You Can't Argue Against God

[Aupmanyav]

In short, neither of us exist independently of anything - we are each a part of everything, and everything is part of us.

That reminds me of an very famous 'advaitic' verse, from the shortest Upanishad, Ishavasya, just 18 verses (so to say, 'advaita' compressed in two lines):

"Purnam adah, purnam idam, purnat purnam udachyate;
purnasya purnam adaya, purnam eva vasishyate."

That (Brahman) is wholeness, this here also is wholeness, from wholeness alone can wholeness arise; if wholeness is added to or subtracted from wholeness, what remains is still wholeness.

 

[Nakosis]

You might want to look up what "empirical" means.

To give an extreme example we might both agree on: when a schizofrenic experiences hearing voices, he does not have empirical evidence of voices.

Mere "personal experience" is not empirical.

If you are not going to rely on your personal experience, then what are you going to rely on? Someone else's personal experience?

The problem is that you are confusing subjective personal experience with empirical data.
They are not the same thing.

I see. Where are you going to get your empirical data from?

I submit that you didn't come across any demons, ever.

You are back to deciding what is real for me. Can I also decide what is real for you?

 

[blü 2]

The truth is what is. Everyone knows this. The problem is that what is, is so much greater than any one human can ever know. All we can ever know of it is the tiny sliver that we experience and understand for ourselves.

The fact you keep asking your fellow humans to tell you what the truth is indicates that you refuse to recognize the fact of your (and all our) inability to ascertain it. Because you believe that your triune godhead of empiricism, materialism, and scientism can, will, and is revealing it to us.

But it's not. And it never will. Because it's just limited human methodology.

I'm very clear on the point that outside this sentence there are no absolute statements. And science doesn't claim to make any.

 

[firedragon]

Oh, I thought in the case of "God = .." it's too obvious, no need to debate

God is defined as e.g. Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent. God can't be limited,

Hence, never write God on left side of "="

God = ...

As this limits God, hence "it's false"

What are you on about?

 

[PureX]

I'm very clear on the point that outside this sentence there are no absolute statements. And science doesn't claim to make any.

Then please stop conflating "objective reality" with "absolute truth".

 

[F1fan]

My spider sences are detecting some of that "Existentialist Fallacy" among other things.

Did you mean your "spider cents"? It seems worth a penny.

1) We are in a continuous debate with the Creator .. the one thing we know for sure .. and the only thing .. which is the basis of the existentialist fallacy - just question the the others perception of reality and you can thwart any argument

Who is "we" that are debating the Creator? And how do they confirm a Creator exists outside of their imagination? Answer this with facts, not beliefs.

"You Don't know God" ? is said - and nor do you know that I don't know God .. Assumed premise fallacy .. among other things .. in a circular dance on both sides of the equation ..

Many believers claim to know a God. It's that they fail to demonstrate their claims are true, and offset the likelihood they are imagining their God. I remain unconvinced. Where are the facts that you know a God, and it isn't just imagined?

Another big problem with the "You don't know God" assertion is that you have not defined God .. which once done in this case will make the existential fallacy go away .. as both have agreed on the perspective.

Why do skeptics need to define the God that believers claim to know? If you know these Gods then you describe and define them. It sounds like you haven't thought through your beliefs.

How can you say I don't know about something that you have not defined. If you have not stated what it is that we don't know - how can we say whether we know it or not .. which is a big "We don't know nothing" = we know something LOL - and now we have a mathamatical proof of the fallacy .. right before your very eyes.

You claim to know a God, you describe it/ It's got nothing to do with me. It seems you are confused here. Could it be that you are trapped between your belief and lacking knowledge of a God?

For example -- Some define God as the Wind .. others the Sun .. in each case the "You don't know God" statement is false .. as indeed I do know at least something about the wind .. and the Sun.

It's your problem that so many Gods exist in different forms. If you think you know a God exists then it's odd that you are avoiding telling us what it is.

What is God ladies ? how can you have a coherent conversation about the attributes of God .. when you havn't defined what God is ? .. one person thinking God is Wind .. the other beliving God is an anthropomorphic xenophobic Genocidal maniac with the most petty and nasty of Human characteristics .. an illogical flip floping trickster God .

It suggests believers in Gods are confused, and they adopt all sorts of different ideas that they get confused about. Notive you offer no details of your belief.

Or .. some might say .. 2) perhaps God is the "I AM" -- as in the Monty Python Philosopher song ! Do you not agree with this hypothesis !?

I think mere mortals imagine many different Gods, and it includes an idealized form of the self. God is the ideal self, and this is why some believers will act in violance against infidels or non-believers, because they believe they are acting with the authority of God that is really themselves. In the end violent believers re still held accountable for their acts.

 

[Sargonski]

Sure, I worship the wind as God. What is your argument against it?

Why would I argue against such a thing

Did you mean your "spider cents"? It seems worth a penny.

Who is "we" that are debating the Creator? And how do they confirm a Creator exists outside of their imagination? Answer this with facts, not beliefs.

Many believers claim to know a God. It's that they fail to demonstrate their claims are true, and offset the likelihood they are imagining their God. I remain unconvinced. Where are the facts that you know a God, and it isn't just imagined?

Why do skeptics need to define the God that believers claim to know? If you know these Gods then you describe and define them. It sounds like you haven't thought through your beliefs.

You claim to know a God, you describe it/ It's got nothing to do with me. It seems you are confused here. Could it be that you are trapped between your belief and lacking knowledge of a God?

It's your problem that so many Gods exist in different forms. If you think you know a God exists then it's odd that you are avoiding telling us what it is.

It suggests believers in Gods are confused, and they adopt all sorts of different ideas that they get confused about. Notive you offer no details of your belief.

I think mere mortals imagine many different Gods, and it includes an idealized form of the self. God is the ideal self, and this is why some believers will act in violance against infidels or non-believers, because they believe they are acting with the authority of God that is really themselves. In the end violent believers re still held accountable for their acts.

You needed to go back and correct your original snark .. as you move through the post however, you do seem gain some semblance of understanging but then drift into fallacy .. "Who claimed to know a God " ? and who is the confused one .. trapped in some fictitious belief ?

Do you not understand the Philosopher song ? ... the interphase between you and reality is what ? ..and who / what is it that you are interphasing with ... and WTF is God friend ? .. what part of .. Need to define your term .. did we miss along the way .. such that we can have an agreed upon point of reverence to achieve any coherence..

You say .. "You claimed to know Gods" .. i claimed no such thing .. a function of your misunderstanding of what came after.

What are you defining as God .. such that I may know what it is you are accusing me of knowing .. ?

You want to know who "We" is ? Humans .. the collective WE .. who wants to be free ..

You want to know how humans interact with the universe .. "Converse" with the universe .. converseing with everything .. of which God presumably is a part .. but who knows until you define what your God is.. your missing the boat on that requirement Brother FFan which-out which you can not cross the existential fallacy and enter reality.

Define what you mean by "God" .. give an example of a God like Power .. and explain to me the interaction between you and the universe .. known in a punny way as the "I AM" moment .. .. the greatest achievement of Philosophy .. telling us the only thing we know for sure ! Row Row Row the boat .. Gently down the stream .. Convince me that this is not all just a computer similation .. some fancy vacaction .. where everything is real .. LOL . fancy vacation after which we have re -incarnation ..

What part of "Define God" have you forgotten already .. ??

 

[Sargonski]

Sure, I worship the wind as God. What is your argument against it?

Let us recognized that your claim as such... your argument has falsified .. Right ? The assertion that you do not know God ! ..

Notice that as soon as you define what on earth it is we are talking about as God .. the existential fallacy goes away and everything becomes clear.

Someone argues .. "You can't know God" .. but .. clearly you do know God .. I know your God .. .She knows your God .. everyone does.. Who does not bow to the power of the Wind Brother Nako !! ?

but is this really a valid definition for what you would consider a God - like power >Magic< as defined by tina. .. say . She don't believe in Magic .. don't believe in no Gods .. OK .. but clearly Ye All believe in the Wind .. so what is it that you don't believe in .. Define your Terms .. as no coherent discussion can come otherwise.

You say you don't believe .. Great .. Vunderbar .. but what is it you don't believe !

 

[Sargonski]

Oh, I thought in the case of "God = .." it's too obvious, no need to debate

God is defined as e.g. Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent. God can't be limited,

Hence, never write God on left side of "="

God = ...

As this limits God, hence "it's false"

I suppose you can define what ever you like as God .. but .. that definition is extremely poor IMO .. the "God is Everything Definition" .. which .. by claiming that .. one is also claiming God is nothing .. .. it is more of a lazy default position for those who have not thought about the question..

If an alien asks you "What is God" .. and you run around crying out "Everything .. God is Everything" .. he is going to think you mean God is your term for all matter and energy in the universe .. just a term for Everything. Generally I think a God should have some agency .. otherwise it is just the elemental forces .. all glomed together as one but bag everything cancels everything out into nothing...

In the same breath why must the power of a God be unlimited ? who made that rule .. and what if there are many Gods .. do they all have the same unlimited power .. is each of these Gods "Everything"

So if some entity came down to earth from the sky .. and had powers -- could hurl lightning bolts around .. Teleport from one place to the next .. all kinds of other God-like powers .. Would you claim this is not a God . because she is not all powerfulL

 

[blü 2]

Then please stop conflating "objective reality" with "absolute truth".

There are no absolute truths. But there are more defensible and less defensible views on just about any topic.

And in my view the only way God (and gods &c) is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain.

God never appears, never says, never does, except in imagination.

The qualities attributed to God such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, being infinite, eternal, perfect, are all imaginary qualities. There is not the slightest evidence that God acts in the world, let alone does so benevolently.

There is no coherent concept of a real God, such that if we found a suspect we could determine whether [he] was God or not.

There is no coherent concept of "godness", the quality a real god would have and a superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead &c would lack.

On the other hand, history suggests an imaginary god or two make a useful concept for humans, to explain the inexplicable, and to be called on for help when the alternative may be panic, and of course in politics, to empower tribal leaders through association or identification.

 

[stvdv]

Oh, I thought in the case of "God = .." it's too obvious, no need to debate

God is defined as e.g. Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent. God can't be limited,

Hence, never write God on left side of "="

God = ...

As this limits God, hence "it's false"

What are you on about?

Confirming the title "You can't argue against God"

Well, you could IF you change the definition of God

 

[firedragon]

Well, of course you can, but you had to change the definition of God

On what basis could one just arbitrarily "change the definition of God" just for the argument's sake? That's hypocrisy. It's dishonesty. This is a strawman fallacy.

 

[stvdv]

On what basis could one just arbitrarily "change the definition of God" just for the argument's sake?

Exactly my point "only if you change the definition you might win the argument against God", but that's cheating ... no basis at all

That's hypocrisy. It's dishonesty. This is a strawman fallacy.

I agree

Hence, I accept "Useless to argue against God"

 

[stvdv]

I suppose you can define what ever you like as God .. but .. that definition is extremely poor IMO .. the "God is Everything Definition"

I did not define this, not mine to solve

IF you have a problem with that definition

You better talk to the "author of the Bible"

 

[Kenny]

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 agree… I also like the perspective that was presented in the book of Job:

38 Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind:
2 “Who is this that questions my wisdom
with such ignorant words?
3 Brace yourself like a man,
because I have some questions for you,
and you must answer them.
4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell me, if you know so much.
5 Who determined its dimensions
and stretched out the surveying line?
6 What supports its foundations,
and who laid its cornerstone
7 as the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

 

[Pogo]

I think yours is a prime example of the category error I spoke about earlier.


But just to make it fun, I'll use an AI engine.

So are we going to get Tommy or something like a Yoko Ono production?

 

[firedragon]

Sure, I worship the wind as God. What is your argument against it?

Wind is a produce of matter. If you worship a produce of something, you have to also worship the thing that produced it by default because it's the maker of your God. So you will end up with an infinite regression now.

 

[Pogo]

Why do skeptics need to define the God that believers claim to know? If you know these Gods then you describe and define them. It sounds like you haven't thought through your beliefs.

Please PM me when you get an even vaguely coherent answer.

 

[Sargonski]

I did not define this, not mine to solve

IF you have a problem with that definition

You better talk to the "author of the Bible"

.. you did define God as "Everything" the clasic lazy way out leading to the God of Nothing .. and you were told the various problems with such definitions "Everything .. God is Everything" .. is a meaningless definition .. you just can't see the dark side of the moon ...

The definition you gave is not from any of the author(s) of the Bible. None of the Gods in the bible are descibed by your "God of Everything" definition ..so no need to talk to any of those fellows.

 

[stvdv]

.. you did define God as "Everything" the clasic lazy way out leading to the God of Nothing .. and you were told the various problems with such definitions "Everything .. God is Everything" .. is a meaningless definition .. you just can't see the dark side of the moon ...

The definition you gave is not from any of the author(s) of the Bible. None of the Gods in the bible are descibed by your "God of Everything" definition ..so no need to talk to any of those fellows.

Genesis (so, the Bible) is quite clear on this
There was nothing, and God created everything