“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]

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

Not when the term "God" is synonymous with transcendence. Then it must be accepted without evidence as there can be no evidence for transcendence. By definition, transcendence is beyond anything and everything, especially existence and evidence. To ask for evidence of transcendence is to ask for evidence of what cannot exist as there is no difference between transcendence and non existence.

The irony here is that almost all of these ancient documents point this out. The biblical authors point out that there is "none besides God", i.e. God is incomparable, i.e. transcendent. The introduction to John's gospel presents God as the origin of existence and the origin cannot exist, if it did then it wouldn't be the origin. Paul says essentially the same thing by pointing out that God is "of whom all things exist"

[Tcg]

Not when the term "God" is synonymous with transcendence. Then it must be accepted without evidence as there can be no evidence for transcendence. By definition, transcendence is beyond anything and everything, especially existence and evidence. To ask for evidence of transcendence is to ask for evidence of what cannot exist as there is no difference between transcendence and non existence.

Your conclusion is that "God" is synonymous with transcendence. You then state that there is no difference between transcendence and non existence. So in your view, God is non existent. I agree totally.

[marco]

Not when the term "God" is synonymous with transcendence.

Well luckily God is not synonymous with transcendence, which is a supposed attribute of God. We may not be able to pursue and capture transcendence, as you say, but some believe, not unreasonably, that God is evident in what he has created.

There is also the resource of divine revelation, by whatever means, and millions rely on texts that seem to have been inspired, if not actually dictated, by a transcendent God.

In any event the proposition: - "God does not exist" can be dismissed without evidence - dwells on semantics rather than on God's whereabouts.

[shnarkle]

Not when the term "God" is synonymous with transcendence. Then it must be accepted without evidence as there can be no evidence for transcendence. By definition, transcendence is beyond anything and everything, especially existence and evidence. To ask for evidence of transcendence is to ask for evidence of what cannot exist as there is no difference between transcendence and non existence.

Your conclusion is that "God" is synonymous with transcendence. You then state that there is no difference between transcendence and non existence. So in your view, God is non existent. I agree totally.

I wouldn't say it's just my view. It's what the biblical authors are presenting. Paul and John are especially prominent with this point of view.

[shnarkle]

Not when the term "God" is synonymous with transcendence.

Well luckily God is not synonymous with transcendence,

Of course he is. To refer to God as, "there is none besides me"; "incomparable" etc. are synonymous with transcendence.

which is a supposed attribute of God.

Transcendence isn't an attribute. You can't attribute anything to transcendence. You can't attribute anything to nothing.

We may not be able to pursue and capture transcendence, as you say, but some believe, not unreasonably, that God is evident in what he has created.

Not the biblical authors. They aren't pantheists or panentheists. The biblical authors simply point out that what exists originates from transcendence which they refer to as "God".

There is also the resource of divine revelation, by whatever means,

The means is also clearly articulated to be "the word" which exists eternally, but is not to be conflated with God.

and millions rely on texts that seem to have been inspired, if not actually dictated, by a transcendent God.

Not even close to a logical conclusion. Unless you want to redefine the meaning of transcendence, it isn't possible in the first place. The texts leave inspiration exclusivly in the hands of the Spirit which is where the word "inspiration" comes from. It is literally "breathed in" so it cannot be "by" a transcendent God, but "by" the spirit. The origin is transcendent which would require the preposition "from". Regardless, none of this proves God exists, and instead points to the fact that God can't exist apart from existence (itself). Existence cannot originate in existence.

In any event the proposition: - "God does not exist" can be dismissed without evidence - dwells on semantics rather than on God's whereabouts.

There are no whereabouts for transcendence. The observable world includes space, location, etc. It isn't just the meaning of words that are important here, but the logical conclusions drawn from those agreed meanings. The proposition "God does not exist" cannot be dismissed logically especially from the biblical texts themselves. The texts provide all the evidence necessary to prove that God logically and meaningfully can't exist except of course through significance, and significance should never be conflated with what is signified; in this case nothing.

[marco]

Well luckily God is not synonymous with transcendence,

Of course he is. To refer to God as, "there is none besides me"; "incomparable" etc. are synonymous with transcendence.

We are NOT discussing God's being transcendent; of course I can accept God is transcendent. You said God and transcendence are synonymous. Then you illustrate that God is transcendent, as if that were the same as saying God is transcendence.

Transcendence isn't an attribute. You can't attribute anything to transcendence. You can't attribute anything to nothing.

We don't attribute anything to transcendence; we attribute it to God. You are simply confusing the noun God and the noun transcendence. Transcendence is an ASPECT of God's nature, not God.

The biblical authors simply point out that what exists originates from transcendence which they refer to as "God".

They may well be making this mistake but I rather suspect they are saying no such thing. Instead they are saying, in their own simple way, that God transcends the material universe; he is above and beyond things material. I repeat: this does NOT make God synonymous with transcendence.

Not even close to a logical conclusion.

Well if you are using as your axiom that God is an abstract noun synonymous with transcendence then I suppose my correct conclusions will seem somewhat astray. That hardly troubles me.

The texts leave inspiration exclusivly in the hands of the Spirit which is where the word "inspiration" comes from. It is literally "breathed in" so it cannot be "by" a transcendent God, but "by" the spirit. The origin is transcendent which would require the preposition "from".

Yes, inspiration is derived from the Latin verb "spirare" which does indeed mean to breathe. The Spirit may or may not do the breathing. Some say it is the Nine Muses who do this. I have no idea what your final sentence means.

There are no whereabouts for transcendence.

I was referring to God, not transcendence. You are wrongly, and constantly, using God and transcendence as interchangeable. They are not.

[shnarkle]

Well luckily God is not synonymous with transcendence,

Of course he is. To refer to God as, "there is none besides me"; "incomparable" etc. are synonymous with transcendence.

We are NOT discussing God's being transcendent;

We most certainly are, in fact this is precisely why "God does not exist" can be dismissed without evidence. There can be no evidence for transcendence.

of course I can accept God is transcendent. You said God and transcendence are synonymous. Then you illustrate that God is transcendent, as if that were the same as saying God is transcendence.

My bad. Given that one can't actually articulate anything about transcendence, contradictions happen. You're right, to say that God is anything is to contradict the fact that the term is synonymous with transcendence. God isn't anything because God and transcendence are synonymous, and transcendence isn't anything.

Transcendence isn't an attribute. You can't attribute anything to transcendence. You can't attribute anything to nothing.

We don't attribute anything to transcendence; we attribute it to God.

You can attribute anything you want to God, and it doesn't negate the fact that attributes can't stick to transcendence, and the terms "God" and "transcendence" are synonymous terms. You can't attribute anything to transcendence. You can't attribute anything to incomparability. When God transcends existence this is all the more evident in that one can't begin to construct a meaningful sentence beginning with "God is..." because God simply transcends existence. So it makes no sense to say anything other than God is synonymous with transcendence. It's nothing more than a word signifying nothing.

You are simply confusing the noun God and the noun transcendence.

Not confusing; equating.

Transcendence is an ASPECT of God's nature, not God.

God has no nature or aspects. Transcendence has no nature or aspects.

The biblical authors simply point out that what exists originates from transcendence which they refer to as "God".

They may well be making this mistake...

Oh, so you know from whence everything that exists originates? This is how they set up their mythology, and there is nothing mistaken about it. It is logically coherent.

but I rather suspect they are saying no such thing.

Let me alleviate your unfounded suspicions. Here it is:

there is but one God, the Father, OF WHOM all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:6

Paul is clearly distinguishing the means by which everything exists with the origin of what exists. The origin of existence can't exist. That would then create an infinite regression. They solve that problem by pointing out that existence has an origin. John's introduction does effectively the same thing by pointing out that "the word" exists "in the beginning" of everything that exists, and this existence is "with God" which is the origin of existence, and can't exist apart from existence (itself).

Instead they are saying, in their own simple way,

Perhaps a bit too simply for some. Overthinking it isn't necessary.

that God transcends the material universe; he is above and beyond things material.

Except that John's introduction points out that word isn't a thing, and the word's origin is God. So transcendence isn't just beyond the material universe, but beyond existence as well. To say otherwise is to contradict oneself. No one can meaningfully say transcendence isn't transcendent when it comes to existence.

repeat: this does NOT make God synonymous with transcendence.

Right you are, which is why the authors quite cunningly point out that transcendence is the origin of existence, and the origin of existence can't exist. Therefore one can't meaningfully say that God is transcendent. Therefore the terms "God" and "transcendence" must be synonymous. God must be synonymous with transcendence.

Not even close to a logical conclusion.

Well if you are using as your axiom that God is an abstract noun synonymous with transcendence then I suppose my correct conclusions

Your conclusions can't be correct when your premises are not only false, but they simply don't follow.

That hardly troubles me.

Your troubles are none of my concern. I'm only concerned with pointing out your misuse of logic as well as the English language in coming to your conclusions.

The texts leave inspiration exclusivly in the hands of the Spirit which is where the word "inspiration" comes from. It is literally "breathed in" so it cannot be "by" a transcendent God, but "by" the spirit. The origin is transcendent which would require the preposition "from".

Yes, inspiration is derived from the Latin verb "spirare" which does indeed mean to breathe. The Spirit may or may not do the breathing.

Within this context, it can't be anything other than the Spirit doing the breathing.

Some say it is the Nine Muses who do this.

Beside the point. Either way it isn't the author who is doing the breathingt. They are the one's who are being inspired .

I have no idea what your final sentence means.

It is pointing out your incorrect use of prepositions. You used "by" when the proper prepostiion is "from". The preposition "from" denotes origin which is how the biblical authors define their term.

There are no whereabouts for transcendence.

I was referring to God, not transcendence.

You were referring to God as if God exists in some location, and locations can be compared, referenced etc. God can't.

You are wrongly, and constantly, using God and transcendence as interchangeable. They are not.

Says you, and unlike your unsupported assertions, I'm supporting my position with not only logic, but the agreed upon definition and usage of words.

[marco]

I'm only concerned with pointing out your misuse of logic as well as the English language in coming to your conclusions.

I think Matthew 7:3 is relevant here.

It is pointing out your incorrect use of prepositions. You used "by" when the proper prepostiion is "from". The preposition "from" denotes origin which is how the biblical authors define their term.

I am indebted to you for assisting me with prepositions. My statement was this:

"There is also the resource of divine revelation, by whatever means, and millions rely on texts that seem to have been inspired, if not actually dictated, by a transcendent God. "

Revelation comes FROM God and may be done BY various means. (I'm not interested in debating whether revelation comes from the Holy Spirit's Department). God might spread his word BY sending his son; BY an incarnation or BY the use of dreams... I take no lessons in English grammar from biblical authors - I don't think anyone does.

God can't.

Interesting assertion. Your God seems remarkably impotent.

[William]

[Replying to post 47 by shnarkle]

Says you, and unlike your unsupported assertions, I'm supporting my position with not only logic, but the agreed upon definition and usage of words.

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

That appears to be the common understanding.

In a similar way, the analogy that a mathematicians calculations transcends a large number of peoples abilities to understand them.

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.

As I have said elsewhere, my Idea of GOD is that IT is imbued in all things (as consciousness - which implies the 'breath' mentioned) and in relation to this universe, this equates to 'There is no place GOD isn't' and in relation to possible other universe outside of this one, GOD imbues all of those as well, so there is no place anywhere where GOD is absent...thus - 'outside of' and 'transcendent' are synonymous from our point of view as conscious beings within THIS universe in relation to things which may exist without our universe. GOD (as Panentheists understand GOD) is the constant - and in that - is not actually transcendent of anything. It only appears that way to those who are, and we are - at least for now - transcendent of all other realities which might exist outside of this universe.

It is us, not GOD who are really transcendent, if indeed other universes do actually exist.

Your idea of GOD is separated from creation as well as from consciousness within creation. This implies transcendence which is then attempted to be bridged by something called 'spirit' which is apparently 'of' your GOD but separate from your GOD - at least as far as I can tell by what you have been arguing here.

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

Therefore 'transcendent'.

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

[shnarkle]

I'm only concerned with pointing out your misuse of logic as well as the English language in coming to your conclusions.

I think Matthew 7:3 is relevant here.

Yes, and a good proof of the axiom presented by Matthew. How else would I have been able to correct your grammatical error if I hadn't corrected my own? Your gratitude confirms the validity of Matthew's rule.

I am indebted to you for assisting me with prepositions.

Revelation comes FROM God and may be done BY various means. (I'm not interested in debating whether revelation comes from the Holy Spirit's Department).

Neither am I which is why I made the point in the first place.

I take no lessons in English grammar from biblical authors

Right, your getting correction from me, and I think we can both agree that I'm no biblical author, although my superior familiarity with the texts does seem to be a relevant factor.

God can't.

Interesting assertion. Your God seems remarkably impotent.

I never claimed he was my God. Your arguments as well as your irrelevant observations seem to be based almost exclusively on false assumptions.