thehomer: 1. God either exists, he does.
2. If he does exist, then either he interacts with the universe in a detectable manner but u dont just notice or wanna know.
3. If he does, then we should be able to detect it and u do, d fact u are alive is more than enough clue.
4. If he does, then his inexistence is distinguishable from his existence.
5. U want God to come down to show u dat he exist-dat's ur own. well, if u wont accept wat he has given to prove his sovereignty, then forget and pls let others worship him in peace. doubting God is one thin, but why go extra miles to discourage others

Dont bother quoting me, Unfollows thread to go worship God, d one and only Jehovah God

jayriginal: A non detectable god is for all intents and purposes a non existent god.

Succinct.

jayriginal: A non detectable god is for all intents and purposes a non existent god.

Succinct.

musKeeto: Any argument that lets in one, lets in the millions of others.

OLAADEGBU: Experiential Faith

"And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." -- John 17:3 The Evidence Bible.

Our faith isn't intellectual; it is experiential. We don't know about God, we know Him. At the University of Chicago Divinity School, each year they have what is called "Baptist Day." It is a day when the school invites all the Baptists in the area to the school because they want the Baptist dollars to keep coming in.

On this day each one is to bring a lunch to be eaten outdoors in a grassy picnic area. Every "Baptist Day" the school would invite one of the greatest minds to lecture in the theological education centre. One year they invited Dr. Paul Tillich. Dr. Tillich spoke for two and a half hours proving that the resurrection of Jesus was false. He quoted scholar after scholar and book after book. He concluded that since there was no such thing as the historical resurrection, the religion tradition of the Church was groundless, emotional mumbo jumbo, because it was based on a relationship with a risen Jesus, who, in fact, never rose from the dead in any literal sense. He then asked if there were any questions.

After about 30 seconds, an old preacher with a head of short-cropped, woolly white hair stood up in the back of the audience. "Docta Tillich, I got one question," he said as all eyes turned toward him. He reached into his lunch sack and pulled out an apple and began eating it. "Docta Tillich (CRUNCH MUNCH), my question is a simple one (crunch munch). Now, I ain't never read them books you read (CRUNCH MUNCH), and I can't recite the Scriptures in the original Greek (CRUNCH MUNCH). I don't know nothin' about Niebuhr and Heidegger (CRUNCH MUNCH). He finished the apple. "All I wanna know is: This apple I just ate -- was it bitter or sweet?"

Dr. Tillich paused for a moment and answered in exemplary scholarly fashion: "I cannot possibly answer that question, for I haven't tasted your apple." The white-haired preacher dropped the apple core into his crumpled paper bag, looked up at Dr. Tillich and said calmly, "Neither have you tasted my Jesus."

The 1,000-plus in attendance could not contain themselves. The auditorium erupted with applause and cheers. Dr. Tillich thanked his audience and promptly left the platform.

"Taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusts in him" [Psalm 34:8].

It has been well said, "The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument."

thehomer: 1. God either exists or he doesn't exist.
2. If he does exist, then either he interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or he doesn't.
3. If he does, then we should be able to detect it.
4. If he doesn't, then his existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence.
5. If we cannot tell that he does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

While addressing this argument, please tell us the God you have in mind.

thehomer:

Wow. This is such a bad argument that I don't even know where to begin.

thehomer: 1. God either exists or he doesn't exist.

thehomer:
2. If he does exist, then either he interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or he doesn't.

thehomer:
3. If he does, then we should be able to detect it.

thehomer:
4. If he doesn't, then his existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence.

thehomer:
5. If we cannot tell that he does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

manmustwac: Very good points but then if you could reason with religious people then they wouldn't be religious.

striktlymi:

In order words: You are not reasonable?

manmustwac: Very good points but then if you could reason with religious people then they wouldn't be religious.

striktlymi: I really think doing this is a very bad idea cause it most likely will lead nowhere but since I am in d mood to play a bit then what da heck...

striktlymi:
Agreed!



Now there is a problem with this premise...

You assume just two possibilities: if he exists then his interaction must be 'detectable' or not. First I don't know the context in which you used the word 'detectable' but I will assume you mean make himself known (or visible) to every human.

But there are other possibilities as well...he can decide not to be visible at all and he can equally decide to be visible to some persons and not others.

striktlymi:
At best your assumption of just two possibilities can be attributed maybe to ignorance on the ways God can decide to interact with humans. This premise really offended the popular fallacy: False Dichotomy spiced up with Ad ignorantiam.

striktlymi:
Still the same fallacy as above. We 'detect' or we do not 'detect'. Not everyone would detect something even if that thing is right under their very noses.

striktlymi:
An inability to detect something or the decision of someone not to be detected does not mean that thing or person does not exist.

striktlymi:
Faulty premise would ultimately lead to a false conclusion

thehomer:

Wow. This is such a bad argument that I don't even know where to begin.

Just think for a moment. In what way is God as detectable as an apple. At the very least, we know she ate an apple since the apple was seen but we cannot even detect your God before we come to describe the experience we have about him. That is what you're supposed to address not whether or not someone believes they've experienced your God.

OLAADEGBU:

Don't you think it is eldritch for you to disbelieve in the invisibility of the infinite uncreated Creator, and yet believe in invisible air that you breath, in history that you read, in television and radio waves, in energy, gravity and in love. Do you even believe in your brain that you can't see? The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.

OLAADEGBU:

Don't you think it is eldritch for you to disbelieve in the invisibility of the infinite uncreated Creator, and yet believe in invisible air that you breath, in history that you read, in television and radio waves, in energy, gravity and in love. Do you even believe in your brain that you can't see? The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.

Logicboy03:


Summary; Striky reads upside down...

How could the statement below mean that the atheist/irreligious person is unreasonable?

thehomer:

Surely you should have realized that detection goes beyond visibility. The air you breathe can be liquefied, history doesn't appeal to magic, those waves are detectable love is discernible but your God? Not so much.

Actually, the man with an experience can be at the mercy of a man with an argument as long as we accept that sometimes, people can hallucinate, can be delusional or that the senses can be fooled in some way.

musKeeto:

Do you know the meaning of 'detectable'?

thehomer:

Surely you should have realized that detection goes beyond visibility. The air you breathe can be liquefied, history doesn't appeal to magic, those waves are detectable love is discernible but your God? Not so much.

Actually, the man with an experience can be at the mercy of a man with an argument as long as we accept that sometimes, people can hallucinate, can be delusional or that the senses can be fooled in some way.

thehomer:

I think it leads to enlightenment.

thehomer:
Actually the decision to be undetectable has been covered in that premise.

thehomer:
Being detectable to certain people is also covered in that premise. So what other possibilities do you have in mind other than those dismissed ones?

1. God either exists or he doesn't exist.
2. If he does exist, then either he interacts with the universe in a detectable manner or he doesn't.
3. If he does, then we should be able to detect it.
4. If he doesn't, then his existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence.
5. If we cannot tell that he does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

thehomer:
Being detectable and being not detectable are true dichotomies.

thehomer:
Can you actually show me how I committed the appeal to ignorance fallacy?

thehomer:
Again, a true dichotomy. Everyone not detecting it doesn't make it undetectable, it is no one ever being able to detect it that makes it undetectable.

thehomer:
That is not what the argument says.

thehomer:
You're yet to show the faulty premise.

OLAADEGBU:

Every breath that you breathe is a testimony to the mercy and patience of God. Taste and see that the Lord is good. How sweet are the Words of God to the spiritual taste buds of those whose understanding has been enlightened.

striktlymi:

It doesn't because most times all we will be left with is an argument on 'what you said or what I did not say' till it gets to the 15th page...just like what you have started already. Just check your responses below:

striktlymi:
The bold is not in any way implied in your argument. There is no room for any decision to be undetectable because from your 3rd and 4th premises you only give room for detection because for you undetection is the same as non-existence.

Considering that one can go undetected and still exist then the fallacy of false dichotomy stares you right in the face.

striktlymi:
You have not dismissed any. You only claim to have done so. This really is why I implied that this will be fruitless in my OP.

Unless we did not read the same argument then the decision of God to be detectable to some persons was not covered by your argument. For the avoidance of doubt, below is your argument again:

striktlymi:
You committed the fallacy of false dichotomy because you created a scenario where God cannot make other decisions like being undetected but you prefered to tie his detection to only two options...either he is detectable and he exists or he is not detectable and he does not exist.

You did not consider other options like: he decides not to be detectable and he exists; he decides to be detectable to a few persons and he exists etc.

striktlymi:
Ochuko: Akpos God appeared to me o...

Akpos: Where is he...

Ochuko: He don become invisible again...

Akpos: Na lie joor...lie! lie!!

Now from your argument it can clearly be seen that you assume that if God exists, his creatures should be able to 'detect' him but this was said because you do not know any better, hence the ignorance in the matter.

striktlymi:
You only claim that no one is able to detect it but I say different and don't ask me how. This would lead to another endless discussion as it is turning out to be now.

striktlymi:
What exactly does the argument say, if not that if he decides not to interact with his creatures in a detectable way then he does not exist?

thehomer:
5. If we cannot tell that he does exist, then we cannot know about any other properties it could have.

striktlymi:
Your saying it does not make it so.

thehomer:

Not just that, we also take closer looks at the arguments and counter arguments generally using logic and reason.



Premise 4. If he is not detectable, then his existence is indistinguishable from his non-existence. For you to show that it is a false dichotomy, there has to be a path between being detectable and being not detectable. And as I said, it is a true dichotomy. Something is either detectable or not detectable. If you think there's a third path, please say what it is because what you've said so far is that the object is not detectable.



What would dismissing it look like to you?



If God chooses to make himself detectable, then he is detectable. (Covered in the argument)
If God chooses to make himself not detectable, then he is not detectable. (Also covered in the argument)
Those are the only possible choices. If you have a third choice, please present it. That is what you'll need to show in order to claim that I've committed the logical fallacy.



This is a terrible example. If God appeared to that person, then he is detectable and thus interacts with the universe in a detectable manner. That appearance and the person perceiving the appearance is detection. Surely you can see from your own example that you're making a serious mistake.

Actually that wasn't my argument at all. Please read through it again and see that I've not made any conclusion based on ignorance.



No, that is not my claim. Please read through my argument again. It covers both detection and non-detection.







I'm not merely saying so, I'm showing it to you.

thehomer:
3. If he does, then we should be able to detect it.

striktlymi:


I am so not taking this thread to the 15th page.

Deep Sight: This is what makes your argument bad -

This assumes that man currently has what it takes to detect every thing detectable in existence. The truth is, man is only developing in that regard. Many things in the universe which we can detect today, we could not detect yesterday, for lack of the appropriate technology.

You therefore cannot make this huge and bad assumption that man is omniscient and as such can detect everything detectable. That is simple false. We cannot.

Deep Sight:
Secondly, many sensible people see the footprint of God in intelligently designed organs such as our brains and central nervous system, aside from the many unspeakable wonders of the natural world. That you willfully refuse to see intelligence therein is a personal choice you have made, and concerns no one else.

thehomer:

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you for two things.

thehomer:
1. Please show me how I committed the fallacies you accused me of.
2. Please show me the problems with the argument.

striktlymi:

That is exactly where this is heading if we continue the 'merry-go-round'.



I have done that but you decided not to see the points I have raised. Judging by your last response I am beginning to think that you might be doing this deliberately, though I might be wrong.