You Can't Argue Against God

[Muffled]

I agree, but most arguments presented for the existence of god are not formal arguments.

I believe it is difficult to argue with experience unless one wishes to argue the person is lying and that requires evidence.

 

[F1fan]

I believe it is difficult to argue with experience unless one wishes to argue the person is lying and that requires evidence.

Why wouldn't the person want to be certain they are having the experience their mind thinks its having? Are you aware that minds can be confused or biased or impaired or overly emotional and these will affect how the person has experiences?

 

[PureX]

Why wouldn't the person want to be certain they are having the experience their mind thinks its having? Are you aware that minds can be confused or biased or impaired or overly emotional and these will affect how the person has experiences?

For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time, their experience of reality IS reality. Because the alternative is a state of cognitive dissonance. And although we can sometimes experience this dissonance, none of us wants to, and we will fight hard to avoid it. Many would rather live willfully in denial of an honest truth than face that kind of internal dissonance.

 

[paarsurrey]

You Can't Argue Against God​

Moses didn't know the Hebrew language so he needed some good assistant (Vazir), he requested Aaron just for that and G-d graciously granted it, so there is no argument (of Moses) against G-d, please, right?
Job's case is also similar, he didn't argue against G-d, please, right?:

"Ayūb (Job) is ----mentioned in the Quran in the following verse:

Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him. And we revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, the Descendants, Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the book [of Zabur].
— Quran, surah 4 (An-Nisa), ayah 163[4]

The Quran describes Job as a righteous servant of God, who was afflicted by suffering for a lengthy period of time. 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."
— Quran, surah 21 (The Prophets), ayah 83[5]

Job in Islam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Regards

 

[F1fan]

For the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time, their experience of reality IS reality.

Correct, and reality has a certain set of characteristics that allow people to navigate their experience, like driving and not hitting other cars, trees, buildings, pedestrians, etc. Or shopping for oranges and the person knows what they like in an orange. Or selecting a movie to watch and they enjoy an experience of hooror films, or sports films, or historical films or romance, because they will feel certain emotions in the experience. Or a person can smoke weed and get high, which brings a certain type of experience. Ome might go to a church srrvice and sing the hymns because they feel a sort of euphoria. Real experiences, and some involve a manipilation of the mind to create what is experienced.

Because the alternative is a state of cognitive dissonance.

How so? Do you mean if a person watched a romantic movie with a sad end and they cry they have cognitive dissonance?

And although we can sometimes experience this dissonance, none of us wants to, and we will fight hard to avoid it. Many would rather live willfully in denial of an honest truth than face that kind of internal dissonance.

I can't go to a church service and hear a pastor talk about Jesus and God and avoid how implausible the stories are. So I avoid the cognitive dissonance. Of course believers may hear arguments against belief in God and they could feel cognitive dissonance if their frontal lobes recognize the absurdity of such belief, but their emotions struggle to override reason. We do see many believers get noticably upset during debate, and it may be the inner conflict trying to express itself.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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?

I make no arguments against any god... I've simply not been given sufficient evidence for any god-claim I've ever been presented with to justify belief. I can make that claim because so one's been able to give me sufficient evidence to justify belief for the god they've defined.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I make no arguments against any god... I've simply not been given sufficient evidence for any god-claim I've ever been presented with to justify belief. I can make that claim because so one's been able to give me sufficient evidence to justify belief for the god they've defined.

Then you just have to justify with evidence your justification for how you do justifiy and evdience.

 

[PureX]

Correct, and reality has a certain set of characteristics that allow people to navigate their experience, like driving and not hitting other cars, trees, buildings, pedestrians, etc. Or shopping for oranges and the person knows what they like in an orange. Or selecting a movie to watch and they enjoy an experience of hooror films, or sports films, or historical films or romance, because they will feel certain emotions in the experience. Or a person can smoke weed and get high, which brings a certain type of experience. Ome might go to a church srrvice and sing the hymns because they feel a sort of euphoria. Real experiences, and some involve a manipilation of the mind to create what is experienced.

They all involve the manipulation of the mind because perception is conception. Our experience of being us in the world is both physical and conceptual. There is no objective reality for we humans. It's all subjectively experienced and subjectively conceptualized. And the fact that we humans tend to experience and understand some things similarly does not make those things 'objectively true'.

How so? Do you mean if a person watched a romantic movie with a sad end and they cry they have cognitive dissonance?

No, I mean when they realize that the reality they are experiencing and understanding in the way that they are is a delusion. Like realizing that the mate you love and cherish is only pretending to love and cherish you in return, and is actually just deceiving you and exploiting your naivete.

I can't go to a church service and hear a pastor talk about Jesus and God and avoid how implausible the stories are.

Then you're trapped by your own bias. And you're missing the whole meaning and point of the talk. You should take your own advice and work at trying to open your mind so you will be more accurate in your assessments of your experiences.

So I avoid the cognitive dissonance.

Yes, like everyone else, you hold onto your ignorance and bias because they are comfortable. You defend them, and fight to reject any information that might threaten to expose them as false, or naive, or dishonest.

Of course believers may hear arguments against belief in God and they could feel cognitive dissonance if their frontal lobes recognize the absurdity of such belief, but their emotions struggle to override reason.

Of course. No one wants to face the experience of having their 'truth' pulled out from beneath their feet.

We do see many believers get noticably upset during debate, and it may be the inner conflict trying to express itself.

You are very much a 'believer'. Keep that in mind.

 

[F1fan]

They all involve the manipulation of the mind because perception is conception.

False. We can perceive many things unknown to us and that we have no formed idea about. Krishnamurti talked a lot about observing without judgment, which is a skill requiring disscipline.

Our experience of being us in the world is both physical and conceptual.

It often is because we this is how we lean to live in social environments. What's odd about your religious assumptions and approach is that you often refer to mystery about life, but it illustrates how theists feel anxiety about their identity in the universe and try to control how their place exisis in the universe they define. I've often said to you that the mystery you claim exists is really just your preference. You make mystery a necessity, and a sort of conceptual playground to live in. It's an illusion, not a reality of you being a human navigating on a planet.

There is no objective reality for we humans. It's all subjectively experienced and subjectively conceptualized. And the fact that we humans tend to experience and understand some things similarly does not make those things 'objectively true'.

And this is your excuse for the illusion you prefer. Humans don;t have to get lost in this little mind game. As noted I appears to be a learned behavior by many Abrahamics. I know you deny being religious, but you quack like a duck, and walk like a duck. There is objective reality for we humans. We are real. When we get sick it has real symptoms and no amount of denial and pretense allows an escape from the reality. Your attitude is absurd. You don't get into a real car, that was designed and built from real materials, and you steer it to stay on paved roads and avoid real things like other cars, trees, buildings, pedestrias? None of the things you engage with in your experience has objective reality?

By your way of thinking you could kill someone and then claim in court the laws don't apply because there is no objective reality. You claim it here, how would you aregue that in court?

No, I mean when they realize that the reality they are experiencing and understanding in the way that they are is a delusion.

You're referring to assumptions and beliefs which could be incorrect. You offer no advocacy for having correct assumptions and valid beliefs. All belief is uncertain, but there is a range of ideas that are false on one end, and highly probable on the other, and we humans are capable of making sound judgments IF we have the critical thinking skill and mental discipline. You never talk about these, but are critical of them. Your criticism tries to justify sloppy thinking and irrational beliefs.

Like realizing that the mate you love and cherish is only pretending to love and cherish you in return, and is actually just deceiving you and exploiting your naivete.

That's the risk we humans take. But this is trusting others who think outside of our control. Are we justified in trusting people with sloppy thinking> I don't think so.

Then you're trapped by your own bias. And you're missing the whole meaning and point of the talk. You should take your own advice and work at trying to open your mind so you will be more accurate in your assessments of your experiences.

What irony coming from a guy who claims "there is no objective reality for we humans". How can you assert anything as true, and not be hypocritical? This illustrates for massive flaw, you want it both waysm but your sloppy thinking allows you to make this consistent error. You claim certainty, but then claim we can't know anything objectively real.

Yes, like everyone else, you hold onto your ignorance and bias because they are comfortable. You defend them, and fight to reject any information that might threaten to expose them as false, or naive, or dishonest.

You make these t-rather vicious claims, but no further expalantion, no examples, no better alternatives, and no evidence. We know you have disdain for evidence, so why make these claims at all? Do you not realize how this is a negative for your credibility?

You claim I have ignorance and bias, but fail to explain how.

Of course. No one wants to face the experience of having their 'truth' pulled out from beneath their feet.

Could that be why you prefer to navigate an illusory life nd experiences? To shield yourself from the harsh reality that life can impact us with?

You are very much a 'believer'. Keep that in mind.

I don't deny having beliefs. I do advocate for not believing in ideas that are implausible and lack evidence, unlike you. You are like those people who say democrats and republicans are all the same, as if getting a parking ticket is no different than committing murder, as they are both crimes. You prefer a black/white perception and ignore the grey range of human judgment that is crucial for understanding and making moral/ethical judgments.

 

[Nakosis]

I make no arguments against any god... I've simply not been given sufficient evidence for any god-claim I've ever been presented with to justify belief. I can make that claim because so one's been able to give me sufficient evidence to justify belief for the god they've defined.

Folks have "evidence" for themselves they feel is sufficient for belief. Often they feel that this is universal enough that anyone could experience the same evidence if they were first willing to believe.

I think this is true according to how I understand the mind works. I just don't necessarily agree what it is evidence of.

 

[PureX]

False. We can perceive many things unknown to us and that we have no formed idea about. Krishnamurti talked a lot about observing without judgment, which is a skill requiring disscipline.

The human brain functions via comparing and contrasting information sets to identify and valuate. Perception IS conception. What, where, why, how, risk, advantage, all of this is being determined in an instant by comparing and contrasting the current sensory input coming into the brain (right side, left side) with itself, and with countless remembered sensory information sets.

It often is because we this is how we lean to live in social environments. What's odd about your religious assumptions and approach is that you often refer to mystery about life, but it illustrates how theists feel anxiety about their identity in the universe and try to control how their place exisis in the universe they define. I've often said to you that the mystery you claim exists is really just your preference. You make mystery a necessity, and a sort of conceptual playground to live in. It's an illusion, not a reality of you being a human navigating on a planet.

That's all just projected nonsense. I am not religious. I feel no anxiety about my identity because I don't care about my identity. Identity is as temporary here as we are. And because no human is omniscient, the 'mystery' of existence remains both ongoing and self-evident.

How can you assert anything as true, and not be hypocritical? This illustrates for massive flaw, you want it both ways but your sloppy thinking allows you to make this consistent error. You claim certainty, but then claim we can't know anything objectively real.

I claim no certainty. I only point out the obvious: that we humans are not omniscient and so we cannot honestly presume to know what is and is not possible within the realm of existence.

You make these t-rather vicious claims, but no further expalantion, no examples, no better alternatives, and no evidence. We know you have disdain for evidence, so why make these claims at all? Do you not realize how this is a negative for your credibility?

What part of the above do you need proven? That we are not omniscient? Or that we don't now the possibilities and limitations of existence? Are you or is anyone you have ever met omniscient? Do you or does anyone you have ever met know what is possible and what is not possible within the realm of existence? If not, then why are you demanding evidence when your own answers ARE the evidence. If so, then right there is your evidence to the contrary. Which we both know you don't have.

You claim I have ignorance and bias, but fail to explain how.

You are human. That's how. You are not omniscient, hence, you are ignorant of the truth of existence. Then you presume that you know what's going on in spite of the fact that you are fundamentally ignorant, and that's your bias. There, I have explained the 'how' part to you. And now you will no doubt ignore it and whine some more about how I never explain anything.

I don't deny having beliefs. I do advocate for not believing in ideas that are implausible and lack evidence, unlike you.

Yet you foolishly presume that YOU know what is implausible, when in truth you don't. Because you are human. Because you are not omniscient. Beause you do not know what the possibilities and limitations of existence, are. You think your atheist god of scientism enables you to overcome your pefound ignorance in this regard, so that you can know these things. But it doesn't. It can't. And it never will. It's just another fantasy deity that's been invented by frightened arrogant humans to give themelves a means of pretending they have overcome this fundamental existential ignorance.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Folks have "evidence" for themselves they feel is sufficient for belief. Often they feel that this is universal enough that anyone could experience the same evidence if they were first willing to believe.

I think this is true according to how I understand the mind works. I just don't necessarily agree what it is evidence of.

I agree, everyone has different standards for what they consider to be sufficient evidence. Unfortunately, in my opinion, lots of people have very low standards. Furthermore, they tend to only lower their standards when it comes to god type claims, while the same stand of evidence for other supernatural claims would be deemed insufficient.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Then you just have to justify with evidence your justification for how you do justifiy and evdience.

That's exactly what I try to do anytime I'm presented with evidence that I don't think justifies my belief.

 

[Viker]

"You can't argue against God."

Watch me.

 

[firedragon]

Folks have "evidence" for themselves they feel is sufficient for belief. Often they feel that this is universal enough that anyone could experience the same evidence if they were first willing to believe.

What are these evidences you have come across?

 

[paarsurrey]

You Can't Argue Against God

Moses didn't know the Hebrew language so he needed some good assistant (Vazir), he requested Aaron just for that and G-d graciously granted it, so there is no argument (of Moses) against G-d, please, right?
Job's case is also similar, he didn't argue against G-d, please, right?:

"Ayūb (Job) is ----mentioned in the Quran in the following verse:

Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], as We revealed to Noah and the prophets after him. And we revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, the Descendants, Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the book [of Zabur].
— Quran, surah 4 (An-Nisa), ayah 163[4]

The Quran describes Job as a righteous servant of God, who was afflicted by suffering for a lengthy period of time. 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."
— Quran, surah 21 (The Prophets), ayah 83[5]

Job in Islam - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org
ooo
22:4 "And among men there are some who dispute concerning Allah without knowledge, and follow every rebellious satan," Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search

So, no disputes/arguments against One G-d.
Right?

Regards
____________________
Original Arabic narration/text from Muhammad's time, is below:-
22:4 وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنۡ یُّجَادِلُ فِی اللّٰہِ بِغَیۡرِ عِلۡمٍ وَّیَتَّبِعُ کُلَّ شَیۡطٰنٍ مَّرِیۡدٍ ۙ﴿۴