Originally posted by Omega Vision
Do we really need another "God" argument right now? Aren't there enough of those in the Philosophy and Religion section?
There is no God argument here, it's someone making a fool of themselves and me finding it mildly amusing. But agreed otherwise, so I'll **** off.
Originally posted by 753
hum... some definitions of God are inherently unverifiable yes. however, the definitions of God that involve an intelligent entity directly medling with reality are refutable, and easily so for the most part. At least in as much as god then becomes just an unsupported alternative explanation for processes that follow physical laws and causation and this raises the problem that if god is irrelevant to reality, how can it really be called God?the deist idea of a god that designed physical laws and acted as first cause, but does not interfere with the universe, is more difficult to refute.
Still, this really comes down to bertrands teapot. it cannot be empircally ruled out, but nothing supports its existence.
besides, it is a sound rule of thumb to assume that that which does not manifest itself in any perceivable way does not exist and sugesting otherwise is actually somewhat absurd if one ponders about it.
I'm not talking about proving or disproving God, though, to rule that notion out. I'm also not speaking of a specific God. I'm talking about the concept of God.
My premise if you will, is that you can't conclude the nonexistence of God through logic, reasoning or deduction. I didn't nor do I intend to make it a spiritual debate. I desire to remain within the field of rhetorics, logic and epistemology.
Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect.Strawman.
You're just trying to sound the erudite here; but failing.
You've studied logic broadly? Hahahaaahahhhahaaaahhahahahhaahahahahaaa X a lot more.
You're accusing me of straw man (Can't imagine), or suggesting that you used it to conclude your position on God? Because what you quoted is (First part) an observation and (Second part) a question, or request of you to present your reasoning. Neither nor combined is a straw man.
I have studied logic. Either that or my memories of my time in school deceive me. I'd take offense in your laughing if it weren't for the fact that you don't seem to recognize a fallacy in so little text as that previous post of yours.
I'd also like to add for future discussions where you actually try to argue a case, not against me but in general: Ridiculing the opposition toll credibility. It's a display of weakness ✅
Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
I'm not talking about proving or disproving God, though, to rule that notion out. I'm also not speaking of a specific God. I'm talking about the concept of God.My premise if you will, is that you can't conclude the nonexistence of God through logic, reasoning or deduction. I didn't nor do I intend to make it a spiritual debate. I desire to remain within the field of rhetorics, logic and epistemology.
You're accusing me of straw man (Can't imagine), or suggesting that you used it to conclude your position on God? Because what you quoted is (First part) an observation and (Second part) a question, or request of you to present your reasoning. Neither nor combined is a straw man.
I have studied logic. Either that or my memories of my time in school deceive me. I'd take offense in your laughing if it weren't for the fact that you don't seem to recognize a fallacy in so little text as that previous post of yours.
I'd also like to add for future discussions where you actually try to argue a case, not against me but in general: Ridiculing the opposition toll credibility. It's a display of weakness ✅
For someone who "studied logic broadly" and likes to accuse others of logical fallacies at every step, it's odd that you not only make one of the most common fallies (ie a strawman) but then fail to see it when told to you.
Here, I'll spell it out for you though: I NEVER SAID GOD DIDN'T EXIST. SO ASKING TO ME PROVE WITH LOGIC THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST AS IF IT WERE MY STANCE IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.
Now go troll someone else. You've bored me.
Originally posted by Pinkie Pie
I'm not talking about proving or disproving God, though, to rule that notion out.
I guess I was confused by the paragraphs below then, as you directly tie the logical validty of a statement denying god to its empirical verification.
Logic demands that you don't conclude the nonexistence of God, because you can't disprove God. You may be able to disprove a God, or several Gods. In fact you might be able to disprove most known Gods through a critical analytic processing of religious writings.The greatest distance that'll ever take you though, is disproving a human interpretation of God, an idea. A diffuse idea of God due to poor translation of supposed spiritual experiences.
*******
no laws, perhaps, but assuming the inexistence of stuff that does not manifest itself in any perceivable way shape or form is a perfectly reasonable rule of thumb
There's no laws within logic, reason or deduction that aid the premise that God doesn't exist. Logic actually plead the opposite. Few know this because there's logic in trusting science. To the same people, science versus religion is black and white. Therefore, because science is right, religion is wrong. A fallacy among so many others that are popularly used revolving theism versus atheism.
I'm also not speaking of a specific God. I'm talking about the concept of God.
My premise if you will, is that you can't conclude the nonexistence of God through logic, reasoning or deduction. I didn't nor do I intend to make it a spiritual debate. I desire to remain within the field of rhetorics, logic and epistemology.
[/B]
Originally posted by RobtardSo you're not accusing me of not knowing my logics. You're accusing me of having misunderstood you. You do realize you could've said that after my initial post right and I wouldn't have "trolled" you as you so delicately put it 😛
For someone who "studied logic broadly" and likes to accuse others of logical fallacies at every step, it's odd that you not only make one of the most common fallies (ie a strawman) but then fail to see it when told to you.Here, I'll spell it out for you though: I NEVER SAID GOD DIDN'T EXIST. SO ASKING TO ME PROVE WITH LOGIC THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST AS IF IT WERE MY STANCE IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.
Now go troll someone else. You've bored me.
My premise was that you said logic conclude the nonexistence of God. Under said premise, which you knew all along that I have, it's not a straw man in any way. It's just a misunderstanding 😛
So if anyone was trolling it was you, who as early as initially knew that I was working under the premise that you claimed through logic the nonexistence of God, and didn't oppose the premise at all. Just mocked my argument. You could've said I misunderstood you, because I made it clear what I thought you said in the very first post. You chose not to, though. Troll 😛
Originally posted by 753What I meant by that was that it's illogical to claim the nonexistence of something due to lack of proof. Logic demand of you to assume, in this case, that God might be real until prove of otherwise has been provided. Which it won't be for a long time 😛
I guess I was confused by the paragraphs below then, as you directly tie the logical validty of a statement denying god to its empirical verification.*******
no laws, perhaps, but assuming the inexistence of stuff that does not manifest itself in any perceivable way shape or form is a perfectly reasonable rule of thumb
And what is the concept of God you speak of then? The specific Gods you were not talking about are all the concepts we have.
Nothing about my post strayed from logics and epistemology into spirituality.
You can use logic to conclude the nonexistence of some Gods, like the Egyptian Gods who refused to be ignored and now hasn't been acknowledged for millennium without anyone been smitten. Or Old Testament God who could intervene during the most ridiculous things but won't take any action in the modern world. Under the premise that Gods don't change their minds, which there's no reason to assume, granted their traditional omniscience logic can disprove some Gods.
The thing I'm trying to differentiate, is the flawed human idea of God and an actual God. Man is biased and therefore so is his idea of God. Writers of religion, be it Egyptians, Inca, Christians or Buddhists are humans. Humans flawed through bias or limited comprehension ✅ So even if they did have direct contact with God, words, innuendos, characteristics, beliefs and self of God would be lost in the translation. With all the religious scripts in the world, there's no saying that all of them isn't one single God who has been misunderstood in many, many ways 😛 If you get my point.
My point, to make it brief and clear, is that God in the Bible, Qur'an, on temple walls and so on, are all human interpretations of God. The human idea of God is not the same as God. Should he be real. The manner in which media distort the truth sometimes can be used as comparison for this 🙂
Oh and I weren't implying that you strayed from the topic. I just considered it an opportunity to mention what I was trying to do. I realized that I could've hinted an interest in digressing from the topic of logic towards discussing spirituality.