Straightforward Challenge

[Eudaimonist]

To make the claim that God does not exist, one would have to claim omniscience, and would become what he does not believe by definition.

No, one would not claim that. One could claim that God does not exist by pointing out a violation of the law of non-contradiction, which wouldn't require omniscience.

Typically, though, the claim is that the claim that God does exist is not well-enough supported to make for a rational belief, and so one should take the default position, which is that God doesn't exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Typically, though, the claim is that the claim that God does exist is not well-enough supported to make for a rational belief, and so one should take the default position, which is that God doesn't exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Are there any known "atypical" situations?

 

[Antarctika]

To make the claim that God does not exist, one would have to claim omniscience, and would become what he does not believe by definition.

I like that one.

I think it works with anything, not just God (any claim of non-existence).

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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.

Of course we know that already. At least to some extent. But please do keep in mind that the bogus insults as you call it here ... well, I refer you to your own OP.

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

In light of the first paragraph I have to conclude that the topic is not what it on the surface purports to be. I mean, you yourself said that words such as "absurdity" and "implausibility" are no more than bogus insults, yet you yourself also used them in your OP.

And normally, were you really looking for things more absurd or implausible, you would have to assess how your version of God stacks up, I guess . But I also guess that that's doubly moot.

 

[bricklayer]

No, one would not claim that. One could claim that God does not exist by pointing out a violation of the law of non-contradiction, which wouldn't require omniscience.

Typically, though, the claim is that the claim that God does exist is not well-enough supported to make for a rational belief, and so one should take the default position, which is that God doesn't exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It is exactly such as non-contradiction, exclusion, causality and the like that leave me to that God is necessary, and everything else is contingent.

 

[DaisyDay]

Not really able to make it out. Is this one of those self-defeating "knowledge itself is absurd" arguments?

No, it isn't. I am in no way claiming that all knowledge is absurd (and why you would suppose so is beyond me).


Your question is if there were anything MORE absurd than someone making the claim to know to a certainty that God doesn't exist. The teapot isn't MORE absurd, but it is EQUALLY absurd.



And again, a person may conclude such a thing based on evidence (or lack of) without knowing to a certainty.

 

[CTD]

It is exactly such as non-contradiction, exclusion, causality and the like that leave me to that God is necessary, and everything else is contingent.

Yes, the regular principles of logic everyone employs continually in day-to-day life are sound and lead via several paths to at least minimal awareness of God's existence. Non-contradiction, cause-and-effect, law of identity, and so on, are wonderful, built-in gifts provided for our benefit.

In order to contradict that conclusion, special exceptions, denial-of-reality itself, assertion, and other fallacies are employed as a matter of absolute necessity.

 

[CTD]

Your question is if there were anything MORE absurd than someone making the claim to know to a certainty that God doesn't exist. The teapot isn't MORE absurd, but it is EQUALLY absurd.

Are all absurdities supposed to be equally absurd or something? Is there a strictly binary paradigm required when dealing with implausibilities?

That which you've drug here from the false analogy is a poor candidate, otherwise.

 

[CTD]

In light of the first paragraph I have to conclude that the topic is not what it on the surface purports to be. I mean, you yourself said that words such as "absurdity" and "implausibility" are no more than bogus insults, yet you yourself also used them in your OP.

No. Set / subset: none, one, some, all

What I said merely requires that the terms have the potential to be bogus insults. When applied inappropriately, they are. This does not mean they must be bogus insults also when applied appropriately.

Your turn now. Let me guess the next project: paint me as condescending, right?

 

[The Paul]

I am tired of writing long posts that are well thought out to you, only to have you not read them and make a meaningless post as a response.

I said that there are aspects of reality that we currently cannot know. This is my opinion and not a statement of fact, however it is an opinion you would be stupid to disagree with.

I'm sorry, but unless you make a post that indicates some sort of cognitive function beyond what my pets are capable of, I'm not going to waste anymore time on you. All of my arguments are there in my posts, read them and respond if you wish, or preserve your ego and continue thinking that God certainly exists with no possibility of being wrong and no intention or ability to logically reason your position.


cXXo

...it's a lesson we all have to learn.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

No. Set / subset: none, one, some, all

What I said merely requires that the terms have the potential to be bogus insults. When applied inappropriately, they are. This does not mean they must be bogus insults also when applied appropriately.

Your turn now. Let me guess the next project: paint me as condescending, right?

There is no need for a next project. I stand by what I said: The topic is not what it purports to be. There are no signs that the OP was a serious inquiry. Plus, as I indicated before 'absurdity' and 'implausibility' are cast as 'bogus insults'. Putting this together ... Maybe it is intended as some kind of turnaround? Hmmmm ... Maybe something else?


I am absolutely not sure what 'topic' you would like 'to keep to'. Want to see and discuss if there are ideas which are more absurd and implausible than the claim that there are no Gods? Sure. How about what I offered before? Namely, certain God concepts themselves?

If you don't want Straw-Gods ... no problem either. Just pick your own. How does it stack up in terms of absurdity and implausibility?

 

[CTD]

I am absolutely not sure what 'topic' you would like 'to keep to'.

Defending myself against false accusations.

[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
...Not

Got your hopes up, didn't I?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Defending myself against false accusations.

[snip]
...Not

Got your hopes up, didn't I?

And in other news you are still not dealing with what your own topic purports to be about. Strange.


Want to see and discuss if there are ideas which are more absurd and implausible than the claim that there are no Gods? Sure. How about what I offered before? Namely, certain God concepts themselves?

If you don't want Straw-Gods ... no problem either. Just pick your own. How does it stack up in terms of absurdity and implausibility?

 

[sandwiches]

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.

Now, i'm interested in this. How do you know he isn't God?

 

[sandwiches]

There is no need for a next project. I stand by what I said: The topic is not what it purports to be. There are no signs that the OP was a serious inquiry. Plus, as I indicated before 'absurdity' and 'implausibility' are cast as 'bogus insults'. Putting this together ... Maybe it is intended as some kind of turnaround? Hmmmm ... Maybe something else?


I am absolutely not sure what 'topic' you would like 'to keep to'. Want to see and discuss if there are ideas which are more absurd and implausible than the claim that there are no Gods? Sure. How about what I offered before? Namely, certain God concepts themselves?

If you don't want Straw-Gods ... no problem either. Just pick your own. How does it stack up in terms of absurdity and implausibility?

This topic is about nothing. A quick look at CTD's posting history will show you one of the most hateful, insulting, bile-filled people in this forum. He spews nonsense in the forum and when people reply, they're insulted, belittled, and accused of being "scoffers" by CTD. I think this is what makes his particular brand of hypocrisy the best, the fact that every other venomous post he makes, he likes to talk about the "hostility" of atheists and scoffers, which I think may be one and the same in his mind.

 

[The Paul]

This topic is about nothing. A quick look at CTD's posting history will show you one of the most hateful, insulting, bile-filled people in this forum. He spews nonsense in the forum and when people reply, they're insulted, belittled, and accused of being "scoffers" by CTD. I think this is what makes his particular brand of hypocrisy the best, the fact that every other venomous post he makes, he likes to talk about the "hostility" of atheists and scoffers, which I think may be one and the same in his mind.

I'm actually sort of interested as to what the "scoffer god" is, but he oscillates too quickly between dishonesty and incoherence to make any sense of it.

I have not discounted the possibility that CTD himself doesn't know.

 

[cXXo]

You guys see more than I do.

All I can see is someone who is so terrified by the idea that their faith doesn't hold up in their own mind that they're forced to pretend to argue. This pretense of arguing is achieved by making comments that are irrelevant and of no value to the topic on a public forum, then deluding themself into believing they made a valid and/or coherent point.

 

[The Paul]

You guys see more than I do.

All I can see is someone who is so terrified by the idea that their faith doesn't hold up in their own mind that they're forced to pretend to argue. This pretense of arguing is achieved by making comments that are irrelevant and of no value to the topic on a public forum, then deluding themself into believing they made a valid and/or coherent point.

Maybe. But that fear is buried pretty deep, if it exists. I doubt he experiences it consciously.

Anyway, he frequently refers to something he calls the "scoffer god," but he refuses to elaborate on what it is.

Is it something he heard and likes the sound of, so he repeats it without knowing what it means? Does it actually represent some parody of God in his mind, or even an actual anti-god? Would that be Satan or something else? Is it just his personal term for the strawman fallacy?

It's a mystery.

 

[Davian]

Would any one of that million be able to define 'God' in a way that would not be met with your 'straw-god' complaint?

You greatly overestimate the elitist demographic. Legitimate marriage won the popular vote in CALIFORNIA. Even in the stronghold of anti-American sentiment, the most intensely brainwashed location one can name on the continent, the home of Hollywood and San Francisco - even there scoffers lost the popular election.

Nice derail attempt. It appears that your answer is 'no'.

To *redefine* implies that there is a definition.

As I said here, all I have seen here are straw-gods, as you call them. They exist - as works of fiction, characters in books, created by men.

Can you demonstrate that your diety is any different?

Do you quote words without reading them or something?

In the future, if you're hoping for others not to read, you might want trim down the portion you quote. I probably shouldn't coach anyone on such matters, but come on!

It appears that your answer is 'no'.

You are the one doing the derailing, not me. Did you read my post? I was just asking for clarification. How can one talk about belief in something if we haven't first agreed upon what we are talking about?

 

[Davian]

Maybe. But that fear is buried pretty deep, if it exists. I doubt he experiences it consciously.

Anyway, he frequently refers to something he calls the "scoffer god," but he refuses to elaborate on what it is.

Is it something he heard and likes the sound of, so he repeats it without knowing what it means? Does it actually represent some parody of God in his mind, or even an actual anti-god? Would that be Satan or something else? Is it just his personal term for the strawman fallacy?

It's a mystery.

I don't see a mystery. CTD's 'straw-god' approach has a point - every time another god-concept is tossed onto the pile, he can dismiss that as a 'straw-god', or to be more precise, what was tossed out was not *his* deity of choice.

Perhaps his fear is that if he was to clearly define his god, there may be those that will point out the contradictions and impossibilities of that god, and then he would have to be on the defence, and 'step up to the plate' for this god of his. Better to try to keep your god as nebulous as possible so as to have your opponent swinging at nothing.

But then you end up with a god that is indistinguishable from nothing.