Proof and evidence will always equal Science

[zwanzig]

Should a theist propose a god whom science does not rule out, I would listen.  That means, a god who didn't exist before the universe or create it.  One who doesn't know everything, will things to happen, or defy natural laws.  That god would at least have a chance to exist.

Right? At the core, my whole argument is that "god" is inherently set up as "something that cannot exist" because as soon as it does, it no longer fits the mystical requirements of the definition.

If a theist brought you a guy named Dave(who fits your criteria) and said "this is god" it'd be like, "well, they got me there. Dave exists." 

[Ranjr]

I know Dave.  He's a dick.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Should a theist propose a god whom science does not rule out, I would listen.  That means, a god who didn't exist before the universe or create it.  One who doesn't know everything, will things to happen, or defy natural laws.  That god would at least have a chance to exist.

Right? At the core, my whole argument is that "god" is inherently set up as "something that cannot exist" because as soon as it does, it no longer fits the mystical requirements of the definition.

If a theist brought you a guy named Dave(who fits your criteria) and said "this is god" it'd be like, "well, they got me there. Dave exists." 

Interesting perception.

My position remains that the existence of god(s) as a supernatural being, is so far unfalsifiable.  I'm unable to accept that god(s) can be argued onto or out of existence.  I demand empirical evidence and will accept nothing less.

When a person claims "there is a god" , his claim attracts the  burden of proof. Same goes for the person who claims " there is no god", as he has made an affirming statement .

Does it not seem strange that no one before you in recorded history has dismissed god with a logical argument, and had it universally accepted?

I call myself an agnostic atheist. By that I mean I am unable to believe in god(s) due to a lack of empirical evidence.    I am agnostic about the existence of god(s). By this I mean such a being is currently unknown or unknowable.  A skeptic, I avoid claims of certitude. Seems to me a god of infinite attributes would be unknowable to finite beings, but this is just an opinion, I have no way  of demonstrating this opinion. 

I like this quote  from Dean Swift:

"I remember it was with extreme difficulty that I could bring my master to understand the meaning of the word opinion; or how a point could be disputable; because reason taught us to affirm or deny only when we are certain; and beyond our knowledge we can do neither."

[Neo-Scholastic]

That is a different issue. I am replying to somethibg else. No one thinks a logical demonstration conjours god into existence.

You're right. No one thinks that. And no one said that.

How can you give kudos to a reply saying people proposing an ontological argument are trying to logically conjour god, then post the above. It is a bit confusing to me since those seem mutually exclusive.

[Fake Messiah]

So Ten is making an argument that if there was evidence for God then God would be part of science and not part of religion. Same with souls, karma, reincarnation, thetan levels, etc.

And I agree with that.

And what he is also saying is that that other stuff that falls out of the domain of science has no practical use. Which also seems correct. And people who are defending the supposed usefulness of this nonscientific things like religion and pseudoscience, do it with logical fallacies.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I get the sense that some athiests think that all thiests believe that God is just another thing in a universe of things. I remember writing about this pernicious category error in a thread called " tooth fairy bullshit".

[The Grand Nudger]

Gods are described as things in a universe of things, so that's not surprising. It's not a category error to describe gods how they are commonly described. I've been watching you ramp up the batshit psuedo-rebuttals for a few weeks... just stop, lol.

[vulcanlogician]

You're right. No one thinks that. And no one said that.

How can you give kudos to a reply saying people proposing an ontological argument are trying to logically conjour god, then post the above. It is a bit confusing to me since those seem mutually exclusive.

I personally have a "don't judge kudos" rule. I kudos posts for all kinds of reasons, not always because I 100% agree with the contents of the post. I never take kudos to mean anything substantive as far as someone's position. Even though that's a safe assumption most of the time.

But, about the ontological argument, Poly is right on about that. Conjuring God sounds about right. It really is some kind of logical smoke and mirrors. And that sucks, because philosophical arguments (at the very least logical syllogisms) are supposed to be about clarity, not obscurity.

The ontological argument is so fishy. And even when I try to treat it as charitably as possible, I don't see anything. It's dizzyingly circular.

In that dualism paper you recommended some time back, the author did some impromptu analysis of why circular reasoning can be a problem, even with careful thinkers. His hypothesis? Because when we already agree with the conclusion from the outset, we are also bound to accept a premise that contains the conclusion as true. Thus, theists are bound to see more in the ontological argument than nontheists.

---

I do remember it. I avoided it. Because it was an absurd and not very useful line of questioning. Where we are right now talking together with letters and typing and me sitting in my room and you sitting somewhere else; there's a certain level of idiocy "gotcha" in challenging the reality we both acknowledge and interact with on a practical basis.

So, this is what I've done. I've accidentally remade the "derp are things that I touch real?" thread. Great.

See? You're making metaphysical assertions, though. You're arguing that it is impractical, thus unwise, to engage in such debates. No empirical finding will ever prove you correct here. Even empiricists resort to logic to explain why they are empiricists.

All that being said, I don't think you've remade the chairs thread. And I disagree with Bel that it's a category error. The only thing I agree with Bel about is that metaphysical assertions can't be proven with empirical evidence.

I also think you misunderstood the gist... the implications... of what was argued in the chair thread. But maybe you don't. In either case, I never try to make anyone take seriously the things I think are interesting. I just found the question intriguing. If you think it's "derp," I respect that. I put those sorts of questions out there for interested parties. And, if someone thinks it's silly, I'm fine if they say so.

---

---

[Belacqua]

I get the sense that some athiests think that all thiests believe that God is just another thing in a universe of things. I remember writing about this pernicious category error in a thread called " tooth fairy bullshit".

As you know, the first line of Aristotle's Metaphysics famously says: "All men by nature desire to know."

The lucky man never had to read stuff on the Internet.

I think he might have to amend that to: "All people by nature desire to think that they know even when they don't, and assert that they know because it makes them feel good, and mock and condemn any method that might end with them knowing more."

[brewer]

In my neighborhood I don't interact with many 'highly educated' theists IRL. For 50+ years all theists I've interacted with believe god exists and actively manipulates the material world. I see it on TV, hear it on the radio and get a personal dose at weddings and funerals. One recovering addict I often speak with tells me how every obvious coincidence is a 'hand of god' miracle.

I've never personally met any that take Bel's or Neo's position. No offense guys but you might need to come down from the mountain top and admit that you might be the exception rather than the rule.