You Can't Argue Against God

[firedragon]

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.

That's not what I meant.

 

[F1fan]

The basis of their belief is the supernatural. The supernatural doesn't require anything other than their belief to support it.

And notice believers didn't come up with these ideas on tehir own, they learned about them from those around them in their social experience. Is it Hindu gods they believe in? Or a Eastern Orthodox version of God they believe in? Or a Muslim version o God they believe in? Or Shinto divinity? Or Native American spirits?

No one hears about Native American spirits existing in the Middle East. Japan's traditions don't include Jesus.

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.

Well as far as we are concerned a hell doesn't exist outside of the Christian tradition that spreads this idea. And it's notable that Christians never are the one's destined for hell, it's only for others. That's a little self-serving and fishy.

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.

Was it actual gods, or just the social traditions that include ideas of gods? It's important to examine the emergence of gods in human civilizations, and what purpose they played for the culture. Most all modern versions of religions ignore the early formation of their religions and focus on a story that has evolved to some form. Catholicism is vastly different that protestant forms of Christian belief. For example Catholicism values Mary, and in protestant forms there's more value assigned to the Old Testament and paul's writings.

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.

Sure, some believers need reininforcemnet for their belief and faith. These are ideas that aren't based in fact, and faith is notoriously unreliable, so signs and symbols are important to indicate God exists and is communicating. A believer might see Jesus in a piece of burnt French Toast. How do they know it's Jesus? The mages I have seen look like caucasian Jesus with long flowing hair. It seldom looks like a Middle Eastern fellow, which is what Jesus would have been.

There's a very good movie called Henry Poole Is Here. Part of the plot is an image that appears on the main characters garage wall and he doesn't believe, but his neighbor does, and she invites people to come and see the image. Henry has reasons to be angry due to a bad medical condition, and he ends up destroying the wall. In the end his fate changes with a clever plot twist. The thing is the sign was about how others have faith towards others, and isn't really about the sign his neighbor sees. Luke Wilson does a superb job.

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

All folks need hope at some point. Some need it all the time.

 

[Quintessence]

. . . but I do know the gods. Some better than others, granted, and as with all knowledge said knowledge is never complete.

That said, the general point of folks arguing against various theological concepts they obviously do not really understand is merited. This happens in all sorts of fields of study. Something I've consistently learned throughout my years is that the moment you take the time to really study and understand something, you'll see the merit in it. Doesn't mean you'll personally agree with it or incorporate it into your lifeways or anything like that, but each and every time I've studied something I was a knee-jerk idiot skeptic on, I've come away with it going "oh... okay, I kind of get it now."

 

[PearlSeeker]

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 God hypothesis is based on what we know (and don't know) about us, the world... For example we know some things are created by man. The question arises: What about other things? Was the whole world also created or not? Where does all come from?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

Frustrated, maybe, but disappointed some will go to such lengths not explore a greater potential. There are so many examples of the topic at the scientific and individual level that to offer "I do not Know", well, I see we are told to let it go if they do not want to hear, as it is about sharing, it has to be thier choice to explore these topics and life will have to show them the wisdom as to why we need to explore more then the senses.

A successful relationship requires such a bond of the unseen virtues. That relationship then expands to family and then neighbours, then community.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

You started with an untruth "I do not Know". What attempt would you like after such a comment? Without truthfulness, no other virtues will shine. True and lasting love requires the foundation of trustworthiness and trufulness.

Virtues are an example that are not detected by the senses, yet logic and reason tells they exist, as by the practice of them we promote lasting bonds that aid the progress of humanity. By the lack of those virtues, we kill and destroy.

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

If you wish to discuss this to negate that others have not used logic and reason to embrace powers beyond our senses, then the foundations of virtues have already failed.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

More than likely that will be the case.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

It's logical and reasonable I ask the same questions of you.

It appears we are gifted a rational mind, a mind beyond our current comprehensive ability, which even now is beyond our capacity to map.

The mineral, vegetable and animal also have 'mind', that is observable, that does not have the full rational capacity of our mind.

I know what I know, through education of the mind, using logic and reason, but now we hit a logic and reason quandary. How is it people can know something without education?

Example, many inventions have come about because of visions and dreams, extracting an unknown technology or truth from a place that no senses can detect.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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

Regards Tony

 

[McBell]

You started with an untruth "I do not Know".

Nope.
The fact is that just because you take it as an axiom, I do not.
Still do not.
However, I can now at least understand why you take it as an axiom and as far as I am concerned, that is enough for me for this particular discussion.

What attempt would you like after such a comment? Without truthfulness, no other virtues will shine. True and lasting love requires the foundation of trustworthiness and trufulness.

It is not my fault you assumed I am a liar.
That you are wrong is a you problem.

Virtues are an example that are not detected by the senses, yet logic and reason tells they exist, as by the practice of them we promote lasting bonds that aid the progress of humanity. By the lack of those virtues, we kill and destroy.

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

It is my opinion that the oxygen example is a stretch, but the virtues one makes sense.
Interesting that you could not offer them up three pages ago....

If you wish to discuss this to negate that others have not used logic and reason to embrace powers beyond our senses, then the foundations of virtues have already failed.

YOU are the one accusing others of your sins in this thread.
I am not the one who claimed to go step by step and then try to skip the first step all together.
That would be you.

Now if this is how you plan to go "step by step" you have already failed.

Look, I am not asking you to convince me.
I am merely looking to understand why you are convinced.

I do not have a problem with an answer being "I don't know"

 

[Nakosis]

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.

When this happens, I'll let you know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's logical and reasonable I ask the same questions of you.

It appears we are gifted a rational mind, a mind beyond our current comprehensive ability, which even now is beyond our capacity to map.

The mineral, vegetable and animal also have 'mind', that is observable, that does not have the full rational capacity of our mind.

I know what I know, through education of the mind, using logic and reason, but now we hit a logic and reason quandary. How is it people can know something without education?

Example, many inventions have come about because of visions and dreams, extracting an unknown technology or truth from a place that no senses can detect.

Regards Tony

Well, I don't deny logic and reason as such. I just what you since you made the postive claim to explain how you actually do it. Not just state that you do it, but actually show how you do it.

 

[Madsaac]

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

As good as any knowledge, the idea of god is a personal one, so someone can say whatever they want in favour of god. And in turn, someone then can argue against that god, whatever it is.

So you can argue against god.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As good as any knowledge, the idea of god is a personal one, so someone can say whatever they want in favour of god. And in turn, someone then can argue against god.

Well, yes, But so is the claim that the universe is natural as far as I can tell. What I am trying to say, we end in different beliefs about what objective reality is and that is not limited to religion.
So the overall question is what can be known about objective reality as such?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Well, I don't deny logic and reason as such. I just what you since you made the postive claim to explain how you actually do it. Not just state that you do it, but actually show how you do it.

How I do it? Maybe listen and judge using a rational, open and unprejudiced mind? How does anybody do it?

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How I do it? Maybe listen and judge using a rational, open and unprejudiced mind? How does anybody do it?

Regards Tony

Well, you start by explain what you understand by logic and reason and how you understand that to connect to the rest of the world or what ever you call that.

 

[Nakosis]

As good as any knowledge, the idea of god is a personal one, so someone can say whatever they want in favour of god. And in turn, someone then can argue against that god, whatever it is.

So you can argue against god.

Ok, I'll make a claim.
God is all knowing.
So what is your argument against that claim?
Other than outright rejection of it.

 

[Nakosis]

That's not what I meant.

Perhaps if you're assuming someone's epistemology is written in stone?

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps if you're assuming someone's epistemology is written in stone?

No. You should revisit my simple statement rather than making assumptions and if you really have a question, ask it rather than making such assumptions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Then please unpack that and explain what is actually going on.