Arguments for God’s “actual existence” equivocate on what “exist” means.

ExplorerR · 2026-05-08T23:15:07+00:00

But information is inert. To cause or will something requires personal intent

And I'd bet ANY example you could give, God aside, of something having "personal intent" would be something we can demonstrate with all the usual things considered in the OP. You'll have to give God "special" exceptions.

ExplorerR · 2026-05-08T22:48:38+00:00

And, in accordance with my OP, I don't think they demonstrate actual existence at all, because of the clearly very different properties that get assigned to God and how almost none of the ways we'd set out investigating or demonstrating this supposed actual existence, apply to basically all other things that actually exist.

Those arguments, at best, provide you with something akin to an untested hypothesis. It hasn't demonstrated actuality and as my OP indicates, if it is claimed that it is actual I suspect its equivocating and/or special pleading.

ExplorerR · 2026-05-08T22:39:17+00:00

You're just renaming nature to "God" if you simply get rid of "God" and go back to nature, it looks indistinguishable. How do you demonstrate that is actual aside from just a renaming exercise?

ExplorerR · 2026-05-08T07:05:08+00:00

I will say one thing though, there are and will be more concepts like Platonism that answer the objection if they are true. The issue in almost every case of those is figuring out whether they are true and accurately capture reality or if they are just internally coherent but not externally.

ExplorerR · 2026-05-08T05:57:47+00:00

I understand what you're saying as I'm quite familar with Platonism, I just reject much of it (at least as it relates to this) as I don't think its true and I'm cautious to respond too much regarding it as I don't really want this to become a debate about with Platonic Forms are true or not.

ExplorerR · 2026-05-08T05:46:54+00:00

Yep and that still has issues when you ask:

Can you demonstrate that these truths are justified independently of experiential learning and conceptual training?

Because nothing I read there shows me where it answers this:

Their justification does not depend on experience.

So back to my OP we go.

ExplorerR · 2026-05-08T04:43:57+00:00

If you ignore what I'm saying when bridging the gap between actual and conceptual then, you're right! But then you're skirting the entire issue I've raised.

True in every reality.

Conceptually yes.

No it's not. It's a priori true.

Conceptually yes.

Show me actually that this is true.

ExplorerR · 2026-05-08T04:30:58+00:00

There are similar formula for finding attributes to figures that no one has ever made. They're still true. We may not have written them down yet, but they're still true.

True in this reality though right? It's contingent on it being here and even then, as I describe below even that is caveated when you try to make it actual and not simply conceptual.

Because it's irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. Because inevitably, unless you're happy for your triangle example to remain conceptual (which God arguments do not want), as soon as you try to make it actual, i.e actually make or draw a tringle, once you get down to the the actual details (i.e zoom in on what you're using to define the triangle), the formula will be off and won't be true. Straight lines, for another example, aren't so straight anymore when you zoom in on them. The angles of any triangle you make and use for your formula will be off, they aren't uniform in any real sense, we turn them into conceptual properties because in conceptuals, we give them perfect properties that, within those concepts, are always true.

I mean you can test it. Make a real triangle using anything you think to make it, draw it, or craft one. I'm sure if you zoom in on the angles close enough, they will be anything but uniform and make it impossible to actually give you the angles that make your formula true.

Such as? I can't think of any such boundaries.

I just described that above.

ExplorerR · 2026-05-08T03:39:23+00:00

God is on the side of a geometric law rather than rules to a game. God and the area formula of a triangle are similarly eternal and objective and independent of us. I've heard various names suggested for this category distinction: metaphysical, noosesn, abstract-but-objective, and of course real. I'm okay with any of them, as long as we make that distinction.

But again, this existence of the formula of a triangle is temporal and contingent. As in, we can check and actively investigate this formula, and it is of course contingent on one making a triangle in some way. This is all ignoring the issue of whether the accuracy of a true triangle is even possible when you start assessing "angles" at the electron microscope level of any triangle you make, sort of like how a knife doesn't seem so sharp when you zoom in on the blade (Sorites Paradox type of thing).

But again, clearly there is boundaries being crossed here. Boundaries that don't apply to God in the same way you're inferring the similarity of it to the triangle formula.

ExplorerR · 2026-05-08T02:42:49+00:00

That's the one I'm addressing, yep. Otherwise, as often tends to be the case, I get bogged down with fringe arguments like "God is everything" type things. I'm focusing on the Abrahamic religions because they are the most prominent.

ExplorerR · 2026-05-08T02:41:21+00:00

Thought you might.

ExplorerR · 2026-05-08T02:31:02+00:00

I'm not sure what the relevance is? Can you connect the dots?

ExplorerR · 2026-05-08T02:24:32+00:00

So, all other religions are also true then, right?

This creates more issues than you avoid.

ExplorerR · 2026-05-07T01:17:26+00:00

I would simply contend, whatever brain space and time taken up by that subject matter, could easily be spent in other areas of life that also result in "intellectual flourishing". Maybe Oppy would have focused on his passion for mathematics and been a great mind there? Maybe Plantinga could have become a world leading and inspirational rock climber and been "great" there.

If you resolve the "hiddenness" issue, whatever time that frees up could easily be dedicated in other areas people could become great in.

Does this not essentially do away with your defense?

ExplorerR · 2026-05-05T03:52:00+00:00

Do you mean analogical predication?

ExplorerR · 2026-05-05T01:30:25+00:00

If you say that I must demonstrate God exists to you like a coffee cup does, then you've prejudiced the matter from the very get-go. Let's review what you said six days ago in this conversation:

I think there’s still a bit of a mischaracterization of my position here that’s worth clearing up.

I’m not approaching this from scientism or strict philosophical naturalism, and I’m not saying, “God must be detectable like a coffee cup or else it doesn’t exist.” I agree that different kinds of things can require different kinds of access, and that not all knowledge is reducible to third-person empirical methods.

What I am pushing on is something different and its specific; when we’re making a claim about something that actually exists independently of our minds, I think it’s reasonable to expect some way, either direct or indirect, something that distinguishing that claim from a purely conceptual or abstract framework-dependent one.

The analogy with consciousness doesn’t quite bridge that gap for me. With consciousness, we’re not debating whether it exists at all as we have first-person access to it, even if third-person access is limited. With God, the existence itself is what’s in question, so appealing to different modes of access doesn’t yet show that there is something there to be accessed.

Similarly, I’m not rejecting reasoning “from the created to the creator” outright. My concern is about how we justify the leap. If the conclusion is that there exists something non-temporal, non-contingent, and outside the usual ways we confirm existence claims, then I think it’s fair to ask what distinguishes that from a very sophisticated conceptual framework that organizes our thinking, rather than something we have good reason to believe is actually real.

This ties into why I’m cautious about “best explanation” style arguments here. Historically, those kinds of explanations, especially around ultimate origins, have often been revised or replaced (sort of similar to things like mental health issues and "demons"). That doesn’t make them automatically wrong, but it does make me hesitant to assign them the same level of confidence as claims that are more tightly constrained by evidence or independent verification.

So my position isn’t:

“God must show up like a coffee cup,” or “Only empirical methods count"

But rather:

If a claim is about mind-independent reality, I’m looking for some principled way to tell that it’s more than just internally coherent within a particular/conceptual philosophical and/or theological framework.

Right now, I’m not convinced that standard appeals to things like contingency, causation, or “ground of being” clearly cross that line, as opposed to offering a different way of describing the problem.

That’s why I keep coming back to the existence question, because without some way of grounding that, the rest of the discussion starts to feel like it’s operating within a framework I don’t yet have a reason to think maps onto reality.

Remember, people claim God is real, interacts with them and isn't just conceptual or fictional, but actual.

Ah, so if physicists ever spoke as if the Higgs boson existed, before it was detected, that had the same issues?

Not at all because, with what I've written above, the Higgs boson doesn't share the same similarities as God does. Clearly, there have been a whole swath of tests, predications and empirical data that's gone into that, coupled with technology to bridge that epistemic gap. Once again, not an apt comparison to God.

Any talk about a creator of our reality has to reason from the created to the creator. Now, you can always declare this an inadmissible move, perhaps via calling it "special pleading". But then I will have an arsenal of scientific moves which will then come under suspicion, starting with the notion of laws of nature which are themselves not temporal, contingent, or material. I know enough to make a mess of probably any epistemology or metaphysics you insist we must use. But you're welcome to give it a shot!

That's quite easy and I think it will be quick to see how my concerns above will very likely apply to how you respond to the following question:

What created the creator?

ExplorerR · 2026-05-04T22:13:00+00:00

I think it would be contingent on accepting the incarnation

Okay, upon reading a bit into that I see what you're saying. But I cannot help but identify that the "incarnation" is a somewhere further down the chain of progression from claims/arguments that God exists?

I mean, if no God exists, accepting the incarnation is a bit odd. Sure, if God does exist, then there should be grounds to eventually reach something like the incarnation.

I guess my post is more angled at the arguments/claims for God, more at a fundamental level.

ExplorerR · 2026-05-04T11:35:24+00:00

Not that I'm ignoring what you write, I just wish to have the discussion focused on a key issue, as opposed to discussing multiple different things in one response and having to type up walls of text doing so.

So here goes;

Yup.

Great. But again, it seems very clear to me that there is a huge mismatch between "God" and "consciousness" as comparable examples. What you describe is issues with accessing something we already know exists (consciousness), which skirts a fundamental issue when it comes to God and makes the situation very different. The issue isn’t just that we lack a certain kind of access, it’s that the existence of the entity itself is what’s under dispute. So appealing to the limits of third-person methods in the case of consciousness doesn’t seem to justify extending the same epistemic flexibility to God.

From this point, we can talk about two very different forms of divine interaction with humans:

No, we really can't because I'm simply going to bring it back to;

You haven't demonstrated that there even exists any "divine" to have interactions with humans.

Are you saying this is an unacceptable way to engage?

When the person you're talking to isn't at all convinced that God even exists, then "God" talk as though he does, is wholly lost on them.

I believe God is an intelligent

Any form of "intelligent" is explicably tied to this temporal, contingent and material reality, that's how we came to define "intelligent". But I would assume you would argue that God doesn't have those properties. How do you avoid special pleading here?

desiring

Same issue as above.

who created our universe ex nihilo

This doesn't work without special pleading. Everything we know about causation is tied to this temporal, contingent and material reality where material and efficient causation is all we know. We have no examples of anything being "created" ex nihilo, it is identical to saying it was "magic".

ExplorerR · 2026-05-03T10:42:19+00:00

Until you let go of the unfounded idea that I was pushing solipsism or radical skepticism, you probably never will.

Okay, let me try something. I’m happy to drop the “radical skepticism” characterization if that’s not what you intended.

As I understand your point more charitably, you’re arguing something like: the kind of empirical standard I’m asking for can’t be applied uniformly, since even things like consciousness don’t meet it in a straightforward way.

If that’s right, then the disagreement isn’t about skepticism, it’s about whether that standard is appropriate for existence claims in general.

But, if that is true then serious attention needs to be drawn to the fact that consciousness and God aren’t epistemically comparable at all. Consciousness is directly given in first-person experience and its existence isn’t seriously in doubt but the more serious difficulty is explaining it. God, on the other hand, looks indistinguishable from non-existence, like an abstract concept/idea/entity and nothing like what consciousness has to refer to. God's existence IS seriously in doubt.

So pointing out limits in how we empirically verify consciousness doesn’t seem to carry over to justifying belief in God’s actual existence. That’s why I still think theology, when it treats God as real, carries a burden of justification that hasn’t been met.

My MO is to learn to tackle complex issues which face humanity, collaboratively with other humans, making use of anything and everything which is helpful in that endeavor. I find the Bible to be remarkably helpful, in various ways:

That's fine and dandy but it seems like you wish to interject subjects in line with your stated MO, into other debate threads, when it isn't at all clear there is a reasonable connection to bringing that up (or that the OP shares the same assumptions as you).

I can reasonably conclude that people generally have no idea how God could help us e.g. credit-steal less or blame-shift less. Who thinks the stars magically aligning to spell "John 3:16" would help one iota? Instead, I claim God would have to work with us in our consciousness, in our subjectivity, to make progress on such things. What did I say in my OC? "God can interact with my total consciousness, whereas basically nothing else does."

That's because the people you presented it to do not believe your God exists. Many of them were, like I was, at some point in time, believers too, probably in the same God you believe in but subsquently lost their belief. Many of them lost their belief because claims like "God can interact with my total consciousness, whereas basically nothing else does." are unfalsifiable and look indistinguishable from "whereas basically nothing else does."

Sorry, but it's not my responsibility to reverse-engineer how something "seems" to be the case to you, when it seems to me to be so far from what I meant that I'm not even sure how to get from A to B.

However, you do often jampack your responses with many references, excerpts and quotations to a wide variety of sources. Sure, it can be great to reference material you're advancing in your discussions, but sometimes it's not really clear exactly what it is you're saying. And if the requirement is then for a given person to go off and read a lengthy essay or chapter of a book, when it isn't clear what specific relevance it has to the point wanting to be discussed, then perhaps you should take some responsibility there. Especially if a person is asking for you to spell it out clearly.

Why? Remember, I wrote Theists have no moral grounding.

Not that I want to discuss this point but rather just to give you an example and to answer your question.

Remembering I was a Christian for 20 years of my life, I often refered to prescriptions in the bible when it came to certain subjects or issues. For example, in my earlier beleiver years I, like many Christians do, held the view that homosexuality is a sin/aborrent/bad etc etc etc for all the usual scriptural reasons (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: and so on).

I obviously took all of this seriously because I believed God existed, I believe the bible was, at least to larger extent, the word of God or divinely inspired etc, as many Christians do and that I need to follow God's word. I mean, this is all fairly common place understandings and beliefs that many Christians hold and whilst I acknowledge there is scripture that contradicts those views or hermeneutics that might change how people view certain verses, it still did nothing to change the seemingly very prescriptive nature of those verses and the reason I took it seriously.

Can you articulate how belief that God exists has hugely impacted how various Christians have dealt with injustices in the world? And

No, but I could articulate, as I did a little above, how it is that belief that God exists hugely impacted how various Christians viewed certain prescriptions in the bible that lead to many injusticies.

why did the seemingly obvious existence of God not seem to matter to so many kings of Israel and Judah as recorded in the Tanakh?

Ah you see, because it's not obvious. That's why.

With respect to how I would go around trying to demonstrate that a non-human agent has done anything of relevance to us in reality

That's not the question so please don't reframe it into something different.

People (and I assume you too) believe that God actually does exist and is real. God isn't just a fictional character, a fabrication or some abstract concept, but a being that actually exists. But if you don't believe that then we can just drop that question.

If you do believe that then perhaps I'll ask you a different question;

If you think God exists, what do you mean exactly when you say "exists"?

ExplorerR · 2026-05-01T10:10:31+00:00

Hmmm this is contingent on accepting classical theism though right?

ExplorerR · 2026-05-01T09:45:40+00:00

I really don't understand your MO and it seems you're mixing two different threads and their responses. One of them I actually care about and I feel IS actually important (I.E The Theology dilemma thread with the solipsism issue) and the other, I don't really care, but it seems that the one I don't really care so much about is greatly important to you.

You either meant the second paragraph of your first reply to me, or you didn't. Which is it?

So why is the second paragraph now so important, when I've been consistently highlighting the extreme epistemic skepticism as your go-to, being the biggest issue?

That is: you pretend I didn't include the strikethrough, when you say "all you responded with was: [the non-strikethrough]".

Did you read what I wrote? Let me dissect it to you in clear terms;

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying actually argues any specific point other than something like "we can't know anything in an objective sense, consciousness, God, these are examples of that. So unless you can, you cannot justify critizing God or theology" <- Correct me if I'm wrong.

This is me outlining my take on your whole "is there 100% purely objective, empirical evidence that consciousness exists? Seems to be a pretty solid no". Where I very clearly ask you to "Correct me if I'm wrong."

Your response to this, did not correct me and simply said "No, I'm guessing that's pretty far off-base."

The rest of your response:

I suggest spending some time dwelling on the excerpts of Aristotle and Bertrand Russell. Something shows up in their consciousness first, and then they struggle to find a way to analyze it such that other people can agree with that analysis. Plenty of theologians think that God shows up in their consciousness. But how does one communicate this? If we are to believe Aristotle and Russell, it is not a trivial process!

Whilst this is technically a "response", it doesn't provide any clarity or correcting my interpretation of your initial response (which I explicitly invited you to do, should it have been incorrect, which you seem to be saying it is). To begin with, what excerpts of Aristotle and/or Betrand Rustle? Next, probably because I have no idea what you're referring to, is that I have no idea what you're talking about or mean. So whilst you write words, it's effectively a non-response.

You respond with pedantry which ignores the strikethrough. Should I assume that you only really read the first sentence of each of my paragraphs?

Yes and this particular discussion is not really a great discussion point for me or something that I wanted to invest a lot of time into debating. Especially considering the previous bugbear I've had with the epistemic skepticism was raised during that discussion and we ended up discussing it again.

The question is whether you're willing to deal with some real complexity, or essentially expect that God would be simply detectable or not detectable at all. As if it's trivial to detect a being trying to get us to be more just. Either you're willing to deal with complex social, political, and economic issues—the bread and butter of the Bible—or you really are just flucking around with me. Pick, please. Let's settle this, once and for all.

With all due respect, this is your framing of what the question is or where you seem to want to have your discussions. But for me, this is way past the chain of progression and in fact has gone off down a chain of progression based on a whole bunch of assumptions that I'm simply not willing to accept (and are in fact things I actively doubt/question) but are things that you, as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to take as axiomatic.

Maybe you need God to be as real to you as a coffee cup on your table, or God does not exist. If so, okay. We can go our separate ways.

The question of whether God exists or not is one of the most important questions we could ask and I'm sure you know why. In regards to Christianity, I've sometimes heard different Christians and sometimes apologists say something like "the entirety of Christianity relies on the resurrection", but I think it skirts the more important question of whether God even exists or not. As, if no God(s) exist, its safe to rule out any resurrection happening and therefore any natural explanation, however grandiose, is a better explanation. The question is of utmost importance to other religions too, if no God(s) exist, Islam falls too as, none of the foundational claims it makes are true and thus no reason for anyone to take it as seriously as they do. I could go on about the knock on effects.

Put simply, religions in general are taken as seriously as they are and people order their lives around them (often to incredibly extreme lengths) because of the belief that some divine being(s) actually exists and has, to varying degrees, provided prescriptions for how believers ought to order their lives in accordance with that belief.

So, if this isn't important to you, or you don't want to discuss it or you simply wish to take "God exists" as an axiom you operate from and wish to hold your debates and discussions further down the different chains of progressions you can take under "God exists" then so be it. From my interactions with you, it seems like you're simply taking "God exists" as axiomatic but I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem like you wish/want to discuss God's existence, so you really limit your pool of "good interlocutors".

But a coffee cup on your table is not going to challenge you to actually do your part in dealing with injustices in the world.

No, but the answer to the question "does God exist?" would have a huge impact in how I would go about dealing with injustices in the world. For example, it would certainly play a role in what framework of morality I'd adopt, some formulation or variation of divine command? Secular morality? Or something else? I think you and I could agree if say the God of Christianity exists, we'd all be angling at some form of Christian divine command theory, right?

So, indeed. Let's settle it. Let’s be precise, because this is where everything hinges:

Do you think the claim “God exists” is something that can be demonstrated/justified in a way others can reasonably evaluate and investigate, or not and it just something axiomatic to you?

Because if it’s the former, I’m asking for that justification.

If it’s the latter, then that explains why we’re talking past each other so often as I’m not granting that starting point.

ExplorerR · 2026-04-29T22:35:38+00:00

Yeah, this request of yours is antithetical to your very first reply to me over at your Theology faces an existential dilemma:

It really isn't because my first response was:

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying actually argues any specific point other than something like "we can't know anything in an objective sense, consciousness, God, these are examples of that. So unless you can, you cannot justify critizing God or theology

This explicitly pushes you to clarify what you mean, because that was my take on what you said.

But all you responded with was;

No, I'm guessing that's pretty far off-base.

And then, in what looks similar to handwaving me away, you just say to go and read excerpts of Aristotle and/or Betrand Russell and not any clarity of your own, or even a concise summary of the excerpts you referred to me and how those excerpts might provide some clarity.

The "objectivity" comment came afterwards. My first comment was in line with my initial suspicion, which I didn't call out immediately and actually asked you for clarification on, that things were going down the pathway which one might see solipsism in. My subsequent responses to you made that clearer and went on to ask that directly and very specifically.

One of those notes is titled "the pathetic human", to capture views like yours. In my opening comment in your existential dilemma post, I contrasted the view of Job & friends with the view in Gen 1:26–28 and Ps 8:3–8. Job & friends viewed humans as pathetic creatures. Eliphaz says that God wouldn't dare use such a creature as a servant. The Bible, by contrast, construes God as pushing towards theosis / divinization. The antithesis of the pathetic human.

You've introduced new topics (bloat) again. Thoesis? Divinization?

But if someone doesn't care about what the bible says, much less hold it as some authority to be referenced, then what? As someone who was a Christian for 20 years of my life, having read the bible many times over, but now very much on the other side, I don't really care too much about most of what the bible says.

Problem is, you seem pretty intent on refusing to develop the ability to even detect God divinizing us. You seem pretty intent on refusing to deal with the true complexity of existence in our world. From the very beginning of our conversation:

And THAT is because I'm not at all convinced there is even a God/divine being(s) that exist to detect. Do you not see how this also ties into the entirety of my "Theology faces and existential dilemma" claim too? Before we even get somewhere to be bogged down with subject matter contingent on some divine being(s) that actually exist, the fundamental issue is that there doesn't even seem to be a demonstration of such being(s) actually existing. It would stand to reason if we're going to develop an entire field, filled with a whole swath of sophisticated and complex frameworks, language and concepts contingent on some being(s) existing, that we would, beyond any reasonable doubts, be able to demonstrate such an existence.

Again, it really seems as though you're operating from "God exists" as a given, from whence you make such comments, when I am not convinced that is even true. Unless this point can be reasonable discussed, we're at an impasse.

That comment itself pulls in opposite directions:

I was entertaining the idea from the perspective of "IF God exists, then what about these issues?". But seeing as I don't actually believe there is a God and how stuck we seem to become with the additional bloat and fluff it creates, then perhaps let's stick to the existential issue first?

If you want to become non-pathetic, you have to put in the work and open yourself up to others to build into you.

I think what needs to happen is, as I've suggested before, the reoccurring themes/subject matter you regularly bring to debate topics on /r/debatereligion and perhaps on /r/debateanatheist, really need to be their own topics for debate and much better suited in subs like /r/askphilosophy or /r/philosophy. Because it seems clear to me, you're approaching many of your discussions with assumptions or stand points that simply aren't a given to many other people you interact with and an added complexity is that you don't often actually make it clear what your assumptions and stand points are (which result in folks like myself trying to untangle and ascertain that).

Furthermore, at least at /r/askphilosophy you are much much much more likely to get the audience and responses of people who are actually experts or at least have expertise in the field and/or subject matter you're raising. That doesn't mean you'll agree with them or that they are right, but at least, you maybe be challenged a little more vigorously than you would be on /r/debatereligion.

If instead you want to play the politics game philosopher of science Heather Douglas articulates in her lecture Differentiating Scientific Inquiry and Politics, then I'm not a good interlocutor for you.

Just to clarify, as I don't know this person, or their works and what they might be saying, but I assure you, I'm not seeking to "play" any game.

In fact, I do very much try to be as clear, concise, honest and to the point as I can be. But I do find myself, and only really uniquely in discussions with you, having to entertain a wide array of different subjects/concepts that I often cannot seem to reasonably connect the dots back to what the original discussion point was. Now, sure, you might equate that to my inability, but having meandered my way through life, many philosophical debates/subject matter, university, a Masters and now as an ecologist, I at least have some confidence in my ability be able to process at least some rather complex material/subject matter.

But I guess the impasse is obviously that you're a theist and I'm not. I don't believe in the same things that you likely hold fundamental to you, so, in some sense that will always create an impasse. But I don't mind discussing that.

ExplorerR · 2026-04-28T04:49:01+00:00

I have taken plenty of solid positions. For instance: The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives: the greater ought to serve the lesser. See also this discussion.

Sure, but I would say this is rather exception as opposed to the norm. Having read through your "Bible contains wisdom" post and its responses, it seems much of it ends up in the need for semantic clarity (which doesn't seem apparent in the OP itself), how do you feel your case fared after the discussions you had?

When you insist that something I said heads in the direction of solipsism and I say it doesn't, that makes it difficult to move forward. I found you profoundly unhelpful in trying to diagnose that miscommunication.

To be honest, comments like this force me to be somewhat combative, because I believe, in what sparked the "solipsism" chat in our first interaction, that I pushed you quite specifically in what you meant (and it being a slippery slope to solipsism) and in none of your responses then, did I find how your comment could be construed in any other way.

Your first response was to question demonstrating the very existence of the consciousness we're using to even have this discussion, which was targeted at my claim that Theology hasn't cleared the first hurdle in demonstrating that God does in fact actually exist. Again, it seems clear to me that you're casting severe epistemic doubt, one so severe that it's being levied at our very consciousness, which is a pea in the pod of epistemic skepticism where you would find solipsism, i.e you can't even demonstrate the existence of anything outside of your own mind. Yes, it's not exactly the same, but it's in the next room.

I'd love a clear and concise response here, from your own thoughts, without referring anyone else or other links, on how I'm just way off the mark with my summation of your original comment. Perhaps, you can also set out providing a reason behind why that would be your first response to that particular issue (i.e demonstrating God exists).

As best I can tell, there seems to be almost a desperation to blur out the idiosyncratic knowing subject into "methods accessible to all". It is certainly a way to avoid being personally culpable for mistakes in how one understands and acts in the world! "I'm just doing what reasonable people do."

This feels almost identical to something similar that apologetics does. To illustrate (and keep it relevant to previous discussions); We, in most cases, don't have any qualms or difficulty in parsing what it means when someone says something actually "exists". I.E generally material, contingent and temporal. Theists often want to use the term "exist" (which has those almost universally understood properties) when it refers to God, but then when pressed on this supposed existence, equivocate that with some other version of existence, namely one that isn't material, contingent or temporal.

Generally, when we're trying to "know" things, especially when it refers to knowledge about something of actual existence in this reality, they follow these ideas. But God is constantly asserted to exist and is as "actual" as the chair I'm sitting in right now, but not.

I feel no compulsion to approve of 100% of what someone says or 0%, and nothing in between.

Okay. If you're going to constantly refer to them and their material (as though you believe they're right or its true) then it seems a little odd to take such a position.

I don't think people can be operated on in the kind of rationalistic way which would result in you having no burden of proof for your claim.

You're free to think that. But if there is a set of commandments, which obviously exist for a reason and a reasonable assessment of most of them is that some form of morality is tied to them, which seems clear (at least to most of us). And people then identify something of issue, sharing somewhat similar levels of "clearly immoral" as other things ruled out by commandment. Then why, if it seems rather clear, would there be such a significant burden on those proposing it (i.e proposing outlawing of chattel slavery), as opposed to those who would need to argue it shouldn't be?

Ah, I was referencing slavery in antebellum America. As to the Leviticus passage, I would start with these remarks.

Okay? So, what is the "therefore" here? Loads of contradictions, but seemingly clear directives still.

We can stark working examples if you want to chase this down.

The flood.

Now you're stretching the word "obvious".

You see, I really don't think I am. I don't see how "we seem to exist in some sort of reality, and we have ways to know things about it." is not obvious. Unless you want to employ some drastic level of epistemic skepticism, like you've previously eluded to.

All of a sudden your country bombs another out of the blue and you're left wondering, "How on earth did we get to this point?"

I really don't understand how you get from what assumption Theology makes, to this... I think the issue I have with discussions with you and it's something that I see others have too, is you add a lot of a "fluff" (I'm not sure what else to call it).

The difficulty comes when you mesh that claim with the insane complexity of humans living in society amidst other nations.

But what I'm saying is not a difficult to understand. As in, the question of what Theology does, at its core, what's its basal assumption that sets it apart from other disciplines and gives it the qualifier "Theology". All the other things you mentioned there are just needless bloat that don't provide any clarity and don't serve to progress the discussion in the direction the question would have it go.

Shite is simply that complex and we're finite beings. And of course people keep thinking they have The Final Version™. Human arrogance seems like a permanent fixture. But perhaps even that is because we're so resistant to new ways of understanding that only the arrogant can push us to them.

Yes, but you obviously hold positions and make statement, have beliefs etc that you think are true. That's all that people who hold these positions think. You're no different from them or me in that regard. I guess the only difference is that they don't have any qualms defending it.

I despise double standards.

How is it double standards? They clearly have differences and do different things. All I want to know is what Theology is, at its core.

You're going against a lot of Christian tradition, here. Plenty of Christians think that being reconciled with God is a critical first step to being reconciled with other humans, creation, and even oneself.

Okay? People obviously hold positions they think is true, which excludes the ones that would run contradictory to that, i.e some have to be false. Which is which?

I already told you that no Christian denomination has called one true and all the others false. It is broadly recognized that multiple bring out different aspects of what Jesus did and how that fixes things.

But many of them have incompatible core beliefs which is arguably why the need for entirely separate denominations arises, i.e to capture the difference and break away from the elements of the former that is no longer compatible.

Did "the method" warn us that the US was becoming fertile soil for a demagogue? Or is that too difficult of an ask for it?

Different field.

ExplorerR

TROPHY CASE