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

There's no such word as "skematic". If you meant "schematic" then you're misusing the term. If you meant "schema", then I don't think it clearly communicates what you're trying to say.I think most people would agree with you that clearly defining terms is important, but just as important is using terms in a manner consistent with their meanings.Except for the odd terminology this is a good opening post. If you can modify Message 1 (click the edit button) to fix the terminology I'll give it another look. Post a note here when you're done.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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.

When you were using the word "skematic" I was free to read into it whatever made sense to me. Now that you're using the word "demonstration" I'm unable to get a clear picture of what you're saying. Are you trying to say that claims should be supported with evidence?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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.

Okay, thanks, I think I have a pretty good picture of what you're trying to say, so I'll go ahead and promote this.To those responding in this thread: Please be sure to read Message 5, as I believe it contains the most clear exposition of TheNaturalist's position.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread copied to the Something about all true arguements thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.