You Can't Argue Against God

[Nakosis]

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.

Ok, I'll ask in the form of a question. Do you think someone's epistemology is written in stone?

 

[firedragon]

Ok, I'll ask in the form of a question. Do you think someone's epistemology is written in stone?

What do you really mean by "someone's epistemology"? Can you explain that to me? What exactly do you mean?

You see mate, if your method of knowledge is a metal detector, you cannot look for plastic using it. If you understand that, you will not ask this question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you really mean by "someone's epistemology"? Can you explain that to me? What exactly do you mean?

You see mate, if your method of knowledge is a metal detector, you cannot look for plastic using it. If you understand that, you will not ask this question.

I still don¨t understand what you are trying to say.

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.

Can you please unpack it with a concrete explaination?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

Most of the time the contradiction is just a lack of understanding of those that see the contradiction. Most of the time, they are not wiling to consider different perspectives, there is no point arguing the point further.

A good example is the subject of this OP and the views held by different exponents of faiths. If God is the source of all Faiths, then the contradictions come from the same source and thus must have a reasonable and logical explanation as to why they seem contradictory.

If one finds there is a reasonable and logical explanation, then there is no contradiction.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

Most of the time the contradiction is just a lack of understanding of those that see the contradiction. Most of the time, they are not wiling to consider different perspectives, there is no point arguing the point further.

A good example is the subject of this OP and the views held by different exponents of faiths. If God is the source of all Faiths, then the contradictions come from the same source and thus must have a reasonable and logical explanation as to why they seem contradictory.

If one finds there is a reasonable and logical explanation, then there is no contradiction.

Regards Tony

A logical explanation for God's existence does not mean people will not differ in their perspectives. You cannot superimpose people's subjective opinion's onto logical reasonings for the existence of God. That's illogical by its self. Also, the OP is not about disagreements. It's about what the Op says. This is a building of a strawman unless I am misunderstanding your whole point. So please do explain to me.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

A logical explanation for God's existence does not mean people will not differ in their perspectives. You cannot superimpose people's subjective opinion's onto logical reasonings for the existence of God. That's illogical by its self. Also, the OP is not about disagreements. It's about what the Op says. This is a building of a strawman unless I am misunderstanding your whole point. So please do explain to me.

All I am offering is that the contradictions do come from our own selves.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

All I am offering is that the contradictions do come from our own selves.

Regards Tony

What one has to think about is internal contradictions in this case.

Nevertheless, I Agee with you. Contradictions do come from our own selves.

 

[Nakosis]

Most of the time the contradiction is just a lack of understanding of those that see the contradiction. Most of the time, they are not wiling to consider different perspectives, there is no point arguing the point further.

A good example is the subject of this OP and the views held by different exponents of faiths. If God is the source of all Faiths, then the contradictions come from the same source and thus must have a reasonable and logical explanation as to why they seem contradictory.

If one finds there is a reasonable and logical explanation, then there is no contradiction.

Regards Tony

That's kind of my point. Most contradictions can be handled by a different perspective. Trying to point out a contradiction in a religious belief to "win" an argument seldom bears fruit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

There's nothing really to argue against there. That's more of a premise, e.g. "let God be all-knowing"... followed by the rest of an argument.

I don't think that any gods exist, so if someone wants to say that one of those gods that doesn't exist is named "God" and is all-knowing... sure. They can go right ahead and do that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There's nothing really to argue against there. That's more of a premise, e.g. "let God be all-knowing"... followed by the rest of an argument.

I don't think that any gods exist, so if someone wants to say that one of those gods that doesn't exist is named "God" and is all-knowing... sure. They can go right ahead and do that.

I don't think that is decided by how we think one way or another, but rather in practice it is about what we individually believe about beliefs and knowledge as far as I can tell.

 

[Nakosis]

What do you really mean by "someone's epistemology"? Can you explain that to me? What exactly do you mean?

A person's acquisition of knowledge via their method of determining what is true from what is false.

You see mate, if your method of knowledge is a metal detector, you cannot look for plastic using it. If you understand that, you will not ask this question.

I don't see where your original statement makes any sense unless you think someone's epistemology can't change.

 

[Nakosis]

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

No, what I conclude is if there is no way from us to sense something, that simply means it cannot effect us. Whether it exist or not.
Therefore, no reason to worry about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, what I conclude is if there is no way from us to sense something, that simply means it cannot effect us. Whether it exist or not.
Therefore, no reason to worry about it.

Well, if you are in effect in a loop as a computer simulation and unlucky for it to bebad for you, then it effects you, but you can't sense that you are in a loop.
So no, be a skeptic and doubt even your own claim. Not that you can do anything about it, but that it marks yet another example of the limit of knowledge and reason.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, if you are in effect in a loop as a computer simulation and unlucky for it to bebad for you, then it effects you, but you can't sense that you are in a loop.
So no, be a skeptic and doubt even your own claim. Not that you can do anything about it, but that it marks yet another example of the limit of knowledge and reason.

Like you said, I can't do anything about it. So I don't see such knowledge as being beneficial.
And how could I even go about verifying that since it being beyond anything I can sense?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Like you said, I can't do anything about it. So I don't see such knowledge as being beneficial.
And how could I even go about verifying that since it being beyond anything I can sense?

Yeah, I get that but that is mental as I understand it and your way of coping. And that is not objective knowlede as I see it.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, I get that but that is mental as I understand it and your way of coping. And that is not objective knowlede as I see it.

I'm fine with pursuing knowledge for the sake of knowledge, um... your objective knowledge, your holy grail?

How would you go about it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm fine with pursuing knowledge for the sake of knowledge, um... your objective knowledge, your holy grail?

How would you go about it?

Well, since I am a skeptic I end on the problem of what is obejctive reality in itself other than being in itself and thus unknown for anything else because it is in itself. So I don't know what it is other than being different from me, but I believe it is real, orderly and knowable. But that is my beleif.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, since I am a skeptic I end on the problem of what is obejctive reality in itself other than being in itself and thus unknown for anything else because it is in itself. So I don't know what it is other than being different from me, but I believe it is real, orderly and knowable. But that is my beleif.

And knowable huh... That's more faith than I got.

 

[McBell]

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

This sounds as though you are not interested in actually supporting anything.

I am willing to explore the potential.
But I want you to follow the standards YOU set forth:

logically, step by step.​

YOU are the one who tried skipping the first step.
I merely called you out on it.

And instead of simply filling in the skipped step, you get all huffy calling me a liar.

At this point it appears to me that you only interested in helping the sheep "explore a greater potential".

I am not a recruit.
And since it is rather obvious now that recruits are all you are interested in "helping"...

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That's kind of my point. Most contradictions can be handled by a different perspective. Trying to point out a contradiction in a religious belief to "win" an argument seldom bears fruit.

That is 100% obvious on RF.

I also think it is not about winning an argument, as if that is an intention, absolutely no further spark of truth will be found.

Regards Tony