“God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

[paarsurrey1]

The assertion “God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.�
Christopher Hitchens

Right, please?

Regards

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 47 by shnarkle]

Apparently the word itself describes a hypothetical place outside of the universe, and this is why it 'transcends.'

Not quite. There is no "self" to the word, and it doesn't describe the indescribable, nor present a position or a location outside of a spatial world.

Your argument that transcends implies 'does not exist' seems to imply that it 'does not exist at all' rather than it does not exist in this universe.

Transcendence can't exist in the universe. If it did, then it wouldn't transcend the universe so we would then have something like "limited transcendence" which is a bit pointless. Transcendence transcends existence, therefore there is no way for it to exist. Either it transcends existence or it doesn't. If transcendence doesn't transcend existence then it is once again some sort of 'limited transcendence' which is essentially an oxymoron. To say transcendence doesn't transcend is a contradiction.

Your idea of GOD is …

It isn't my idea. I'm simply pointing out that the biblical authors present a term, e.g. "God" as "incomparable", and the origin of existence. I see this as logically consistent.

separated from creation as well as from consciousness within creation. This implies transcendence which is then attempted to be bridged by something called 'spirit'

Probably not just 'spirit', but the "logos" as well. This is what Paul refers to as "the mediator".

which is apparently 'of' your GOD but separate from your GOD

I don't think the authors would characterize it as separation, but they would simply distinguish the two or three from each other. The origin and means of existence are distinguished, and are related "in", "with", and "by" "whom", and as far as I can tell this may have nothing to do with identification.

There is no necessity FOR the bridge other to to keep that particular idea of GOD separate from [his] creation.

No, you're conflating the idea of God with transcendence. Ideas are part of the created world. They're comparable. It is the idea of God and the idea of God isn't God. It's an idea about God, and ideas aren't God; they're ideas.

Therefore 'transcendent'.

The "bridge" is "the word", the Symbol; the Metaphor; the Icon; the image;the copula; the mediator; the sign that is substituted, represents, or signifies transcendence. None of these can bridge that far shore of transcendence. They simply point out the way. There is no way to set foot upon that bridge because the ends cannot be the means, and what is created is created by means of the bridge, therefore what is created must inevitably come to an end, but existence is eternal so the bridge is contingent between the created world and transcendence. To cross that bridge, or to reach that far shore is to cease to exist. The origin of existence is non existence.

Indeed, this is one great weakness in the idea of the Abrahamic GOD.

The weakness is in thinking or conflating God with an idea.

Apparently the belief most accepted is that this 'dimension/universe' where GOD, the angels the devil the demons, the saved and the damned all reside (exist) has access to our universe in that individuals (and groups of) beings from that one can come into this one and interact with us as they choose to...but we cannot do the same - therefore THAT universe is transcendent in relation to ours/us, but not the other way around. Our universe is accessible to them (specifically to demons as Christian folklore insists) so our universe is not transcendent in relation to that one...

I'm not sure that most believe that we are incapable of transcending this world. The texts indicate that most won't, but most don't believe that they're going to be one of those who don't.

[marco]

How else would I have been able to correct your grammatical error if I hadn't corrected my own? .......

Right, your getting correction from me, and I think we can both agree that I'm no biblical author....

What you were pointing out was a difference in perspective, not a grammatical error. The words "by" and "from" can both be used, with differing meanings. I used the one with the meaning I intended. Your unmerited "correction" was based on your own theology not on grammar.

A grammatical error is one instanced by the above quote from you; you intended to write "you're".

Let us remain stoutly in our own linguistic positions. I think we have digressed far enough from our theme and we have made little impact on God's existence or non-existence.

[shnarkle]

How else would I have been able to correct your grammatical error if I hadn't corrected my own? .......

Right, your getting correction from me, and I think we can both agree that I'm no biblical author....

What you were pointing out was a difference in perspective, not a grammatical error.

No, I am pointing out that your grammatical error spotlights a perspective that is blatantly false. The texts clearly state that God is the origin of existence, not the means of existence, or what exists.

The words "by" and "from" can both be used, with differing meanings.

Nice try, but I don't think so.

from: From is defined as a starting point, removal or separation. An example of from is the starting time of an open house, such as "from 1 pm to 4 pm.". An example of from is to take a toy away out of the hands of a child.

by:identifying the agent performing an action.
synonyms: by means of · by use of · [more]
indicating the means of achieving something.
"malaria can be controlled by attacking the parasite" · 

I used the one with the meaning I intended.

Yep, and redefining words to suit your purposes doesn't prove anything other than some inclination to play with words.

Your unmerited "correction" was based on your own theology not on grammar.

It was based exclusively on grammar and the fact that the authors were using correct grammar while you were intentionally ignoring it.

A grammatical error is one instanced by the above quote from you; you intended to write "you're".

Yep, and I can correct it too. Here it is: "Right, you're getting correction from me, and I think we can both agree that I'm no biblical author...."

Thats was easy. Thanks for the correction. Being able to take correction is one of the greatest ways to see the error of my ways and move on to bigger and better issues, perhaps even theological issues.

Let us remain stoutly in our own linguistic positions.

If you prefer to use grammar incorrectly, you are free to do so, but I am also free to point out that pretending that a preposition doesn't indicate origin doesn't prove your position.

I think we have digressed far enough from our theme and we have made little impact on God's existence or non-existence.

The theme is the existence of God, and as I've just pointed out the origin of existence doesn't exist, and I've proven it using elementary grammar which you are blatantly ignoring so I would have to agree that your position is pointless and not only has no impact, but doesn't begin to address the facts presented.

[marco]

No, I am pointing out that your grammatical error spotlights a perspective that is blatantly false.

Though I fear it will make little difference I again say that I was dealing with the means BY WHICH revelation is given. You think (wrongly) that I was talking about where revelation comes FROM. I am perfectly conversant with the niceties of grammar.

Thanks for defining the basic words "from" and "by". Were I ignorant to the point of being incapable of telling one preposition FROM another I would struggle to construct sentences.

Being able to take correction is one of the greatest ways to see the error of my ways and move on to bigger and better issues, perhaps even theological issues.

I am happy to hear you are subject to constant correction and you adjust accordingly, though you seem to be putting up staunch resistance on this occasion. Being able to see when correction is required is, I suppose, a gift of the Holy Spirit, along with charity, joy, peace, patience...

Meanwhile, God is still beyond our consciousness and very much transcendent although, of course, he is no more transcendence than is he a Bactrian camel. On that impressive point I shall bid farewell to these bewildering exchanges. Go well.

[ThePainefulTruth]

The assertion “God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.�
Christopher Hitchens

Right, please?

Regards

But there is evidence which demands an explanation, the universe. As several former hard atheists have had to admit, concerning the existence of the universe, a deist God can not be ruled out. And given that we have no evidence for it's cause whatsoever, that puts the odds at 50/50. And calling such a God a pink unicorn, only makes the fool look absurd. Such a creator, by any other name, would be just as omnipotent.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 55 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: "But there is evidence which demands an explanation, the universe."

Science has provided us with hypotheses, and the question is still open and under investigation. It may not be possible to find a complete or final answer. One thing about the answer, "I don't know." is that it is likely to be correct.

ThePainefulTruth: " As several former hard atheists have had to admit, concerning the existence of the universe, a deist God can not be ruled out."

By the same reasoning we cannot rule out gremlins, or the flatulence of a cosmic pig.

ThePainefulTruth: "And given that we have no evidence for it's cause whatsoever, that puts the odds at 50/50.'

But if we add in gremlins and the Cosmic Pig, that puts the odds at one in four? If there are an infinite number of wrong answers the unsupported probability of the Christian deity approaches zero.

ThePainefulTruth: "And calling such a God a pink unicorn, only makes the fool look absurd. Such a creator, by any other name, would be just as omnipotent."

Why is an invisible pink unicorn more absurd than an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, invisible, magical sky-daddy who allows his beloved children to be tortured, molested, starved, enslaved, and murdered, and condemns them to everlasting torment because they broke a rule that he knew they would break when he created them? Why is a Flying Spaghetti Monster more absurd than a deist god who simply creates a universe and then has nothing to do with it?

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.� --- Françoise-Marie Arouet (Voltaire), Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de M. de Voltaire

[shnarkle]

The assertion “God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.�
Christopher Hitchens

Right, please?

Regards

But there is evidence which demands an explanation, the universe. As several former hard atheists have had to admit, concerning the existence of the universe, a deist God can not be ruled out. And given that we have no evidence for it's cause whatsoever, that puts the odds at 50/50. And calling such a God a pink unicorn, only makes the fool look absurd. Such a creator, by any other name, would be just as omnipotent.

I could be wrong here, but the claim, "God does not exist" is being dismissed, is it not? What am I missing here? The evidence, right? The problem is that evidence of God can't be God himself, and this is really what those who are asking for evidence are looking for. Anyone who does produced evidence for God immediately makes themselves a fool because anyone who comes along claiming to be God can immediately be proven to be a liar. God is transcendent, therefore God is beyond evidence. There can be no proof for the transcendent.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 55 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: "But there is evidence which demands an explanation, the universe."

Science has provided us with hypotheses, and the question is still open and under investigation. It may not be possible to find a complete or final answer. One thing about the answer, "I don't know." is that it is likely to be correct.

The Big Bang isn't a hypothesis, it's the initiation for which we have zero evidence as to its cause. And "I don't know" is exactly correct. Both possibilities, deism and spontaneous creation, must be hyphenated with agnosticism to be reasonable, and neither can be reasonably dismissed or accepted.

ThePainefulTruth: " As several former hard atheists have had to admit, concerning the existence of the universe, a deist God can not be ruled out."

By the same reasoning we cannot rule out gremlins, or the flatulence of a cosmic pig.

The argument ad absurdum, whereby you argue against something by changing it's name to an obvious absurdity. See pink unicorn below.

ThePainefulTruth: "And given that we have no evidence for it's cause whatsoever, that puts the odds at 50/50.'

But if we add in gremlins and the Cosmic Pig, that puts the odds at one in four? If there are an infinite number of wrong answers the unsupported probability of the Christian deity approaches zero.

See above. A pig by any other name.

ThePainefulTruth: "And calling such a God a pink unicorn, only makes the fool look absurd. Such a creator, by any other name, would be just as omnipotent."

Why is an invisible pink unicorn more absurd than an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, invisible, magical sky-daddy...

Just different names for the same thing. A pig has many different names in different languages but it's still a pig. As you can see, I'm having to repeat myself.

...who allows his beloved children to be tortured, molested, starved, enslaved, and murdered, and condemns them to everlasting torment because they broke a rule that he knew they would break when he created them?

You switched arguments midstream by arguing against the straw man, revealed, man-made gods for which there is only hearsay, and most of that is absurd. Arguing against revealed gods is the most common false argument used by unreasoning atheists. Atheists, like everyone else, can't be reasonable and irrational the same breath.

Why is a Flying Spaghetti Monster more absurd than a deist god who simply creates a universe and then has nothing to do with it?

More absurd names for the same thing. This is getting monotonous. And it's the revealed religionists who've said that God walked away, not deists. We merely say that God does not interact, not that It isn't interested. Why would God go to all that trouble and then walk away. It's grasping at straws from within the pig stye.

BTW, why would God create the universe with which It must not interact? Ans: free will.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.�

Only humans have full self-awareness and thus the free will to choose between doing good and evil. Gods invented by men to justify their evils is no argument against a non-interactive deist God.

[ThePainefulTruth]

But there is evidence which demands an explanation, the universe. As several former hard atheists have had to admit, concerning the existence of the universe, a deist God can not be ruled out. And given that we have no evidence for it's cause whatsoever, that puts the odds at 50/50. And calling such a God a pink unicorn, only makes the fool look absurd. Such a creator, by any other name, would be just as omnipotent.

I could be wrong here, but the claim, "God does not exist" is being dismissed, is it not?

Absolutely not. There are two reasonable positions on the existence of God, given the existence of the universe, and no evidence for what initiated it via the Big Bang: agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism.

What am I missing here? The evidence, right?

No, the evidence is right here, the universe. What's missing is any evidence for its cause, and it being designed.

I used to think that the lack of evidence for the cause of the universe is so perfectly hidden (behind 3 firewalls: the Big Bang, Planck space-time limits to the divisibility of the universe, and what's "beyond" where the expansion of the universe goes super-luminal), that it must have been hidden on purpose. But I have to keep reminding myself that we can't use a lack of evidence, as evidence--the idea of God winking at me notwithstanding.

[marco]

And given that we have no evidence for it's cause whatsoever, that puts the odds at 50/50.

You mistakenly believe that, given two choices, A and B, they are equally likely. This is not the case. I cannot see how we can apply any numerical vaue to the probability in the case of God's existence.