Your op is flawed Rob. In #1, we establish that X is logically possible. In #2, we demand that #1 cannot be possible if it is only logical, but also physical.

We know, and has Chad has pointed out, that some things that are logically possible are not also physical. The proposition is defeated.

So are you agreeing it is impossible to make a testable God claim? If not, can you make one? Ignore point 1 if you like, just go for a testable claim.

I'm not saying anything has to be physical, as long as there is some way to test it.

You're limiting "testable" to the physical which is illogical. You have to start by declaring the limit: is God limited to a physical form? A= no.

<edit> Well, possibly incomplete rather than illogical. Illogical if you demand that logical also has to be physical.

I can't make a testable God claim, I can't even form a coherent definition. I'm thinking it may be impossible, but I'm interested to see anyone try.

No, I don't care what he is defined to be as long as you can provide some way to test it, to distinguish it from nothing at all. You can define him as mystic vapour if you like, as long as there's some way of telling that vapour is real and not invented. I don't count something as being real just because someone can imagine it.

You can test the logic. The subject demands that you can't test it physically.

I can test if an argument is logical, yes. Do you have a claim then that I can test to see if what you define is actually real, just using logic as my tool? I don't see how that can work, but I'm willing to try. I'm not asking for an argument, just a claim. Define God, and state in what way it exists.

---

We can then see if everyone here can use logic as a way of testing the claim, and see what we get.

By real, I mean something other than the image in your mind of what god is.

---

By the way, I'm not asking for evidence to back up the claim. Just to be convinced that there is some reliable and independent way of testing it, to discover if it is likely true or false. If it cannot be false, or it cannot be tested, it is a useless claim.

(January 9, 2015 at 3:51 am)robvalue Wrote: I can't make a testable God claim, I can't even form a coherent definition. I'm thinking it may be impossible, but I'm interested to see anyone try.

No, I don't care what he is defined to be as long as you can provide some way to test it, to distinguish it from nothing at all. You can define him as mystic vapour if you like, as long as there's some way of telling that vapour is real and not invented. I don't count something as being real just because someone can imagine it.

Your either desperate to hang on to a defeated arguement because your not flexible enough to change when logic and reason show you to be in error (closed minded).
-or-
Your not smart enough to understand/refute the examples and following logic that defeat your arguement. (Empty minded) which is it?

There is a third option sort of..

You just have blind faith in the fact that the d-bag who orginally came up with the arguement your using is right, and if you just stick with his formula long enough (despite logic and reason) you will come out on top!

I guess one doesn't have to believe in God to be a man of faith!

(January 9, 2015 at 8:10 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 9, 2015 at 3:51 am)robvalue Wrote: I can't make a testable God claim, I can't even form a coherent definition. I'm thinking it may be impossible, but I'm interested to see anyone try.

No, I don't care what he is defined to be as long as you can provide some way to test it, to distinguish it from nothing at all. You can define him as mystic vapour if you like, as long as there's some way of telling that vapour is real and not invented. I don't count something as being real just because someone can imagine it.

Your either desperate to hang on to a defeated arguement because your not flexible enough to change when logic and reason show you to be in error (closed minded).
-or-
Your not smart enough to understand/refute the examples and following logic that defeat your arguement. (Empty minded) which is it?

There is a third option sort of..

You just have blind faith in the fact that the d-bag who orginally came up with the arguement your using is right, and if you just stick with his formula long enough (despite logic and reason) you will come out on top!

I guess one doesn't have to believe in God to be a man of faith!

Notice what's missing from your post?

---

I'll take that as a "no" then Drich.