For me to say that the argument is reasonable, it would have to rest on a more accurate account of what evil is. — Terrapin Station

this is an aside - this is just the same old - lets argue about definitions and not the concept in question. Very very tiresome and unproductive. Especially on a board like this where we don't do pages of argument. Both you and I and most anyone else has a good enough and consistent enough common understanding of evil to argue the concept in the well worn AFE. We use the word truth here all the time - you can take a 2 semester course on the meaning of the word truth. If your objective is just to never constructively answer anything - these definition arguments are a winning tactic -

end of aside

this is an aside - this is just the same old - lets argue about definitions and not the concept in question. Very very tiresome and unproductive. — Rank Amateur

But it's not "just about definitions." It's a matter of what we're claiming to be the case ontologically. The argument as it stands wouldn't make much sense if we're talking about subjective assessments that individuals make.

It's primarily an empirical matter. There's a complete lack of empirical evidence for it. — Terrapin Station

Lack of empirical evidence is a reasonable argument that God is not. It does not elevate the proposition God is not to the level of fact.

But it's not "just about definitions." It's a matter of what we're claiming to be the case ontologically. The argument as it stands wouldn't make much sense if we're talking about subjective assessments that individuals make. — Terrapin Station

your point is just where exactly on the good - evil continuum you want to draw the line - meaningless. If memory serves, statement in the AFE is - Evil exists - would you say evil ( however you wish to define it) does not exist ?

Lack of empirical evidence is a reasonable argument that God is not. It does not elevate the proposition God is not to the level of fact. — Rank Amateur

Facts are states of affairs. It's a state of affairs that there's no God, just like it's a state of affairs that there are no cigar-smoking rabbits floating around in Jupiter's atmosphere.

would you say evil ( however you wish to define it) does not exist ? — Rank Amateur

It doesn't exist as something objective. It's only a judgment that individuals make when they make that judgment. (Not everyone does.)

back to the original argument - I challenge your objection to P3 - due to lack of empirical evidence in support of P3.

There was not empirical evidence about bacteria until there was.
There was not empirical evidence for atoms until there was.

Lack of empirical evidence is a claim of reason - not of fact.

Again, it's both the lack of evidence for it and the incoherence of it. Basically, it's just ridiculous nonsense. You don't reserve judgment on ridiculous nonsense for anything else (like the cigar-smoking rabbits in Jupiter's atmosphere, and that isn't even incoherent)

Basically, it's just ridiculous nonsense. — Terrapin Station

un basically - that is again - just opinion - which is fine - but one can not defeat a proposition in an argument simply because it is your opinion it is wrong. Make an argument, or allow it.

You don't reserve judgment on ridiculous nonsense for anything else (like the cigar-smoking rabbits in Jupiter's atmosphere, and that isn't even incoherent) — Terrapin Station

The arguments for theism demonstrate the existence of a transcendent, and so timeless and immaterial, God; not simply a creature residing somewhere in the universe.

so using YOUR own understanding of MATTER OF FACT - you cant say either God is or is not a matter of fact ?? — Rank Amateur

No, I would just say that it's either a fact that God is, or it's a fact that God is not. And the issue as a whole, i.e. whether or not God exists, is a matter of fact, meaning a factual matter, or a matter pertaining to what's the case, or about the current state of affairs, which are just different ways of saying the same thing.

How's that? Are you with me? I don't understand why you're not understanding.

un basically - that is again - just opinion - which is fine - but one can not defeat a proposition in an argument simply because it is your opinion it is wrong. Make an argument, or allow it. — Rank Amateur

Because it's incoherent. The only way to defeat that is to attempt to make it coherent.

The arguments for theism demonstrate the existence of a transcendent, and so timeless and immaterial, God; — AJJ

They don't demonstrate something incoherent.

How can a society be based on subjective meaning?
— Andrew4Handel

Well it's either based on that or what seems to be nothing other than a fiction. Much of society is based on fiction actually. — S

If society is based on consensuses I wouldn't call that subjective meaning or entirely fiction.

I would agree society is based on fictions but I don't think the people that makes societies believe this.

It is hard to justify values and ideologies that are fictions.

No, I would just say that it's either a fact that God is, or it's a fact that God is not. And the issue as a whole, i.e. whether or not God exists, is a matter of fact, meaning a factual matter, or a matter pertaining to what's the case, or about the current state of affairs, which are just different ways of saying the same thing.

I agree 100 % - now useing your words if you say -

" I would just say that it's either a fact that God is, or it's a fact that God is not. "
if both possibilities exist - that is exactly the same thing as saying
it is not a fact that god is or it is not a fact that god is
which are my propositions — S

Because it's incoherent. The only way to defeat that is to attempt to make it coherent. — Terrapin Station

you just continue to make declarative statements without support. I understand what you think about the matter - but your opinion is not an argument -

No. Impossible to imagine with our Euclidean minds, but not incoherent.

A thing is or a thing is not is a matter of fact.
A thing is a matter of fact.
A thing is not a matter of fact.

In the first proposition, the subject is, “a thing is or a thing is not”, and the predicate is “a matter of fact”.
In the second and third propositions, the subject is “a thing”, and the predicate is “a matter of fact”.

What’s the big deal?

agree completely

How does "coherent but impossible to imagine" make sense?

you just continue to make declarative statements without support. — Rank Amateur

So you're getting much more restrictive on reasons here. What are the criteria for support in your view?

what view are you talking about ??

If society is based on consensuses I wouldn't call that subjective meaning or entirely fiction. — Andrew4Handel

Hey! Do you mind? We're trying to talk about God here? :lol:

Anyway, a consensus is intersubjective. And I wasn't calling that fictional. I was calling objective meaning fictional, or like a fiction.

I would agree society is based on fictions but I don't think the people that makes societies believe this. — Andrew4Handel

Oh yes, I agree. There are situations where we treat fiction as though it were real, and situations where we mistakenly believe that something fictional is something real.

What are the criteria for support in your view? — Terrapin Station

if your talking about my argument - not sure how much clearer it could be they a labeled as propositions.

You just said "you just continue to make declarative statements without support" (And I quoted that in my comment above.)

So apparently we don't agree on what counts as "support." Hence I'm asking you what your criteria for support are. What would be the requirements for me supporting a declarative statement I'm making in your view?

It’s impossible to imagine an infinity of something, but that doesn’t make the concept of infinity incoherent.

It’s impossible to imagine an infinity of something, but that doesn’t make the concept of infinity incoherent. — AJJ

So you're not saying "impossible to imagine" a la "impossible to make sense" of something then. I was using "incoherent" as "can't make sense of," and you substituted "impossible to imagine" for the term.

So would you say you can make sense of nonphysical existents or something "transcending" time?

What would be the requirements for me supporting a declarative statement I'm making? — Terrapin Station

to recap
you challenge P3 - due to lack of empirical evidence
I challenge that lack of empirical evidence does not elevate to fact
you challenge back - it is ridiculous nonsense ( without support)
I ask for support
you come back with it is incoherent - without support
I ask for support
you ask me what is support

not sure what exactly is so hard about saying I dont agree because - - - - -

you just keep leaving off the because part

it is ridiculous nonsense because - - - - -
it is incoherent because - - - - -

without the because it is just opinion -

A thing is or a thing is not is a matter of fact.
A thing is a matter of fact.
A thing is not a matter of fact.

In the first proposition, the subject is, “a thing is or a thing is not”, and the predicate is “a matter of fact”.
In the second and third propositions, the subject is “a thing”, and the predicate is “a matter of fact”.

What’s the big deal? — Mww

I'm not disputing what counts as a subject and what counts as a predicate there. I'm just saying that, based on how I use those terms, deviations from that usage appear to me to be a category error.

A fish is a mammal.

In this proposition, the subject is, "a fish" , and the predicate is, "a mammal".

What's the big deal?

I challenge that lack of empirical evidence does not elevate to fact — Rank Amateur

But then I explained that facts are not something "elevated." Facts are states of affairs, and the state of affairs that's apparent in the world is that there is no God.

You didn't respond to this. So what's your response to it?

I can make sense of something having no beginning and no end, or being able to experience all of time as a whole, rather than from moment to moment; but of course I can’t imagine what that would be like. Perhaps there are logical reasons why you couldn’t have either, akin to why you can’t have a square circle, but I’m not currently aware of any.