You Can't Argue Against God

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

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

I will do it first with philosophy for just knowledge as such - I know something. In the strong sense of objective as having reality independent of the mind, that is not possible because the "I" requires a mind to know.
That is the first part. I.e. it is a contradiction in terms for this version of objective to have knowledge. Historically this version connects to a variant of truth as per the correspondence theory of truth. A claim is true, if it corresponds to something independent of the belief in that something.

There is more but one part at a time.

 

[PureX]

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?

Knowledge can be based on observations of the 'objects' around us, but that does not make the knowledge 'objective'. in fact, there is no such thing as 'objective knowledge' because all knowledge is subject to the limitations of the holder. We are the subjects and everything we know or don't know is relative to that (is subjective).

We can sit in a room and look at the walls and the ceiling and all the objects in it and tell ourselves that we understand everything about that environment. We know all about how it was made and what it is for and why it exists. And yet there are forms of matter and energy in that room that our bodies cannot detect. And that interact with each other and with the forms of energy in the room that we can detect in ways that we know nothing of. And there are many questions that can be asked about the existence of that room that we could not possibly answer.

But we pay all this mystery no mind. So that in our minds we can feel that we know what it's all about. And can therefor anticipate and control things to our own advantage.

But ignoring our ignorance does not result in increased knowledge even though it may feel like it. And even though we may really want to believe it.

 

[paarsurrey]

#197
"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 (of Moses) against G-d, please, right?"

 

[oldbadger]

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?

Easy......... I'm a Deist and believe that everything and every force and anything else is a part of the Whole, or God, but a God who is so massive that we are not even noticeable, just like a cell in your liver is part of you but unknown by you.

Since God can't even hear me, why would I argue with God?

 

[Madsaac]

Knowledge can be based on observations of the 'objects' around us, but that does not make the knowledge 'objective'. in fact, there is no such thing as 'objective knowledge' because all knowledge is subject to the limitations of the holder. We are the subjects and everything we know or don't know is relative to that (is subjective).

Yes knowledge may be always subjective but what I know to exist can be objective, it's a fact. For example, there is oxygen in the air

We can sit in a room and look at the walls and the ceiling and all the objects in it and tell ourselves that we understand everything about that environment. We know all about how it was made and what it is for and why it exists. And yet there are forms of matter and energy in that room that our bodies cannot detect. And that interact with each other and with the forms of energy in the room that we can detect in ways that we know nothing of. And there are many questions that can be asked about the existence of that room that we could not possibly answer.

Don't humans have a very good understanding of what type of matter and energy is in that room because of science. Even though our bodies can't 'feel' the oxygen, it is definitely there, isn't it? No matter what our subjective experience of the oxygen in the room is, it is definitely there because of our objective knowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes knowledge may be always subjective but what I know to exist can be objective, it's a fact. For example, there is oxygen in the air



Don't humans have a very good understanding of what type of matter and energy is in that room because of science. Even though our bodies can't 'feel' the oxygen, it is definitely there, isn't it? No matter what our subjective experience of the oxygen in the room is, it is definitely there because of our objective knowledge.

You should start here and try to understand what it is about in regards to what you believe. I.e. how come it is methodological naturalism and not philosophical naturalism:

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And if you want to we can go back to how sicence hasn't solved the problems in epistemology.

 

[PureX]

Yes knowledge may be always subjective but what I know to exist can be objective,

C'mon, dude. Pay attention to what you're writing. How could subjective knowledge determine an objective truth?

it's a fact. For example, there is oxygen in the air

"Oxygen" is a human conceptual construct. Facts are only as true as their relative context. And in this case we are creating the relative context. So we are creating the 'facts'.

Don't humans have a very good understanding of what type of matter and energy is in that room because of science.

We have some sort of idea because of science. But it's all based on our own cognitive limitations, and on how we address them. Science does not make us something other than what we are.

Even though our bodies can't 'feel' the oxygen, it is definitely there, isn't it? No matter what our subjective experience of the oxygen in the room is, it is definitely there because of our objective knowledge.

Existence is a single, very complex interactive phenomenon. Where the "oxygen" ends and "we" begin is just our own subjective ideation. Even "there" (as opposed to "here') is just ideation. We are making it up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

You can't argue against Gooblydokblooblooe
Because since you don't Gooblydokblooblooe, you can't justify any argument against something you don't know.


The point exactly. Also, since we don't know Gooblydokblooblooe, we also can't make any arguments FOR it.


In fact, since we don't know what Gooblydokblooblooe / God is, then what are we even talking about and why are we even talking about it?


Having said all that, I don't argue "against" god. Instead, I point out the flaws and shortcomings in arguments FOR god.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Virtues are an example that are not detected by the senses, yet logic and reason tells they exist,

Eum, no. "logic and reason" doesn't. Evidence of seeing them (with our senses) under a microscope does.
Sure, empirical evidence is logical and reasonable. But the way you phrased it, it seems to me, was insufficient.

We now viruses exist from empirical evidence of their existence.

Much like every breath we take keeps us alive, yet oxygen is not detected by the senses, take the oxygen away and we perish.

True. Again without "augmenting" our senses with some kind of technology (microscope, spectrometers, etc) we wouldn't know about atoms and molecules.
But again, it's not exactly correct to say that we know about those things through mere "logic and reason". First and foremost, we know about those through empirical evidence.

If you wish to discuss this to negate that others have not used logic and reason to embrace powers beyond our senses, then the foundations of virtues have already failed.
Regards Tony

And empirical evidence. Moreso in the case of your examples then anything else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The first step is to admit to our own selves that there are things in life that exist that are beyond our material senses

I find the way that you phrase these things a bit suspect.
You say "in life", but the examples you and someone else gave were rather "in the universe".
And you say "beyond material senses" but the examples were also limited to empirical reality.
The example were only "beyond the senses" insofar as they were not directly perceivable / observable without the aid of some technology.
Once we put viruses under a microscope for example, our senses DO perceive them.
When we use infra red cameras, our senses also DO perceive infra red.

It sounds to me like you are trying to sneak in certain kinds of unwarranted things by using these insufficiently accurate wording.

The power of thought, where does it come from.

The rbain.

The vegetable kingdom, the animal kingdom and human kingdom all have the power of thought

It seems to me that thoughts only occur in organisms that have a brain.
I'm not aware of any meaningful concept of the word "thought" which also applies to plants.

, where does the capacity of rational thought come from?

Again: the brain.
And by adding the word "rational" to "rational thought", you just made it even worse to pretend as if it also applies to plants.

Science can answer so much, but cutting up a flesh Brain and study of its pathways will not find the power that makes that brain live.

Now you changed the language from "rational thought" to "living".

You need to decide what it is that you are talking about instead of jumping and dancing all around in vaguery.

The power behind the senses, is a power beyond the senses.

I don't know what this means. And in light of all the vaguery above, I know even less what this means.

All this just confirms to me that you are simply trying to sneak in some kind of "mystical" stuff into the conversation.
So much for your "step by step" claim of "logic and reason".

First, use words correctly or be more precise in defining the terms you use.
Second, stop being vague.
Third, realize that all examples given so far all exist well within empirical reality.

 

[Nakosis]

Having said all that, I don't argue "against" god. Instead, I point out the flaws and shortcomings in arguments FOR god.

That's perfect. That way I can refine my God to overcome these flaws and shortcomings. Thanks for the help.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It may be, if we could use 100% of our brain, with 100% of its capacity, then truth would be less subjective.

The idea that we don't use "100% of our brain" is part of the so-called "10% myth".

Myth: We Only Use 10% of Our Brains

This will prepare students to understand how all parts of the brain contribute to behavior.

www.psychologicalscience.org

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it is not sabotage, I see it as the more plausible explanation of creation.

After all we are only and assemblance of atoms, with a power that gives life, firing the electrical impulses in the brain.

Take that power away, we dissipate back into atoms.

Yet the mind is not lost.

Support the bolded claim.

That is a reasonable and logical statement based on our ability to dream, NDE experiences

In none of these phenomenon are we dealing with a brain that is "dissipated into atoms"

and plausible psychic events.

"plausible"? When were "psychic events" ever shown to be "plausible"?
They are in the category of magic and voodoo.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's perfect. That way I can refine my God to overcome these flaws and shortcomings. Thanks for the help.

I can help you with that.

Define god in testable and falsifiable ways. That will give us a way to test the god-hypothesis.
This off course also opens up gods to being falsified.

Not being defined in testable and falsifiable ways, is a flaw which I will always be happy to point out.
Unfalsifiable claims are meaningless and / because they are infinite in number.

Unfalsifiable claims don't matter at all.
Unfalsifiable entities have zero manifestation and zero impact on anything whatsoever. They make no difference.

"there is an undetectable dragon following you everywhere you go".

It makes absolutely NO difference if such a dragon indeed follows you everywhere you go or if it doesn't exist. It matters not.

 

[Nakosis]

I can help you with that.

Define god in testable and falsifiable ways. That will give us a way to test the god-hypothesis.
This off course also opens up gods to being falsified.

Why, I have no need for a God that can be falsified.

Not being defined in testable and falsifiable ways, is a flaw which I will always be happy to point out.
Unfalsifiable claims are meaningless and / because they are infinite in number.

Except they benefit by not being able to be disproved.

Unfalsifiable claims don't matter at all.
Unfalsifiable entities have zero manifestation and zero impact on anything whatsoever. They make no difference.

I disagree. Belief, what you believe to be true has an impact on every decision you make. If I believe that God is giving me a sign then I will follow wherever that sign leads and something will happen because it is what God wanted to happen and you can't convince me otherwise.

"there is an undetectable dragon following you everywhere you go".

It makes absolutely NO difference if such a dragon indeed follows you everywhere you go or if it doesn't exist. It matters not.

It makes me happy. I'd rather be happy with my undetectable pet dragon following me around than sad if it ever left me.

 

[PureX]

Why, I have no need for a God that can be falsified.



Except they benefit by not being able to be disproved.



I disagree. Belief, what you believe to be true has an impact on every decision you make. If I believe that God is giving me a sign then I will follow wherever that sign leads and something will happen because it is what God wanted to happen and you can't convince me otherwise.



It makes me happy. I'd rather be happy with my undetectable pet dragon following me around than sad if it ever left me.

How dare you disrespect TailgateMonster's kangaroo courtroom like that!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why, I have no need for a God that can be falsified.

Good for you.
I nevertheless consider it a flaw in any claim when it is unfalsifiable.
It means it is indistinguishable from a falsehood.

As the saying goes: "the undetectable and the non-existent, look very much alike".

Except they benefit by not being able to be disproved.

Which is meaningless since by the same token they can't be supported either.
And what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

When the statement "...but you can't disprove it!" is given as if it is some type of "benefit", it means you are arguing from a very defeated position.

My undetectable dragon can't be disproven either. Does that make it any more convincing in any way? Does that fact benefit my claim?

I disagree. Belief, what you believe to be true has an impact on every decision you make.

Beliefs are beliefs. Beliefs are not the things being believed.
It's like the placebo effect.

Slipping someone a placebo without them knowing about it will not make a difference.

Believing an undetectable dragon follows you around everywhere might make you feel like running, but this will only be so in your head.
In empirical reality, there is no difference between an undetectable dragon following you or no such dragon existing.

If I believe that God is giving me a sign then I will follow wherever that sign leads and something will happen because it is what God wanted to happen and you can't convince me otherwise.

Again, you confuse your beliefs with the substance of your belief.
They are not the same thing. Merely believing something is real doesn't mean it's actually real.

It makes me happy. I'd rather be happy with my undetectable pet dragon following me around than sad if it ever left me.

Good for you.
The fact is though that it is you who makes yourself happy. It can't be the dragon - even if it were real, because the dragon is undetectable meaning it has no manifestation and can't do anything in reality. So it necessarily comes from yourself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How dare you disrespect TailgateMonster's kangaroo courtroom like that!

Be silent or I will sent my undetectable pet dragon after you.

Wait, don't tell you me that you won't care if I do......................................
I wonder why.

 

[Nakosis]

So it necessarily comes from yourself.

Yes, therefore my beliefs are the only thing that matters, not your argument against them.
Just as all of your beliefs of what is necessary for a God only matter to you as these also come from yourself.

 

[PureX]

Yes, therefore my beliefs are the only thing that matters, not your argument against them.
Just as all of your beliefs of what is necessary for a God only matter to you as these also come from yourself.

But you can't just go around believing whatever you want to without TailgateMonster's approval!