Breaking down the "God sees argument"

[chimp3]

I give up.

People here love to argue for the sake of arguing. And as long as you are like that, you will never arrive at the truth.

Alistair, again, I'm not arguing two are possible.

The argument I presented in the other thread is not only valid, but all it's premises are true and can be proven.

I don't have time really to do this anymore. If people can't acknowledge such a simple premise, it shows people are not here to learn, they want to argue and refute.

Perhaps we do not consider you a teacher!

[Edwardo Piet]

You are arguing the truth that either X does or does not exist. X being us.

That is a sound premise... but it's redundant because it's equally sound to say "X exists", X being us... provided that we base our premise on sensible metaphysics.

[Whateverist]

I think this is the rest of the story.

Going ahead of the horse! Whether we in a position to know which is true is another argument.

I am stating a simple premise, it's either this or that.

How can that be "getting ahead of the horse" to question our ability to objectively answer the very question you want answered to establish your premise?

[Edwardo Piet]

MK, yes it is true that either we exist or we do not. I didn't say that you were saying that it's possible we don't exist. I said that because it's not possible for us to not exist then we might as well instead make the premise the more simple "We objectively exist.".

[Mystic]

Going ahead of the horse! Whether we in a position to know which is true is another argument.

I am stating a simple premise, it's either this or that.

How can that be "getting ahead of the horse" to question our ability to objectively answer the very question you want answered to establish your premise?

You don't have to know which one is true, to know they are mutually exclusive.

[Whateverist]

If people can't acknowledge such a simple premise, it shows people are not here to be taught learn, they want to argue and refute.

Fixed that for you.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am open. I'm here to be taught by my own experiences of others but I only am taught if and only if I in hindsight I realize that I have interpreted those experiences as containing information that I hadn't already previously learned.

[Mystic]

If people can't acknowledge such a simple premise, it shows people are not here to be taught learn, they want to argue and refute.

Fixed that for you.

You should read the story of Moses and Khidr (suratal kahf (the cave)), in which Moses humbly sought knowledge from someone else. This is despite the knowledge Moses was given higher then almost all people.

Maybe this is something I should add on my list of common Atheistic characteristics. They hate being taught?

[Whateverist]

Fixed that for you.

You should read the story of Moses and Khidr (suratal kahf (the cave)), in which Moses humbly sought knowledge from someone else. This is despite the knowledge Moses was given higher then almost all people.

Maybe this is something I should add on my list of common Atheistic characteristics. They hate being taught?

No argument here.  I'm strictly a non-authoritarian learner.  

Kind of goes with the territory of not buying into any traditional belief system.

[Mystic]

Assume we don't have objective existence. We would then be an subjective experience only.  

Then we have two options:

Either our subjective experience of ourselves can have some justification 
Or must be completely baseless.


Assume we have objective existence.

Then we have following options.

Either our subjective experience can be justified in some degree.
It still cannot be justified at all and must be completely baseless.