˈāt/Submit
verb
bring (something) into existence.

If you look up the definition of create, it literally means to bring something into existence. Explain to me how one can go about "creating" dragons and yet it doesn't mean dragons exist.
I'm glad you agree that truth exists despite that it is not a physical object. Earlier when you were saying that God doesn't exist because he (or she) isn't a concrete object, I thought you were meaning to imply that only things that exist physically can be said to exist. Now that we're past that hurdle, you still maintain (correct me if I'm wrong) that actual things are separate from our concept of those things and that we may have concepts of things for which there's no actual (or physical) existence, and that moreover, simply having a conception doesn't mean what we are conceptualizing exists. Is that an accurate description of your argument? If that is the case, I'd ask you to prove that things exist independent of our perception. Give an example of something that exists that we haven't perceived or conceived. If you can't point to such a thing, how do we know that a thing is truly separate from our concept of it?