You Can't Argue Against God

[paarsurrey]

You Can't Argue Against God

Is one in a capacity to argue with G-d, please, right?
Moses did argue with G-d:
" I. Moses. 1 The first case I want to consider, and the easiest to analyze, involves Moses. He argued with God when he offered reasons why he should not be the one chosen to lead the people out of Egypt — the Israelites will not believe you sent me, Pharaoh will not listen to me, I am not eloquent (Exodus 3,10-4,17). "

https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1601&context=

Right?

Regards

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Folks might find Part II, starting with page 41, useful.

https://selforganizedseminar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/taussig_devil_commodity.pdf

 

[Nakosis]

Yes maybe you are right, that you can't argue against god

 

[Nakosis]

You Can't Argue Against God

Is one in a capacity to argue with G-d, please, right?
Moses did argue with G-d:
" I. Moses. 1 The first case I want to consider, and the easiest to analyze, involves Moses. He argued with God when he offered reasons why he should not be the one chosen to lead the people out of Egypt — the Israelites will not believe you sent me, Pharaoh will not listen to me, I am not eloquent (Exodus 3,10-4,17). "

https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1601&context=

Right?

Regards

Sure, you can argue with God. It's your God, you can do anything you want with them.

 

[Nakosis]

It strikes me as odd to imagine epistemology as fixed, when I read anthropologists talking about things like “transvaluation” and “creative epistemology”.

How can something as creative as epistemology be fixed and unchanging?

If nothing changes and nothing evolves, in what sense is it creative?

I see, so we agree.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I see, so we agree.

It appears so.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Exactly!

Some cultures demand submission.

Submission has to be a choice and a choice based on fair moral and ethical laws. This will be the quandary we each will have to face for the good of all.

The issue we do face with determining laws for our own selves, is that we are unable to see the big picture and the effect those laws may have long term.

An example of this is our relaxation of moral laws in regards to the family unit, this has and will have devastating effects, now and into the future.

Regards Tony

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Submission has to be a choice and a choice based on fair moral and ethical laws. This will be the quandary we each will have to face for the good of all.

The issue we do face with determining laws for our own selves, is that we are unable to see the big picture and the effect those laws may have long term.

An example of this is our relaxation of moral laws in regards to the family unit, this has and will have devastating effects, now and into the future.

Regards Tony

The history of the configuration of the family and the sexual division of labor is quite interesting,

 

[F1fan]

Submission has to be a choice and a choice based on fair moral and ethical laws.

Like accepting gays and their right to marry and adopt or have children.

This will be the quandary we each will have to face for the good of all.

Yes, bigots will struggle to tolerate others as sociaty as a whole becomes accepting of differences.

The issue we do face with determining laws for our own selves, is that we are unable to see the big picture and the effect those laws may have long term.

Like laws that help and protect categories of citizens and their rights. Yes, tolerance and acceptance might offend bigots. It's bad luck.

An example of this is our relaxation of moral laws in regards to the family unit, this has and will have devastating effects, now and into the future.

Some societies are populated with immature and selfish individuals, and this is why there should be a collective interest in teaching life and reasoning skills in school. We should also teach tolerance as a virtue, and help kids avoid bigotry.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Like accepting gays and their right to marry and adopt or have children.

Yes, bigots will struggle to tolerate others as sociaty as a whole becomes accepting of differences.

Like laws that help and protect categories of citizens and their rights. Yes, tolerance and acceptance might offend bigots. It's bad luck.

Some societies are populated with immature and selfish individuals, and this is why there should be a collective interest in teaching life and reasoning skills in school. We should also teach tolerance as a virtue, and help kids avoid bigotry.

It could be that position is the one based in bigotry, as God given laws may be the elixir we need.

I will not comment any further to replies on this.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What you describe isn’t fact based. Another liability of religious assumptions.


And we are independent, conscious beings with autonomy. But many humans have been highly influenced by society in ways that limit their freedom of thought.

There’s no power as you claim.

Cognitive psychology explains the electrochemical process of brains. And NDE claims are baseless. I understand the desperation to find something special and supernatural about being human, but the evidence isn’t there.

There is no science that proves the source of mind, plain and simple.

Regards Tony

 

[F1fan]

It could be that position is the one based in bigotry, as God given laws may be the elixir we need.

Could be, too bad there isn;'t evidence, and just the word of odd people making claims without and means to verify it.

It could be that some religions are founded by bigots, and this bigotry is one reason why the religion has failed to develop.

I will not comment any further to replies on this.

Anti-gay bigotry is a sensitive issue for Bahi'a. I don't blame you, it's a no win for you to engage in the issue.

There is no science that proves the source of mind, plain and simple.

Minds are a set of functions that brains perform, including conscious awareness and thinking. This is observed, and observations are the basis of science.

Could it be that you want there to be a "gap" as a place to assume your God fits into as a cause?

 

[Sargonski]

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?

Of course one can argue against God .. don't be silly .. present your argument here and now .. what is it you are arguing against .. Surely you have read the book of Job .. in whicha bit of an argument against God ensues .. Father and Son sort of thing as luck would have it.

If you can't define God then of course you can't argue against what you can not figure out .. but once we define what is meant by "God" .. only then can there be any discussion of argument against this divinity .. what are the powers of this God .. Surely God Loki was able to trick a God or two ..

 

[paarsurrey]

Nakosis said:
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?

Of course one can argue against God .. don't be silly .. present your argument here and now .. what is it you are arguing against .. Surely you have read the book of Job .. in whicha bit of an argument against God ensues .. Father and Son sort of thing as luck would have it.

If you can't define God then of course you can't argue against what you can not figure out .. but once we define what is meant by "God" .. only then can there be any discussion of argument against this divinity .. what are the powers of this God .. Surely God Loki was able to trick a God or two ..

" Surely you have read the book of Job "

Job was not arguing against G-d, right, please??

"Did Job ever lose faith in God?

However, it clearly states that Job never lost faith in God and forever called to God in prayer, asking Him to remove his affliction: And [mention] Job, when he called to his Lord, "Indeed, adversity has touched me, and you are the Most Merciful of the merciful."

Job (biblical figure) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Right?

Regards

 

[Sargonski]

Incorrect, the One God does appear in the Self of the Manifestations given by God to humanity.

There are very few excuses not to make the choice to know and love God.

Regards Tony

To know and love which God ? and what is one of the very few excuses not to know and love this God.

Are you talking about Lord Jealous ? the God of the Ark of the Covenant .. or at least the Tablets went into it ? or is there another God you think we should love .. Marduk of Babylon or Shiva to the East .. or are all these voices manifestations of the one God .. in an inharmonious cacophony ..

Now .. who is this one God you are talking about that we all need to choose to know and love.

 

[Sargonski]

Nakosis said:
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?

" Surely you have read the book of Job "

Job was not arguing against G-d, right, please??

"Did Job ever lose faith in God?

Funny Funny .. Regardless of what we say Job was doing .. It was Ha Satan -- the Adversary - Chief God and Tester of Souls on earth his Title and job description .. along with being a Son of the Supreme God .. that is who is having the argument with God .. and it matters not who won the bet .. to the fact that there was a bet.. Just because Satan may have lost the argument .. does not mean there was not an argument so clearly you can Argue against God according to the story of Job .. We also have an example of Abraham arguing against God .saying if he finds enough righteous people in Sodom will God spare the dump.

Does not Jacob Wrestle with God ..

The Jewish conception of God is different than the Christian and Muslim .. who are raised not to question certain dictates of their faith .. where the Jew is raised to question everything .. even God .. my guess is this is why so many of the world Chess Champions Jews.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, so everyone has there own subjective take on what objective reality is.

However, some things are what they are, regardless of what any individual believes or feels about them. And god is not one of them.

That is unknown for the metaphysics and ontology of objective reality. But if you don't want to learn that, then okay.
But there is a reason how come it is called methological natiralism and we have this text on in effect knowledge and its limit.

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

We are not the totally same as for the same space and time and in the same sense. You don't understand logic and diversity. We are not as we as you claim. That we is not so.

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

I guess you and I think a lot alike because I started a thread about that a while back. I looked but I could not find the thread.

 

[Trailblazer]

Gods don’t appear and make themselves known so we mortals can debate them.

The point that @Nakosis was making is that since you don't know God, you cannot know what would be evidence for God if God existed.
For example, you do not know that if God existed God could appear and make Himself known.
Moreover, you do not know how God COULD make Himself known if God existed.
Atheists say that God 'can do anything' because God is omnipotent but you don't know what God can do. Only God knows that.

All we have are other mortals who claim one type of god or another exists, and this can be disputed and debated.

You can dispute or debate any God claims you want to but you should be disputing the one who made the claims, the Messengers of God, not the believers who believe in those Messengers.