You Can't Argue Against God

[Guitar's Cry]

Different people have different concepts of reality.
I find it difficult to argue with someone who has a different concept of reality.
I usually end up having to simply tell them my concept of reality is different.

At which point, there's no reason to persuade me anymore.

The problem is these differing concepts of reality can have real negative impact. The belief that an ancient manuscript "inspired by God" condemns homosexuality and denies women autonomy over their decisions should be argued against in a democracy. Even if there's no convincing the person pushing their reality, the argument may persuade observers who are on the fence.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, I gave the reason for my assertion. What is your reason that a produce of matter like wind if your God and the producer or creator of the wind is not?

Can you give a reasonable answer?

Sure, I can provide an alternate belief.

God is everything. So what aspect/ manisfestation of God you worship is not important.

 

[F1fan]

what a goofy bunch of gibberish . running around crying "incoherent ramblings" .. refusing to define your terms without which we have no idea what you are saying .. pretending chasing typo's is an argument for something ..

Were you going back and re-reading your posts? If so, thanks for agreeing with my observations.

Dude .. your claim "No Gods are known to exist" - is complete false nonsense. The Sun Exists .. worshiped by many as a God ..

Two different ideas. The sun actually exists, and it does whether people call it a God and worship it or not. The typical definition of God, that of a supernatural being, is not known to exist. You are moving goalposts here, switching the context. That's poor and desperate thinking. It also admits you can't honestly claim a supernatural God exists as suns/stars do.

hence why you have been asked to define why you mean by God .. your statements and claims are complete gibberish without such definiton ..

Yet it's you evading the definition as a believer. It's almost as if you are afraid to.

its not rocket science we are talking here .. yet you are coming off like a religious zelot doing some dance of denial .. Sup with dat ? and the .. typo chaser .. LOL .. give me strength Lord Jesus . my faith in humanity is weak.

Good questions to ask yourself and your evasion of defining your God.

 

[firedragon]

Sure, I can provide an alternate belief.

That's not what I said brother. I said "Well, I gave the reason for my assertion. What is your reason that a produce of matter like wind if your God and the producer or creator of the wind is not? Can you give a reasonable answer?"

Anyone could just keep throwing away "alternative beliefs" like a fake certificate mill.

 

[Nakosis]

At which point, there's no reason to persuade me anymore.

Exactly the point of this thread.
Except...

The problem is these differing concepts of reality can have real negative impact. The belief that an ancient manuscript "inspired by God" condemns homosexuality and denies women autonomy over their decisions should be argued against in a democracy. Even if there's no convincing the person pushing their reality, the argument may persuade observers who are on the fence.

Seems you have a reason to go about persuading folks with regard to God. However to do so you first have to assume some knowledge about their God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

your claim "No Gods are known to exist" - is complete false nonsense. The Sun Exists .. worshiped by many as a God

This is why the skeptic needs the believer to define what he means by "God." The believers choose the god they believe in, so they can tell the skeptic what it is that they believe is true.

Now, theist 2 tells us what he means by a god, and we tell him or her the same thing we told the sun worshipper: "I don't believe you". Then theist 3 describes something different that he or she calls a god, and we tell that person that they need better evidence as well. At no point does the skeptic need to define the believer's god for him.

I don't see why you have a problem with that claim: "No Gods are known to exist" (apart from the capitalization issue). You seem to disagree, but he is obviously correct. Worshiping the sun as a god doesn't make it one.

Incidentally, my working definition of a god in the Abrahamic (monotheistic) sense is a sentient universe creator. For polytheistic pantheons, a god is an aspect of nature personified. I don't have any reason to believe that anything like the former exists, and no reason to disagree with the polytheists. If they want to give the wind a name, for example, I don't see anything to argue with there. It's poetry, like the phrases Mother Nature, Father Time, or the man in the moon.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not really. One who says something exists bears the burden of proof. Rejection of any claim, including the existence of god(s), need only rest on lack of proof of said claim.

In other words, Saying, "Prove there's not a god" is not the equivalent of saying "Prove there is a god".

Now prove that the bold is true.

 

[Nakosis]

That's not what I said brother. I said "Well, I gave the reason for my assertion. What is your reason that a produce of matter like wind if your God and the producer or creator of the wind is not? Can you give a reasonable answer?"

Anyone could just keep throwing away "alternative beliefs" like a fake certificate mill.

This was part of a hypothetical argument. However I'll say I did have this belief at one time. It is why I used it. Why do you think it is unreasonable?

 

[Nakosis]

Could you please be more specific?

Sorry, I'm not aware of an argument in this thread trying to prove God. If you believe one exists, I'm asking you to point it out.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry, I'm not aware of an argument in this thread trying to prove God. If you believe one exists, I'm asking you to point it out.

That's not relevant. I asked you for your proper reasoning for "Your God being the wind".

If you just made that statement as a slur you could just say "I didn't mean it. I was just using that statement as a come back". Doing a burden of proof fallacy is beneath you Nakosis.

 

[Nakosis]

That's not relevant. I asked you for your proper reasoning for "Your God being the wind".

If you just made that statement as a slur you could just say "I didn't mean it. I was just using that statement as a come back". Doing a burden of proof fallacy is beneath you Nakosis.

Ok, you're right. My bad. You have the only correct understanding of what is going on here so, good on ya.

 

[firedragon]

Ok, you're right. My bad. You have the only correct understanding of what is going on here so, good on ya.

Irrelevant.

Anyway, ciao.

 

[stevecanuck]

Sorry, I'm not aware of an argument in this thread trying to prove God.

Neither am I. I never said there was.

 

[blü 2]

The truth is what is. That is an absolute. Unfortunately that doesn't help us much since we cannot know 'what is'. We can only guess and theorize about it based on the relative and limited experiences we have with it.

And if we do that systematically, as science does, we can explore, describe, and seek to explain and put to use all kinds of things that work, fingers crossed, for our betterment. That is, science gives us far greater control over external reality than any other system we know.

A great deal of religion is about the emotional comfort of acculturated ceremony, and good luck to those who enjoy it. But like most human enterprises, it certainly has its dingbat fringes, its political fringes, its violent fringes.

Because of this, we humans are in the unfortunately dishonest habit of pretending that our guesses and theories about 'what is' ARE what is. We just blindly and arrogantly presume that whatever we presume "is" to be, is what it is.

You appear to accuse science of being "blind", whereas to the best of my observation, science is far from blind. And I've never seen a scientist assert the findings of science as absolute truth, as distinct from soundly based in, and well reasoned from, repeatable experiment ─ though no doubt science too has its dingbats here and there.

You will never recognize the concept of God because you don't want to.

Of course I recognize the concept of God (and gods, and all supernatural entities). The only way in which such things are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains. If you disagree, give me a satisfactory demonstration of a real one. Perhaps a photograph would be a start.

And because you will never leave the kindergarten of your materialist intellectual bias.

Your condescension, I suggest, is not a look that flatters you.

 

[Nakosis]

Neither am I. I never said there was.

So then what was the difference between these arguments?

Because since you don't know God, you can't justify any argument against for 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 for something when you lack knowledge about the subject of the argument?

Same thing?

 

[Madsaac]

EVERYTHING that exists, exists "as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual (or collective) brain". Even YOU only exist, "as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual (or collective) brain".

Yes, everything exists and you/me exist because of our brains, in our brains.

But the brain can use science to proves the existence of certain things, objective things, facts that cannot be disputed because EVERYONE agrees on the best ways (scientifically) to know something is real.

You may call it a notion or imagined but EVERYONE agrees on this notion or imagined concept.

Now because EVERYONE believes this notion is correct, it hold much more strength then other approaches, namely religion. No way to prove anything.

Religion cannot do that because it is SUBJECTIVE, something made up in an individuals mind

 

[PearlSeeker]

So then do we discount experiences we don't have in common?

No. We just need evidence. Or personal experience.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Please PM me when you get an even vaguely coherent answer.

Why? You wouldn’t listen if you did

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, everything exists and you/me exist because of our brains, in our brains.

But the brain can use science to proves the existence of certain things, objective things, facts that cannot be disputed because EVERYONE agrees on the best ways (scientifically) to know something is real.

You may call it a notion or imagined but EVERYONE agrees on this notion or imagined concept.

Now because EVERYONE believes this notion is correct, it hold much more strength then other approaches, namely religion. No way to prove anything.

Religion cannot do that because it is SUBJECTIVE, something made up in an individuals mind

The mind is not the brain. The latter is a material organ in the body, and can be studied by science. The former is conscious awareness, qualitative experience, the capacity for wonder. Science has, as yet, made no real progress in studying this; scientists can’t even agree upon a definition of consciousness.

And please, stop with these unevidenced assertions about what “everyone” believes.
What we mean when we say know something, how we come by that knowledge, how we justify it; these things are always open to debate, especially in the natural sciences, where diversity of opinion is frequently as common as it is in philosophy.

 

[stvdv]

So God is nothing?

I don't know

Or do you mean there was nothing other than God?

I meant "there was no world yet created"