You Can't Argue Against God

[F1fan]

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

Regards Tony

Correct, humans can’t argue with imaginary beings.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

There are ample material examples that would offer an alternative perspective.

Dangerous odourless gasses.
Ultraviolet light.
Poisons.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Correct, humans can’t argue with imaginary beings.

Well, here we go again. It is unknown for a class of claims what their truth value are as either true or false.
Thus the status is unknown and not imaginary. That goes for all postive claims of metaphysics and ontology and not just religious versions.
2 examples of unknown - the universe is physical and the universe is created by God.
Now as you phrase it is true that they are imaginary beings and thus you have with science evidence of them having the observable/objective property of being imaginary. Would you please give that evidence for the fact that they are imaginary beings?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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"...

The first step is to admit to our own selves that there are things in life that exist that are beyond our material senses, this first step is being honest about that to our own self, even if it is only on a material level.

Life choices has to be one's own volition, I can only offer thoughts, it is not about winning an argument.

The power of thought, where does it come from. The vegetable kingdom, the animal kingdom and human kingdom all have the power of thought, where does the capacity of rational thought come from?

Science can answer so much, but cutting up a flesh Brain and study of its pathways will not find the power that makes that brain live. The power behind the senses, is a power beyond the senses.

Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

Well, here we go again. It is unknown for a class of claims what their truth value are as either true or false.

We can understand the truth value based on our experience as human beings.

Thus the status is unknown and not imaginary.

Since theists are claiming real beings without evidence then we can suggest imaginary beings. If they claimed Gods are unknown then it wouldn’t open the door to a counterclaim.

That goes for all postive claims of metaphysics and ontology and not just religious versions.
2 examples of unknown - the universe is physical and the universe is created by God.

One has evidence. The other not only lacks evidence but contradicts facts.

Now as you phrase it is true that they are imaginary beings and thus you have with science evidence of them having the observable/objective property of being imaginary. Would you please give that evidence for the fact that they are imaginary beings?

Why should I have to prove Gods are imaginary when theists can’t prove they exist outside of their imagination. Let’s note the many gods claimed as existing that contradicts others. Let’s note the fact that humans imagine quite readily, and some even unable to discern and comprehend reality. Lets note how some believers are so lost in dogma that they reject facts.

None of the evidence supports believers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The first step is to admit to our own selves that there are things in life that exist that are beyond our material senses, ...

Yeah, but from there doesn't follow with logic God. Only that materialsim is bad philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

One has evidence. The other not only lacks evidence but contradicts facts.

...

For the universe is physical, please give the evidence.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yeah, but from there doesn't follow with logic God. Only that materialsim is bad philosophy.

Agreed, as it is other aspects of life that we need to explore with logic and reason that enables us to consider if there is intelligence behind creation.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Correct, humans can’t argue with imaginary beings.

Maybe we are all imaginary, maybe we are all a mere assemblance of reality.

I am more inclined to this as fact, not fiction.

Regards Tony

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agreed, as it is other aspects of life that we need to explore with logic and reason that enables us to consider if there is intelligence behind creation.

Regards Tony

Well, yes, but it doesn't help if it ends up in effect being subjective.
Let me show you the limit of the law of non-contradiction.
Something can't at the same time and place be in the same sense and not be in the same sense. Easy, right. But it doesn't tell us anything about something else at different time and place and in another sense.

So in effect if you claim that we all have to act in a certain way, there is no contradiction if I can in fact act in another way.
So for your moral system to work it must show that we all can't act any way differently than you claim. That would meet the law of non-contradiction.
So for you to say:
There is a God, that says this is right, therefore we can all only act this way, would work logically for that we all can only do it one way and not another.

As for there is a God, well, I have a different faith and that is not a contradiction unless you can show that I can't actually have a different faith.
So that is the limit of logic.
You have to show that for all times and places for all humans there are only one sense to act in as for a certain moral choice or faith in a God.
But you can't because you can observe that there are different moral system and different cases of faith in different Gods or no Gods.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Well, yes, but it doesn't help if it ends up in effect being subjective.

I will offer that this reality is all subjective. Limited to our capacity of mind.

I see no matter what we determine to be "real" truths, they are all subject to a change in understanding as we find the "deeper" truths to the power of creation.

It may be, if we could use 100% of our brain, with 100% of its capacity, then truth would be less subjective.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But you can't because you can observe that there are different moral system and different cases of faith in different Gods or no Gods.

That is your subjective response. I see it is possible to reconcile the contradictions.

We can be individuals, but also part of the One.

Material example, a snowstorm. Each snowflake different, yet part of the same storm.

Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

Maybe we are all imaginary,

We’re not. Odd that you retreat to such an absurd position. Note that if you question our existence then why claim a god exists?

maybe we are all a mere assemblance of reality.

Is that what your religion teaches?

I am more inclined to this as fact, not fiction.

Because it’s a way to sabotage the discussion z?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So in effect if you claim that we all have to act in a certain way, there is no contradiction if I can in fact act in another way.
So for your moral system to work it must show that we all can't act any way differently than you claim. That would meet the law of non-contradiction.
So for you to say:
There is a God, that says this is right, therefore we can all only act this way, would work logically for that we all can only do it one way and not another.

This is all about submission. We all have the choice to act in different ways, or we can submit to a code that allows us all to work in our own ways as one organic unit.

We can choose to find the balance in our differences, but humility is required.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

We’re not. Odd that you retreat to such an absurd position. Note that if you question our existence then why claim a god exists?


Is that what your religion teaches?



Because it’s a way to sabotage the discussion z?

No it is not sabotage, I see it as the more plausible explanation of creation.

After all we are only and assemblance of atoms, with a power that gives life, firing the electrical impulses in the brain.

Take that power away, we dissipate back into atoms.

Yet the mind is not lost. That is a reasonable and logical statement based on our ability to dream, NDE experiences and plausible psychic events.

Regards Tony

 

[Nakosis]

There are ample material examples that would offer an alternative perspective.

Dangerous odourless gasses.
Ultraviolet light.
Poisons.

Regards Tony

Since these things mentioned effect us they would fit in the perspective of concern.
We'd perceive with our senses their effect, hopefully on other life.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

God is the proper name for the Christian god.
Christians proffer traits for God.
These can be argued against.

Oh, geese!

Not more holy wars!

Haven’t some issues been settled, already?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Well, yes, but it doesn't help if it ends up in effect being subjective.
Let me show you the limit of the law of non-contradiction.
Something can't at the same time and place be in the same sense and not be in the same sense. Easy, right.

Maybe easy for you, but I can’t make sense of it.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

You have to show that for all times and places for all humans there are only one sense to act in as for a certain moral choice or faith in a God.

Why?

Not ever culture is going to follow your own culture’s artificial made-up rules.

You are trying to impose your culture on other cultures, here.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

This is all about submission.

Exactly!

Some cultures demand submission.