You Can't Argue Against God

[Nakosis]

Why?
Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.

One can reject the claims of others about their gods, which they define.

 

[PureX]

Why?
Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

We know that God is a concept most humans hold about the source and essence of existence. So we could pose an argument against that.

 

[McBell]

Why?
Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

Is this not a two way street?

 

[Nakosis]

One can reject the claims of others about their gods, which they define.

Sure, you have the free will to reject any claim made. However, that's not an argument against the claim.

 

[F1fan]

Why?
Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.

Gods don’t appear and make themselves known so we mortals can debate them. All we have are other mortals who claim one type of god or another exists, and this can be disputed and debated.

For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?

That is up to those fallible mortals who think a God exists.

IOW, how can you mount an argument against something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

What knowledge is there? All we have is cultural lore and mortals who think its true to some degree or another. Mortals debate the issue of something not known to exist outside of human imagination.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Why?
Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

People make a claim of a god and they provide evidence for it. I get to evaluate that evidence to see if I am
Convinced by it. All I need to do is understand their claim and evidence for it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People make a claim of a god and they provide evidence for it. I get to evaluate that evidence to see if I am
Convinced by it. All I need to do is understand their claim and evidence for it.

But a claim of God is not God as such. It is a claim of God.
If it is unknowable then claims one way or another won't make any difference.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sure, you have the free will to reject any claim made. However, that's not an argument against the claim.

OK. I guess I misunderstood your point. I have no need or desire to argue that anybody's logically possible god doesn't exist. I'm disagreeing with the theist's reasons for believing more than I am disagreeing with his description of the specific god he claims exists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why?
Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

Anything presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's amazing to me how often we're told that God is unknowable, inscrutable, ineffable, and his ways are higher than ours.

Yet, these same interlocutors claim to know so much about God's will, plan, motives, etc.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's amazing to me how often we're told that God is unknowable, inscrutable, ineffable, and his ways are higher than ours.

Yet, these same interlocutors claim to know so much about God's will, plan, motives, etc.

Yep. The detail they produced is astounding for such an undescribable and unapproachable being of their imaginations.

 

[Tomef]

Why?
Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

That assumes there’s a god to know. So, yeah, if there actually were a god, who for some reason chooses to stay hidden, then arguing against his actual real existence would just be shouting into the void. But arguments against god’s existence are arguments against the idea of a god or gods, something which only exists in human minds. We can know that idea to the same degree as anyone, i.e. in individual but similar ways.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That assumes there’s a god to know. So, yeah, if there actually were a god, who for some reason chooses to stay hidden, then arguing against his actual real existence would just be shouting into the void. But arguments against god’s existence are arguments against the idea of a god or gods, something which only exists in human minds. We can know that idea to the same degree as anyone, i.e. in individual but similar ways.

Okay, but that assumes that we know as such about the external universe. So how come we have the concept of methodological naturalism?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why?
Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.
For example you can say there is no evidence of God. How can you say that if you don't know what God is? How can you claim something is not evidence of God?
IOW, how can you mount an argument against something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

God is the proper name for the Christian god.
Christians proffer traits for God.
These can be argued against.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God is the proper name for the Christian god.
Christians proffer traits for God.
These can be argued against.

Well, it is not the only version of God. There is at least one in philosophy.

 

[Tomef]

Okay, but that assumes that we know as such about the external universe

No you don’t need that - whether the universe is external or corresponds with what ‘science’ says about it or not, God hasn’t shown up as a detectable part of it that would allow for the god concept to be put into the same category as solar rays or Pepsi cola cans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No you don’t need that - whether the universe is external or corresponds with what ‘science’ says about it or not, God hasn’t shown up as a detectable part of it that would allow for the god concept to be put into the same category as solar rays or Pepsi cola cans.

No, because your experince of this text doesn't mean that it is there as the actual text. Thus you assume your experinces are real, but that is only assumed and thus you cam't use that to say that there is no evidence for God.
That is what methological naturalism is about in the end. The assumption that the universe is real, fair, orderly, knowable and natural.

There is no knowledge if any of your experince matches anything external at all one way or another.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Gods don’t appear and make themselves known so we mortals can debate them.

Incorrect, the One God does appear in the Self of the Manifestations given by God to humanity.

There are very few excuses not to make the choice to know and love God.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Incorrect, the One God does appear in the Self of the Manifestations given by God to humanity.

There are very few excuses not to make the choice to know and love God.

Regards Tony

That is called faith. I have a different one-