You Can't Argue Against God

[TransmutingSoul]

That is called faith. I have a different one-

I see it is called a logical search based on a Just search of the given evidence.

Faith without this, are superstitions.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see it is called a logical search based on a Just search of the given evidence.

Faith without this, are superstitions.

Regards Tony

Yeah, and I see it differently.
No regards as you are calling me out, oh man of oneness and peace. So superstitions right back at you.

 

[Tomef]

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.

you’re missing the point. It makes no difference if my experience is real, for me it’s still my experience, and anything I say exists within that experience, as does what you or anyone else says. Whether or not it is real, a simulation, a dream or anything else is immaterial (pun sort of intended, but not really . Is the pun real? Is humour real? How does anyone know? It’s all part of the experience.

 

[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.
you’re missing the point. It makes no difference if my experience is real, for me it’s still my experience, and anything I say exists within that experience, as does what you or anyone else says. Whether or not it is real, a simulation, a dream or anything else is immaterial (pun sort of intended, but not really . Is the pun real? Is humour real? How does anyone know? It’s all part of the experience.

Yeah, but the experince is not objective reality.
Now you do know that all experinces are not yours as yours to control, but come to you from objective reality, right?

 

[Nakosis]

Anything presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Sure, so you don't really need to make an argument against it. Just saying it kind of seems like a wasted effort.

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, but the experince is not objective reality.
Now you do know that all experinces are not yours as yours to control, but come to you from objective reality, right?

It makes no difference to the point.

I know this is your thing, but I’m not interested in going off on a tangent about it. If you want to start a thread about it I’d be happy to take a look.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

But that's just a logical consequence. We can't have evidence for a claim until we have a claim... and we don't actually have a claim until all the claim's terms are defined.

How can you claim something is not evidence of God?

"Evidence" is facts that demonstrate the premises needed for an argument that supports some conclusion. What constitutes evidence for a conclusion will depend on the arguments for that conclusion.

When someone says that there's no evidence for a thing, it's always in the context of the current arguments for that thing. Come up with a new valid argument for the thing and what would constitute "evidence" would change.

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

Do we, though?

I mean, if every observation and measurement we make is completely consistent with there be no gods, that's meaningful.

 

[Nakosis]

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

Without knowledge about God, how can you know what traits a God would or would not possess?

They claim knowledge, you claim none. Do you think the smart move is to make an argument based on your lack of knowledge?

 

[Revoltingest]

Without knowledge about God, how can you know what traits a God would or would not possess?

If we assume what the Bible says about God is "knowledge",
then we may argue against the god defined by those traits.

They claim knowledge, you claim none.

One may assume their "knowledge" as premises
to argue against the god they believe in.

Do you think the smart move is to make an argument based on your lack of knowledge?

That's not what I propose.
Argue based upon what they claim is knowledge.
Personally, I find it unproductive to argue their
God doesn't exist. It's a big old why bother.

 

[Nakosis]

But that's just a logical consequence. We can't have evidence for a claim until we have a claim... and we don't actually have a claim until all the claim's terms are defined.

Have you have much luck getting believers to define all of the terms of their claim?
Usually the attributes are changed to whatever is necessary to support the claim.

"Evidence" is facts that demonstrate the premises needed for an argument that supports some conclusion. What constitutes evidence for a conclusion will depend on the arguments for that conclusion.

When someone says that there's no evidence for a thing, it's always in the context of the current arguments for that thing. Come up with a new valid argument for the thing and what would constitute "evidence" would change.

Yes, believers can simply re-define God to whatever since you have to rely on their knowledge. They say God is "X". You argue against "X", now they say God is "Y". "Hey, you claim "X" about God before. "Yes, God is a mystery you can't understand without faith".

Do we, though?

I mean, if every observation and measurement we make is completely consistent with there be no gods, that's meaningful.

Every observation and measurement a believer makes is completely consistent with the existence of God, that's what meaningful to them.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yeah, and I see it differently.
No regards as you are calling me out, oh man of oneness and peace. So superstitions right back at you.

I share the thought that it is the Message that calls us all out of our own selves.

For us It is either a logical search, or it is shoot the messenger syndrome.

Regards Tony

 

[Stonetree]

.........

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

That is where the evidence for the claim comes in. If we are convinced by the evidence we will believe that god exists.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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?

No, I'd rather argue with God.

 

[F1fan]

Why?
Because since you don't kn

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

This is a claim. Where is the evidence for any aspect of it?

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

OK, if this supposedly applies to all humans what is the means to know God? Since you claim there to be no excuses it implies that God is readily evident to ordinary senses and understanding. So in what way does God make itself evident that does NOT require assumptions and judgment of it existing?

 

[F1fan]

Without knowledge about God, how can you know what traits a God would or would not possess?

What knowledge is there that is definitive, and can be distinguished from invented human lore?

They claim knowledge, you claim none. Do you think the smart move is to make an argument based on your lack of knowledge?

I don't think it's smart to make claims about something that can't be shown to be credible and true.

As it is we get presented with many diverse and contradictory claims and explanations of gods that no critical thinker can use.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you have much luck getting believers to define all of the terms of their claim?
Usually the attributes are changed to whatever is necessary to support the claim.



Yes, believers can simply re-define God to whatever since you have to rely on their knowledge. They say God is "X". You argue against "X", now they say God is "Y". "Hey, you claim "X" about God before. "Yes, God is a mystery you can't understand without faith".

Wait... are you just saying that atheists can't debate with theists because theists don't debate honestly?

Every observation and measurement a believer makes is completely consistent with the existence of God, that's what meaningful to them.

But here's the thing: if the assumption of a thing existing AND the assumption of the thing not existing are both entirely consistent with what we observe, then the thing has absolutely no effect on anything we observe.

I haven't met many theists who would consider such an irrelevant god to be the one they believe in. And for the few who would still accept that as their god... Occam's Razor still applies.

 

[firedragon]

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?

The most important point is the epistemology of the interlocutor. Predominantly those who make these arguments make a category error because they have not understood their own epistemology. That's the biggest problem.

 

[firedragon]

God is the proper name for the Christian god.

That's not right. Or are you making a different point I didn't understand?

 

[RestlessSoul]

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?

So you're saying that atheists who spend their time doing exactly that (many on this forum), are tilting at windmills?