Quote from axeman:
"You are entitled to your opinion, of course. Let's not confuse fact with opinion though....what you continue to say is opinion, not fact."
Yes...lets NOT confuse opinion with fact.
It is a FACT that you have not proven god exists.
I am posting facts. What exactly are you calling an opinion?
"You are operating from a conditional platform, having set forth criteria upon which to stand as judge of what constitutes fact, that it must necessarily conform to your criteria, as it relates to God. "
I use reason to judge things. I reject things which are contradictory and unsupported. What do you use?
"Where is it written that the individual parts can judge the whole? Why is it that a single mind of man believes they are in a position to evaluate the concept of a personality, God, who is universal, unlimited, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, exists without opposite, etc.?"
This is a circular argument. You are using the attributes of a
god which you have not even proven to exist, to support his
very existence.
MAYBE I am NOT in a position to evaluate such a being, but the
point is moot because you have not even shown us that this
being even exists.
"A child believes they can fully understand the parent, yet the parent knows the child is not equipped to understand."
False analogy. We know that parents exist.
"Yet, we see that limited beings, bound by the laws of material nature, relativistic logic, time and space, causality, etc. place themselves in a position to judge that which by definition is outside the realm of the material, existing in a different realm, a Divine dimension."
If you wish to define your god as something unknowable by
man, than he is no different than Sagans mystical dragon in his garage
which also exists in a "different realm". Pure fiction.
"Please provide a proof for me that your criteria is the correct criteria upon which to evaluate the reality of God or God's existence."
What are you referring to when you say criteria?
What are the choices, according to you?
"Until such time that you can do so, you are just commenting on the opinions of others with your own opinions, for what purpose I still don't know. "
What opinions? I point out logical fallacies in your arguments.
These are not opinions. Your argument MATCHES the definition
of that logical fallacy.
I point out facts, like the fact that you have not provided
a proof for you god. Where are the opinions??
Identify what you are claiming is an opinion.
peace
axeman
You seem to be in a position to say the others are wrong in their beliefs. In order to do so, you must have some criteria to do so.
Seems to me, that your criteria is material, relativistic logic, based on physical perception.
Please explain why this is a valid criteria when it comes to discussing the existence of God?
You continue to claim there is no proof of God, but what you are really saying is that no proof meets your definition and/or criteria of proof.
Is it possible, that the criteria you are using is not valid as relates to the concept of God?
Somehow, you have this framework that all must accept is the valid framework, and I still haven't seen a proof of why that framework is valid and necessarily applicable to the existence of God.
Can something exist, yet be unprovable?
Indeed.
Intent exists, yet can never be proved objectively. Motivation exists, we all experience it, yet it cannot be proved objectively. Sincerity exists, yet it cannot be proved objectively. Love exists, yet it cannot be proven objectively.
So, why is is that when we talk about God, some people hold to the fallacy that God must necessarily conform to their narrow definitions of proof?
If I say "God exists beyond proof" is that a provable statement?
You will say no, because you have to know God first in order to know if the statement is true, and the game becomes circular.
I am holding some very delicious chocolate in front of you, do you know it to be perfectly sweet? You say you can measure the ingredients, but can sweetness be measured? There is a big difference between being able to measure ingredients and the experience of tasting sweetness. The order in which the ingredients are combined and cooked determine the final product. You can never know by just examination of the parts what the experience of the whole is. What is sweet to one may be too sweet or not sweet enough to another. There is a tremendous area of human experience that is beyond measurement and quantification, yet does in fact exist.
Lots of things exist that are beyond proof, we all know it. We know them via direct experience, or come to know them via faith.
As mentioned in another thread, love is immeasurable. We can record actions, but how much someone loves, or if they truly love, or if they are acting like they love, are never known by observation of the actions alone.
Yet ask a woman who is just married if her husband loves her, and she will say she knows, and she will tell you because her heart says so.
Is this knowledge? Depends on definitions of what constitutes knowledge and knowing.
The term "know it in my heart" may have no meaning or reality for you, but most human beings know exactly what that means.
God exists, I know that in my heart, but can I prove to you what is in my heart?
How would you ever know, how would you ever really know.
So, feel free to close off your own heart, and live within the prison of the limited human mind, free will is our birthright.
You did fail at faith is my assertion, and while you may try to pass off that as some fallacious statement and not relevant to the topic, it goes to the heart of the real issues at hand.
If you somehow could conclude you were right to renounce faith, there must have been some other criteria besides faith you decided to adopt, yet you did so without proof before hand that renouncing faith was in fact the correct approach to knowing God. Do you know that you made the correct choice? No, you have faith that you did, and each day you practice that faith.
You had faith that faith was wrong, you had no proof or evidence that it was not the right path to God, yet you continue to have faith that your choice was correct for you.
How circular in nature.
A reasonable man might renounce faith, but he would never really know if he made the correct decision, as he is renouncing that which he doesn't know, therefore cannot speak definitively that he was correct in his decision.
Most people who renounce faith cannot remain in doubt of their decision, it tears them up inside if they do, so they swing to a polar opposite position of anti-faith.
It is common, and observable to watch these people clutch so strongly onto anti-faith, typically with the same force and underlying emotionalism as they claim they blindly practiced faith.
