the righteous tyrant
Re: the righteous tyrant
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=508882 time=1619443690 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=508881 time=1619441966 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=508880 time=1619441598 user_id=9431]
[said things about god
[/quote]
Theology is Not philosophy. Please stop.
[/quote]
Ontology is the first of all philosophies, and whether or not God exists is an ontological issue. Whether or not we can know Him is an epistemological one. What design He has put into the universe is an ethical one. And so on. There could actually be no study that is so tightly linked to the whole history of philosophy at is theology.
And no.
[/quote]
The only thing relevant about god is whether the concept contains an externally verifiable element. The answer is no. It is literally indistinguishable from fiction. It is not possible to define or measure, to develop a test or to conduct a test to obtain any verification of those perfectly abstract attributes. God is neither logically actual or possible in any sense whatever but in your mind. Shut up now. This is folly.
I castigate thee. Use thy mind for higher purposes. Evolve.
[quote=Advocate post_id=508881 time=1619441966 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=508880 time=1619441598 user_id=9431]
[said things about god
[/quote]
Theology is Not philosophy. Please stop.
[/quote]
Ontology is the first of all philosophies, and whether or not God exists is an ontological issue. Whether or not we can know Him is an epistemological one. What design He has put into the universe is an ethical one. And so on. There could actually be no study that is so tightly linked to the whole history of philosophy at is theology.
And no.
[/quote]
The only thing relevant about god is whether the concept contains an externally verifiable element. The answer is no. It is literally indistinguishable from fiction. It is not possible to define or measure, to develop a test or to conduct a test to obtain any verification of those perfectly abstract attributes. God is neither logically actual or possible in any sense whatever but in your mind. Shut up now. This is folly.
I castigate thee. Use thy mind for higher purposes. Evolve.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23021
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
No, you are pretending to a knowledge that you do not and cannot possibly have. The only thing you know, the only thing you even CAN know, is that you, personally, don't know of any evidence.Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:54 pmThe only thing relevant about god is whether the concept contains an externally verifiable element. The answer is no.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:28 pmOntology is the first of all philosophies, and whether or not God exists is an ontological issue. Whether or not we can know Him is an epistemological one. What design He has put into the universe is an ethical one. And so on. There could actually be no study that is so tightly linked to the whole history of philosophy at is theology.
And no.
What evidence exists is quite a different question, the answer to which you clearly do not know, because you're manifestly wrong. There is a whole field called "natural theology," the focus of which is the question of what sorts of evidences exist within the natural world.
Re: the righteous tyrant
That's not true though, is it Mr Can? Advocate can know the evidence that you and others present, and he can know, as I do what a load of bollocks it is.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:59 pmThe only thing you know, the only thing you even CAN know, is that you, personally, don't know of any evidence.
The sort of evidence that natural theology presents is as persuasive as the sixpence under your pillow being evidence for the tooth-fairy.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:59 pmWhat evidence exists is quite a different question, the answer to which you clearly do not know, because you're manifestly wrong. There is a whole field called "natural theology," the focus of which is the question of what sorts of evidences exist within the natural world.
-
- Posts: 8580
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: the righteous tyrant
Suffice to say, if there were evidence of God, then it would be known to everyone by this time. It's not and therefore I don't think there is evidence of a God. Does that mean there is no God, no. But it also means that we don't know if there is one either.
Re: the righteous tyrant
Well the point is that there is loads of evidence for god, it's just that none of it is very compelling. Apologists like to do the maths by addition, so in their minds two bits of evidence with a likelihood of 50% get added together to make 100%. Wahey! God exists. Everyone else is multiplying: 50% x 50% = 25%.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:09 amSuffice to say, if there were evidence of God, then it would be known to everyone by this time. It's not and therefore I don't think there is evidence of a God.
There is a universe; there is life; there is consciousness. Any one of those is indistinguishable from a miracle, which is kinda god's thing, so who knows? I just don't happen to believe it.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:09 amDoes that mean there is no God, no. But it also means that we don't know if there is one either.
Re: the righteous tyrant
[quote="Gary Childress" post_id=509277 time=1619759350 user_id=6477]
Suffice to say, if there were evidence of God, then it would be known to everyone by this time. It's not and therefore I don't think there is evidence of a God. Does that mean there is no God, no. But it also means that we don't know if there is one either.
[/quote]
There are infinite things we don't know. "We don't know, therefore x." is the position all theists must hold and is epistemologically bankrupt.
Suffice to say, if there were evidence of God, then it would be known to everyone by this time. It's not and therefore I don't think there is evidence of a God. Does that mean there is no God, no. But it also means that we don't know if there is one either.
[/quote]
There are infinite things we don't know. "We don't know, therefore x." is the position all theists must hold and is epistemologically bankrupt.
Re: the righteous tyrant
The reason those of 'you' can NOT see 'evidence' of God is because 'you' can NOT YET define what God is nor what the word God refers to, EXACTLY.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:09 am Suffice to say, if there were evidence of God, then it would be known to everyone by this time. It's not and therefore I don't think there is evidence of a God. Does that mean there is no God, no. But it also means that we don't know if there is one either.
HOW could 'evidence' exist for 'that' what 'you', human beings, do NOT YET even know what 'that' is?
WHAT 'evidence' could there be for a 'thing', which you can NOT YET even define?
For SIMPLICITY just define what God IS, then the 'evidence' will be CLEARLY SEEN, or NOT SEEN AT ALL.
It all just depends on 'your' definition/s.
Re: the righteous tyrant
'I' KNOW. That is who knows.uwot wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:21 amWell the point is that there is loads of evidence for god, it's just that none of it is very compelling. Apologists like to do the maths by addition, so in their minds two bits of evidence with a likelihood of 50% get added together to make 100%. Wahey! God exists. Everyone else is multiplying: 50% x 50% = 25%.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:09 amSuffice to say, if there were evidence of God, then it would be known to everyone by this time. It's not and therefore I don't think there is evidence of a God.There is a universe; there is life; there is consciousness. Any one of those is indistinguishable from a miracle, which is kinda god's thing, so who knows? I just don't happen to believe it.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:09 amDoes that mean there is no God, no. But it also means that we don't know if there is one either.
Re: the righteous tyrant
But 'you' does NOT know. 'you' only thinks. This has to be LOOKED AT 'objectively' if you want to begin to understand this.
'I' KNOW. This is because of who and what 'I' am, and/or what the word 'I' refers to.
'I' am, literally, God. And, 'I' am, literally, NOTHING like what 'you' think.
Re: the righteous tyrant
[quote=Age post_id=509696 time=1620123754 user_id=16237]
The reason those of 'you' can NOT see 'evidence' of God is because 'you' can NOT YET define what God is nor what the word God refers to, EXACTLY.
HOW could 'evidence' exist for 'that' what 'you', human beings, do NOT YET even know what 'that' is?
WHAT 'evidence' could there be for a 'thing', which you can NOT YET even define?
For SIMPLICITY just define what God IS, then the 'evidence' will be CLEARLY SEEN, or NOT SEEN AT ALL.
It all just depends on 'your' definition/s.
[/quote]
The fact that god cannot be adequately defined to replicably test is proof enough that bothering with it is an annoying waste of time.
The reason those of 'you' can NOT see 'evidence' of God is because 'you' can NOT YET define what God is nor what the word God refers to, EXACTLY.
HOW could 'evidence' exist for 'that' what 'you', human beings, do NOT YET even know what 'that' is?
WHAT 'evidence' could there be for a 'thing', which you can NOT YET even define?
For SIMPLICITY just define what God IS, then the 'evidence' will be CLEARLY SEEN, or NOT SEEN AT ALL.
It all just depends on 'your' definition/s.
[/quote]
The fact that god cannot be adequately defined to replicably test is proof enough that bothering with it is an annoying waste of time.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23021
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the righteous tyrant
How does that follow, Gary? Is there a commandment somewhere that says that all evidence must be made evident to every person in the same way and at the same time? If there is any such law, where is it written?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:09 am Suffice to say, if there were evidence of God, then it would be known to everyone by this time.
What normally happens is that some people know certain things, and different people don't happen to know those things. It's not even guaranteed, in most matters, that everybody gets to know everything in their entire lifetime. So it would not follow from the observation that some people don't know the evidence that there was no evidence....empirically, that is often the case.
But perhaps what you really mean is that you don't think it would be fair of God to allow knowledge of Him to be on a level with, say, astrophysics or chemistry, or history, or even mathematics -- meaning a thing in which there is evidence, but not everybody knows what that evidence is. Maybe it's the inequity of that arrangmement you find objectionable...
In that case, I can put your mind to rest. Not only IS there evidence, but God promises that everybody DOES know it, no matter what they may say. See Romans 1:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools..." (18-22)
Re: the righteous tyrant
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=509771 time=1620173500 user_id=9431]
[quote="Gary Childress" post_id=509277 time=1619759350 user_id=6477]
Suffice to say, if there were evidence of God, then it would be known to everyone by this time.
[/quote]
How does that follow, Gary? Is there a commandment somewhere that says that all evidence must be made evident to every person in the same way and at the same time? If there is any such law, where is it written?
[/quote]
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you'd otherwise expect to find some. The kind of all-encompassing power that god supposedly is would have infinitely greater effects, immediately, and be forever writ large in the annuls of history if verifiable evidence were ever found than life on Mars, sustainability, cold fusion, etc. would cause.
[quote="Gary Childress" post_id=509277 time=1619759350 user_id=6477]
Suffice to say, if there were evidence of God, then it would be known to everyone by this time.
[/quote]
How does that follow, Gary? Is there a commandment somewhere that says that all evidence must be made evident to every person in the same way and at the same time? If there is any such law, where is it written?
[/quote]
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you'd otherwise expect to find some. The kind of all-encompassing power that god supposedly is would have infinitely greater effects, immediately, and be forever writ large in the annuls of history if verifiable evidence were ever found than life on Mars, sustainability, cold fusion, etc. would cause.