You Can't Argue Against God

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

The thing is, it is not necessary to know everything to the last possible degree -- it is quite often quite enough to have sufficient depth of knowledge to predict what will happen. Sure, I can't tell what every last force exerted by whatever sorts of energy might be in the room to know -- with absolute certainty -- that short of an earthquake, building collapse, plane hitting the house or my action, that my coffee table is not going to suddenly jump up and land in the dining room.

In other words, knowing enough is quite often enough, and it is bootless to fuss about stuff you can't know.

That is why @TagliatelliMonster's pet dragon is such a useful metaphor -- because you know quite enough about it to know that you will not be affected by it in any manner, and can therefore dismiss it out of hand.

For many of us, that is equally true of whatever it is that people suppose they mean by "God."

 

[PureX]

The thing is, it is not necessary to know everything to the last possible degree -- it is quite often quite enough to have sufficient depth of knowledge to predict what will happen. Sure, I can't tell what every last force exerted by whatever sorts of energy might be in the room to know -- with absolute certainty -- that short of an earthquake, building collapse, plane hitting the house or my action, that my coffee table is not going to suddenly jump up and land in the dining room.

I don't see what this has to do with anything. A smart fish could learn to predict the likelihood of finding it's next meal and yet not know what water us.

We have no idea how profoundly significant what we don't know is. And just because we can learn to function within the limitations of our ignorance it doesn't mean we "know enough" the presume to mostly know it all.

In other words, knowing enough is quite often enough, and it is bootless to fuss about stuff you can't know.

"Enough" for what! To stay stupid as we pretend we're smart?

That is why @TagliatelliMonster's pet dragon is such a useful metaphor -- because you know quite enough about it to know that you will not be affected by it in any manner, and can therefore dismiss it out of hand.

For many of us, that is equally true of whatever it is that people suppose they mean by "God."

So ... to stay stupid while pretending you're smart, then.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, therefore my beliefs are the only thing that matters, not your argument against them.

The only thing that matters for you as it concerns you. I agree.
It doesn't matter to anyone else. That's how it goes with personal beliefs in unfalsifiable things. They are only relevant to the believer.
The point exactly.

Just as all of your beliefs of what is necessary for a God only matter to you as these also come from yourself.

I don't have beliefs when it comes to gods or other unfalsifiable things. Certainly not as it concerns what is "necessary" for those things (whatever you mean by that).

I don't concern myself with unfalsifiable things. They don't matter.
But I do concern myself with beliefs in unfalsifiable things when those beliefs have impact on others.
Beliefs, after all, inform actions. So the effects of beliefs in things, most certainly can impact me or the society I live in.
And then they become my business.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I never said any such thing.

The fact that you think I did just goes to show how little you pay attention.

If you would come down from your high horse, take a deep breath, calm down and read with a speck of attention, you would know better.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't see what this has to do with anything. A smart fish could learn to predict the likelihood of finding it's next meal and yet not know what water us.

We have no idea how profoundly significant what we don't know is. And just because we can learn to function within the limitations of our ignorance it doesn't mean we "know enough" the presume to mostly know it all.

"Enough" for what! To stay stupid as we pretend we're smart?

So ... to stay stupid while pretending you're smart, then.

Don't be silly. So far, humans have calculated Pi to 22 trillion decimals. "Wow!" you say? Well, NASA says, "so what?"

NASA certainly doesn't need trillions of digits for its calculations. In fact, they get by with using just 15 — 3.141592653589793. It's not perfect, but it's close enough:

The most distant spacecraft from Earth is Voyager 1. It is about 12.5 billion miles away. Let's say we have a circle with a radius of exactly that size (or 25 billion miles in diameter) and we want to calculate the circumference, which is pi times the radius times 2. Using pi rounded to the 15th decimal, as I gave above, that comes out to a little more than 78 billion miles.

We don't need to be concerned here with exactly what the value is (you can multiply it out if you like) but rather what the error in the value is by not using more digits of Pi. In other words, by cutting Pi off at the 15th decimal point, we would calculate a circumference for that circle that is very slightly off. It turns out that our calculated circumference of the 25 billion mile diameter circle would be wrong by 1.5 inches.

Think about that. We have a circle more than 78 billion miles around, and our calculation of that distance would be off by perhaps less than the length of your little finger.

Going further, if you used 40 digits of Pi, you could calculate the circumference of the entire visible universe — an area with the radius of about 46 billion light-years — "to an accuracy equal to the diameter of a hydrogen atom." Just 40 digits out of the 22 trillion we could use. And that'll do!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So ... to stay stupid while pretending you're smart, then.

So.... will you lose one second of sleep over me sending me undetectable pet dragon to hunt you down?

It seems your answer is "yes"?

 

[paarsurrey]

You Can't Argue Against God​

#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?"
Job's case is also similar, he didn't argue against G-d, please, right?

Regards

 

[PureX]

Don't be silly. So far, humans have calculated Pi to 22 trillion decimals. "Wow!" you say? Well, NASA says, "so what?"

NASA certainly doesn't need trillions of digits for its calculations. In fact, they get by with using just 15 — 3.141592653589793. It's not perfect, but it's close enough:

The most distant spacecraft from Earth is Voyager 1. It is about 12.5 billion miles away. Let's say we have a circle with a radius of exactly that size (or 25 billion miles in diameter) and we want to calculate the circumference, which is pi times the radius times 2. Using pi rounded to the 15th decimal, as I gave above, that comes out to a little more than 78 billion miles.

We don't need to be concerned here with exactly what the value is (you can multiply it out if you like) but rather what the error in the value is by not using more digits of Pi. In other words, by cutting Pi off at the 15th decimal point, we would calculate a circumference for that circle that is very slightly off. It turns out that our calculated circumference of the 25 billion mile diameter circle would be wrong by 1.5 inches.

Think about that. We have a circle more than 78 billion miles around, and our calculation of that distance would be off by perhaps less than the length of your little finger.

Going further, if you used 40 digits of Pi, you could calculate the circumference of the entire visible universe — an area with the radius of about 46 billion light-years — "to an accuracy equal to the diameter of a hydrogen atom." Just 40 digits out of the 22 trillion we could use. And that'll do!

You don't seem to have any idea how irrelevant all of that is. Math is just a form of language that we use to describe logical relationships. There are no miles in space. There are no light-years. These are all imaginary concepts that exist only in our minds. Like words. But that we think are real because we like imaging that we understand the great mystery that we are living in.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ok, I'll make a claim. God is all knowing. So what is your argument against that claim?

The argument is against accepting the claim as truth absent sufficient evidentiary support - not that the claim can be shown to be wrong.

Virtues are an example that are not detected by the senses

Abstractions are labels or categories for that which is experienced empirically. Individual acts of love, for example, are detectable. The quality or qualities that they all possess in common is the abstraction and the individual instances the physical reality from which abstractions are abstracted.

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

Oxygen levels are monitored by the body continuously. We don't normally get a message sent to consciousness until the blood gases become abnormal but take that oxygen away as you suggest and you'll get that message if you are conscious.

These kinds of arguments about abstractions and oxygen are intended to be examples of how something like a god can be real yet undetectable, but they fail as I have just demonstrated.

Love is detectable. Oxygen is detectable. Gods are not. The fact of the first two of those sentences does not grandfather or bootstrap the nonexistent, which is necessarily undetectable, into existence.

True and lasting love requires the foundation of trustworthiness and trufulness.

Disagree. Love requires a concern for the well-being of another. Trust is not essential. Neither is truthfulness. Those are both commonly parts of loving relationships but need not be present for the commission of an act of love. A person takes a bullet for you. Neither trust nor honesty need be involved.

One can not argue against God, as it is an argument against logic and reason.

Disagree again. Reason tells us not to believe in gods without sufficient supporting evidence.

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

Vegetables don't think, and humanity is a subset of kingdom animalia.

This is all about submission.

For you, an Abrahamic theist, perhaps. That's a disposition characteristic of those religions as well as the military and perhaps some cultures, especially those with caste systems. It's the central message of Christianity. Submit to what are said to be God's commandments for a reward or don't and be punished.

It's not how I think or feel. I'm an autonomous citizen who cheerfully obeys the law. Submission isn't part of that mindset. Cooperation is. Even when employed, it's a matter of cooperating with the company, not submitting to it. If the company doesn't do its part, the relationship ends.

We can choose to find the balance in our differences, but humility is required.

Humility in this context is generally code for (religious) submission, which means passive, uncritical obedience. Refusal is called rebelliousness and arrogance. I've been told that I'm playing God for not submitting to that. I think I'm expected to object or disagree, but I don't. If being in charge of my life makes me a god, then I guess I'm a god.

It could be that position is the one based in bigotry, as God given laws may be the elixir we need.

Those allegedly God-given laws are the source of much bigotry.

 

[Nakosis]

The argument is against accepting the claim as truth absent sufficient evidentiary support - not that the claim can be shown to be wrong.

Since I have direct knowledge from God that God knows everything I don't need it to be proven by evidence. You only need evidence if you don't accept God's Word.

However, thanks for agreeing that you can't disprove it.

 

[Madsaac]

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

Maybe the term objective reality is better. No matter what you or I think or believe, something can still exist. Its a fact, otherwise the universe would not be here. For example Helium

"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'.

Its more then that, it's real, from whatever way you look at it. Oxygen is Oxygen. It doesn't need to be relative to something else

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.

Yes it does, too a large degree anyway, if it wasn't for science, we would still think Earth was the centre of the universe. We would still believing in God

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.

Again, no matter what, oxygen starts at some point, no matter what your interpretation is. It is 99.999999999% real.

Whereas something like God is not real and only exist insides someones head.

 

[Madsaac]

Since I have direct knowledge from God that God knows everything I don't need it to be proven by evidence. You only need evidence if you don't accept God's Word.

However, thanks for agreeing that you can't disprove it.

Yeah but because god is purely subjective and nothing else, there is no way to prove god doesn't exist, I can't disprove what goes on in your head.

However, me knowing that god is purely subjective and is only someone's figment of their imagination, shows to me the absurdity of the idea of god, especially in relation the wider world and what god supposedly represents. God loses lots of credibility in other words.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

However, thanks for agreeing that you can't disprove it.

Why are you thanking someone for agreeing to the obvious?

You can't disprove unfalsifiable claims by definition.
So pointing out that the unfalsifiable can't be falsified, doesn't make that unfalsifiable claim any more rational or convincing.

If you disagree, I have an undetectable palace for sale.

 

[Nakosis]

Why are you thanking someone for agreeing to the obvious?

You can't disprove unfalsifiable claims by definition.
So pointing out that the unfalsifiable can't be falsified, doesn't make that unfalsifiable claim any more rational or convincing.

If you disagree, I have an undetectable palace for sale.

Thanks but I'm not currently in the market for an undetectable palace.

 

[blü 2]

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 looks right to me. God has no definition appropriate to a being who's objectively real, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether [he] was God or not. The only way gods and other supernatural critters are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains, indistinguishable from characters in fiction.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah but because god is purely subjective and nothing else, there is no way to prove god doesn't exist, I can't disprove what goes on in your head.

However, me knowing that god is purely subjective and is only someone's figment of their imagination, shows to me the absurdity of the idea of god, especially in relation the wider world and what god supposedly represents. God loses lots of credibility in other words.

Yes that is your belief whereas I am free to believe otherwise.
Since our conscious experience is subjective anyway, you get to decide that subjective experience's relationship to reality same as I do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have direct knowledge from God that God knows everything

I wonder why you think so. I have no knowledge that I would say came from a god.

I used to say that I did, but then I discovered that what I was calling the Holy Spirit was just my own young mind in the hands of a talented and charismatic preacher. I felt different in church than elsewhere, and it was a sense of belonging and great joy generated using smiles and singing and hand clapping while shouting out a lot of amens and hallelujahs.

How did I discover that this was not the Holy Spirit? That had been my first congregation. I converted in my late teens and had my first church experience far from home while in the military. Upon discharge, I moved away and visited about a half dozen other congregations that were dull and lifeless. So, I was able to figure out what had been happening in that first church.

Now I understand that what I considered a visit from a god was my own mental state. It was a spiritual experience replete with a sense of awe, mystery, connection, and gratitude, but I was not experiencing a spirit.

thanks for agreeing that you can't disprove it.

Correct. Gods in general cannot be demonstrated to exist nor be ruled out. That's why I'm an agnostic atheist.

Were you referring to the god of Abraham? That one can be ruled out. They wrote too much about it. They made many claims that have been falsified, and some that are internally contradictory (incoherent). I can assure you that the god who allegedly created the universe in six days including an original pair of humans doesn't exist. I can assure you that the all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful god that permits gratuitous suffering doesn't exist. I can assure you that the perfect god who created an imperfect creature, regretted its mistake and tried to correct it with near extinction event that didn't work doesn't exist.

But gods with less detail, like the deist god who allegedly set the universe in motion and then left it can't be ruled out.

 

[Nakosis]

That looks right to me. God has no definition appropriate to a being who's objectively real, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether [he] was God or not. The only way gods and other supernatural critters are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains, indistinguishable from characters in fiction.

Sure like colors don't actually exist outside of our conscious experience of them. They are an interpretation of reality created by our brain. Some folks interpret their spiritual experience as having a relationship to reality and some dont.

 

[PureX]

Maybe the term objective reality is better.

How is objective reality appreciably different from objective truth?

No matter what you or I think or believe, something can still exist.

Yes, but the point is that we couldn't know if, what, or that anything exists apart from our subjective experiences and presumptions. Existence, to us, is what we experience and then presume it to be. Perception is conception, and everything else is unknown (moot).

Its a fact, otherwise the universe would not be here. For example Helium.

Actually, that's just a presumption.

Its more then that, it's real, from whatever way you look at it. Oxygen is Oxygen. It doesn't need to be relative to something else

I can see that you are a true believer. And like all true believers, you believe you are absolutely and unquestionably right about this. Even though you cannot know or prove this to be so.

Yes it does, too a large degree anyway, if it wasn't for science, we would still think Earth was the centre of the universe. We would still believing in God.

We do, and we do. Perception is conception. And reality is what we presume it to be.

Again, no matter what, oxygen starts at some point, no matter what your interpretation is. It is 99.999999999% real.

'Oxygen' is just a human interpretation of a category of phenomenal experience.

Whereas something like God is not real and only exist insides someones head.

Reality only exists in our heads. Including the reality of 'oxygen'.

You cannot understand this because you are a true believer. You have joined the cult of the scientific materialists. And now your mind can no longer think outside of that box. You are unable to recognize that how you understand the world and how the world is are not the same. And in fact could be wildly different without you or I ever knowing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks but I'm not currently in the market for an undetectable palace.

Great.

I'm not in the market for an undetectable anything