Inconceivable argument for god

[tor]

This is argument from Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab

The premise is essentially the reverse of the religious ontological argument. God is the label applied to the most inconceivable entity possible. The existence of god is thus semantical and irrelevant at this conclusion because it only provides a label to an idea that cannot be described nor fathomed. In this argument it is possible to say that god does not exist since it's existence is not in any way present in our own. God is purely an idea or product of consciousness in the solipsistic way since without consciousness nothing can perceive god.
As to what you wish to call such an idea or entity is irrelevant as I said before since it is just a label applied to a thought which is a product of perception or the capabilities of our imaginations.

Here is my response.
A is a set of entities which exist.
B is a set of entities which don't exist.

Set A contains object or a subset of objects which are most inconceivable by human mind.
Set B contains an entity or a subset of entities which are most inconceivable by a human mind.

Now the most inconceivable entity by my mind might be different from the most inconceivable object by Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab's mind.
Also since we both have no idea what it is since we can't conceive it we can't determine if this object is from set A or B. Therefore we don't know if it exists or not. Therefore argument does not prove existance of god.
Also calling god the most inconceivable entity makes it kinda pointless since you have no idea what that entity is and why you should believe in it.

[xr34p3rx]

This is argument from Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab

The premise is essentially the reverse of the religious ontological argument. God is the label applied to the most inconceivable entity possible. The existence of god is thus semantical and irrelevant at this conclusion because it only provides a label to an idea that cannot be described nor fathomed. In this argument it is possible to say that god does not exist since it's existence is not in any way present in our own. God is purely an idea or product of consciousness in the solipsistic way since without consciousness nothing can perceive god.
As to what you wish to call such an idea or entity is irrelevant as I said before since it is just a label applied to a thought which is a product of perception or the capabilities of our imaginations.

Here is my response.
A is a set of entities which exist.
B is a set of entities which don't exist.

Set A contains object or a subset of objects which are most inconceivable by human mind.
Set B contains an entity or a subset of entities which are most inconceivable by a human mind.

Now the most inconceivable entity by my mind might be different from the most inconceivable object by Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab's mind.
Also since we both have no idea what it is since we can't conceive it we can't determine if this object is from set A or B. Therefore we don't know if it exists or not. Therefore argument does not prove existance of god.
Also calling god the most inconceivable entity makes it kinda pointless since you have no idea what that entity is and why you should believe in it.

whats your deal with Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab? just PM him and post the debate lol

[tor]

We decided to discus this argument on forum.

[Rabb Allah]

This is argument from Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab

The premise is essentially the reverse of the religious ontological argument. God is the label applied to the most inconceivable entity possible. The existence of god is thus semantical and irrelevant at this conclusion because it only provides a label to an idea that cannot be described nor fathomed. In this argument it is possible to say that god does not exist since it's existence is not in any way present in our own. God is purely an idea or product of consciousness in the solipsistic way since without consciousness nothing can perceive god.
As to what you wish to call such an idea or entity is irrelevant as I said before since it is just a label applied to a thought which is a product of perception or the capabilities of our imaginations.

Here is my response.
A is a set of entities which exist.
B is a set of entities which don't exist.

Set A contains object or a subset of objects which are most inconceivable by human mind.
Set B contains an entity or a subset of entities which are most inconceivable by a human mind.

Now the most inconceivable entity by my mind might be different from the most inconceivable object by Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab's mind.
Also since we both have no idea what it is since we can't conceive it we can't determine if this object is from set A or B. Therefore we don't know if it exists or not. Therefore argument does not prove existance of god.
Also calling god the most inconceivable entity makes it kinda pointless since you have no idea what that entity is and why you should believe in it.

You pretty much proved my point since god is entirely subjective and relative to the human mind. We as humans have went through biological and theological evolution. At one point we thought anthropomorphic deities were the pinnacle of power now we have evolved past that to monotheistic transcendence. As of now, my mind is capable of perceiving one such thing which I have named god. Outside of my mind this entity does not exist because no other mind is capable of forming an exact understanding of such an entity. It is much like a fingerprint and even though there are similarities they do not exactly make it the exact same god. No Christian, Muslim or Jew worships the exact same god amongst themselves which is why they argue and form sects from a seemingly same religion about the same god.

The nature of my god in the physical world is none because there is no such evidence to prove that any god has taken action in the physical world that we all perceive and receive constant stimulus from daily(insert masturbation joke here _____). God is entirely a subjective concept and subjective experience which is the nature of Ignosticism as Rabbi Sherwin Wine would have called the issue. God exist because I exist and all of my thoughts exist. Unless I take my thoughts and cast them unto the physical testable world then my god is subject to skepticism since by doing so I am saying my god can objectively/physically exist. The rebuttal to the ontological argument only concerns itself with the use of a physical deity. We as humans beings have minds which are by nature infinite and enjoy contemplating the ludicrous so all minds have contemplated the existence of something which is the most inconceivable or highest ideal ever. All cultures due to this have had some concept of a god. It is human nature and a product of the human mind because we can fathom something on polar ends of a point(subject).

[xr34p3rx]

We decided to discus this argument on forum.

ok, go for it then

[Rabb Allah]

whats your deal with Shaykh al-Kabir Shair Abdulrab? just PM him and post the debate lol

I think he has an 'unmoistened' love for me

[tor]

So your god is just an unknown entity you imagine in your mind. Why do you need it?

[Rabb Allah]

So your god is just an unknown entity you imagine in your mind. Why do you need it?

Who said I need it? Frankly I would never be friendly towards the existence of a god but sadly I had 2 moments in my life where my consciousness was not in control of itself. This sort of ruined my desire to be an atheist frankly which sort of sucks.
I am not being sarcastic when I said this by the way. I am not exactly happy with the existence of a god yet alone a god that is as personal and impersonal as it gets.
I actually believe it is best to describe god as something needing us since we are so eager to be aware of a god. This is why it is a reversal of the objective ontological argument since I am obviously not religious and do not apply subjectivity onto an (semi)objective construction of god.

[tor]

So your god is just an unknown entity you imagine in your mind. Why do you need it?

Who said I need it? Frankly I would never be friendly towards the existence of a god but sadly I had 2 moments in my life where my consciousness was not in control of itself. This sort of ruined my desire to be an atheist frankly which sort of sucks.
I am not being sarcastic when I said this by the way. I am not exactly happy with the existence of a god yet alone a god that is as personal and impersonal as it gets.
I actually believe it is best to describe god as something needing us since we are so eager to be aware of a god. This is why it is a reversal of the objective ontological argument since I am obviously not religious and do not apply subjectivity onto an (semi)objective construction of god.

What to you is a difference between deist and not a deist?

[Rabb Allah]

What to you is a difference between deist and not a deist?

Deism as a theology just means a belief in god without religion but the philosophical understanding of Deism is the rejection of religion followed by the concept of a physically inactive god. A god that can only be understood through natural observation of the physical world. It is a materialist's god essentially although panendeism solves this issue.

Some atheists like saying that deists are borderline atheists since they reject any action which violates the physical laws. I myself cannot even fathom why a demiurge would establish laws only to break them.