It doesn't matter.,
If one claims there is no evidence of God, then all claims of God (fiction/non fiction, maybe this escaped your attention), one presumes, is the staple diet of that claim.
True: if there is no evidence of God then there can logically be no evidence that claims attributed to him do actually come from God.
And it could have come from God, to which you claim there is no evidence of.
Now I ask again, does your ''no evidence'' claim include the claim of the reasonable assumption, or God's claim?
It's a simple question, please respond to it, so we can clear this up.
First, let me clarify: by saying that there is "no evidence" I mean that I am not aware of evidence that only supports one notion rather than competing and mutually exclusive notions.
So if the evidence I am aware of supports the notion of God existing as well as the notion of God not existing, I do not consider it as evidence for either notion.
I hope that is clear enough for you.
There is no special pleading going on, it is simply Sarkus jumping the gun.
He has nothing to offer, so he O.D's on fallacy accusations.
Don't tell me you're going to do the same.
But there is special pleading going on.
By you.
You have stated that you have to use logic differently when discussing God.
This is special pleading.
As for Sarkus' penchant for pointing out fallacious arguments, that is between you and him.
But might I suggest that if you do not want him to highlight them that you refrain from committing them?
I'm sorry man, but that's a load of tosh!
I so admire the eloquence of your rebuttal.
Show me the illogic.
Show me the ''special pleading''?
You committed the fallacy of special pleading when you required us to use logic differently when discussing God.
Logic is logic.
There is no different usage, other than to accept fallacious logic (aka illogic).
Why should our discussions of God be immune from adherence to logic?
If the only way you can argue for the use of logic differently is to use logic differently then you're backing a loser from the outset.
And what about Sarkus's, and most atheists that argue ''no evidence'', category error fallacy?
Shall I bring that up every time you claim no evidence?
If you claim category error then the onus is on you to show how it is indeed a category error.
Merely claiming it to be does not make it so.
Clearly any argument you make to support your claim of category error will be subject to the same issues as you currently face.
Since you can not prove that it is a category error but merely repeat your claim that it is, the fallacy you would accuse others of is as likely to be yours.
If two people think a door opens different ways, until the door is actually opened (i.e. proven) it is difficult to say who is right and who is wrong.
So rather than being a category error, as you claim, it merely seems to be a fundamental difference between what you would class as evidence and what others do.
Okay let's start from the beginning. I said, in so many words; in the case of finding evidence for God, one needs to use logic differently, or, one needs to be aware of what may seem to be illogical, based upon one's own understanding, so that one can comprehend what is being told.
Now, I would like you to point out the special pleading, if that's okay with you.
Being aware of what may seem to be illogical is not the same as using logic differently.
Using logic differently is still special pleading.
If you actually intend the "or..." to be by way of explanation of what you meant, then it might be easier and clearer to just tell people to ignore what was originally said, that it was wrong, and that what you meant was...
As for the clarification itself:
Being aware of what might seem illogical, unless it can be shown to actually be logical, will be understood as illogical.
And thus unlikely to be comprehended.
And even if you progress with the argument in spite of the illogic, the illogic will (or at least should) prevent the conclusion from being taken seriously.
At some point you do have to show how what was considered illogical is in fact logical.
Seen by who? People who have no idea, or reasonable accounts, or explanations of why they believe there is no evidence for God. By people who's very intellectual position regard the existence of God, has it's headquarters in the land called ''Logical Infallacia''.
Please! LOL!
You can try to argue ad hominem if you so wish, but the fallacies identified of you have mostly, it seems, been explained.
If you don't like certain people pointing them out, perhaps you should not commit them?
Or else only discuss things with people who are happy to talk illogically.
Okay, so does ''logic'' explain one person being in innumerable places at the same time, each version as potent as what we would call the original person?
And while you're at it, can you explain how you come to the conclusion that there is no evidence for God.
For the first: it can do.
You just need to set up premises that allow that to be a logical conclusion.
The issue will undoubtedly be when you try and demonstrate the soundness of those premises.
For the second: I personally don't come to that conclusion.
As clarified above: I am merely not aware of anything I would consider evidence for God that does not equally support the scenario of there being no God.
You claim, there is no evidence of God, Right?
No.
I claim I am not aware of anything I would consider evidence for God that does not equally support the scenario of there being no God.
I presume, based on your statements, that this claim has a sound logical basis to it.
What is the basis of the your logic, of God, God's claims, and God's abilities, attributes, regarding your no evidence claim?
I would hope a valid logical basis, yes.
Soundness I can not say.
Hence I am agnostic.
God defies what we know as logic, I've given you a couple of examples.
He does?
You have?
So you
are special pleading?
You want us to accept that God defies logic but nothing else can: special pleading.
If we just throw our arms up, and claim this is nonsense because it defies logic, then we ar no nearer to finding evidence of God.
Maybe there is no God to find evidence of?
What you should be doing, if coming across an interpretation of an observation that can only be reached illogically from the premises given is to reassess the premises such that valid logic can give rise to the conclusion sought.
Alternatively we revisit our interpretation of that observation such that it fits the premises.
What we should not do is build "illogical nature" into the premise.
As soon as we do that everything goes out of the window and you can claim what you want, when you want, about anything you want.
As soon as you claim God's nature is one of illogic then nothing has any meaning regarding God.
Now if someone claims that there IS no evidence of God, is their claim based on this, or are there logical steps which they can provide upon request? If you have logically concluded that there is no evidence for God, then did that logic include the illogical nature of God, or was that part omitted. If it did, then please provide the logical explanation. If it was omitted, then please give an explanation of why it was omitted, then proceed to explain why you chose a particular definition of God, why you conclude there is no evidence.
You'd have to ask someone who has concluded that there IS no evidence of God.
I hope I have clarified my position on the matter at the top of this post.
In summary, however, all I can see here, Jan Ardena, is a convoluted mess of an argument on your part, criticising people for calling you out on logical fallacies and then admitting that you have to use them because of "the illogical nature of God".
I only posted initially because of what I saw was an abomination of thought with regard the use of logic.
Not because I want to discuss my own position on the matter, which is where I think you wish to draw it.
Your most recent post merely exacerbated that view.
And nothing is likely to make further discussion with you meaningful.
But hopefully here everyone can see the paucity of your argument laid open and shown for what it is:
"I can be illogical in my arguments because God's nature is illogical."