This came up on my recommended and I, as a longtime fan of Swinburne’s work and assuming that this is an old video, thought “How could I have missed this?” I was thrilled to see that it was posted just one day ago! Thank you!
I don't really hold to the idea of generic theism but I can understand it as a means of distinction between different religions, I've just seen so much reductionists take it too far but to answer your question, Christians by in large the Orthodox and Catholic churches don't hold to the idea that logic is why one should be a Christian, it's called faith for a reason, here's a quote from Aquinas and Palamas on this respectively Aquinas in the Summa Theologica: "Reason prepares the way for faith, providing certain preambles to it, such as the existence of God. But faith itself rests upon divine revelation, which surpasses human reason." (ST II-II, Q.2, A.9) Palamas, in The Triads: "The knowledge of God is not reached by the path of reason and wisdom, but by faith, purity, and union with God through prayer." So basically repentance and believing in the Gospel beings you revelation to God's existence, we aren't a "reason" based religion and I put reason in quotes because people tend to clip me on that and run with it
@@jeremyarcus-goldberg9543 Personally, I find these arguments plausible because of my belief in a God rather than the other way around. Then there's a little bit of a feedback loop where these arguments bolster my belief in a God as miracles are the type of thing one can plausibly accept under theism, but the groundwork for me personally to lend credence to these arguments to begin with is definitely laid in my theism rather than in historical arguments for a miracle.
"We do not know if a supernatural power exist" What do you mean by this? "We know for sure he wants to remain anonymous if he exists." Then help me understand how we don't know if God exists but we somehow know that he wants to remain anonymous if he does, how can these both be the case?
I think its typically said that free will is about free conscious agents learning and growing and not being stagnant - seeing effects and growing from those evils that are chosen …basically usually the answer to why does God allow for agents choosing evil or good....virtue ethics.
I'd be interested to see a theist philosopher who actually does defend the PSR and the necessity of God reply to Kershnar's case. While Swinburne is a brilliant philosopher, it doesn't seem that he really has the views that Kershnar's arguments target.
even though it didn’t affect the debate, the moderator shouldn’t make those biased comments in favor of swinburne imo great debate so far though I wanna say major props for setting this up and hosting, super enjoying it. Thanks for doing this
even if a god is believed in . How do you personalize and perform meaningless rituals to appease for which he would be totally disinterested in I suspect.Amen
Your question is kinda all over the place I can't even tell if it's an internal critique or an external one But I'll try my best to answer it anyway For one the assumption that the rituals are meaningless is just inserted in there for who knows what reason but I obviously object, these rituals find their telos in God. God doesn't get appeased he's immutable which entails that he's impassable basically, God's not losing sleep if you and I forget to say grace before a meal, nothing we do affects him. And lastly, God doesn't have interests for the same reason I listed above, God's not like you and I, having desires, hopes, dreams etc he's wholly independent including his actions in relation to the created order, to put it colloquially he literally couldn't be bothered
My first half hour into this discussion: how philosophizing can obscure simple ideas. Arguments depending on arguments and more arguments to make the point. Im not going to believe that before a simpler explanation that dont depend on little arguments conjoined to make a big one, while overlooking the weight of the counter explanation.
@@chottstuff that would be cool :P. Almost like a microcosm of the question of whether God created the universe :P. Did a bot do this? Or a human? I speculate that it was a human who just doesn't understand the concept of spamming, as being the simpler and more plausible explanation
@@tryme3969 atheist here, maybe i can help. I believe that the ten commandments exist, but I see no reason to assume God wrote them. Every religion claims that God wrote their rules in some way, and yet, it always seems like men telling us what God says, rather than an actual God speaking for itself.
@@Nexus-jg7ev I've honestly never even heard the claim. Personally, since I don't believe God exists, I don't really have any stance on where his commandments are written lol.
Remember if there's a master of ceremony likewise there are principalities who deceiveth exalted themselves above sitteth in high places unseen nor seen calls themselves MASTERS CAPITAL "I".
There's a reason to come as a little child "i" doesn't matter how old you are! Why? Visitations knows commands? All CAPITAL "I"! Will fall like lightning!
Not even religious but this reasoning is horrible. In quantum mechanics, scientists are still trying to figure out what's really going on. Are you saying that just because there's debate there we should conclude that the entire project of quantum physics is bunk? And theists would regard the existence of God as really obvious once you think deeper about the world. Whether they are wrong is another matter. But it's intellectually lazy for you to say "I disagree and because I disagree you must be wrong." Maybe you're pointing to divine hiddenness, and saying that if God existed, he'd be more obvious. Well this is an argument against the existence of God that I think has a lot of weight, but the theists have their own responses. And you can't just beg the question as to whether you are right. Imagine if this reasoning was applied to any other thing. The Holocaust? Some crazy idiots(and not a small number) think that it never happened. Should we therefore say "the fact that were having to discuss whether it happened should give us a pretty big hint." And many, many, many atheistic philosophers would vehemently disagree with you, because they actually have intellectual integrity.
@@randomworkings3600 a key difference is that the earth is not supposed to be a benevolent being that wants to make itself known to us. God is hiding harder than the Earth's shape. Which is fine, but he better not be punishing people for not acknowledging him, when he clearly doesn't want to be found lol
After listening for 13 minutes, I find Swinburne's position very unsatisfying. Because the approach he is outlining is the same approach that has been implemented for thousands of years of human history, and has been consistently wrong. It is not enough to have a hypothesis H that makes E more probable, and not-H that makes E less probable, and for H to be simple, and for H to fit with background evidence. All 4 of those criteria could be applied to the decision to explain storms in ancient times to Neptune (the god). Or the Sun rising and setting to Ra. And any other number of unexplained phenomena to Gods. Time and time again, we have seen that science explains all of these phenomena without need of a God, and not because the science is simple - in many cases, the science is actually quite complicated. Plate tectonics is not obvious or simple compared to an angry God that shakes the ground. But it is, nevertheless, true. And the reason why is because we have clear evidence for it. This is what is missing. Evidence. The time for expecting that the world should fit with our imagined picture of what it should be, that it should fit with our current reasoning and limited knowledge, has been over ever since the enlightenment. That is why philosophy is no longer used to determine what is true; we appeal to evidence instead. And no matter what the theory is, it always comes down to whether evidence can validate it. So just appealing to these 4 criteria is clearly insufficient. We have seen throughout history how it has failed thousands of times. Why should we expect it to work this time, under even more mysterious circumstances, in a context that we can scarcely comprehend (the origin of our universe?). It just seems fantastically arrogant to think that if this approach didn’t work in much simpler cases near and on Earth, that it will be even more effective on much grander and more difficult questions. Also his analogy completely misses this point. He thinks that determining whether God created the universe is like a detective determining if John stole money from a safe. It is not, for the simple reason that the detective has clear and abundant material evidence to support his hypothesis. With God, we have nothing. None of the purported claims about how God created the universe are testable, and they are far from obvious. And this is ignoring the huge assumption he makes about how God is the simpler explanation to begin with. To have an infinitely powerful mind that can create reality at will, of course sounds easy to say - but its ridiculous to suggest that whether a concept sounds simple in your head, is equivalent to whether it is simple in reality. A train is simple as a concept, but it is made up of many very complex pieces. How complex must God’s mind be, and how must it be constructed, for it to be able to generate universes from outside of spacetime? This is “simple” to Swinburne? And yet human brains are considered unbelievably complex to neuroscientists? To me it is one in a long list of absurdities
"That is why philosophy is no longer used to determine what is true. We appeal to evidence instead." And what is your evidence that this philosophical claim is true? If you interpret philosophy according to evidence, rather than interpret evidence according to philosophy, like literally everybody else, what is your starting evidence from which you draw your philosophy that leads you to make such a counter intuitive claim? To put it a different way, why is philosophy of science a thing you can get a degree in, but science of philosophy not only doesn't exist in academia, but seems to be an incoherent concept.
@@harlowcj I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am not saying that we test philosophical concepts based on evidence. I don't even know how that would work. How are we going to test the principle of sufficient reason through evidence-based science? The whole point of, especially the kind of philosophy being discussed in this video is that it is purely abstract and logic driven - it doesn't use evidence to reach a conclusion. Rather it follows the format of a syllogism, in which a series of premises leads to a conclusion through reasoned argument, and those premises are sourced either from evidence or from intuition or common sense. I am saying that we should determine what exists in reality based on evidence, and that includes God. And that determining what is true solely based on philosophical arguments - especially ones like "simplicity" or "improved conceptual probability of being true" are not sufficient grounds to determine what is true, which is basically Swinburne's position. Maybe what confused you was taking my statement too literally that philosophy is "no longer used to determine what is true". Philosophy can of course still be used to determine conceptual truths and logical truths. It is a powerful tool to help us reason correctly about what his logically valid and not. But overwhelmingly, when you are talking about what is true about our reality - whether trees exist, whether stars exist, what the laws of physics are, how we interact with the world - those things are properly the domain of science because philosophy is not sufficient on its own to determine these things. It must appeal to evidence or some testable framework to achieve the certainty that is required. God being part of the world, also requires science in order to understand and validate the existence of properly.
As ye remember once thy shared "i" Am once born, to crawling, to walking, and till now! Our shared Feet resting upon the very tip of time in front of....?
@@Nexus-jg7ev The long answer is an honest exchange between a first person claiming that a particular god exists and a second person who starts with no position whatsoever asking probing questions to see if the first person can convince him of the existence of his god. It requires a lot of questions relating to the power, knowledge, and disposition of the god that the first person claims to exist.
@conceptualemilio We will never know if a god exists because the existence of a god is an undemonstrated (hence possibly false) and unverifiable (hence not falsifiable) claim. In other words, the very qualities of a god (as defined by most theists) make it impossible to know whether a god exists. Back to you. Do you think we will ever know if a god exists?
@conceptualemilio I use dictionary definitions for verifiable and demonstrated. I use the same criteria as I'd use in the lab to verify or demonstrate that cells from a biopsy are cancerous, for example. Interesting that you would say you have theistic assumptions and presuppositions. When you start with a null position, i.e., not believing one way or another, these "assumptions and presuppositions" are claims you need to prove before we can move forward. It's like telling me that 1+1=2 is true because it's obvious. You do now that there actually is a proof that 1+1=2, don't you? Similarly, you need to prove to me that your theistic assumptions and presuppositions are true before we can even get started with your arguments for the existence of your god.
Remember can't come who sitteth upon the clouds resting upon the New permanent foundation open door. Not unless ye come as these little child "i" will no mean enter in.
Unto all the RENOWNED given time to attend unto my VINEYARDS resting upon my Footstool. Yes, HIS shared "i" Am Hosts Meeks little New minds resting upon Noone can steal! Where your treasures is( my little New minds Sons and daughters) there your hearts will be also!
Instantly saw everyone in the background and knew it was gonna be good
If you saw Adelstein in the background and did anything other than chuckle then you're a baka, sorry.
Beloved! Is like...why even greet my shared "i" Am Beloved? What evidence ye all looking for?
@@DreamlessSleepwalkerto invite come concerning the grammatical errors!
Is like who among ye all deserved to reveal concerning "NEW"?
Here and after will say, who among?;
This came up on my recommended and I, as a longtime fan of Swinburne’s work and assuming that this is an old video, thought “How could I have missed this?” I was thrilled to see that it was posted just one day ago! Thank you!
Thanks for sharing this not only are the speakers great but the panel asking questions is full of all stars!! Loved it!
This is awesome!! Thank you so much for hosting this :)
A high level of discussion. It would be interesting to find out if any theists believe in God because of these arguments or these are post hoc.
I don't really hold to the idea of generic theism but I can understand it as a means of distinction between different religions, I've just seen so much reductionists take it too far but to answer your question, Christians by in large the Orthodox and Catholic churches don't hold to the idea that logic is why one should be a Christian, it's called faith for a reason, here's a quote from Aquinas and Palamas on this respectively
Aquinas in the Summa Theologica:
"Reason prepares the way for faith, providing certain preambles to it, such as the existence of God. But faith itself rests upon divine revelation, which surpasses human reason." (ST II-II, Q.2, A.9)
Palamas, in The Triads:
"The knowledge of God is not reached by the path of reason and wisdom, but by faith, purity, and union with God through prayer."
So basically repentance and believing in the Gospel beings you revelation to God's existence, we aren't a "reason" based religion and I put reason in quotes because people tend to clip me on that and run with it
@@jeremyarcus-goldberg9543 Personally, I find these arguments plausible because of my belief in a God rather than the other way around. Then there's a little bit of a feedback loop where these arguments bolster my belief in a God as miracles are the type of thing one can plausibly accept under theism, but the groundwork for me personally to lend credence to these arguments to begin with is definitely laid in my theism rather than in historical arguments for a miracle.
we do not know if a supernatural power exist,, we know for sure he wants to remain anonymous if he exists.Amen
"We do not know if a supernatural power exist"
What do you mean by this?
"We know for sure he wants to remain anonymous if he exists."
Then help me understand how we don't know if God exists but we somehow know that he wants to remain anonymous if he does, how can these both be the case?
I don’t think Kershnar has thought much about psychophysical harmony or moral knowledge arguments
both arguments are trash
I think its typically said that free will is about free conscious agents learning and growing and not being stagnant - seeing effects and growing from those evils that are chosen …basically usually the answer to why does God allow for agents choosing evil or good....virtue ethics.
I'd be interested to see a theist philosopher who actually does defend the PSR and the necessity of God reply to Kershnar's case. While Swinburne is a brilliant philosopher, it doesn't seem that he really has the views that Kershnar's arguments target.
even though it didn’t affect the debate, the moderator shouldn’t make those biased comments in favor of swinburne imo
great debate so far though I wanna say major props for setting this up and hosting, super enjoying it. Thanks for doing this
@@joshuagrover9162 noted!
@ thanks haha, love the content tho bro I went to your channel and literally put all of your videos on my watch later lol
@ anytime! Thanks for the feedback :)
By the way this was an excellent debate!!
Thanks!!
`Awesome discussion.
even if a god is believed in . How do you personalize and perform meaningless rituals to appease for which he would be totally disinterested in I suspect.Amen
Your question is kinda all over the place I can't even tell if it's an internal critique or an external one
But I'll try my best to answer it anyway
For one the assumption that the rituals are meaningless is just inserted in there for who knows what reason but I obviously object, these rituals find their telos in God.
God doesn't get appeased he's immutable which entails that he's impassable basically, God's not losing sleep if you and I forget to say grace before a meal, nothing we do affects him.
And lastly, God doesn't have interests for the same reason I listed above, God's not like you and I, having desires, hopes, dreams etc he's wholly independent including his actions in relation to the created order, to put it colloquially he literally couldn't be bothered
My first half hour into this discussion: how philosophizing can obscure simple ideas. Arguments depending on arguments and more arguments to make the point. Im not going to believe that before a simpler explanation that dont depend on little arguments conjoined to make a big one, while overlooking the weight of the counter explanation.
You made no argument and just attempted to appeal to a weird occamist pragmatist position.
@@randomworkings3600 I think he’s saying his bullshit detector went off
It's a privilege indeed to have sincere conversations?
Have overwhelming thee? Beloved gentle and lowly at heart thy FRIEND KIND OF LOVE.
Is this just a random theology generator bot?
@@chottstuff that would be cool :P. Almost like a microcosm of the question of whether God created the universe :P. Did a bot do this? Or a human? I speculate that it was a human who just doesn't understand the concept of spamming, as being the simpler and more plausible explanation
Do atheists really believe that they're living in this world without God's commandments written anywhere?
Could you explain your question a bit because I'm not sure I quite understand it?
@Nexus-jg7ev Atheists believe (so they claim) that God's commandments are not written anywhere.
@@tryme3969 atheist here, maybe i can help. I believe that the ten commandments exist, but I see no reason to assume God wrote them.
Every religion claims that God wrote their rules in some way, and yet, it always seems like men telling us what God says, rather than an actual God speaking for itself.
@tryme3969 So, what's the problem with this claim?
@@Nexus-jg7ev I've honestly never even heard the claim.
Personally, since I don't believe God exists, I don't really have any stance on where his commandments are written lol.
Beloved many GODS OF MEN ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN DEMISE AND UNDERSTANDING. YES, the little LAD "i" sitteth! While looking at all the shared "Am".
Why the 3rd command is so vital?
For the same reasons the other one's are
Unto all who have an ear let them hear! Specially unto all the elite. Life shared Life will end.
Shared "i" Am come forth my Name.
What is the 1st and 2nd commands if Naught in front to GLORIFY?
Where else conversations can take place?:
Remember if there's a master of ceremony likewise there are principalities who deceiveth exalted themselves above sitteth in high places unseen nor seen calls themselves MASTERS CAPITAL "I".
Students will say, LORD if came to amend! Students shared "i" Am bring forth will amend then will not ?
3 commands resting upon GRACE!
Likewise with an aim Noone can pluck away!
Mileage from thy feet is recognize!
What is a clumps of cells?
Why say? Lord without rest! Why? Do not know Thy REST! GRATITUDE AND HONOR
Instead of to be separated!
Here and after who can go through the eye of the needle?
The RICHEST MAN will say, is hard for a rich man to go through the eye of the needle, but remember unto the "i" with HIS "AM"! GOD is possible!
Of time all thy shared feet resting upon in front!
Shared "i" Am come forth!
Reflection will say, come outside! Look ABOVE!
Indeed!
Nor why look for evidence? Beloved can't even recognize one another in front of EACH OTHER?
Time to know HIM? Like came with increased in knowledge!
Nevertheless will become liken unto this REBELLIOUS HOUSE?
Some will say, what is wrong unto a little child "i" longing to learn?
There's a reason to come as a little child "i" doesn't matter how old you are! Why? Visitations knows commands? All CAPITAL "I"! Will fall like lightning!
Why aims unto one another?
This poor woman have GIVEN MORE!
Nevertheless, ye are in front to someone else going towards? Now, remember look at thy shared Feet resting upon before to aim.
The fact that we're having to discuss whether it exists is a pretty big hint.
Not even religious but this reasoning is horrible. In quantum mechanics, scientists are still trying to figure out what's really going on. Are you saying that just because there's debate there we should conclude that the entire project of quantum physics is bunk? And theists would regard the existence of God as really obvious once you think deeper about the world. Whether they are wrong is another matter. But it's intellectually lazy for you to say "I disagree and because I disagree you must be wrong." Maybe you're pointing to divine hiddenness, and saying that if God existed, he'd be more obvious. Well this is an argument against the existence of God that I think has a lot of weight, but the theists have their own responses. And you can't just beg the question as to whether you are right. Imagine if this reasoning was applied to any other thing. The Holocaust? Some crazy idiots(and not a small number) think that it never happened. Should we therefore say "the fact that were having to discuss whether it happened should give us a pretty big hint." And many, many, many atheistic philosophers would vehemently disagree with you, because they actually have intellectual integrity.
@conceptualemilio entertain me. Do tell!
@conceptualemilio are you implying things need some sort of God to be self evident?
Just trying to follow what you're saying here.
Just like when we were discussing whether a spherical earth and the Big Bang were true, right? Anything we discuss must be false.
@@randomworkings3600
a key difference is that the earth is not supposed to be a benevolent being that wants to make itself known to us.
God is hiding harder than the Earth's shape.
Which is fine, but he better not be punishing people for not acknowledging him, when he clearly doesn't want to be found lol
Who among can touch the roof?
Offsprings preserve running towards the Roaring LION! To be COMFORTED
After listening for 13 minutes, I find Swinburne's position very unsatisfying. Because the approach he is outlining is the same approach that has been implemented for thousands of years of human history, and has been consistently wrong. It is not enough to have a hypothesis H that makes E more probable, and not-H that makes E less probable, and for H to be simple, and for H to fit with background evidence. All 4 of those criteria could be applied to the decision to explain storms in ancient times to Neptune (the god). Or the Sun rising and setting to Ra. And any other number of unexplained phenomena to Gods. Time and time again, we have seen that science explains all of these phenomena without need of a God, and not because the science is simple - in many cases, the science is actually quite complicated. Plate tectonics is not obvious or simple compared to an angry God that shakes the ground. But it is, nevertheless, true. And the reason why is because we have clear evidence for it.
This is what is missing. Evidence. The time for expecting that the world should fit with our imagined picture of what it should be, that it should fit with our current reasoning and limited knowledge, has been over ever since the enlightenment. That is why philosophy is no longer used to determine what is true; we appeal to evidence instead. And no matter what the theory is, it always comes down to whether evidence can validate it. So just appealing to these 4 criteria is clearly insufficient. We have seen throughout history how it has failed thousands of times. Why should we expect it to work this time, under even more mysterious circumstances, in a context that we can scarcely comprehend (the origin of our universe?). It just seems fantastically arrogant to think that if this approach didn’t work in much simpler cases near and on Earth, that it will be even more effective on much grander and more difficult questions.
Also his analogy completely misses this point. He thinks that determining whether God created the universe is like a detective determining if John stole money from a safe. It is not, for the simple reason that the detective has clear and abundant material evidence to support his hypothesis. With God, we have nothing. None of the purported claims about how God created the universe are testable, and they are far from obvious. And this is ignoring the huge assumption he makes about how God is the simpler explanation to begin with. To have an infinitely powerful mind that can create reality at will, of course sounds easy to say - but its ridiculous to suggest that whether a concept sounds simple in your head, is equivalent to whether it is simple in reality. A train is simple as a concept, but it is made up of many very complex pieces. How complex must God’s mind be, and how must it be constructed, for it to be able to generate universes from outside of spacetime? This is “simple” to Swinburne? And yet human brains are considered unbelievably complex to neuroscientists? To me it is one in a long list of absurdities
"That is why philosophy is no longer used to determine what is true. We appeal to evidence instead."
And what is your evidence that this philosophical claim is true?
If you interpret philosophy according to evidence, rather than interpret evidence according to philosophy, like literally everybody else, what is your starting evidence from which you draw your philosophy that leads you to make such a counter intuitive claim?
To put it a different way, why is philosophy of science a thing you can get a degree in, but science of philosophy not only doesn't exist in academia, but seems to be an incoherent concept.
@@harlowcj I think you are misunderstanding my position. I am not saying that we test philosophical concepts based on evidence. I don't even know how that would work. How are we going to test the principle of sufficient reason through evidence-based science? The whole point of, especially the kind of philosophy being discussed in this video is that it is purely abstract and logic driven - it doesn't use evidence to reach a conclusion. Rather it follows the format of a syllogism, in which a series of premises leads to a conclusion through reasoned argument, and those premises are sourced either from evidence or from intuition or common sense.
I am saying that we should determine what exists in reality based on evidence, and that includes God. And that determining what is true solely based on philosophical arguments - especially ones like "simplicity" or "improved conceptual probability of being true" are not sufficient grounds to determine what is true, which is basically Swinburne's position.
Maybe what confused you was taking my statement too literally that philosophy is "no longer used to determine what is true". Philosophy can of course still be used to determine conceptual truths and logical truths. It is a powerful tool to help us reason correctly about what his logically valid and not. But overwhelmingly, when you are talking about what is true about our reality - whether trees exist, whether stars exist, what the laws of physics are, how we interact with the world - those things are properly the domain of science because philosophy is not sufficient on its own to determine these things. It must appeal to evidence or some testable framework to achieve the certainty that is required. God being part of the world, also requires science in order to understand and validate the existence of properly.
@radscorpion8 Real question. Do you think that God is a thing made out of stuff, like a guy in the clouds?
imagine taking up the time to write all that, and end up sounding like an idiot.
This is not Richard Swinburne's argument at all. So cringe
Name do ye exist in front?
Did I miss something? Swinburne immediately excuses theism from being consistent with observed reality 🫡
As ye remember once thy shared "i" Am once born, to crawling, to walking, and till now! Our shared Feet resting upon the very tip of time in front of....?
What is explanation? Is like...are YE in front?
Is like who among ye all will invite?
Who can wake thee up?
Students what is a privilege?
Swindler is such a insufferable, pretentious bore, the only reason he is even famous is because he is the best religion can offer.
Why little "i" first?
Instead can open new aims look Noone can touch the roof of HIS HEAD!
Great riches nor wealth looking at the "EYE OF THE NEEDLE"!
Why recognize the mileage from thy feet? Remember all thy Hosts Meeks are commanded!
Nevertheless the pressures of life through the wilderness came from the Fall. To make used from becoming NOTHINGNESS!
Short answer: we will never know if a god exists.
However, it has already been demonstrated that the Christian God is impossible.
What's the long answer?
@@Nexus-jg7ev The long answer is an honest exchange between a first person claiming that a particular god exists and a second person who starts with no position whatsoever asking probing questions to see if the first person can convince him of the existence of his god. It requires a lot of questions relating to the power, knowledge, and disposition of the god that the first person claims to exist.
@conceptualemilio We will never know if a god exists because the existence of a god is an undemonstrated (hence possibly false) and unverifiable (hence not falsifiable) claim. In other words, the very qualities of a god (as defined by most theists) make it impossible to know whether a god exists.
Back to you. Do you think we will ever know if a god exists?
@conceptualemilio I use dictionary definitions for verifiable and demonstrated. I use the same criteria as I'd use in the lab to verify or demonstrate that cells from a biopsy are cancerous, for example.
Interesting that you would say you have theistic assumptions and presuppositions. When you start with a null position, i.e., not believing one way or another, these "assumptions and presuppositions" are claims you need to prove before we can move forward. It's like telling me that 1+1=2 is true because it's obvious. You do now that there actually is a proof that 1+1=2, don't you? Similarly, you need to prove to me that your theistic assumptions and presuppositions are true before we can even get started with your arguments for the existence of your god.
Could you explain what your source of truth is to make that statement?
So ye may know?
All the LAWS unseen nor seen come here in front and remind! Lord ye are the CHILD "i" of Thy "AM" of THE LIVING GOD ALMIGHTY!
Remember can't come who sitteth upon the clouds resting upon the New permanent foundation open door. Not unless ye come as these little child "i" will no mean enter in.
Very tip
Exploiting shared "i" Am Hosts Meeks do not take lightly! Might not seems like it! But remember
Will ye flinch if to washed my shared Feet to be given new Feet?
Yet, shook
Unto all the RENOWNED given time to attend unto my VINEYARDS resting upon my Footstool. Yes, HIS shared "i" Am Hosts Meeks little New minds resting upon Noone can steal! Where your treasures is( my little New minds Sons and daughters) there your hearts will be also!
Shared "i" Am come forth!