If one claims there is no evidence for God's existence, and that evidence includes the reasonable assumption, and God's claim. How did one come to that conclusion?
Your "reasonable assumption" is reasonable IF God exists.
A further reasonable assumption exists: IF God does not exist, everything is evidence that God does not need to exist.
Without knowing whether God exists or not, one can not say whether everything is evidence for God or for God not needing to exist.
Hence it is not considered evidence in support of God.
Then you accuse me of secretly thinking God is illogical. Fair enough.
Not secretly.
You have openly stated as much when you said that God has an illogical nature.
Then, as thought, you do not understand what "necessarily" means when used in questions of logic.
Nor do I think you have a particularly good grasp of what is logical or not.
That God does exist is already established through experience and literature.
No.
It is not.
It is a claim that many have but it is simply not established.
To default to the alternative 'God simply does not exist' adds nothing to the enquiry. Plus if it is true we will eventually come to that conclusion.
Your continual inconsistency is laughable:
First you claim that God does exist, and now you leave open the option that it is not in your future conditional proposition.
Not your call to make.
If we wish to properly conclude that there is no evidence for God, transcendence is the most important aspect of His being (fiction or non) from our perspective.
Once again you show you do not understand logic.
Definition does not make something necessary.
If a scenario can logically exist where that definition is not even required (e.g. the scenario where God has never existed) then it is not necessary that God is transcendental.
It might be necessary that if God exists then he is transcendental.
But this is logically different to the necessity of God being transcendental, which begs the question of God's existence.
More importantly, I want to know if their claims of 'no evidence' includes the notion of transcendence.
If yes can they explain what evidence of transcendence should be (as they claim they have no evidence). I'm not claiming that they should not state that they have no evidence.
If their view is similar to mine then they don't need to explain it, they just merely need to be unaware of it.
Category error. You're asking me to provide scientific evidence for something that science cannot conclude true or false.
Transcendentalism is not a thing that you can pop in and out existence as a party piece. You have to understand what it is, and how it works (fiction/non).
I asked you for evidence, not scientific evidence.
It is thus not a category error unless you want to claim that against your own strawman.
Call them out without accusing me of being liar, or quit with the baseless accusations.
They have called you out, but I don't see anyone accusing you of being a liar.
Dishonest, maybe.
But not liar.
You undoubtedly believe what you say, no matter how illogical others might find your arguments.
I don't think you value experience (that's how it came across).
Experience is a practical matter that can inform.
So yes, it has immense value.
But I consider it to be the intellect that educates beyond mere reflex.
And a logical foundation for that conclusion. Instead of having none, or shying away from explaining it.
Which is as valid as any other valid argument from the same premises, or that reaches the same conclusion.
So how do you decide to believe in the valid argument that concludes God exists and the valid argument that concludes God does not.
That is simply a matter of wording. Why would I believe that God's nature is illogical? And doesn't the notion of God's nature seeming illogical fit with what I'm saying? What is the point of the reasonable assumption, if not to draw logical conclusions from?
To the first: saying "yes" and meaning "no" is "simply a matter of wording".
To the second: I don't know - but I go by what you write, as that is how we are communicating.
To the third: No.
I have explained how the "seeming illogical" should be dealt with.
Unless it can be shown to be logical...
The seemingly illogical nature of God. Get over it.
Then please be more accurate in what you type.
Your posts are riddled with such inconsistencies that it is simply easier to point them out to you and force you to correct yourself, (which you don't do but rather apply a smudge) rather than try to second guess what you might actually mean.
If anything it is not God's seemingly illogical nature we have to contend with but your actual illogical nature.
The reasonable assumption stands independently of belief.
My belief is not that everything is evidence of God, but that if God exists, then it is reasonable to assume that. If I believed that everything was evidence of God, without reason, there would be no need for me to evoke the reasonable assumption, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. If you look through any of my posts, you'll see that I've only ever used the reasonable assumption to highlight to make the assumption.
What you've used it for is actually irrelevant to the point that was made.
You do believe in God.
Therefore you believe it reasonable to believe that everything is evidence of God.
And presuming you are reasonable, you thus believe it.
The point being made by Sarkus, if I understood correctly, was that you are inconsistent when you turn round and say that you didn't say what can be logically inferred from what you have typed.
It is this lack of grasp of following through what your own words logically imply that makes you inconsistent.
That makes your posts an incoherent mess.
So because I accept it, it has no value on its own regardless of belief status?
On its own it is conditional.
It only has value if that condition is sound, or as part of an investigation into that conditional scenario.
If the condition is not sound, it has no value.
Well no, others haven't explained it adequately.
You may as well say God doesn't exist. It's more honest.
It would be dishonest as it does not fit what I claim or believe.
No.
But I don't know no what ''what you are not aware of'' is, plus I haven't claimed that I'm not aware of ''what you (or I) are not aware of''.
It is a logical truth that we are not aware of what we are not aware of.
Noone needs to claim it for it to be true.
You claim there is no awareness of evidence of God, you also claim that this ''non awareness of evidence'' can also explain the non existence of God.
I claim that
I have no awareness, not that there is no awareness.
Others certainly claim to have awareness but I am not aware of the soundness of their claims.
I also don't think this lack of awareness on my part can also explain the non existence of God, nor am I sure how you inferred that, but given your continued display of ignorance regarding logic I am no longer surprised at what you infer from what people say.
So you could if you weren't hiding, explain what ''evidence'' would be for you to become aware of it. Now obviously you're going to cling to this non existence thing, to avoid explanation.
No.
I could not explain what "evidence" would be for me.
You have agreed that there is no scientific evidence.
You have not as yet provided anything else for consideration.
Being in love does not exist?
Define love.
You really would go through that? I don't think you or anyone would, without good reason. It's irrelevant. It would be more productive to go to a sociopath to get their view, than for someone who has experience of being in love, to try to explain being in love doesn't exist.
Where have I said that love doesn't exist?
Again, where have you dragged this apparent inferrence from?
I can't. It has to be experienced.
Many can define love, starting with the fact that it is an emotion, and going on to define the effects of the emotion.
It doesn't have to be experienced.
Could also be a fault with your own mind.
It could be.
Now how would you go about showing that?
You could start by showing how the plethora of claims are incorrect?
The thing is, the scientific method isn't your primary tool.
Can you scientifically demonstrate that you are not aware of any evidence for God, by scientifically demonstrating the reasons for concluding no evidence?
Can you scientifically demonstrate that what you regard as evidence for both existence and non existence of God, actually does correspond to both (so called) premises.
To the first: No, that is why I say "I don't know".
To the second: logic does that.
If God exists, everything is evidence of God's existence.
If God does not exist, everything can not be evidence of God's existence.
Everything that exists can therefore not lead to a conclusion of God's existence any more than it can lead to a conclusion of God's non-existence.
So, Baldee is an atheist.
Agnostic, with a large side of practical atheism.
How can God not exist, if God exists? That would be a good question for all you competing theory peeps to mull over.
That is just God's illogic nature at work, by not existing.
I keep telling you that God doesn't defy logic, but He seemingly defies logic.
Deal with it.
Then explain how what seems to be illogical is actually logical.
And stop with the comments that logically lead to you claiming God defies logic.
You might say one thing now but you have a tendency to say the complete opposite only moments later.