Something about all true arguements

Something about all true arguements, and not just arguements which dont prove or satisfy any claims(even arguements for god's existence) is that they must ultimately provide a precise demonstration about all the terms in it to prove anything.This is true since if that is not done, then for any part of the arguement which leaves an inspecific part(which happens anytime one makes assumptions, the only replacement for precise demonstration), there is simply not enough information to determine whether or not such an assumption is true.It is possible to make an allusion to rules and information pertaining to an assumption which are known to be correct, but this is not avoiding a precise demonstration, since a precise demonstration for making those rules themselves was required.Or, precise demonstration were required to make the rules and information which were required to make such rules.So, all arguements must ultimately rely on precise demonstration.This is why God must, in his characteristics, be made into a precise demonstration before anyone can take the idea of his existence seriously.All arguements about God have always been based on assumptions which are completely pseudo-scientific and non-verifiable. This is why the idea of an existing god cannot be taken seriously for now.Can anyone provide a precise demonstration explaining God?Keep in mind that if you cant, "God" is no more believable than the Easter bunny for the reasons described above.Edited by TheNaturalist, : its obvious

I am finished now;and, I wasnt exactly saying its important to "define terms"; I actually meant that one has to demonstrate an exact, earthly measurable system for anything (including God) in order for it to be viable.Therefore, unless "God" is 1. directly or indirectly observable or 2. demonstratable by principle in combination with an indirect observation (such as string particles a.k.a. photons), there is NO reason to even consider the possibility of it's existence.

Yes, but not only that; (by the way I know it might not seem clear what I mean since I am using ideas constructed by me)I am also saying that all the (even minute) steps and factors of any system (like considering every small part of two car engines to consider an arguement about which one is more efficient, or every enzymatic process and hormone interaction etc. in an organelle in order to make an arguement about what it is capable of) MUST be understood and put into a framework in which they interact (no matter how complicated it is) in order for that arguement to be viable.I wouldnt say anyone has ever given any such demonstration of how "God" works or even how such a god could theoretically work. They only make claims (that are entirely unsupported and are completely unviable by my above definitions) about how "God" does work or how "God" could work.Such claims cant be taken any more seriously than claiming that a car is more energy-efficient than another without anyone knowing everything (or anything) about how it's engine works, or anyone ever seeing it being driven, or that an organelle is capable of recognizing flaws in our genetics and solving them without causing tumorous mutations, without anyone knowing anything about how the organelle works, or anyone ever observing it.

(To the last post) well, Id say that one could argue that 2+2=5, though it is actually 4. I know that your definition of "statement" would be applied by you to this, but I define "argument" as any information which is supposed to illicit a reality.A second thing is this: if a "true" arguement is defined as criteria which is relevant to a statement (which is what was implied, no doubt) then it could be that someone could use a "true arguement" about something in mathematics, and have it apply to a statement which is correct. However, this doesnt apply to the "real world" since it is an issue of abstraction.

quote:

---

When Newton developed his theory of gravity, he never came up with any explanation of how gravity works. And this was, like you in this post, a criticism that many at the time laid against his theory: he merely postulated that gravity did exist, and that gravity had certain observable effects, and that we should be able to see real life bodies behave as if affected by the postulated gravitational forces.

​

I see no reason why God cannot be investigated in the same way (other than it may be blasphemous to put God under scientific scrutiny, of course). One can postulated that God exists, and one can may hypotheses about how God will interact with human beings and the material universe. One can then investigate whether the expected effects are seen.

---

The difference is: "God" is not regularly observed and has never been known to have been observed by a reasonable source. We call all see and observe gravity directly;however, we 1. dont know exactly what "God" is (since everyone defines "God" differently) which is related to 2. people dont actually know that "God" exists unlike gravity(we see it happen every second of our lives).Simple as that

quote:

---

That seems to be the controversy. Christians, for example, claim to regularly observe God. Christians, especially evangelical Christians, claim that the Bible is a reasonable source that describes the actions of God. You might decide that any source with which you disagree is not "reasonable", but the fact is that we have observations that may or may not be indicative of the existence of God. You can dismiss them because you've already concluded that such a God doesn't exist, if that's what you want, but any discussion of the existence of God, like the existence of any other entity or phenomenon, is going to have to discuss the reliability of the sources, not just dismissing the sources a priori as unreliable.

---

They claim to regularly see "God's" effects on reality by their deduction, not direct observation; or, they claim to have "contact" with "God". The latter is only a satisfaction to their claims; they make themselves think they "talk" to "God" but in reality know (although they are fooling themselves) that they are talking to nothing. It's a sort of self-hypnosisEdited by TheNaturalist, : No reason given.