Let me say this: a God which can only be argued for with logical or philosophical ideas, and not by evidence, is irrelevant. It is not interacting with Mankind since any interaction of sufficient import should provide sufficient evidence of existence.

I agree with that.

If "god" is being argued for as an abstract idea only, it is no more real than any other concept, and there's no guarantee it maps to anything that actually exists or has an effect.

This is again why this kind of garbage never produces anything meaningful or useful.

(May 17, 2016 at 4:58 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: Also[the] no scientific method isn't the only way to gain knowledge but it is the only way to ascertain and validate said knowledge against our observable reality.

Do you have a scientific study or physical evidence to prove that the scientific method is the only way to validate knowledge beliefs? (knowledge is belief that has already been justified as true)

(May 18, 2016 at 6:26 am)bennyboy Wrote: Let me say this: a God which can only be argued for with logical or philosophical ideas, and not by evidence, is irrelevant. It is not interacting with Mankind since any interaction of sufficient import should provide sufficient evidence of existence.

The so-called God of the Philosophers is indeed rather pale. But it is something and the implications are surprisingly far reaching when discussing metaphysical questions such as those you are fond of raising.

(May 18, 2016 at 6:53 am)robvalue Wrote: If "god" is being argued for as an abstract idea only, it is no more real than any other concept…

&

(May 18, 2016 at 4:39 am)robvalue Wrote: Words are not as accurate as mathematical symbols…it's vitally important to negotiate the language, definitions and claims as much as anything else.

When you use terms like “abstract ideas” it suggests that you do not have a fully developed nomenclature, one such as that used by the Schoolmen, that clearly distinguishes between abstractions, ideas, and concepts. In modern usage the meanings of those words often overlap so some confusion is to be expected. Before being so dismissive of theological arguments, you would be best advised to confirm that you fully grasp how the words are used in context. Another example would be a word like substance. In antiquity and medieval philosophy the word meant something quite different since Descartes.

(May 18, 2016 at 4:39 am)robvalue Wrote: …when someone is using arguments in place of evidence, they haven't even established its existence. See my video:

You should reconsider your ceaseless self-promotion of that video. It truly misses the point. Demonstrations intended to show the existence of God are based on experiences common to all people by means of the senses. The evidence under consideration is not any one particular thing or class of things; but rather, the universal features of reality as a whole and all things within it. They do not concern specific beings; but rather, being as such.

(May 18, 2016 at 4:39 am)robvalue Wrote: …To begin with: what's a god? How do you differentiate between a god and a non-God? No theist has ever given me a coherent answer to this. The discussion seems kind of pointless if I don't even know what they are arguing for.

From the very beginning of the Christian Church believers have known that the fullness of God is incomprehensible to Man. Anslem gave the best definition of God: that which the greater than which cannot be conceived. Even though God cannot be fully comprehended that does not prevent people from knowing some things about Him, particularly like what He is not, such as limited or contingent.

(May 18, 2016 at 4:39 am)robvalue Wrote: Secondly: when you've finished telling me what it is, if we ever get that far, why should I care?

Well, at the very least you could more precisely target your critiques. Maybe then people like me would take them more seriously.

My brain hasn't been on top form today, but I'll try and address more of the actual arguments the guy made soon.

You should if you feel that people like me could in any way be swayed by your videos. Otherwise they are just an expression of your own vanity.

I edited out my comment, it was unnecessary.

No, I have no hope of convincing "people like you" of anything, ever. I'm speaking to the wider audience.

Many people find my videos very useful. I know you don't, but I'm not sure what you want me to do about that. I thought we'd agreed to disagree when it comes to debates. You think my approach is flawed, and I think yours is flawed. So I'll leave it up to the reader to decide who is more convincing.

(May 18, 2016 at 12:18 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The so-called God of the Philosophers is indeed rather pale. But it is something and the implications are surprisingly far reaching when discussing metaphysical questions such as those you are fond of raising.

Oh, no doubt. I see the hard problem of mind quite compatible with some ideas about Deism, for example, and one might even choose to define an Idealistic universe as a kind of Mind of God.

However, when I'm asked to start investing my Sundays in an activity, I'd better see some real returns on my investment, because I have dogs to walk, porn to watch, and important naps to take.

No problem at all! Of course. Never any hurry on here, I'll always be around!

Don't let it stress you out, you look after yourself and good luck with sorting out your equipment.