You Can't Argue Against God

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

I am not your us. Now if you can show that with logic and evidence, then I will listen.
But no of this that I must accept how you think. You have to show it objectively and not just that it makes sense to you.

 

[Madsaac]

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?

Yeah but we have been told what god is, by people who say they know what god is. That's what the argument is mounted against, what believers say.

God believers are the ones who started the whole discussion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am not your us. Now if you can show that with logic and evidence, then I will listen.
But no of this that I must accept how you think. You have to show it objectively and not just that it makes sense to you.

Then Let's start with logic and reason, one step at a time and then move to evidence that will support that logic and reason

Is it logical and reasonable to conclude there is more to life than the senses can detect, see and feel?

Regards Tony

 

[McBell]

Then Let's start with logic and reason, one step at a time and then move to evidence that will support that logic and reason

OK.

Is it logical and reasonable to conclude there is more to life than the senses can detect, see and feel?

I do not know.
And until you show it is logically possible, it is merely a claim.
Which is what I thought your first sentence was proposing to do...

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah but we have been told what god is, by people who say they know what god is. That's what the argument is mounted against, what believers say.

God believers are the ones who started the whole discussion.

Ok, but then you are relying on their knowledge and how reliable is that?

 

[Nakosis]

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

The basis of their belief is the supernatural. The supernatural doesn't require anything other than their belief to support it. Lets say you successfully attack one belief. Another belief can easily appear in it's place. For example, used to be all non-believers go to eternal hell. You point out how unfair this is. So hell now becomes a temporary place, or you, the non-believer misunderstood the meaning of hell.

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.

While I've used the same argument myself for my lack of belief, I find most believers feel that God has somehow influenced their life which wouldn't be the same if God didn't exist. Signs is a big one. Something happens, they see it as a sign from God. They base a decision on this sign. They feel their life has improved because of the sign God sent which they listen to. Without the sign they would have made a different decision which would, of course, made their life worse.

Since you can't have them go back in time to have them make a different decision, you can't prove otherwise.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The basis of their belief is the supernatural. The supernatural doesn't require anything other than their belief to support it. Lets say you successfully attack one belief. Another belief can easily appear in it's place. For example, used to be all non-believers go to eternal hell. You point out how unfair this is. So hell now becomes a temporary place, or you, the non-believer misunderstood the meaning of hell.



While I've used the same argument myself for my lack of belief, I find most believers feel that God has somehow influenced their life which wouldn't be the same if God didn't exist. Signs is a big one. Something happens, they see it as a sign from God. They base a decision on this sign. They feel their life has improved because of the sign God sent which they listen to. Without the sign they would have made a different decision which would, of course, made their life worse.

Since you can't have them go back in time to have them make a different decision, you can't prove otherwise.

Well, for some people as non-religious it is the same for them being rational and/or related words. They invest in being rational and they have evidence for that.

 

[Nakosis]

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

I think that is the usual result. Honestly, I think atheists here are speaking in an echo chamber.
Mostly we are just applauding ourselves.
Occasionally someone will change sides but it seems to be a very rare occurrence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think that is the usual result. Honestly, I think atheists here are speaking in an echo chamber.
Mostly we are just applauding ourselves.
Occasionally someone will change sides but it seems to be a very rare occurrence.

Well, in more general terms anyone who subjectively can get away with claiming something is objective, which is subjective, can do so.
That is not limited to religious people.
And when a person then invests self.worth in that, it becomes hard to change.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Sure sometimes you can catch someone in a contradiction about their own theology. Either they will try to justify it somehow or end the debate, go off to revise their belief and come back at a later date. Their belief in God still intact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure sometimes you can catch someone in a contradiction about their own theology. Either they will try to justify it somehow or end the debate, go off to revise their belief and come back at a later date. Their belief in God still intact.

Well, I know of another version. It is not a given that everything can be explained without contradiction. That is the weak version of the theory of truth for coherence.

 

[Nakosis]

No, I'd rather argue with God.

Sure, Jacob argued with God and won.
I've had Jews tell me that haggling with God is permitted.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

OK.

I do not know.
And until you show it is logically possible, it is merely a claim.
Which is what I thought your first sentence was proposing to do...

We need to start with this basic question.

Is it logical and reasonable to conclude there is more to life than the senses can detect, see and feel?

Regards Tony

 

[Nakosis]

Well, I know of another version. It is not a given that everything can be explained without contradiction. That is the weak version of the theory of truth for coherence.

I usually find that any contradiction can be gotten around by thinking differently. Perhaps a little easier for me since I don't have a God to stand on.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We need to start with this basic question.

Is it logical and reasonable to conclude there is more to life than the senses can detect, see and feel?

Regards Tony

What depends on what you take for granted for a lot of the words you use.
In effect we are playing philosophy and that is different than religion.

 

[McBell]

Is it logical and reasonable to conclude there is more to life than the senses can detect, see and feel?

I do not know.
How about you logically show it?

It appears you are attempting to start your "logical" presentation with a premise without logically establishing said premise.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I usually find that any contradiction can be gotten around by thinking differently. Perhaps a little easier for me since I don't have a God to stand on.

Well, yes, but from that doesn't follow that all of reality can be explain by how you think. And even if you can do strong logic, is not logic to say that people ought to do strong logic. That is a norm.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What depends on what you take for granted for a lot of the words you use.
In effect we are playing philosophy and that is different than religion.

No.

Of course, if you had started with providing a logic based explanation as to why you think there is more to life than the senses can detect, we would not be here trying to figure out why you want to start in the middle instead of the beginning.

If you are not willing to answer this, on whatever level you see applicable, there is really nothing to discuss. One is already restricting logic and reason.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you are not willing to answer this, on whatever level you see applicable, there is really nothing to discuss. One is already restricting logic and reason.

Regards Tony

You see unaware that you are doing presumptions in what you take for granted in your understanding of what reality is.
That is all. If you have learned to do logic, then you had learned to check for presumptions.
And you could do that on your own writing.

 

[McBell]

If you are not willing to answer this, on whatever level you see applicable, there is really nothing to discuss. One is already restricting logic and reason.

Regards Tony

You want to set a premise without logically establishing said premise.

So it seems to me that it is actually you who are restricting logic and reason.
Or perhaps you merely discarding logic and reason.

Do you honestly think it is logical and reasonable to negate logically supporting your premises?
Sounds like faulty logic to me.

Remember, it was you who said "Let's start with logic and reason, one step at a time" Post #43
Then the very first thing you try to do is skip the very first step.