To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Baldeee,

Consider this claim of God's (fiction/non fiction makes no difference).
"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me"
When you claim "no evidence of God", does that notion include no evidence of God's claim?
If it does can you explain it?
If it doesn't how can you be sure there is no evidence of God, if your claim does not include the notion of God's claim?

It's not pleading, it is necessary to prepare oneself to accept notions that seem illogical, so that we can comprehend what is being said.

I didn't say it requires fallacious logic, regarding the reasonable assumption, or the above claim, one has to use logic differently. Perhaps I should have worded it thus (my bad) ''one has to be prepared to apply logic differently. One reason I gave for this was the oneness of God, which is the essence of both, the reasonable assumption, and the above claim. This directly opposes the duality we are accustomed to. A completely different reality require a different set of logical principles.

I didn't say God was illogical, and I didn't say one can be illogical when looking for evidence of God, neither am I arguing for the legitimacy of
logical fallacies.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know what you mean by that, is it some sort of atheist code?
Anyway, words are generally defined in dictionaries, according to the current, common usage.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Finding a book written by man that says God said something is not the same as God saying something. You do agree with that statement don't you?

I could find (or write) a book about the claims of a Leprechan but you wouldn't consider that a Leprechan really exists even though the book said that a Leprechan said it is real.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

CANCEL

 

What if your parents tell you the Leprechaun Book is true?

 

If they tell you its true and if you feel it in your heart then the burden of proof would be on the non-believers I should think.

 

The claim exists, of that there is no doubt.
But there is no evidence that the claim is actually from God.
Instead it could have come from Man.
The way, to use your analogy, that the claim that Superman can fly can be seen to come from Superman, or can be seen to come from Jerry Siegel and his imagination.

You plead for the illogical by being illogical.
It may be necessary for you to get to the answer that you want.
But that does not mean it is sound nor even valid.
And illogic is unlikely to yield truth.

Surely either one uses logic correctly or not.
If you are seen to be using logic fallaciously (assuming it is a valid criticism - and most seem to be), you are using logic incorrectly.
One can not excuse that incorrectness through saying one must "use logic differently".
Further you specifically referenced pleading for "an exception":
Jan Ardena: "It would be special pleading if I couldn't justify the exception. I think the reasonable assumptiom justifies God as an exception. Don't you?"
An exception to correct logic would be incorrect logic.
Otherwise known as fallacious logic.

The rewording does not make it any more palatable.

No.
It may require a different set of premises from which to start your logical analysis and arguments.
But the application of correct logic should still be there, as opposed to fallacious application.

I never said you did claim that God was illogical.
But you did plead for the exception (from valid logic) with regard God (see above).
That is logically the same as explaining that one needs to use fallacious logic.

 

Heartburn can do that to you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Dear Spidergoat, are you still into your statement that virtual particles pop in and out from no6hing without cause?

I would rather that we continue our exchange on that statement from you.

But when Motor Daddy has opted to not resume our exchange then I will take up with you again your statement about virtual particles.

You see you have this idea that there are things with a beginning but without a cause, and I am of the opposite idea, namely, that everything with a beginning has a cause; so I suggest we come to concurrence which idea is the correct one.


Annex

 

Well, I guess that is your way of saying that you want out of our exchange, see Annex.


Annex

• 
  
  Pachomius said:
  Dear Motor Daddy...blah blah blah...
  
  
  In regard to space, it is something that is between you and me when we are not stuck together so that we both occupy the same space which is impossible unless we both get ourselves compressed inside a steel box, in which case we stop existing as living humans.
  ​
  You FAILED! Remember I requested you learn to quote properly? Your post is not quoted properly. If you can't take the time to quote properly then add me to the list if people that don't respond to you. Maybe there's a clue there as to why others don't respond to you?? Try to collect as many clues as you can!! Let me know if you need help!
  
  BTW, you FAILED to comprehend the difference between distance and space. There might be a clue there too!!
  
  Motor Daddy, Thursday at 10:08 AM Report
  

 

I have this idea that man can start with a statement like the following:

• There has always existed something.

And think on facts and logic and come to the existence of God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

What facts? Facts like the nose in our face, it has a beginning.

And what logic? Logic like this thought, everything with a beginning has a cause.

And that is why I want to ask how Spidergoat explains his example of something with a beginning but no cause, namely, virtual particles which pop in and out from nothing without cause.

 

If something always existed, there is no need for gods to explain it.

 

Pachomius, the problem is that you are trying to prove that there is a God and that this God is as you define God and you insist on basing it on whether our concept of cause and effect applies.

Who knows? Maybe everything needs a cause (but it doesn't need to be a god) and maybe it doesn't. We don't know and neither do you.

Regarding particles just popping in and out of existence...that appears to be the case as well in QM. The ground energy state of space isn't zero. It takes energy to get to zero.

Think (as an example) of a magnet. Its ground energy state isn't zero. It has an attractive or repulsive charge as its ground state. To make a magnet have no charge requires a lot of energy (heat).

Space is like that. "Empty space" is full of quark and gluon field fluctuations so quarks are coming into and out of existence.

Trying to pretend that we know what would or would not indicate a God at this level is ridiculous.

 

That is not logic; that is (as currently worded) merely a claim. It may act as premise for a logical argument, however. But in isolation it is not an example of logic.

 

Baldeee,

It doesn't matter.,
If one claims there is no evidence of God, then all claims of God (fiction/non fiction, maybe this escaped your attention), one presumes, is the staple diet of that claim.

And it could have come from God, to which you claim there is no evidence of.
Now I ask again, does your ''no evidence'' claim include the claim of the reasonable assumption, or God's claim?
It's a simple question, please respond to it, so we can clear this up.

I know how use my analogy.

There is no special pleading going on, it is simply Sarkus jumping the gun.
He has nothing to offer, so he O.D's on fallacy accusations.
Don't tell me you're going to do the same.

I'm sorry man, but that's a load of tosh!

Show me the illogic.
Show me the ''special pleading''?
And what about Sarkus's, and most atheists that argue ''no evidence'', category error fallacy?
Shall I bring that up every time you claim no evidence?

Okay let's start from the beginning. I said, in so many words; in the case of finding evidence for God, one needs to use logic differently, or, one needs to be aware of what may seem to be illogical, based upon one's own understanding, so that one can comprehend what is being told.
Now, I would like you to point out the special pleading, if that's okay with you.

Seen by who? People who have no idea, or reasonable accounts, or explanations of why they believe there is no evidence for God. By people who's very intellectual position regard the existence of God, has it's headquarters in the land called ''Logical Infallacia''.
Please! LOL!

Okay, so does ''logic'' explain one person being in innumerable places at the same time, each version as potent as what we would call the original person?
And while you're at it, can you explain how you come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for God.

You claim, there is no evidence of God, Right?
I presume, based on your statements, that this claim has a sound logical basis to it.
What is the basis of the your logic, of God, God's claims, and God's abilities, attributes, regarding your no evidence claim?

God defies what we know as logic, I've given you a couple of examples. If we just throw our arms up, and claim this is nonsense because it defies logic, then we ar no nearer to finding evidence of God. Now if someone claims that there IS no evidence of God, is their claim based on this, or are there logical steps which they can provide upon request? If you have logically concluded that there is no evidence for God, then did that logic include the illogical nature of God, or was that part omitted. If it did, then please provide the logical explanation. If it was omitted, then please give an explanation of why it was omitted, then proceed to explain why you chose a particular definition of God, why you conclude there is no evidence.

Thanks

jan.

 

It's a claim attributed to Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. We can assume for the sake of argument that Krishna is the same being that's referred to as 'God' in some of the other monotheistic traditions, but we don't really know that.

That question is ambiguous.

There's obviously evidence that a literary character said to be God says something like that in a particular Hindu book.

What we don't have is evidence that Krishna exists as more than a literary character and that what the book has him saying is true.

Explain what? That the book has its Krishna character saying that?

The ancient Indians were doubtless aware of the fundamental metaphysical question: why is there something rather than nothing? And apparently somebody along the way associated whatever the answer is to that question with the protagonist in the Krishna myths. Identifying Krishna with the universe's ultimate principle was probably seen as the ultimate exultation of him, placing him above and before everything else.

 

How is this:

consistent with this:

 

True: if there is no evidence of God then there can logically be no evidence that claims attributed to him do actually come from God.

First, let me clarify: by saying that there is "no evidence" I mean that I am not aware of evidence that only supports one notion rather than competing and mutually exclusive notions.
So if the evidence I am aware of supports the notion of God existing as well as the notion of God not existing, I do not consider it as evidence for either notion.
I hope that is clear enough for you.

But there is special pleading going on.
By you.
You have stated that you have to use logic differently when discussing God.
This is special pleading.
As for Sarkus' penchant for pointing out fallacious arguments, that is between you and him.
But might I suggest that if you do not want him to highlight them that you refrain from committing them?

I so admire the eloquence of your rebuttal.

You committed the fallacy of special pleading when you required us to use logic differently when discussing God.
Logic is logic.
There is no different usage, other than to accept fallacious logic (aka illogic).
Why should our discussions of God be immune from adherence to logic?
If the only way you can argue for the use of logic differently is to use logic differently then you're backing a loser from the outset.

If you claim category error then the onus is on you to show how it is indeed a category error.
Merely claiming it to be does not make it so.
Clearly any argument you make to support your claim of category error will be subject to the same issues as you currently face.
Since you can not prove that it is a category error but merely repeat your claim that it is, the fallacy you would accuse others of is as likely to be yours.
If two people think a door opens different ways, until the door is actually opened (i.e. proven) it is difficult to say who is right and who is wrong.
So rather than being a category error, as you claim, it merely seems to be a fundamental difference between what you would class as evidence and what others do.

Being aware of what may seem to be illogical is not the same as using logic differently.
Using logic differently is still special pleading.
If you actually intend the "or..." to be by way of explanation of what you meant, then it might be easier and clearer to just tell people to ignore what was originally said, that it was wrong, and that what you meant was...
As for the clarification itself:
Being aware of what might seem illogical, unless it can be shown to actually be logical, will be understood as illogical.
And thus unlikely to be comprehended.
And even if you progress with the argument in spite of the illogic, the illogic will (or at least should) prevent the conclusion from being taken seriously.
At some point you do have to show how what was considered illogical is in fact logical.

You can try to argue ad hominem if you so wish, but the fallacies identified of you have mostly, it seems, been explained.
If you don't like certain people pointing them out, perhaps you should not commit them?
Or else only discuss things with people who are happy to talk illogically.

For the first: it can do.
You just need to set up premises that allow that to be a logical conclusion.
The issue will undoubtedly be when you try and demonstrate the soundness of those premises.
For the second: I personally don't come to that conclusion.
As clarified above: I am merely not aware of anything I would consider evidence for God that does not equally support the scenario of there being no God.

No.
I claim I am not aware of anything I would consider evidence for God that does not equally support the scenario of there being no God.

I would hope a valid logical basis, yes.
Soundness I can not say.
Hence I am agnostic.

He does?
You have?
So you are special pleading?
You want us to accept that God defies logic but nothing else can: special pleading.

Maybe there is no God to find evidence of?

What you should be doing, if coming across an interpretation of an observation that can only be reached illogically from the premises given is to reassess the premises such that valid logic can give rise to the conclusion sought.
Alternatively we revisit our interpretation of that observation such that it fits the premises.
What we should not do is build "illogical nature" into the premise.
As soon as we do that everything goes out of the window and you can claim what you want, when you want, about anything you want.
As soon as you claim God's nature is one of illogic then nothing has any meaning regarding God.

You'd have to ask someone who has concluded that there IS no evidence of God.
I hope I have clarified my position on the matter at the top of this post.

In summary, however, all I can see here, Jan Ardena, is a convoluted mess of an argument on your part, criticising people for calling you out on logical fallacies and then admitting that you have to use them because of "the illogical nature of God".

I only posted initially because of what I saw was an abomination of thought with regard the use of logic.
Not because I want to discuss my own position on the matter, which is where I think you wish to draw it.
Your most recent post merely exacerbated that view.
And nothing is likely to make further discussion with you meaningful.

But hopefully here everyone can see the paucity of your argument laid open and shown for what it is:
"I can be illogical in my arguments because God's nature is illogical."

 

Seeking consistency from Jan??? Whatever next? An argument free from fallacy?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Maybe God exists because he doesn't? Or maybe he doesn't exist because he does???