Can you make a God claim?

[robvalue]

You have failed to define what God is. That is the first part of my challenge. You are using terms that don't mean anything.

If you can't define it, then you don't know anything about it.

[Nope]

Most of the reasons that Christians give for believing in god involves their feelings. "I've had a person experience with Jesus and felt him in my heart" which means that the person's good mood must be caused by Jesus.

I am surprised that more theists haven't taken you up on this challange

Where is GC when we need him.

Drich is online, I believe.

[robvalue]

Hehe I'm just getting attacks so far on why a claim isn't even necessary. Not a good start.

I'm so far up my own arse today I can clean my teeth from the inside. Sorry about that. I'll be ready to humble myself to a good answer, though.

[Strider]

You have failed to define what God is. That is the first part of my challenge. You are using terms that don't mean anything.

If you can't define it, then you don't know anything about it.

The best they can offer is mystical nonsense or gibberish. Non-answers are their bread-and-butter so expect more of the same.

[robvalue]

How exactly can I prove myself to God anyway? I'm right here you old fart knocker! What, need your eyes tested? I'm not the one playing hide-the-deity.

[Nope]

I thought that Christians were ordered by their bible to answer questions like this. It is a simple question and if they have ever tried to evangelize anyone, surely they have been asked a version of this question.

1 Peter 3:15 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter

15 But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully.

[robvalue]

Hehe yeah. If I even get a coherent definition it will be more than I've ever seen before.

[Spooky]

[Neo-Scholastic]

Abstract notions like mathematics can be proved with logic.

Claims about reality require evidence. Metaphysics means nothing if you can't define or test it, it's indistinguishable from nothing.

If you claim you have knowledge, then you must have tested it. Otherwise you have made it up.

Are you saying that mathematical truths are NOT part of reality?

[robvalue]

It's not as easy as it looks. I mean, if I was to try, I'd go with the simulation hypothesis. I could define "God" as a programmer in another reality. I could say that this reality doesn't literally exist, but is a representation of a program running in his computer.

This is consistent and coherent, although very vague.

But it's not testable. At least, I cannot think of any way it could be tested. And until anyone does, the claim is nothing more than speculation.

That's the nearest I can get, and I haven't met my own criteria. And by own admission, this is indeed speculation. It could be true, but we can't know if it is or not.

---

Abstract notions like pure mathematics are concepts, they exist only as ideas within the brains of living creatures. They are not entities in their own right. If you wanted a hard definition, you'd have to look at the way in which the brain processes logic and stores information. In that sense, the concepts exist as configurations within the brain.

They can represent reality in some way, but they don't have to.

With logical systems like mathematics, you start with axioms and you come to conclusions. No external evidence is required; if your logic is sound then the conclusion is as valid as your axioms, but only within the abstract system you have devised.

---

Someone stop me please if I'm talking bollocks hehe I'm saying all this like its fact, but I'm really expressing my understanding. There's two realms, the real and the abstract. Abstract things are conceptual and so don't themselves have a specific place in reality where you find them, only in the brains of the intelligence that creates them.

Often the abstract is used to model the real, and the results of logically manipulating the abstract can be applied back to the real. But almost always, an amount of simplification and assumption make this process imperfect. The abstract does not have to have any bearing on the real however, normally it just has to be internally consistent, and it can "work" within its own rules.