Theistic belief is dependent upon abstract terms that cannot be properly related back to the real world.
Start with your conclusion
First before you do anything, you need to know what you want to convince others of. Always use the word 'prove' rather than talk about demonstrating, convincing, providing evidence of etc
It is also possible to use your conclusion as your first premise and 'prove' it using a tautology. The important thing here being though that you disguise your tautology as a little trip amongst your abstract terms before coming back to step 1.
Choose your bullshit abstraction
If you can pick one abstract term from a collection of them that somehow classify the world in abstract ways, then it will be more work for a sceptical audience and will serve as a distraction from them coming up with a relevant counter argument. For a non-sceptical audience who just want to be told that what they believe is correct it will serve to make it seem more erudite and therefore correct. Normally because of binary religious thinking the world will be broken down into two versions of black / white.
Examples:
See also:
Being, cause, material / immaterial, natural / supernatural, physical / meta-physical.
Using these words will make you feel more intelligent. And this will be conveyed in your tone and demeanour to make it sound like you know what you are talking about. You will therefore be more likely to either convince your audience if non-sceptical, or get their respect otherwise.
There are many genuine reasons for using abstractions. Namely to describe underlying processes without being bogged down in the details which may change each time. Remember, though that for you the power of the abstraction is that it will allow you to equivocate and conflate.
If you can use dictionary definitions drawn from every day use for your abstract terms then it will help you in the next step when you come to apply every day intuition n a cosmic scale.
If anyone questions you on what exactly you are referring to then respond with ask if they are seriously asking such a question when the answer is obvious and billions of other people use such a word. If they persist then accuse them of scientism with the presumption that we all agree that it's a bad thing.
Pick an every day occurrence
What you are trying to do here is pick a process that we are all familiar with because it happens every day so that your audience will be far more likely to accept its use where it is not warranted. You will then be able to apply it beyond its scope of use.
''Began to exist' is the classic example. It's easy to argue that everything began to exist because we think this way all the time. We abstract over the process of beginning to exist to avoid confusing others when talking. For example:
'Mathilda, what caused the puddle? Did you wet yourself again?'
'No. The puddle was caused by a hole in the roof and began to exist when it started raining.'
Without using such an abstract concept I would have to instead say something similar to:
'No. The puddle was caused by the dew point in the atmosphere because the temperature had dropped below the threshold where it can contain water vapour so it precipated out, and due to gravity because of the curvature of space-time fell down to our roof. This would normally have met resistance from our roof and deflected along a different path but a hole had appeared over time due to weathering. The water then started to form a puddle on the carpet as it reached a local minima."
If someone demands evidence or suggests that this isn't how things work in nature, argue that it is supernatural and therefore it is not constrained by natural laws. This means that you can argue anything you want.
e.g.
Q) Where does the energy come from to transmit the prayer and is there a delay in receiving a response because nothing can go faster that light?
A) It is supernatural and therefore not constrained by nature.
This will be your most common answer, forcing your sceptical audience to demand evidence at which point you can accuse them of demanding you to prove the existence of your god. Always make the assumption that this is an unacceptable demand.
Only argue about abstract nouns
You won't be talking about things that actually exist, but things that you wish to exist. Such as gods, souls, heaven, hell, positive / negative energy, moral and natural laws that are somehow written down and enforced. The danger in arguing about things that do actually exist is that someone might demand evidence because they know a lot about it. If your nouns are not abstract enough they may demand a citation. This can't happen if what you are talking to can't ever be pointed at. This is why you can only ever argue about things that no one knows anything about.
Remember, if you ever start to struggle then pick some more abstractions at random and argue using those. That way the subject looks more complex and intellectual than it actually is.
Limit your opponent's options
Religious binary thinking is important here. Argue that it can only be one thing or another where the choices are what you want to 'prove' and something so preposterous that it makes the opposition look silly for choosing it.
Start with your conclusion
First before you do anything, you need to know what you want to convince others of. Always use the word 'prove' rather than talk about demonstrating, convincing, providing evidence of etc
It is also possible to use your conclusion as your first premise and 'prove' it using a tautology. The important thing here being though that you disguise your tautology as a little trip amongst your abstract terms before coming back to step 1.
Choose your bullshit abstraction
If you can pick one abstract term from a collection of them that somehow classify the world in abstract ways, then it will be more work for a sceptical audience and will serve as a distraction from them coming up with a relevant counter argument. For a non-sceptical audience who just want to be told that what they believe is correct it will serve to make it seem more erudite and therefore correct. Normally because of binary religious thinking the world will be broken down into two versions of black / white.
Examples:
Quote:First, you can break any causal concept into four parts: material, formal, efficient, and final.
See also:
Being, cause, material / immaterial, natural / supernatural, physical / meta-physical.
Using these words will make you feel more intelligent. And this will be conveyed in your tone and demeanour to make it sound like you know what you are talking about. You will therefore be more likely to either convince your audience if non-sceptical, or get their respect otherwise.
There are many genuine reasons for using abstractions. Namely to describe underlying processes without being bogged down in the details which may change each time. Remember, though that for you the power of the abstraction is that it will allow you to equivocate and conflate.
If you can use dictionary definitions drawn from every day use for your abstract terms then it will help you in the next step when you come to apply every day intuition n a cosmic scale.
If anyone questions you on what exactly you are referring to then respond with ask if they are seriously asking such a question when the answer is obvious and billions of other people use such a word. If they persist then accuse them of scientism with the presumption that we all agree that it's a bad thing.
Pick an every day occurrence
What you are trying to do here is pick a process that we are all familiar with because it happens every day so that your audience will be far more likely to accept its use where it is not warranted. You will then be able to apply it beyond its scope of use.
''Began to exist' is the classic example. It's easy to argue that everything began to exist because we think this way all the time. We abstract over the process of beginning to exist to avoid confusing others when talking. For example:
'Mathilda, what caused the puddle? Did you wet yourself again?'
'No. The puddle was caused by a hole in the roof and began to exist when it started raining.'
Without using such an abstract concept I would have to instead say something similar to:
'No. The puddle was caused by the dew point in the atmosphere because the temperature had dropped below the threshold where it can contain water vapour so it precipated out, and due to gravity because of the curvature of space-time fell down to our roof. This would normally have met resistance from our roof and deflected along a different path but a hole had appeared over time due to weathering. The water then started to form a puddle on the carpet as it reached a local minima."
If someone demands evidence or suggests that this isn't how things work in nature, argue that it is supernatural and therefore it is not constrained by natural laws. This means that you can argue anything you want.
e.g.
Q) Where does the energy come from to transmit the prayer and is there a delay in receiving a response because nothing can go faster that light?
A) It is supernatural and therefore not constrained by nature.
This will be your most common answer, forcing your sceptical audience to demand evidence at which point you can accuse them of demanding you to prove the existence of your god. Always make the assumption that this is an unacceptable demand.
Only argue about abstract nouns
You won't be talking about things that actually exist, but things that you wish to exist. Such as gods, souls, heaven, hell, positive / negative energy, moral and natural laws that are somehow written down and enforced. The danger in arguing about things that do actually exist is that someone might demand evidence because they know a lot about it. If your nouns are not abstract enough they may demand a citation. This can't happen if what you are talking to can't ever be pointed at. This is why you can only ever argue about things that no one knows anything about.
Remember, if you ever start to struggle then pick some more abstractions at random and argue using those. That way the subject looks more complex and intellectual than it actually is.
Limit your opponent's options
Religious binary thinking is important here. Argue that it can only be one thing or another where the choices are what you want to 'prove' and something so preposterous that it makes the opposition look silly for choosing it.
![[Image: nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWT...dc2a24480e]](https://external-preview.redd.it/nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWTNVY.jpg?width=216&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=7b11e8b38bea0eacc8797fc971574ddc2a24480e)
