Straightforward Challenge

[Lord Emsworth]

Define your God, CTD.

Yes ...
"And, depending on your definition of 'God,' you just may already have one such example of implausibility and absurdity."

 

[CTD]

Well then, in what way does redefining God

alter the absurdity of the claim?

I don't quite understand where you see the problem. Depending on who and what you are listening to God is merely some kind of first cause, the universe itself, an intelligent entity, an intelligent omnimax entity, an intelligent enitiy that answers prayers etc pp.

Okay, so there are supposed to be people who just deny the do-nothing god of modernized "deism"? Why would anyone bother with that?

Yet others are supposed to just deny an intelligent, prayer-answering entity? I don't see the point there either. Nor have I seen such individuals.

What's the point of any of this? Do you have multiple answers for all these different types of gods you imagine are denied?

And, implicitly or explicitly, an atheist will have their definition on what God is too.

Isn't that what you were just saying?

For example, a pantheistic God is generally not meant and hence not included in a presumed statement that there is no God, or what have you.

Do tell...

I'm no mind reader. I tend to take things as they're presented to the extent possible.

Are you saying the redefinition process is a legitimate means of altering reality - that by redefining God in some manner it can become any more or any less absurd?

No, it is certainly not a means of altering reality.

I see. In that case the absurdity remains pretty absurd.

But depending on definitions of individual words statements have different meaning.

This is why contentions about straw gods are funny. Just as are contentions about straw scripture, straw believers - shoot, even straw atheism's mighty funny.

None of that stuff's the topic here, of course.

 

[CTD]

All knowledge is aluminum poodle.

See, not even that hard.

That's just meaningless, nothing more.

 

[quatona]

In terms of philosophy, can anyone give an example of a claim more implausible and absurd than the claim to possess the knowledge that God does not exist?

Indeed, that would be a problematic claim, for various reasons. I guess that´s why we don´t see it made often.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What's the point of any of this? Do you have multiple answers for all these different types of gods you imagine are denied?

I think you should have said " ... are denied or not denied" actually. And yes, different questions demand different answers. Don't you think?

I see. In that case the absurdity remains pretty absurd.

Hmmmm .... You asked about statements. Statements about reality, that is. Not about reality itself.

This is why contentions about straw gods are funny.

Straw Gods? Hmmm, actually we/you could use your own God and see how it stacks up in terms of absurdity and implausibility.


(This of course ties back to my first post in this thread, where I said that "depending on your definition of 'God,' you just may already have one such example of implausibility and absurdity".)

 

[Sweet Tea]

God will always be God.

There are plenty of wrong answers to both issues. The law of identity precludes man or Satan from being God.

Don't "come now" me, when you started the nonsense.

"My undefined word will always be my undefined word".

Nothing and no one has been precluded from being this "God" you speak of, because you have not given parameters in which they could be precluded from it. I could be God. Maybe you are. My coat, perhaps. My sock? Quite possibly.

That's silly. If Christianity be proven true, it is then logically necessary that anything contradicting Christianity be false. Law of non-contradiction's not half so difficult as scoffer custom maintains.

Yes and your point being...?

Do tell...

Does he who makes the absurd claim have his definition laid out? If it is not a proper one, his claim is only that much the more ridiculous.

Maybe you should get started on laying that definition out then.

 

[variant]

That's just meaningless, nothing more.

And.

You asked for a claim that is more absurd and implausible than the one you presented.

What I gave you was a claim that was more.

Absurd:

1: ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous <an absurd argument>

2: having no rational or orderly relationship to human life : meaningless <an absurd universe>; also : lacking order or value <an absurd existence>


Implausable:

1: not plausible : provoking disbelief

Are you going to say that a claim which has little or no logical or comunicative meaning is less absurd than one that does?

 

[CTD]

Straw Gods? Hmmm, actually we/you could use your own God and see how it stacks up in terms of absurdity and implausibility.

But we already know how God "stacks up" in terms of being opposed by those who oppose Him; we already know people will claim "absurdity" and "implausibility" and a supply host of other bogus insults.

I prefer to keep to the topic, which has nothing to do with my personal relationship with God.

 

[CTD]

And.

You asked for a claim that is more absurd and implausible than the one you presented.

What I gave you was a claim that was more.

Absurd:

1: ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous <an absurd argument>

2: having no rational or orderly relationship to human life : meaningless <an absurd universe>; also : lacking order or value <an absurd existence>


Implausable:

1: not plausible : provoking disbelief

Are you going to say that a claim which has little or no logical or comunicative meaning is less absurd than one that does?

There is no claim - just nonsense. Now you did a good job composing nonsense, but in order to be a claim, a claim must be a claim. Your example wasn't a valid English sentence, due to your "artful" mismatch of singular and plural. Hence it does not constitute a claim.

 

[CTD]

"My undefined word will always be my undefined word".

Nothing and no one has been precluded from being this "God" you speak of, because you have not given parameters in which they could be precluded from it. I could be God. Maybe you are. My coat, perhaps. My sock? Quite possibly.

No.

Yes and your point being...?

Maybe you should get started on laying that definition out then.

My point now is that I'm not wasting time with derailment attempts. If you can't manage, that's not going to become my problem no matter how much you try.

I could easily walk through a city and ask a million people this question, and not encounter a single one who'd need to redefine a single term. If those who deny God need to redefine the term, that only makes their denial weaker - not stronger, more absurd and cowardly - not less so.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think you mean any violation of non-contradiction, right?

Well I had that one in mind. In general I think tha contradictions are at least implausible, if not absurd. Then again there are cases like "I am in the room and not in the room" when in the doorway, which may be true. Also I suppose that contradicctions may be part of a ciper and thus communicate facts in a roundabout way.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In general I think tha contradictions are at least implausible, if not absurd. Then again there are cases like "I am in the room and not in the room" when in the doorway, which may be true.

The law of non-contradiction says that contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect.

So, your example does not count as a violation of the law of non-contradiction, since you are taking into account different contexts. Any violation is absurd.

The contradiction you name is only a seeming contradiction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Anyway, I'd like to point out that God can be proven impossible if there is some violation of the law of non-contradiction implicit to God, or God's relationship to the universe.

Otherwise, it might be impossible to prove that God doesn't exist if God is defined in such an elusive way that the non-existence of God is impossible to verify. (E.g., any conclusive evidence of God's existence is only found after death.)

In any case, this kind of thread is doomed to failure because atheists are generally not strong (or gnostic) atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[CTD]

Anyway, I'd like to point out that God can be proven impossible if there is some violation of the law of non-contradiction implicit to God, or God's relationship to the universe.

Otherwise, it might be impossible to prove that God doesn't exist if God is defined in such an elusive way that the non-existence of God is impossible to verify. (E.g., any conclusive evidence of God's existence is only found after death.)

Mark

My own non-existence is impossible to verify; I need no "elusive" definitions.

It might just might be impossible to prove God doesn't exist because God exists. Non-contradiction.

 

[variant]

There is no claim - just nonsense. Now you did a good job composing nonsense, but in order to be a claim, a claim must be a claim. Your example wasn't a valid English sentence, due to your "artful" mismatch of singular and plural. Hence it does not constitute a claim.

Absurdity and nonsense are synonymous.

Try this one:

All pickpockets are Capricorns.

 

[Eudaimonist]

My own non-existence is impossible to verify; I need no "elusive" definitions.

It might just might be impossible to prove God doesn't exist because God exists. Non-contradiction.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[CTD]

My own non-existence is impossible to verify; I need no "elusive" definitions.

It might just might be impossible to prove God doesn't exist because God exists. Non-contradiction.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean.

Now that's dedication!

 

[cXXo]

CTD:

I think that there is a fundamental problem with the question or challenge that you pose.

The nature of proof is that it gives us irrefutable evidence that something is a specific way. There are many things that you can speculate upon, but will never be able to get proof of either way.

Proving that God exists is just as impossible as proving that God doesn't exist. We lack the capabilities to gather the evidence. Now, if we can't prove it either way, yet God must either exist or not exist, how can we determine which of the two options is more sound?

We can only speculate on the likelihood of the existence of God through our own personal experiences. The most common answer that is given as to why people believe in God is the way they feel. Some people are very spiritual, and they are comforted and helped through their lives by a close relationship with God, which I think is very healthy. On the other hand, many people don't care for the idea of God, and they are content living their lives without religion of any kind. Even though one of these people is right and the other is wrong, neither is confused or deluded. The absolute fact of the matter is that we cannot objectively know that God exists. That's an integral part of the Christian (and other) Faiths. To follow religion, one needs to whole heartedly accept that their religion is the truth despite the fact that there is no evidence and most likely will not be any evidence.

Now, to address your challenge specifically, you cannot find a claim that is more absurd, but you can find many that are equally absurd. The statement is false, end of story. There is no person who can claim they have knowledge of the nature of God, whether it is regarding his existence or non-existence. The real substance of what you are asking is not about whether or not God exists, but about whether or not we can have knowledge of it.

If you actually mean to say that you are looking for a belief that is more absurd than to believe that God does not exist, I can give you countless examples.

The world is flat.
Masturbation will make you go blind.
A planet called Vulcan exists somewhere between mercury and the sun.
Phlogiston makes combustion possible.

These are just a few beliefs that were actually held by intelligent people in the relatively near past. The reason that all of these beliefs are more absurd than the belief that there is no God is that we have proven that they are false. We know that the earth is round and that excretion of sperm has no effect on eye-sight. However, given that we do not know (although we may believe it, and it may be true) that God does exist, it is a far less absurd proposition than any of the above.

Regards,

cXXo

 

[Sweet Tea]

No.

My point now is that I'm not wasting time with derailment attempts. If you can't manage, that's not going to become my problem no matter how much you try.

I could easily walk through a city and ask a million people this question, and not encounter a single one who'd need to redefine a single term. If those who deny God need to redefine the term, that only makes their denial weaker - not stronger, more absurd and cowardly - not less so.

A million people, a million different answers of what their "God" is. That is why this is fail thread.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Now that's dedication!

Perhaps you could dedicate yourself to making yourself more clear.


eudaimonia,

Mark