God cannot be defined into existence.

[firedragon]

About 1.2 × the number of believers who have described what they believe in to me. Why would it matter anyway (even it was practical to post them all, which it isn't)? None of them came with any reason to take the ideas seriously.

If you think there's a version that does come with such a reason, then all you have to do is put it forward....

Again, which one's have you heard? Not descriptions of "what they believe", the conversation was about what evidences people have shown. You dismissed them all and then you spoke of what you heard and they were not acceptable.

So again, which one's have you heard?

 

[ratiocinator]

Again, which one's have you heard? Not descriptions of "what they believe"...

So you can't post an example with a good reason to accept it. Kind of makes my point.

What people believe are the versions of God I've heard of. How else would I know of a version of God?

...the conversation was about what evidences people have shown. You dismissed them all and then you spoke of what you heard and they were not acceptable.

The OP is one example of a hopless argument for a God, for reasons I've already posted.

All you have to do to prove me wrong is post a version of God and some reason why I should take it seriously.

Cue more evasion.

 

[firedragon]

So you can't post an example with a good reason to accept it. Kind of makes my point.

What people believe are the versions of God I've heard of. How else would I know of a version of God?


The OP is one example of a hopless argument for a God, for reasons I've already posted.

All you have to do to prove me wrong is post a version of God and some reason why I should take it seriously.

Cue more evasion.

I didn't posit any evidences. So this is a strawman. Obviously.

It was you who claimed that all of them are fallacious. So I asked you for what you have heard.

This is no answer mate. THIS is an evasion.

Thus, again, which one's have you heard and why do you reject them?

 

[ratiocinator]

I didn't posit any evidences. So this is a strawman. Obviously.

I know you didn't, that was my point. You need to learn what a strawman is.

It was you who claimed that all of them are fallacious. So I asked you for what you have heard.

The OP is an example, and my reasons are in my replies. It is neither practical nor a useful exercise to try to go through every single dismal attempt to justify a God that I've heard.

If you think there is a non-dismal reason to accept some God, all you have to do is post it. But of course you won't, you'll continue to ask for an impractical list of all the dismal ones I've seen. That would be a massive waste of my time, and everybody's time who bothered to read it, too.

 

[firedragon]

I know you didn't, that was my point. You need to learn what a strawman is.


The OP is an example, and my reasons are in my replies. It is neither practical nor a useful exercise to try to go through every single dismal attempt to justify a God that I've heard.

If you think there is a non-dismal reason to accept some God, all you have to do is post it. But of course you won't, you'll continue to ask for an impractical list of all the dismal ones I've seen. That would be a massive waste of my time, and everybody's time who bothered to read it, too.

So what are the evidences you have heard and why do you reject them? Well the question is based on your own claim. So let's avoid all of your red herrings and address your own claim. Consider it information. What were the evidences you have heard? Let's say give the top one's and why you wave them away!

 

[ratiocinator]

So what are the evidences you have heard and why do you reject them? Well the question is based on your own claim. So let's avoid all of your red herrings and address your own claim. Consider it information. What were the evidences you have heard? Let's say give the top one's and why you wave them away!

Yet again: there is an example in the OP and my replies to it.

But this is absurd, it's like somebody claiming that ghosts or alien abductions or whatever are real, then, instead of telling us why they believe it and providing their best evidence, they say "give me a list of all the evidence you've rejected".

Not playing that game, it's toooo silly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yet again: there is an example in the OP and my replies to it.

But this is absurd, it's like somebody claiming that ghosts or alien abductions or whatever are real, then, instead of telling us why they believe it and providing their best evidence, they say "give me a list of all the evidence you've rejected".

Not playing that game, it's toooo silly.

Well, as a skeptic it is simple. All variants of postive claims including gods rests on the assumption that the universe is fair. I.e. Descartes's evil demon is the one to beat and no one has ever done so. In effect Descartes solution was that God was in effect fair, but not evidence was given for that.

But of cource if you believe you have solved the problem as to whether the universe is fair or not, just bring the evidence.
See it has nothing to do with if the universe is natural or created by God. The problem is if objective reality is fair.

 

[metis]

But it's a category error. Against science. Against the philosophy of science. Against logic and philosophy altogether.

How?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Interesting. Thus, in your view, which "version" of God is most reasonable?

You say "thus", but what he said doesn't warrant a "thus" of that kind.

He said that most gods necessarily don't exist, because most gods that are asserted are mutually exclusive.

It's not about what god, if any, sounds "reasonable".

It's more about having the asserted gods A, B, C, D and E. And all of them being mutually exclusive.
Meaning that at least 4 of them don't exist.
All of them could be unreasonable. This doesn't change that at least 4 of the certainly don't exist, because if one of them exists, the other 4 by definition of mutual exclusivity, do not.

"thus": either 4 of those 5 don't exist. Or all 5 don't exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No I don't have to. Because I didn't make that claim. So this is an aunt sally attempt.

So you are not claiming that god isn't scientifically detectable?
Then why do you call it a "category error" when someone says they want scientific evidence?

Either your god is scientifically detectable or it isn't.
And if it isn't, I'ld say that @LuisDantas 's question stands.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what are the evidences you have heard and why do you reject them? Well the question is based on your own claim. So let's avoid all of your red herrings and address your own claim. Consider it information. What were the evidences you have heard? Let's say give the top one's and why you wave them away!

It's almost like you are not reading the posts you are responding to. Almost.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you are not claiming that god isn't scientifically detectable?
Then why do you call it a "category error" when someone says they want scientific evidence?

Either your god is scientifically detectable or it isn't.
And if it isn't, I'ld say that @LuisDantas 's question stands.

Because it is not a fact that the universe is natural. It is an axiomatic assumption and baked into the methodology of science. Thus science can't say anything about the non-natural, because it only deals with the natural.
That is the category error.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because it is not a fact that the universe is natural. It is an axiomatic assumption and baked into the methodology of science. Thus science can't say anything about the non-natural, because it only deals with the natural.
That is the category error.

I'm not talking to you and I didn't ask for your solipsist opinion, nor am I interested.
I was asking the person who made the claim. I'm interested in his opinion.
I'm not interested in yours. I already know yours. You insist in throwing it up over every thread no matter the subject.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not talking to you and I didn't ask for your solipsist opinion, nor am I interested.
I was asking the person who made the claim. I'm interested in his opinion.
I'm not interested in yours. I already know yours. You insist in throwing it up over every thread no matter the subject.

Well, what kind of solipsist am I?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, what kind of solipsist am I?

The annoying kind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The annoying kind.

Yeah, that is not a standard kind of solipsist.

 

[firedragon]

Yet again: there is an example in the OP and my replies to it.

But this is absurd, it's like somebody claiming that ghosts or alien abductions or whatever are real, then, instead of telling us why they believe it and providing their best evidence, they say "give me a list of all the evidence you've rejected".

Not playing that game, it's toooo silly.

Alright. You made a general claim, and cannot even give two or three.

Ciao.

 

[firedragon]

How?

First, read about methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Then read about the scientific method and its axioms.

 

[ratiocinator]

Alright. You made a general claim, and cannot even give two or three.

Still running away from providing your own version of God with some reason to believe it.

This forum is full of claims of various versions of God and why the supplied reasons are flawed. To claim you need me to give multiple examples is hilariously transparent evasion. What on Earth would you need them for when you haven't even responded to the example I gave in this very thread?

 

[firedragon]

Still running away from providing your own version of God with some reason to believe it.

It's irrelevant to your claim. Then this is projection.

This forum is full of claims of various versions of God and why the supplied reasons are flawed. To claim you need me to give multiple examples is hilariously transparent evasion. What on Earth would you need them for when you haven't even responded to the example I gave in this very thread?

Not an answer.