You Can't Argue Against God

[F1fan]

The point that @Nakosis was making is that since you don't know God,

Assuming there is any God to know, and humans can interact with it.

you cannot know what would be evidence for God if God existed.

It's the same dilemma for the Tooth Fairy. Or any fictional character that some claim does, or might, exist. It's not a problem that wew humans lack knowledge of things not known to exist. It just renders the whole issue irrelevant.

For example, you do not know that if God existed God could appear and make Himself known.

Apparently no one does, so that I am like all other humans isn't anything negative.

Moreover, you do not know how God COULD make Himself known if God existed.

It doesn't matter, as pondering such a thing is a useless waste of time. There's no evidence, no test, no conclusions, no nothing. Why even bother believing in Gods at all given all the uncertainty?

Atheists say that God 'can do anything' because God is omnipotent but you don't know what God can do. Only God knows that.

False, atheists don't accept any claims of gods existing. If an atheists does describe actions of any God it is in discussion with a believer using their claims as a basis for way their beliefs are incorrect in some way.

You can dispute or debate any God claims you want to but you should be disputing the one who made the claims, the Messengers of God, not the believers who believe in those Messengers.

Sorry, no excuses. You are choosing to believe messengers, so the dispute is with your judgment. You state what you believe in these threads, so it's you that is challenged.

 

[Madsaac]

That is unknown for the metaphysics and ontology of objective reality. But if you don't want to learn that, then okay.
But there is a reason how come it is called methological natiralism and we have this text on in effect knowledge and its limit.

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No, I'm open to learning new things (might be a bit heavy....)

My point is, that 'god' is purely subjective and has no truth/no objective reality

Doesn't Methological Naturalism still need some level of observed facts and and observation, none of which 'god' has?.

 

[Trailblazer]

Assuming there is any God to know, and humans can interact with it.

Why assume that if there is a God to know you could interact with it?

It's the same dilemma for the Tooth Fairy. Or any fictional character that some claim does, or might, exist. It's not a problem that wew humans lack knowledge of things not known to exist. It just renders the whole issue irrelevant.

God is not known to exist s a fact but there is evidence that indicates that God exists, which is why most people believe in God.

Apparently no one does, so that I am like all other humans isn't anything negative.

I believe I know that God cannot appear and make Himself known, not only because of what it says in the Baha'i Writings, but because the Bible says that nobody has ever seen God.

It doesn't matter, as pondering such a thing is a useless waste of time. There's no evidence, no test, no conclusions, no nothing. Why even bother believing in Gods at all given all the uncertainty?

It is all a matter of perspective. There is nothing that you consider evidence.

False, atheists don't accept any claims of gods existing. If an atheists does describe actions of any God it is in discussion with a believer using their claims as a basis for way their beliefs are incorrect in some way.

Correction: Atheists say that if God existed God 'could do anything' because God is allegedly omnipotent, but they don't know what God could do. Only God knows that.

Sorry, no excuses. You are choosing to believe messengers, so the dispute is with your judgment. You state what you believe in these threads, so it's you that is challenged.

Go ahead and dispute my belief in Messengers. That has never bothered me.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, so everyone has there own subjective take on what objective reality is.

However, some things are what they are, regardless of what any individual believes or feels about them. And god is not one of them.

Are they, though? Can you list the qualities of those things which are what they are, without reference to what you believe or feel about them?

We know that gravity causes clouds of hydrogen gas to collapse and become so hot and dense that stars ignite and nuclear fusion is initiated. So we can say we know what a star is, because we have created a convincing narrative which complied with observation. But what would a star be without our observations, and without our narrative to explain it? How can we know? Can saying “it is what it is” help us understand it any way? That flat statement, it seems to me, can be made about any phenomenon, real or imagined; including God. If we want to know about the stars, we have to contemplate them; and we can certainly say the same for God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I'm open to learning new things (might be a bit heavy....)

My point is, that 'god' is purely subjective and has no truth/no objective reality

Doesn't Methological Naturalism still need some level of observed facts and and observation, none of which 'god' has?.

Okay, here is one version behind the problem of knowing about the objective reality.

It is called a Boltzmann Brain universe. Look it up if you have to.
The problem is that any claim we are not that, relies on the assumption that we can know about objective reality and if it is real.
So in short, if you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe you are caused to have the same experinces as if you are in a real universe.

That is it as short as it can be done.

 

[F1fan]

Why assume that if there is a God to know you could interact with it?

If it can be known, then we can interact with it at some level, even if just observing it. But no one can confirm they detect any gods, and no one can confirm they have any knowledge. We have no reason to believe Messengers.

God is not known to exist s a fact but there is evidence that indicates that God exists, which is why most people believe in God.

It's not compelling evidence that convinces skilled thinkers.

I believe I know that God cannot appear and make Himself known, not only because of what it says in the Baha'i Writings, but because the Bible says that nobody has ever seen God.

Why entertain the idea of God at all? Notice atheists and many non-religious people get along fine without having any thoughts about gods.

It is all a matter of perspective. There is nothing that you consider evidence.

False. You're being fussy.

Let me decide what I consider evidence. It's not your place to decide for me. Just because your standard is substantially lower than critical thinkers doesn't mean they reject all evidence.

Correction: Atheists say that if God existed God 'could do anything' because God is allegedly omnipotent, but they don't know what God could do. Only God knows that.

No one knowns anything about any gods, except what is spread in historical lore. And you can't say that "only God knows" because you don't know. You make these mistakes often.

Go ahead and dispute my belief in Messengers. That has never bothered me.

Been there, done that, as well as others. You want to believe, and no amount of reason is relevant to your desire for your religious truth.

 

[paarsurrey]

Okay, here is one version behind the problem of knowing about the objective reality.

It is called a Boltzmann Brain universe. Look it up if you have to.
The problem is that any claim we are not that, relies on the assumption that we can know about objective reality and if it is real.
So in short, if you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe you are caused to have the same experinces as if you are in a real universe.

That is it as short as it can be done.

One means that a scientist as a human being could perceive wrongly about the Universe/s, right?

Regards

 

[Audie]

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?

I could argue him ifn he'd show himself.

 

[F1fan]

Are they, though? Can you list the qualities of those things which are what they are, without reference to what you believe or feel about them?

We know that gravity causes clouds of hydrogen gas to collapse and become so hot and dense that stars ignite and nuclear fusion is initiated. So we can say we know what a star is, because we have created a convincing narrative which complied with observation. But what would a star be without our observations, and without our narrative to explain it? How can we know?

You seem to be thinking that somehow our observing stars makes them be what they are. That's almost placing humans in a Godlike status.

If you are a bystander and witness a car crash, did you cause the car crash? If so, what about all the car crashes that occur that you don't witness? They obviously hapven without you observing them. We see the impacts of meteors that happened well before humans existed as a species, but we know they occurred without us witnessing them.

Can saying “it is what it is” help us understand it any way?

Yes, because we observe things that are what they are because they are what they are whether we observe them or not.

That flat statement, it seems to me, can be made about any phenomenon, real or imagined; including God.

Except with nearly 4000 god concepts none can be said to describe anything that exists outside of human imagination. Name any gods that correlate to something external to the human mind, and that exists in reality.

If we want to know about the stars, we have to contemplate them; and we can certainly say the same for God.

We can contemplate Mickey Mouse. The thing is stars are real objects that we can observe. That isn't true about any gods, or angels, or demons, or the Tooth Fairy, or any other character that doesn't correlate to anything outside of human imagination.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it can be known, then we can interact with it at some level, even if just observing it. But no one can confirm they detect any gods, and no one can confirm they have any knowledge. We have no reason to believe Messengers.

What reason do you have to think that God can be known, then we ordinary humans can interact with God or observe God?
You are correct that no one can 'confirm' that they have been communicated to by God. The Messengers proclaimed that God spoke to them through the Holy Spirit, and we either believe that or we don't.

It's not compelling evidence that convinces skilled thinkers.

No evidence that is compelling to you.

Why entertain the idea of God at all? Notice atheists and many non-religious people get along fine without having any thoughts about gods.

You don't have to if you don't want to. God have us all free will to choose.

False. You're being fussy.

Let me decide what I consider evidence. It's not your place to decide for me. Just because your standard is substantially lower than critical thinkers doesn't mean they reject all evidence.

What I meant is that you have a certain perspective and I have another perspective. You need to decide what is evidence for YOU, just as I ned to decide for myself what is evidence.

What evidence don't you reject?

No one knowns anything about any gods, except what is spread in historical lore. And you can't say that "only God knows" because you don't know. You make these mistakes often.

No one knows anything about God, except what is revealed by the Messengers of God.

I can say that 'only God knows' because that is what I believe, and it is also logical, because if God exists God would know what God can do.
We cannot know what God can do unless we have a way to know that, but even the Messengers do not claim to know what God can do.

Been there, done that, as well as others. You want to believe, and no amount of reason is relevant to your desire for your religious truth.

You make that mistake often, claiming to know what I want. You assume that I believe because I want to believe but that is not why I believe.
I was not raised in any religion or with a belief in God and I never gave the idea of God one thought until I ran into the Baha'i Faith, and that is the reason I believe.

Only after I came to believe did I ever have any desire for religious truth, Why wouldn't I want to know the truth about God and religion?

 

[paarsurrey]

You Can't Argue Against God​

mikkel_the_dane said:
Okay, here is one version behind the problem of knowing about the objective reality.

It is called a Boltzmann Brain universe. Look it up if you have to.
The problem is that any claim we are not that, relies on the assumption that we can know about objective reality and if it is real.
So in short, if you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe you are caused to have the same experinces as if you are in a real universe.
That is it as short as it can be done.
paarsurrey says:
One means that a scientist as a human being could perceive wrongly about the Universe/s, right?
ours @mikkel_the_dane
If I correctly understood one, why not acknowledge it, please, right?

Regards

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You Can't Argue Against God​

mikkel_the_dane said:
Okay, here is one version behind the problem of knowing about the objective reality.

It is called a Boltzmann Brain universe. Look it up if you have to.
The problem is that any claim we are not that, relies on the assumption that we can know about objective reality and if it is real.
So in short, if you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe you are caused to have the same experinces as if you are in a real universe.
That is it as short as it can be done.
paarsurrey says:
One means that a scientist as a human being could perceive wrongly about the Universe/s, right?
ours @mikkel_the_dane
If I correctly understood one, why not acknowledge it, please, right?

Regards

Well, so could you. You could also percieve wrongly about the universe. So what don't you acknowledge it, please, right?

No regards as you in effect apply a double standard.

 

[vijeno]

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

Sure. And that is completely fine. The god of the mystics is no bother to me at all. I can "connect" with a numinous, undefined, undefinable "force" anytime, without professing any belief in it.

 

[Nakosis]

Sure. And that is completely fine. The god of the mystics is no bother to me at all. I can "connect" with a numinous, undefined, undefinable "force" anytime, without professing any belief in it.

Me too.
That's is probably better than making assumptions.
"I connect with something, don't know what it is nor do I have any beliefs about it."

 

[Madsaac]

Okay, here is one version behind the problem of knowing about the objective reality.

It is called a Boltzmann Brain universe. Look it up if you have to.
The problem is that any claim we are not that, relies on the assumption that we can know about objective reality and if it is real.
So in short, if you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe you are caused to have the same experinces as if you are in a real universe.

That is it as short as it can be done.

Does the Boltzmann Brain theory is that it might have been easier for a human brain to form, then all the other complexities of the universe? Could you please explain how this relates to objective reality.

No where did I read that the forming of Boltzmann Brain means that anything is possible because of the randomness of the universe and we live in infinite universe, therefore everything can be objective?

Anything can exist, even a human brain in the universe?

We don't need to have personal experience or subjective specifications because it will exist, no matter what?

Is this a Rationalist view? Extreme though it is.

And, I'm sure there a number of philosophers who believe in Empiricism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does the Boltzmann Brain theory is that it might have been easier for a human brain to form, then all the other complexities of the universe? Could you please explain how this relates to objective reality.

No where did I read that the forming of Boltzmann Brain means that anything is possible because of the randomness of the universe and we live in infinite universe, therefore everything can be objective?

Anything can exist, even a human brain in the universe?

We don't need to have personal experience or subjective specifications because it will exist, no matter what?

Is this a Rationalist view? Extreme though it is.

And, I'm sure there a number of philosophers who believe in Empiricism.

The problem is this: If you trust your experience to match objective reality, you can get a probability of being a Boltzmmann Brain, but then you are taking for granted that you can trust your experience and that was the question: Can you trust your experience?

So here is how it relates to objective reality. One general assumption is that objective reality causes you to have your experiences.
Now if you are in the real objective reality and it is as you experience it, then you are in effect in one version of objective reality.
If you are in a Boltzmann Brain objective reality, then you are in effect in another version. But for both versions your experiences are the same.

 

[paarsurrey]

You Can't Argue Against God

We humans don't have any capacity to argue with/against G-d, please, right?

Did Moses argue against G-d:

" I. Moses. 1 The first case I want to consider, and the easiest to analyze, involves Moses. He argued with God when he offered reasons why he should not be the one chosen to lead the people out of Egypt — the Israelites will not believe you sent me, Pharaoh will not listen to me, I am not eloquent (Exodus 3,10-4,17). "
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1601&context=
As sometimes or often or always the Paulines as also their Deviant Pauline NT/OT Bibles make mistake and or misreport what had actually happened; Moses didn't know the Hebrew language so he needed some good assistant (Vazir), he requested Aaron just for that and G-d graciously granted it, so there is no argument against G-d, please, right?

Right?

Regards

 

[Madsaac]

The problem is this: If you trust your experience to match objective reality, you can get a probability of being a Boltzmmann Brain, but then you are taking for granted that you can trust your experience and that was the question: Can you trust your experience?

So here is how it relates to objective reality. One general assumption is that objective reality causes you to have your experiences.
Now if you are in the real objective reality and it is as you experience it, then you are in effect in one version of objective reality.
If you are in a Boltzmann Brain objective reality, then you are in effect in another version. But for both versions your experiences are the same.

No, I suppose you can never totally trust your experience because objective reality can take infinite versions so none of them can be totally correct? Is this what you mean?

We can trust our experience but in theory you can be 100% sure of it being real.

However, can you be 99% sure?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I suppose you can never totally trust your experience because objective reality can take infinite versions so none of them can be totally correct? Is this what you mean?

We can trust our experience but in theory you can be 100% sure of it being real.

However, can you be 99% sure?

No, it is unknown for any propability of what objective reality is.
In effect it is tied to this in philosophy of science:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In other words the axiomatic assumptions function as a non-religious set of beliefs about objective reality and in effect a trust in objective reality to be fair and thus real.

Now I am not religious. I am an atheist, agnostic and naturalist, but I try to be honest about the limitations to knowledge in effect. But that is me. And you can do it differently of course.

 

[Madsaac]

No, it is unknown for any propability of what objective reality is.
In effect it is tied to this in philosophy of science:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In other words the axiomatic assumptions function as a non-religious set of beliefs about objective reality and in effect a trust in objective reality to be fair and thus real.

Now I am not religious. I am an atheist, agnostic and naturalist, but I try to be honest about the limitations to knowledge in effect. But that is me. And you can do it differently of course.

Firstly, I apologise if I seem to having trouble understanding what you are saying, so if you want to stop, I understand.

I'm not sure what you mean when you said 'No, it is unknown for any propability of what objective reality is.'

I'm not religious as well and feel science helps me understand the world I live in. So when believing in science, we must have some assumptions about science and observe facts with a certain generality. That's what I was trying to get at when I said 99% sure, there will always be a level of 'not know for sure', like an assumption.

There will always be limitations to knowledge, even when its objective?