How can we be sure it's real?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-07-2015, 03:06 AM
RE: How can we be sure it's real?
(30-07-2015 02:48 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 02:38 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  It's more plausible to surmise the existence of a unicorn than a god. I've seen a horse. I've seen animals with horns on their heads. I have never seen a magical being or entity that can defy the laws of nature.

I'm not making a case for Gods existence in this thread. I am arguing that the OP's thinking and conclusion are ridiculous.

Do you agree with the OP's claim that "God does not exist because he is not objectively verifiable"

Yes or No?

Extra Terrestrials lack consistent description so they must not exist either. Of course that claim is ludicrous. The OP's argument, that God can't exist because He is not objectively verifiable/doesn't have a consistent description is garbage and should be tossed out like garbage too.

Actually descriptions of ETs are strikingly similar, though I don't think that's entirely coincidental (no that's not me saying anyone has seen aliens).

And the OP's objectively verifiable God thought process isn't infallible but certainly has more merit than all explanations for any gods ever, combined.

If any believer could give a clear definition of their god we'd have a better start.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 01:04 PM
RE: How can we be sure it's real?
(30-07-2015 03:06 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 02:48 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I'm not making a case for Gods existence in this thread. I am arguing that the OP's thinking and conclusion are ridiculous.

Do you agree with the OP's claim that "God does not exist because he is not objectively verifiable"

Yes or No?

Extra Terrestrials lack consistent description so they must not exist either. Of course that claim is ludicrous. The OP's argument, that God can't exist because He is not objectively verifiable/doesn't have a consistent description is garbage and should be tossed out like garbage too.

Actually descriptions of ETs are strikingly similar, though I don't think that's entirely coincidental (no that's not me saying anyone has seen aliens).

And the OP's objectively verifiable God thought process isn't infallible but certainly has more merit than all explanations for any gods ever, combined.

If any believer could give a clear definition of their god we'd have a better start.

I don't think ETs descriptions are striking similar. They are as diverse as descriptions of gods. That is the problem with this metric, it is so open to personal interpretation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 03:38 PM (This post was last modified: 30-07-2015 03:58 PM by BlackMason.)
RE: How can we be sure it's real?
(30-07-2015 01:44 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 01:41 PM)BlackMason Wrote:  No, you misunderstand. One can't begin to make a confident statement that those stars exist. It is possible that they do exits though. Stating that they do exits is an argument from ignorance. To say that the stars exist is a knowledge claim. So we're back to the epistemological conundrum if they can't be objectively verified. Existence is a knowledge claim. Objective verification is the means by which we corroborate knowledge.

Sorry bro, you're the one in the wrong here.

Now you are back peddling. In your OP you said, "God doesn't exist because he is not objectively verifiable." If God does not exist because He is not objectively verifiable then you should also claim that some stars do not exist because they are not objectively verifiable.....at least if you want your thinking to be consistent. But you don't. You acknowledge that a star outside the observable universe can exist...even though it is not objectively verifiable.

Your thinking is a mess. Clean it up.

Look, existence is a claim of knowledge. Knowledge is not if it cannot be verified to be so via objective testimony. If I said I know that I have 5 bucks in my pocket and yet reach in and find nothing, it is the case that I did not have knowledge because there was no 5 bucks in my pocket. It was possible that I may have had 5 bucks in my pocket but I can't claim it to be knowledge if it does not comport to reality. Do you understand?

It is possible that the unobserved star may exist but it cannot be claimed as knowledge since it does not comport to reality. The existence claim pre-corroboration is speculation. Do you know what speculation is? It could be the same as the missing 5 bucks. There is nothing wrong with my metric and there sure as hell isn't anything wrong with my thinking. You just want people like me to think for you.

Further I want to add that because we don't know what the bare minimum requirements are for being a God, we can't even begin to talk about it's existence. What are the necessary conditions for being a god? The necessary conditions for a triangle are 3 sides that touch on the corners. Anything surplus to this is not necessary for it being a triangle. It could be a red triangle with flowers on it but these things are surplus and don't make that thing a triangle. Therefore what necessary conditions need to be in place for something to be a god? Therefore it can't exist.


(30-07-2015 03:06 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  And the OP's objectively verifiable God thought process isn't infallible...

I'd like to know more about this. It's news to me. Drinking Beverage

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: