Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[RestlessSoul]

Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

Many 'claim' God (most likely not He) is there, but far to many are disappointed when God was not here, there or anywhere, and everyone is likely all experience natural circumstances,

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Heyo]

This is what I call playing the "ineffability card". When you reach a point with a god-explainer that the explanations become incomprehensible, this is the final play in that game. Of course, if theists claim that God is unknowable, then we can rest assured that they don't know what they are talking about.

I wouldn't call it "playingthe "ineffability card"" or deride it in any other way. I call it them agreeing with my main point. I don't see any fault in that. We may draw different conclusions from the agreed upon fact, but having agreement about the facts is a solid basis for further debate - or a positive conclusion of a debate.
I'm always happy when a debate can end in an agreement.

 

[osgart]

The Bible stories reads like a very bad comic book. It's fake and I can't deny that. Metaphorically I can find some brilliance and a lot of head scratchers, and some offensive material in it.

I couldn't get very far with the Qu'ran when it starts out describing infidels and what will be done with them. The book sounds like a threat and intimidation; very human indeed. No profound exposition on the nature of any God.

God sounds more like a psychological weapon than a character of grace, humility, and virtue with love. Humanity does need a pure truth of inspiration, true love and hope grounded in reality and these books ain't it. We can safely chalk up two Abrahamic God's as human inventions.

Let's not burden science with the issues of a genuinely real spiritual need that humans have. God is a placeholder for such need.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

True, but there are none so blind that see things that are not here, there or anywhere.

I believe in a 'Source' some call God(s), the ancient tribal mythical 'hands on' God most likely does not exist by the obvious evidence.

 

[dybmh]

This is what I call playing the "ineffability card". When you reach a point with a god-explainer that the explanations become incomprehensible, this is the final play in that game. Of course, if theists claim that God is unknowable, then we can rest assured that they don't know what they are talking about.

That's cute. The distinction you are observing is knowing vs. understanding.

I understand that God is not knowable. I do know what I'm talking about. And the explanation is NOT incomprehensible. Comprehending is understanding. It can be understood that God is not knowable. Continuing with the card-game metaphor. Understanding ALWAYS trumps knowledge.

If you notice I declared God was infinite earlier. I think that's significant. Once that's been declared, a smart card-player will realize the game of denying God's existence is over. Yes, it's the final play in the game, but I played that card early. And it's still winning, regardless of when that card is played.

 

[Copernicus]

That's cute. The distinction you are observing is knowing vs. understanding.

The distinction is not as great as you are making it out to be. Knowledge is about degree of certainty regarding the truth of a claim, but claims can only have truth if they can be understood. Otherwise, they are simply anomalous propositions dressed up as claims.

I understand that God is not knowable. I do know what I'm talking about. And the explanation is NOT incomprehensible. Comprehending is understanding. It can be understood that God is not knowable. Continuing with the card-game metaphor. Understanding ALWAYS trumps knowledge.

We can drop the metaphor if you like. I was being cute about it, and I didn't mean to be disrespectful. I'm ok with ending the argument is disagreement, if that's how it must be. The fact remains that you literally do not know what you are talking about if you are talking about something that is unknowable. That has to do with what the word "unknowable" means. My position is that knowability entails understanding, because the very process of understanding a proposition requires one to understand the conditions under which it could be true, false, or simply incoherent. Incoherence happens when you construct a claim based on false presuppositions.

If you notice I declared God was infinite earlier. I think that's significant. Once that's been declared, a smart card-player will realize the game of denying God's existence is over. Yes, it's the final play in the game, but I played that card early. And it's still winning, regardless of when that card is played.

But what assumptions are hidden in your declaration that this putative being is "infinite"? We do in fact understand the meaning of infinity and can define it easily in logical or mathematical terms. The original idea applies to quantifiability--counting and repetitiveness. Your usage seems more metaphorical than literal, since the quantifiable properties of God are left unstated and obscure. That's what makes your god "unknowable"--the convenient use of unstated and therefore unverifiable properties. It is basically just handwaving when you lack an ability to justify your claim.

 

[dybmh]

The distinction is not as great as you are making it out to be. Knowledge is about degree of certainty regarding the truth of a claim, but claims can only have truth if they can be understood. Otherwise, they are simply anomalous propositions dressed up as claims.

And it IS understood.

We can drop the metaphor if you like. I was being cute about it, and I didn't mean to be disrespectful. I'm ok with ending the argument is disagreement, if that's how it must be. The fact remains that you literally do not know what you are talking about if you are talking about something that is unknowable. That has to do with what the word "unknowable" means. My position is that knowability entails understanding, because the very process of understanding a proposition requires one to understand the conditions under which it could be true, false, or simply incoherent. Incoherence happens when you construct a claim based on false presuppositions.

Let's start from the end, and work backwards. Incoherence is not a claim based on false presuppostions. If the presuppositions are proven false then the proposition is invalid. Incoherence means the individual ideas do not stick/adhere to each other or to the conclusion that is being attempted.

When I say "If God is understood to be infinite, then God is unknowable." That's not incoherent.

Understanding does include the things you mentioned, but it does not require knowledge. Understanding is able to derive knowledge as needed. It knows where to look. It knows how to research. It is also able to evaluate relevance ( which evaluates coherence ). And it is also able to locate counter-examples and contradictions ( evaluates rigor ).

Knowledge is able to evaluate true / false, but it's ignorant of what it doesn't know. It doesn't make connections. It's just facts, and it has no method for testing those facts. It will never realize one of those facts is erroneous until it stumbles on updated information.

Sure, knowability entails understanding. But lack of knowability does not entail lack of understanding. The negation of "knowability entails understanding" is "lack of understanding entails lack of knowability". And that negation is false. I know your screen-name. But I don't understand why you chose it.

So, there is not a bijunctive relationship between knowledge and understanding. They're very different intellectual phenomena. What's understood is that "knowing" is irrelevant to an infinite being, because infinite means it is never-ending, and the knowing will never complete.

If the question is: How do you know that God is infinite? The answer is "I don't know." And that is consistent with my original claim. Because infinity, itself, is not known. It has no borders or boundries.

But what assumptions are hidden in your declaration that this putative being is "infinite"? We do in fact understand the meaning of infinity and can define it easily in logical or mathematical terms. The original idea applies to quantifiability--counting and repetitiveness. Your usage seems more metaphorical than literal, since the quantifiable properties of God are left unstated and obscure. That's what makes your god "unknowable"--the convenient use of unstated and therefore unverifiable properties. It is basically just handwaving when you lack an ability to justify your claim.

I only declared that this is the proper defintion of God.

Regarding infinity, the model you are using is limited, apparently to a single dimension. Keep going... dot to infinite line, infinite line to infinite plane, infinite plane to infinite cube, infinite cube to infinite versions of the cube... 5 dimensions, 6 dimensions, 7 dimensions. The best description I can come up with is an infinite database where infinite objects are connected in many-to-many-relationships with each other. That would be literal infinity. Not metaphor. Literal.

However, when it comes to justification... well... that's different.

First question... imo... always-always: Is it harmful?

​

Is there any potential harm in defining God this way?​

Next question:

​

Is there any contradiction in what I said?​

Next question:

​

Is anything I said proven false?​

Next question:

Does the conclusion describe real-world phenomena?​

It seems like you are focused on what appears to be a contradiction. But I disagree. It's a special case where something can be understood to be unknowable. There isn't a contradiction, it's simply a harmless supposition that cannot be proven false, and has explanatory power.

 

[Koldo]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Or rather, those who want to see what is not there, nor anywhere else...

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Fear doesn't lead to anger.

Anger comes from a lack of power combined with a desire to assert power usually rapidly. It's hubris.

Besides, fear is very closely related to excitement. People love scary movies, and haunted houses, and roller coasters. It's all the same basic emotion.

So fear of God, is also, kinda fun.

Is there no righteous anger?

I would say the main reason people are drawn to dangerous situations and thrill seeking is because those experiences are preparatory for the dangers associated with the narrow path, or our highest calling you can call it. As a result, they are meaningful experiences. If you sneak up on people and frighten them, they will be excited with fear, but they won’t like it because it isn’t meaningful. Kids will like the game but nobody likes being startled with fear.

The idea that the fear of God is fun seems like something you thought about in your head only. That belief won’t stand up to reality.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

So, why do you fear your god and why do you think other people should live in fear of it?

Fear of God is often a result of being overwhelmed by the consequences of not concerning yourself with God. It’s the realization and acceptance that there is no opting out in actuality. While the freedom to not concern yourself with God is part of his mercy, it’s also part of his wrath.

Fearing God then becomes a central part of the solution to the issue of drifting back into unconcern toward God and soul.

 

[dybmh]

Is there no righteous anger?

No, that would imply that God is not in control and managing properly. There's a fine line between righteous indignation and anger. Just as there's a fine line between righteous indignation and vain-glory.

But anger, real anger, is about the powerless desiring to seize power that isn't theirs usually rapidly.

I would say the main reason people are drawn to dangerous situations and thrill seeking is because those experiences are preparatory for the dangers associated with the narrow path, or our highest calling you can call it. As a result, they are meaningful experiences. If you sneak up on people and frighten them, they will be excited with fear, but they won’t like it because it isn’t meaningful. Kids will like the game but nobody likes being startled with fear.

OK

The idea that the fear of God is fun seems like something you thought about in your head only. That belief won’t stand up to reality.

It is kinda fun. It's exciting. Like stepping into one of those really tall tube slides at the water park.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

No, that would imply that God is not in control and managing properly.

This is off limits for you? What if God is only in control and managing properly if you are open to the idea that he is capable of mismanaging?

Is it not the duty of a father to prepare his son to replace the father? How can the son ever be truly prepared for this if the son believes the father will always be around and managing properly?

 

[dybmh]

This is off limits for you? What if God is only in control and managing properly if you are open to the idea that he is capable of mismanaging?

I'm not following this.

Is it not the duty of a father to prepare his son to replace the father? How can the son ever be truly prepared for this if the son believes the father will always be around and managing properly?

That's the God I believe in. God was, is, and will be. Eternal. I don't believe in a replacement coming to relieve God of its duties someday like a monarch or executive.

That's me.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

God was, is, and will be.

I would never deny this. God is undeniably this.

I don't believe in a replacement coming to relieve God of its duties someday like a monarch or executive.

Let’s take a baby step first. Does God mismanage the flooding of the world during the time of Noah? Isn’t that why God “repents” and promises to never do it again?

 

[dybmh]

Let’s take a baby step first. Does God mismanage the flooding of the world during the time of Noah? Isn’t that why God “repents” and promises to never do it again?

No, I don't think God mismanaged it at all.

I think God knew it would happen, but it was needed. And God had a plan. Noah.

It gets complicated because if God is eternal and omniscient then time for God is much different then what it would be for us. Also freewill and chaos need to be included among other factors.

The result in my mind is many, virtually infinite, potential outcomes coexisting in parallel. The version that happened included evil dominating almost everything. And for this version God repented. But I don't think God repented All, just this version.

And God continues to experience it. And God continues to experience the relief after the flood. All of it is current for God. All of it is "now".

 

[Treasure Hunter]

No, I don't think God mismanaged it at all.

I think God knew it would happen, but it was needed. And God had a plan. Noah.

It gets complicated because if God is eternal and omniscient then time for God is much different then what it would be for us. Also freewill and chaos need to be included among other factors.

The result in my mind is many, virtually infinite, potential outcomes coexisting in parallel. The version that happened included evil dominating almost everything. And for this version God repented. But I don't think God repented All, just this version.

And God continues to experience it. And God continues to experience the relief after the flood. All of it is current for God. All of it is "now".

I agree that believing God is good is to believe that God is not mismanaging in the ultimate sense.

I will go back to what I said before, though. God is only not mismanaging in the ultimate sense as long as souls in the world believe that God is mismanaging in the present. It’s about holding the tension of paradox.

Suffering children is God’s mismanagement. God doesn’t want you doing mental gymnastics to access the imagined God’s-eye-view in order to protect his image. As long as we see suffering children as mismanagement, then God is not mismanaging in the ultimate sense.

 

[vulcanlogician]

The distinction you are observing is knowing vs. understanding.

I understand that God is not knowable. I do know what I'm talking about. And the explanation is NOT incomprehensible. Comprehending is understanding. It can be understood that God is not knowable. Continuing with the card-game metaphor. Understanding ALWAYS trumps knowledge.

If you notice I declared God was infinite earlier. I think that's significant. Once that's been declared, a smart card-player will realize the game of denying God's existence is over. Yes, it's the final play in the game, but I played that card early. And it's still winning, regardless of when that card is played.

I like the distinction you make between knowing and understanding. But the theist's strategy makes for a rather dubious card game. In a card game we flip over the unrevealed card and show everyone... "THERE is the queen of spades; I win." But the theist never really flips over the card, does she? she merely points at the unflipped card, proclaims it a queen of spades and scoops in the pot.

Saying God is infinite, and so, the card must be a queen of spades is a rather fishy tactic. Either flip the card or don't. I don't know how to flip the card. And neither does the theist. So why don't we just admit that none of us really know?

 

[dybmh]

I like the distinction you make between knowing and understanding. But the theist's strategy makes for a rather dubious card game. In a card game we flip over the unrevealed card and show everyone... "THERE is the queen of spades; I win." But the theist never really flips over the card, does she? she merely points at the unflipped card, proclaims it a queen of spades and scoops in the pot.

Hee. Is that what I'm doing?

Saying God is infinite, and so, the card must be a queen of spades is a rather fishy tactic. Either flip the card or don't. I don't know how to flip the card. And neither does the theist. So why don't we just admit that none of us really know?

That's certainly not my intention. My intention is to conclude, just the same as stated at the end, it's not known. My reason for saying it's unknown, in this card game, is because I understand an infinite God cannot be known. And since this the God I believe in, and I think it's the proper defintion... I get to win. IF, big if, the card game is god-denial. But yes, others have their own reasons for saying it's unknown. They can win too. My reason is "infinity". It still works for the win.

But, I do admit, if we're playing a different card game, I'll probably lose. Like the biblical-slavery card game. I can't just claim "infinity" and collect all the chips.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Hee. Is that what I'm doing?

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not so much worried about what a theist tries to do. We're all trying to do something. But, even as a concinced Jew, you gotta see why some of us are doubtful of God. It's not like it's obvious that God exists. In fact, it's really doubtful when you really start investigating.

That's certainly not my intention. My intention is to conclude, just the same as stated at the end, it's not known.

I conclude the same thing. That's why I call myself an agnostic. I don't see how "it's not known" leads to Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion.

 

[dybmh]

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not so much worried about what a theist tries to do. We're all trying to do something. But, even as a concinced Jew, you gotta see why some of us are doubtful of God. It's not like it's obvious that God exists. In fact, it's really doubtful when you really start investigating.

When I said, "That's what I'm doing?" I meant with the cards. Refusing to flip them over. And yes, I completely understand the doubt. It's not obvious to a lot of people. The people who say it's obvious, if they open up and get into it, I think it's a feeling. It's not something that gets investigated. Maybe some people successfully investigate is intellectually, but I'm not sure how that works.

I conclude the same thing. That's why I call myself an agnostic. I don't see how "it's not known" leads to Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion.

I agree. Not knowing doesn't lead to a religion. Not knowing facilitates an experience. Then that experience can lead to a religion.