If You Can't Show Me Your God, It's Because You Don't Really Have One.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Cheerful Charlie

I’m not trying to prove God’s existence.
I’m challenging the reasonableness of the OP.
Read…………..


This………

You have gone off the deep end and have stopped making any sense at all. Everybody here except you understands the concept of intelligence.

……. is an argument and by joedad’s rules that does not count.

So by the same reasoning if you can’t show me your intelligence then should I assume that it does not exist? Or is there an error in the reasoning?

I’m wagering the latter.

An error in reasoning. A deep and grievious error.

The fact that I can log on, type a response and laugh at your efforts is a demonstration of intelligence. The cat can't do that. Or God.

 

[abaddon]

Cheerful Charlie

I’m not trying to prove God’s existence.
I’m challenging the reasonableness of the OP.
Read…………..


This………

……. is an argument and by joedad’s rules that does not count.

So by the same reasoning if you can’t show me your intelligence then should I assume that it does not exist? Or is there an error in the reasoning?

I’m wagering the latter.

An error in reasoning. A deep and grievious error.

The fact that I can log on, type a response and laugh at your efforts is a demonstration of intelligence. The cat can't do that. Or God.

remez knows it's demonstrable. His first mistake is he thinks the OP made a rule against reasoning (in saying "no arguments") for the existence of absolutely anything that isn't as visible as a rock to human eyesight. His second mistake is treating intelligence as if it's demonstrable only through reason.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

An error in reasoning. A deep and grievious error.

The fact that I can log on, type a response and laugh at your efforts is a demonstration of intelligence. The cat can't do that. Or God.

remez knows it's demonstrable. His mistake is he thinks the OP made a rule against reasoning (in saying "no arguments") for the existence of absolutely anything that isn't as visible as a rock to human eyesight.

It is indeed a matter of evidence. There is no evidence God exists and many reasons to think that God, as defined, does not.

 

[abaddon]

It is indeed a matter of evidence. There is no evidence God exists and many reasons to think that God, as defined, does not.

Yes I agree.

Personally I'm sick of word-games from theists, and hold the same stance as the OP. Theists should show their god without relying on mere arguments.

No matter the definition, there's no evidence that God is anything other than a concept. Because... just words, that's all anyone ever gets.

Also intelligence is plainly visible. I can see trees are "smarter" (in their unconscious but reactive way) than rocks. And dogs smarter than trees. And humans smarter (in some ways) than dogs. Intelligence doesn't have to be argued into conceptual existence as God does.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It is indeed a matter of evidence. There is no evidence God exists and many reasons to think that God, as defined, does not.

Yes I agree.

Personally I'm sick of word-games from theists, and hold the same stance as the OP. Theists should show their god without relying on mere arguments.

No matter the definition, there's no evidence that God is anything other than a concept. Because... just words, that's all anyone ever gets.

Also intelligence is plainly visible. I can see trees are "smarter" (in their unconscious but reactive way) than rocks. And dogs smarter than trees. And humans smarter (in some ways) than dogs. Intelligence doesn't have to be argued into conceptual existence as God does.

A person of reasonable intelligence can conceptualize just about anything. I can conceptualize myself traveling to Alpha Centauri and returning to Earth, which would constitute a fictional account, and I would be a fictional character in that account. There would be no stories of me traveling to Alpha Centauri that are credible because that would constitute something impossible, not unlike my jumping to the moon and back. It's interesting, however, that we recently had a bunch of people die because they thought their mother ship was passing by in the tail of a comet. Simply put, people act irrationally when it comes to religious claims.

A god is just a claim like any other claim, like my claim of space travel or that I'm a trillionaire. What matters with claims is how believable they are. If the claims have a religious connection for some reason many people are inclined to believe the claims. What is rational about believing irrational claims?

Fictional Jesus is s lot like Fictional Gandalf, fighting the good fight and saving the world with his superpowers. But I don't see anyone looking for the historical Gandalf.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The character Gandalf is a wizard and can use magic. Likewise God is said to be a magical being. Outside of time and space. Able to do anything. Existing as a supernatural being. One can then make a long list of the things God allegedly can do, that are not proven any more real than Gandalf's wizardly magic.

The problem then for theology is it is based on a serious of claims that cannot be demonstrated to exist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The character Gandalf is a wizard and can use magic. Likewise God is said to be a magical being. Outside of time and space. Able to do anything. Existing as a supernatural being. One can then make a long list of the things God allegedly can do, that are not proven any more real than Gandalf's wizardly magic.

The problem then for theology is it is based on a serious of claims that cannot be demonstrated to exist.

Exactly. "Religion" automatically confers special status to a claim that would otherwise be impossible to believe. It's the ultimate form of question begging.

Therefore, for a person who doesn't accord any additional respect to a claim simply because it is religious, claims get evaluated based on their merit, same as any other claim.

 

[Rayschism]

In a response to another poster I used those exact words but thought maybe a thread was needed to discuss same. It's the best answer imho to any god claim, and is much like a poster of old who often said, "Show Me Your God."

Let's be entirely honest, If you can't show me your god it's really because you don't have one. Can it get any simpler? No angels, no devils, no magic books, no arguments. Just ante up or fold. Game over.

Why should someone have to show you their God? How is that not arrogance?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In a response to another poster I used those exact words but thought maybe a thread was needed to discuss same. It's the best answer imho to any god claim, and is much like a poster of old who often said, "Show Me Your God."

Let's be entirely honest, If you can't show me your god it's really because you don't have one. Can it get any simpler? No angels, no devils, no magic books, no arguments. Just ante up or fold. Game over.

Why should someone have to show you their God? How is that not arrogance?

I suppose it is like the movie Trading Places, when Eddie Murphy is in jail, bragging about his ability to fight. Then a couple guys call him on it, because his claims are too hard to believe. Luckily, he gets bailed out and there is a funny movie, before he gets the heck beaten out of him.

Much the same with religion. Some person tells you that not only do they know of a god and all of their god's rules, and how loving their god is and their god's benevolent influence on human life, and they'll get to go to the blissful afterlife because they follow this god...

...you are going to ask for some evidence...

...a bit more than just 'well you can see god in everything'. At least the theist can walk away and not have to worry about a beat down, like Eddie Murphy's character did.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why should someone have to show you their God? How is that not arrogance?

There are people who want to codify my behavior to match their beliefs. Some people are convinced that my marital status offends their god and would change the laws to make it illegal.
How is it not arrogant to demand that I obey their god if they are not going to prove to me that their god actually exists, much less cares who I stick my dick into?

 

[Rayschism]

Why should someone have to show you their God? How is that not arrogance?

There are people who want to codify my behavior to match their beliefs. Some people are convinced that my marital status offends their god and would change the laws to make it illegal.
How is it not arrogant to demand that I obey their god if they are not going to prove to me that their god actually exists, much less cares who I stick my dick into?

Christians believe that not following God in any way is arrogance.

NOTE: This is NOT my own personal belief. I'm the same way.

John Locke argues in his Essay Concerning Human understanding that atheist is also irrational because it does not meet the needs of the society, because society's needs must be put ahead of the individual in order to be a productive and successful society.

 

[bilby]

There are people who want to codify my behavior to match their beliefs. Some people are convinced that my marital status offends their god and would change the laws to make it illegal.
How is it not arrogant to demand that I obey their god if they are not going to prove to me that their god actually exists, much less cares who I stick my dick into?

Christians believe that not following God in any way is arrogance.

NOTE: This is NOT my own personal belief. I'm the same way.

John Locke argues in his Essay Concerning Human understanding that atheist is also irrational because it does not meet the needs of the society, because society's needs must be put ahead of the individual in order to be a productive and successful society.

Locke had an excuse for thinking that 'atheist' implied 'anti-social', because he lived at a time when church attendance was almost universal, and was therefore apparently inseparable from engagement in society.

That error is still possible in the USA, as long as one takes care not to become aware of the wider world; but in the civilised world, atheism and apatheism have become the norm - few people in England attend church more than a handful of times a year - but this has not led to the dominance of individualism and collapse of society.

Seventeenth Century philosophers are not the best source of commentary on the state of Twenty-first Century society. We've had an industrial revolution, mass migration from countryside to urban centres, and an information technology revolution, since Locke.

It's impressive that any of his ideas remain current - and an indication of just how smart he really was. But he wasn't able to predict the future, and his country has changed beyond all recognition in the 300-odd years since his death.

 

[Rayschism]

Christians believe that not following God in any way is arrogance.

NOTE: This is NOT my own personal belief. I'm the same way.

John Locke argues in his Essay Concerning Human understanding that atheist is also irrational because it does not meet the needs of the society, because society's needs must be put ahead of the individual in order to be a productive and successful society.

Locke had an excuse for thinking that 'atheist' implied 'anti-social', because he lived at a time when church attendance was almost universal, and was therefore apparently inseparable from engagement in society.

That error is still possible in the USA, as long as one takes care not to become aware of the wider world; but in the civilised world, atheism and apatheism have become the norm - few people in England attend church more than a handful of times a year - but this has not led to the dominance of individualism and collapse of society.

Seventeenth Century philosophers are not the best source of commentary on the state of Twenty-first Century society. We've had an industrial revolution, mass migration from countryside to urban centres, and an information technology revolution, since Locke.

It's impressive that any of his ideas remain current - and an indication of just how smart he really was. But he wasn't able to predict the future, and his country has changed beyond all recognition in the 300-odd years since his death.

People hate change, secular and religious alike.

I'm wary of it because not all change is for the better, or for freedom and democracy.

 

[bilby]

Locke had an excuse for thinking that 'atheist' implied 'anti-social', because he lived at a time when church attendance was almost universal, and was therefore apparently inseparable from engagement in society.

That error is still possible in the USA, as long as one takes care not to become aware of the wider world; but in the civilised world, atheism and apatheism have become the norm - few people in England attend church more than a handful of times a year - but this has not led to the dominance of individualism and collapse of society.

Seventeenth Century philosophers are not the best source of commentary on the state of Twenty-first Century society. We've had an industrial revolution, mass migration from countryside to urban centres, and an information technology revolution, since Locke.

It's impressive that any of his ideas remain current - and an indication of just how smart he really was. But he wasn't able to predict the future, and his country has changed beyond all recognition in the 300-odd years since his death.

People hate change, secular and religious alike.

I'm wary of it because not all change is for the better, or for freedom and democracy.

Certainly not all change is for the good; But overall, the trend is for good changes to outweigh bad ones.

Take any random year in history, and it's a fair bet that most people's lives would be better in that year than they were a century earlier; and a very good bet that they would be better than they were five centuries earlier.

It's a lot like the stock market in that regard - there are short term rises and falls, and these are unpredictable; But even though large falls occur occasionally, the overall trend in the long term is upwards.

 

[Rayschism]

People hate change, secular and religious alike.

I'm wary of it because not all change is for the better, or for freedom and democracy.

Certainly not all change is for the good; But overall, the trend is for good changes to outweigh bad ones.

Take any random year in history, and it's a fair bet that most people's lives would be better in that year than they were a century earlier; and a very good bet that they would be better than they were five centuries earlier.

It's a lot like the stock market in that regard - there are short term rises and falls, and these are unpredictable; But even though large falls occur occasionally, the overall trend in the long term is upwards.

How would you define their lives being better?

Quality of life as in having more things that can make life easier in some way?

More freedom to live as you choose?

More Kumbayah between the different groups and cultures?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Certainly not all change is for the good; But overall, the trend is for good changes to outweigh bad ones.

Take any random year in history, and it's a fair bet that most people's lives would be better in that year than they were a century earlier; and a very good bet that they would be better than they were five centuries earlier.

It's a lot like the stock market in that regard - there are short term rises and falls, and these are unpredictable; But even though large falls occur occasionally, the overall trend in the long term is upwards.

How would you define their lives being better?

Quality of life as in having more things that can make life easier in some way?

More freedom to live as you choose?

More Kumbayah between the different groups and cultures?

My vote is better via fewer diseases to die from and less raw sewage in the waterways and streets.

 

[bilby]

Certainly not all change is for the good; But overall, the trend is for good changes to outweigh bad ones.

Take any random year in history, and it's a fair bet that most people's lives would be better in that year than they were a century earlier; and a very good bet that they would be better than they were five centuries earlier.

It's a lot like the stock market in that regard - there are short term rises and falls, and these are unpredictable; But even though large falls occur occasionally, the overall trend in the long term is upwards.

How would you define their lives being better?

Quality of life as in having more things that can make life easier in some way?

More freedom to live as you choose?

More Kumbayah between the different groups and cultures?

Any/all of those, and more.

'Better' is whatever people think is better; and pretty much all reasonable criteria meet the challenge of long-term improvement.

 

[Rayschism]

How would you define their lives being better?

Quality of life as in having more things that can make life easier in some way?

More freedom to live as you choose?

More Kumbayah between the different groups and cultures?

Any/all of those, and more.

'Better' is whatever people think is better; and pretty much all reasonable criteria meet the challenge of long-term improvement.

Tyranny then, is a better way of life. Those people in North Korea and Valenzuela have it pretty good

 

[bilby]

Any/all of those, and more.

'Better' is whatever people think is better; and pretty much all reasonable criteria meet the challenge of long-term improvement.

Tyranny then, is a better way of life. Those people in North Korea and Valenzuela have it pretty good

Only if you think that these two countries are the norm, and the remaining ~194 are exceptions.

 

[Rayschism]

Tyranny then, is a better way of life. Those people in North Korea and Valenzuela have it pretty good

Only if you think that these two countries are the norm, and the remaining ~194 are exceptions.

I do sometimes think, in all seriousness, that tyranny is the norm for the human existence.

Otherwise there wouldn't be so damned much of it and more people would be fighting groups like ISIS and Antifa.