The idol of atheism, or hardest proof ever?

[stvdv]

Well, it is easy to test. If I can act differently, then it is not an objective proof in practice. That is how simple it is. I know you don't like it, but in practice they subjectively believe differently than me.
I don't know as they know. I only need to know if it is objective or subjective. If I can do it subjectively different, it is not an objective proof.

You can keep juggling with words, but that does not prove anything about Truth, that would at best fall under magic, not the 'real' magic though

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seems to me that this only proves that God exists only if God exists. After all, if there is no God and there is a being who knows everything, then this being would know that God does NOT exist.

The only way around it is to say that this being who knows everything IS God himself, but then your argument becomes, "If God exists, then God exists."

Yeah, nothing new in that. So far all attempts of justified reasoning have hit this:
Agrippa the Skeptic
That is not limited to religion though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can keep juggling with words, but that does not prove anything about Truth, that would at best fall under magic, not the real magic though

Yeah, real magic is totally objective and not a subjective idea, right? There is nothing but real magic, so I can't act differently and I haven't in effect done that now. Real magic are words, unless you can turn that into real action for all humans and independent of words.

 

[questfortruth]

Seems to me that this only proves that God exists only if God exists. After all, if there is no God and there is a being who knows everything, then this being would know that God does NOT exist.

The only way around it is to say that this being who knows everything IS God himself, but then your argument becomes, "If God exists, then God exists."

The objection: "if there is no God and there is a being who knows everything, then this being would know that God does NOT exist." is absurd, because if I know everything, then I am God. I begin with the situation, where God is existent. Then this situation becomes proven (becomes the only situation possible). If there would be God, then He knows about Himself. Thus, there is knowledge of God for us to find. Therefore the God exists.

I think the Atheist, being obviously the smarter one, by not making a claim he can't prove, would answer "Great, please provide some proof to me of this"

Theist that are not able to prove their God exists,

There is so far no proof of any positive metaphysics in any variant.

If I can do it subjectively different, it is not an objective proof.

The total proof of all that is divine and/or invisible:
Dark Matter as Simulation of E.Musk

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The objection: "if there is no God and there is a being who knows everything, then this being would know that God does NOT exist." is absurd, because if I know everything, then I am God. I begin with the situation, where God is existent. Then this situation becomes proven (the only situation possible). I there would be God, then He knows about Himself. Thus, there is knowledge of God for us to find. Therefore the God exists.

...

The total proof of all that is divine and/or invisible:
Dark Matter as Simulation of E.Musk

You don't get that your proof is that you think and nothing else. It is nothing else than you thinking, but the rest of us can do differently. If everything as everything was divine, then we wouldn't have this thread, so everything is not divide.

Here it is:
You to the effect of: Everything is X.
Me: I can test that. Non-X.
In effect you subjectively believe and the rest of us do it differently than you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The objection: "if there is no God and there is a being who knows everything, then this being would know that God does NOT exist." is absurd, because if I know everything, then I am God. I begin with the situation, where God is existent. Then this situation becomes proven (becomes the only situation possible). If there would be God, then He knows about Himself. Thus, there is knowledge of God for us to find. Therefore the God exists.

The total proof of all that is divine and/or invisible:
Dark Matter as Simulation of E.Musk

Total nonsense. That's it for this thread...

 

[stvdv]

Yeah, real magic is totally objective and not a subjective idea, right? There is nothing but real magic, so I can't act differently and I haven't in effect done that now. Real magic are words, unless you can turn that into real action for all humans and independent of words.

I did quote the word 'real' for this reason

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Total nonsense. That's it for this thread...

So everything is not that everything makes sense, because a part of it is total nonsense. So how does total nonsense exist?

 

[stvdv]

The total proof of all that is divine and/or invisible:
Dark Matter as Simulation of E.Musk

Total proof is a strong claim. But I'm fine that this is your opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I did quote the word 'real' for this reason

Then it is just a word or rather a limited subjective part of everything.

 

[blü 2]

Ask a person on the street:

Are you Jesus Christ?

If he answers: Yes, then it is a chance, that this person is God.

That still doesn't answer my question. What objective test will tell me whether any suspect is God or not? There's such a test for every other real thing, so if God is real there must be such a test for God.

What is it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That still doesn't answer my question. What objective test will tell me whether any suspect is God or not? There's such a test for every other real thing, so if God is real there must be such a test for God.

What is it?

So let us take hardness. You know, how hard a thing is. We can test that using science. So what is the measurement standard for real? What is a real thing? I have never seen one, when I try to test if a thing has the property of being real. Real is an idea in your mind and it has no objective test, since real has no objective referent.

 

[questfortruth]

so if God is real there must be such a test for God.

Ask Him to predict the future. Jesus Christ is the Prophet.

 

[blü 2]

So let us take hardness. You know, how hard a thing is. We can test that using science. So what is the measurement standard for real?

Do our senses report its existence as an entity in the world external to the self? If so, it's real. If not, not.

What is a real thing? I have never seen one, when I try to test if a thing has the property of being real.

Your troubles are over. See above.

Real is an idea in your mind and it has no objective test, since real has no objective referent.

Real is an adjective, not a noun.

The noun is reality, meaning the sum of real things, the world external to the self as disclosed to us by our senses.

 

[blü 2]

Ask Him to predict the future. Jesus Christ is the Prophet.

"He". So God is a male.

Of what species?

What shape, size, color, texture? Do you have a photo?

Since a male god necessarily implies a female god, how can an onlooker tell which is which?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That still doesn't answer my question. What objective test will tell me whether any suspect is God or not? There's such a test for every other real thing, so if God is real there must be such a test for God.

What is it?

Take 2.

The world is not just objective. If it was only objective, then we couldn't subjectively disagree.
So here are 5 tests:

1. The objective one for something not dependent on thoughts.
2. The formal abstract one for logic and math.
3. The social one. Which rules do people use?
4. The subjective one. How do you live your life as you?
5. The metaphysical one. What is the world independent of your mind?

You only subjectively accept the first and 5th. I just test if I can do it differently by using 2, 3 or 4 in some cases. I can and that is real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do our senses report its existence as an entity in the world external to the self? If so, it's real. If not, not.
...

"If not, not." is only real in your self, because the second not is only in your mind as your judgment. That second not is not a property of a real thing. It is a property in your mind based on your thinking.

 

[blü 2]

Take 2.

The world is not just objective. If it was only objective, then we couldn't subjectively disagree.

You left out the part about the senses informing the brain of the world external to the self. Of course we can subjectively disagree. But if we have some tool to hand that is capable of increasing objectivity, like a video camera, then we may be able to agree.

Of course, if we're arguing about our judgments of the objective situation, then that's a different thing.

So here are 5 tests:
The objective one for something not dependent on thoughts.

Especially if we have it on video.

The formal abstract one for logic and math.

Logic and maths are entirely conceptual. Their usefulness in reality can only be determined empirically and pragmatically.

The social one. Which rules do people use?

These are a mix of evolved moral tendencies, learnt behaviors, empathic responses and sometimes conscience. The mix will vary with the individual.

The subjective one. How do you live your life as you?

Same answer.

The metaphysical one. What is the world independent of your mind?

The place where your parents were living when they conceived you.

You only subjectively accept the first and 5th.

Check my answers.

 

[blü 2]

"If not, not." is only real in your self, because the second not is only in your mind as your judgment. That second not is not a property of a real thing. It is a property in your mind based on your thinking.

Not quite, but you're getting the idea. The human perspective is of two kinds that much of the time mix freely ─ the internal world of the sense of self, and the world external to that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You left out the part about the senses informing the brain of the world external to the self. Of course we can subjectively disagree. But if we have some tool to hand that is capable of increasing objectivity, like a video camera, then we may be able to agree.

Of course, if we're arguing about our judgments of the objective situation, then that's a different thing.
Especially if we have it on video.
Logic and maths are entirely conceptual. Their usefulness in reality can only be determined empirically and pragmatically.
These are a mix of evolved moral tendencies, learnt behaviors, empathic responses and sometimes conscience. The mix will vary with the individual.
Same answer.
The place where your parents were living when they conceived you.
Check my answers.

Yeah, you gave in part subjective answers in that you at minimum referenced 9 subjective states as facts in the world. So now I will wait to see if you admit that you don't everything objectively or if you can in fact do these behaviors objectively. So I am waiting for objective evidence.