You Can't Argue Against God

[TransmutingSoul]

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 do is skip the very first step.

This is the post and the question posed in the post.

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?

I no longer will play.

 

[McBell]

I no longer will play.

Does that mean you are actually going to do what you said you were going to do and start with logic and reason, one step at a time?

Or

Does it mean you are not going to do what you said you were going to do and start with logic and reason, one step at a time?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is the post and the question posed in the post.


I no longer will play.

Well, start by explaining how you know logic and reason.
Then explain how you can do that in regards to other aspects of life.
And if need be, how you know that you know.

That is it.
Don't just write the words without explain how they work.

 

[McBell]

This is the post and the question posed in the post.

"Is it logical and reasonable to conclude there is more to life than the senses can detect, see and feel?" Post #43

And I answered:

I do not know.​

And until you show it is logically possible, it is merely a claim.​

​

You then repeated the question and I replied:

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.​

Then you claim I am "restricting logic and reason" in which I replied:

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.​

​

You completely ignore the above part of my post and instead only replied to...

Remember, it was you who said "Let's start with logic and reason, one step at a time" Post #60​

Then the very first thing you do is skip the very first step.
You ended the above mentioned reply with:

"I will no longer play" Post #61​

Now since you never started doing what you said you were going to do:

"Then Let's start with logic and reason, one step at a time..." Post #43​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Is it logical and reasonable to conclude there is more to life than the senses can detect, see and feel?" Post #43

And I answered:

I do not know.​

And until you show it is logically possible, it is merely a claim.​

​

You then repeated the question and I replied:

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.​

Then you claim I am "restricting logic and reason" in which I replied:

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.​

​

You completely ignore the above part of my post and instead only replied to...

Remember, it was you who said "Let's start with logic and reason, one step at a time" Post #60​

Then the very first thing you do is skip the very first step.
You ended the above mentioned reply with:

"I will no longer play" Post #61​

Now since you never started doing what you said you were going to do:

"Then Let's start with logic and reason, one step at a time..." Post #43​

In general for a loose concept of power words, i.e. works that establish the power to decide for all humans, it is not just relgious words that are in play.
In effect a lot of words from science and philosphy also gets thrown around and that is not connected to religion as such.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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...

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.

I think this just shows you'll go to any lengths to avoid answering a simple question. Classic deflection, which smacks frankly of intellectual cowardice.

 

[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?

What real entity do you intend to denote when you say "God"? What real qualities does it have so that if I find a real suspect I can determine whether it's God or not?

Or are we agreed that the only way gods and other supernatural beings are known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What real entity do you intend to denote when you say "God"? What real qualities does it have so that if I find a real suspect I can determine whether it's God or not?

Or are we agreed that the only way gods and other supernatural beings are known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain?

Yeah, you assume real, but you have given no evidence for it.

 

[McBell]

I think this just shows you'll go to any lengths to avoid answering a simple question. Classic deflection, which smacks frankly of intellectual cowardice.

Except I did answer it.
Twice in fact.

Perhaps YOU will take up the mantle and logically support the premise they tried to sneak in with out the least bit of logical support?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Except I did answer it.
Twice in fact.

Perhaps YOU will take up the mantle and logically support the premise they tried to sneak in with out the least bit of logical support?

If you want a logical premise for there being more things in existence than are discernible by the senses, you might consider the electromagnetic spectrum, most of which is not discernible to the human eye. Perhaps that might help you answer the question, but I see your interlocutor has given up in frustration. Rest assured, I am not about to take his place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

So... in the face of a strong argument against their position, they conceded the point and altered their beliefs in response?

I don't see why this would be a problem. This is a good thing.

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.

Sure... but still: is this everything the god is supposed to do?

I don't know any theist who thinks that their god only does unfalsifiable things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I don't know any theist who thinks that their god only does unfalsifiable things.

No, that would be a deist or an agnostic theist. Or maybe even a variant of rationalism. Not a theist who claims evidence.

But how come you assume all other humans must use your standard of evidence and what not. I mean, it is a norm, but not a fact.

 

[McBell]

If you want a logical premise for there being more things in existence than are discernible by the senses, you might consider the electromagnetic spectrum, most of which is not discernible to the human eye.

See, that was rather easy, was it not?
Yet my interlocutor bailed without even an attempt.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

See, that was rather easy, was it not?
Yet my interlocutor bailed without even an attempt.

Yeah, that is a premise. Now for it to be sound together with other ones as connected to true and not just valid and not sound, that is something else.

 

[RestlessSoul]

See, that was rather easy, was it not?
Yet my interlocutor bailed without even an attempt.

Well I was interested to see how that conversation was going to develop. But I guess now, I'll never know...

 

[McBell]

Yeah, that is a premise. Now for it to be sound together with other ones as connected to true and not just valid and not sound, that is something else.

Fair enough.

However, I am not requiring it to be sound.
Merely that I can understand how it can be stated with confidence.

Which means that now, if asked, I can answer that I can accept that it is at the very least a possible possibility.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

You've not found that Christians
refer to their god as "God"?
I find this to be very common.

 

[viole]

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, what about replacing the word “God” with the word “nbshchgsvdhgcvhsh”, then?
same thing, right?

ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

You've not found that Christians
refer to their god as "God"?
I find this to be very common.

When you said "Proper Name" is God, what did you mean? Christians believe the tetragrammaton is the proper name. God is just an English word.

So what do you mean?

 

[Revoltingest]

When you said "Proper Name" is God, what did you mean? Christians believe the tetragrammaton is the proper name. God is just an English word.

So what do you mean?

I meant what I posted.
What you're getting at....IDK.