My God proof challenge, it's concise

[brewpanda]

The problem with subjective experience is that it can't be demonstrated. That means the integrity of the person who claims that is in check. Just because someone lives his life as a saint, doesn't mean he talks to god.

Oh no, I agree with you on this. But to the same end, just because someone "loves", doesn't mean he actually does.
So either, we try to establish and accept abstracts as necessary things in themselves (as a theist does) or we accept that certain concepts and abstracts exist subjectively and judgment can't be passed on the relative experience of these subjective abstracts therefore discussion regarding it (deity or love) is useless. Or, for the sake of argument, one engages a theist on their terms, namely, accepting an abstract is a thing in itself and not subjective, or at least, be willing to parallel the conception of a deity to another "equivalent" abstract.

 

[lrkun]

The problem with subjective experience is that it can't be demonstrated. That means the integrity of the person who claims that is in check. Just because someone lives his life as a saint, doesn't mean he talks to god.

Oh no, I agree with you on this. But to the same end, just because someone "loves", doesn't mean he actually does.
So either, we try to establish and accept abstracts as necessary things in themselves (as a theist does) or we accept that certain concepts and abstracts exist subjectively and judgment can't be passed on the relative experience of these subjective abstracts therefore discussion regarding it (deity or love) is useless. Or, for the sake of argument, one engages a theist on their terms, namely, accepting an abstract is a thing in itself and not subjective, or at least, be willing to parallel the conception of a deity to another "equivalent" abstract.

Someone who loves means he loves. Otherwise he doesn't. It is one or the other.

Love =/= god.

 

[brewpanda]

Someone who loves means he loves. Otherwise he doesn't. It is one or the other.

Love =/= god.

Right. . .they aren't the same but they are similar in the quality of being abstract?

Someone who loves experiences what he thinks to be love.
Someone who believes in a deity or experiences the deity believes or experiences what he thinks to be the deity.
But neither can be said to experience love in itself or a deity in itself. It cannot be said that love or a deity exist in themselves.

 

[lrkun]

Right. . .they aren't the same but they are similar in the quality of being abstract?

Someone who loves experiences what he thinks to be love.
Someone who believes in a deity or experiences the deity believes or experiences what he thinks to be the deity.
But neither can be said to experience love in itself or a deity in itself. It cannot be said that love or a deity exist in themselves.

They are not similar. Proving that love exist or doesn't has no bearing with respect to god. The only similarities the two have is that they can be spelled via symbols.

 

[brewpanda]

They are not similar. Proving that love exist or doesn't has no bearing with respect to god. The only similarities the two have is that they can be spelled via symbols.

It is a parallel example to a deity, since it lacks tangibility and can't be objectively experienced or quantified. Therefore observational or empirical data cannot be used to prove or disprove love or a deity as abstracts. One can only use rational and philosophical arguments for either. Thus, when we say, "Give me a control or base or demonstrable example that can be accepted by both parties or a likeness to concept of deity", love would serve as an example because its essence is similar to that of a conceptual abstract deity in that both conceptions possess the qualities of abstractness, subjectivity by the experiencer, and being a conception themselves.

And it certainly would have bearing if one said that their experience of deity were tantamount to love. You would have no basis for refuting their claim since what they compare it to, love, is a subjective application and experience. You can't know whether they are experiencing a deity or love. You only know how you can or would interpret using your own subjective experience and observation, but that doesn't make them wrong or you right.

So we arrive back where we were, either we say arguing relativity is pointless or we accept fundamental abstracts or we accept some definition or notion of abstracts to engage an argument. If we don't do the latter with theists, they can say "Well, you don't believe in abstracts but I do. Therefore, it is pointless to go on." Certainly you could continue the argument as a strict empiricist or materialist but you won't accomplish anything. Which is fine if that is an acceptable goal!

 

[lrkun]

They are not similar. Proving that love exist or doesn't has no bearing with respect to god. The only similarities the two have is that they can be spelled via symbols.

It is a parallel example to a deity, since it lacks tangibility and can't be objectively experienced or quantified. Therefore observational or empirical data cannot be used to prove or disprove love or a deity as abstracts. One can only use rational and philosophical arguments for either. Thus, when we say, "Give me a control or base or demonstrable example that can be accepted by both parties or a likeness to concept of deity", love would serve as an example because its essence is similar to that of a conceptual abstract deity in that both conceptions possess the qualities of abstractness, subjectivity by the experiencer, and being a conception themselves.

And it certainly would have bearing if one said that their experience of deity were tantamount to love. You would have no basis for refuting their claim since what they compare it to, love, is a subjective application and experience. You can't know whether they are experiencing a deity or love. You only know how you can or would interpret using your own subjective experience and observation, but that doesn't make them wrong or you right.

So we arrive back where we were, either we say arguing relativity is pointless or we accept fundamental abstracts or we accept some definition or notion of abstracts to engage an argument. If we don't do the latter with theists, they can say "Well, you don't believe in abstracts but I do. Therefore, it is pointless to go on." Certainly you could continue the argument as a strict empiricist or materialist but you won't accomplish anything. Which is fine if that is an acceptable goal!

I've always been consistent on the point where there is no need for god, for it is something that has no effect whatsoever in reality. Just because it seems like a nice idea to talk about for purposes of mental masturbation, doesn't mean that it is, in reality important. At most, the idea of a god is equivalent to the mind's understanding of what is unknown and not love nor any other abstract idea. God = what we don't know, because for the things we do know, they already have a concrete and specific and definite equivalent in this world.

 

[brewpanda]

I've always been consistent on the point where there is no need for god, for it is something that has no effect whatsoever in reality. Just because it seems like a nice idea to talk about for purposes of mental masturbation, doesn't mean that it is, in reality important. At most, the idea of a god is equivalent to the mind's understanding of what is unknown and not love nor any other abstract idea. God = what we don't know, because for the things we do know, they already have a concrete and specific and definite equivalent in this world.

To the same end, however, we could say there is no need for love as well and that it has no effect on reality.
Love does not have a concrete or specific or definite or objective equivalent in this world. So love is the equivalent of the mind's understanding of what is unknown.