"Which god/s?" All or none exist; therefore, none exist.

Nonsense "can't possibly be known to be false" or true and tends to be nothing but nonsense.

I'm inside your solipsism. — hope

My solipsism informs that your statement is not true. Because for a statement to be true, it must have happened in reality. It has not happened in reality, therefore it is false.

Real belief in God is a matter of consciousness not intellect. Intellectual knowledge is only one kind of knowledge. More sublime levels of knowledge can come from consciousness (what some people call 'delusion').
I engage in intellectual arguments because that is the only arena that most materialists are willing to enter. Also to hopefully arrive at the realization that intellectual arguments will not resolve anything either way.
I don't think most people believe/disbelieve because their intellect leads them that conclusion. Belief and disbelief operate on a more subtle level. Intellectual arguments are post hoc; an apology for one's standpoint.

Real belief in God is a matter of consciousness not intellect. Intellectual knowledge is only one kind of knowledge. More sublime levels of knowledge can come from consciousness (what some people call 'delusion').
I engage in intellectual arguments because that is the only arena that most materialists are willing to enter. Also to hopefully arrive at the realization that intellectual arguments will not resolve anything either way.
I don't think most people believe/disbelieve because their intellect leads them that conclusion. Belief and disbelief operate on a more subtle level. Intellectual arguments are post hoc; an apology for one's standpoint. — EnPassant

Agreed :up: :100:

Because for a statement to be true, it must have happened in reality. — Corvus

True statement can happen anywhere. Superman can say 1+1=2 and even though he doesn't exist that statement is still true.

I believe in God … I used to be atheist then went through personal experiences which left me in awe …simple as that. I do not try to convert though …each to their own

True statement can happen anywhere. Superman can say 1+1=2 and even though he doesn't exist that statement is still true. — hope

Statements need verification to be true.
Existence is the precondition for thoughts and actions.
No existence, then no thoughts and no actions.

I believe in God … I used to be atheist then went through personal experiences which left me in awe …simple as that. I do not try to convert though …each to their own — Deus

Sure. Religious faith is a personal system arrived by personal intuition, insights and beliefs. No logic to prove anything is required.

I'm not sure what you mean. Nonsense is just another word for something that is untrue, and God could possibly know if something deemed "nonsense" is true.

There actually is a God, though.

'Nonsense' denotes an expression without any sense – like babytalk and jabberwocky, glossolalia and pseudo-science – which is neither true nor false, or not even false.

There actually is a God, though.

So you all say.

Nonsense to you could be meaningful statements, proposition or belief to others.

like babytalk and jabberwocky, glossolalia and pseudo-science — 180 Proof

Pseudo-science is a fully established formal concept in Philosophy of Science.

:ok: Yep. One person's turd is another coprophagic's lunch.

Another non-point ... bored, huh?

I reject the expression. Not really relevant.

Yep. One person's turd is another coprophagic's lunch. — 180 Proof

That sounds like a babytalk.

Sounds like but isn't.

If you desperately want the explanation based on psychoanalysis, it is an attempt to hide the ignorance with crude juvenile proverbs.

Nonsense exists or it doesn't...

Category error.

The idea that nonsense can't possibly be known to be false or true is itself nonsense.

All language, even baby talk, refers to some state of affairs.

But that's irrelevant, as the existence of nonsense would still be known to be true or false.

In other words, all things that exist are facts and true by mere way of having existed. Even falsehoods are not false, if by false one means "having not existed."

Words don't carry such weight that they can create non-realities.

Objectively speaking, the details are irrelevant.

Everything that exists is real and therefore true.

There is a major difference between words being accurate and words being true.

All language, even baby talk, refers to some state of affairs. — theRiddler

:roll:

When the posters suddenly change the subject in the middle of discussing on the points or topics, or make emotional or unclear statements or utterances with jokes, cliches or rhetoric or proverbs, they are then subjected to psychological or psychoanalytic readings on their intentions, presuppositions or  mental states, which might work for or against the discussions and the poster.  If they were all under the agreement on their points and emotionally aware of the situation under the engagement, it will be positive, but otherwise it is likely to go negative in reaching the constructive conclusions from the discussions.

  Because usually statements or utterances like that do not carry relevant succinct or logical meanings, and do not present useful communicational messages to the other parties.  Even silence can be interpreted as symbolism for either accepting the other posters suggestions or conclusions, or just abandoning the discussion with no comments or disgust.  It all depends on the contextual stream of the discourses.

For instance, if you wrote "Nonsense, babytalk" then you must back up that utterance with clear and solid logical argument, why you came to that conclusion which drove you to make the utterance.
Not doing so, will leave the others to embark on their psychological investigation and analysis on the utterance, and come up with any judgment they think might be the case. Not a good position the utterer to be in. Same with the silence or all category of emotion ridden no factual statements. If that is what the utterer, poster or silencer intended, then fair enough.

For instance, if you wrote "Nonsense, babytalk" then you must back up that utterance ... [blah blah blah] — Corvus

Res ipsa loquitur. (Context matters for reading comprehension.)

What are you rolling your eyes at, dude? What I said is absolutely accurate. Even if it's just the state of affairs that the baby is mimicking someone's speech.

No one has ever verbalized anything that has no context whatsoever. Except maybe Nixon.

Which is totally irrelevant anyway, as I'm speaking of truth in terms of things that exist, and falsehoods in terms of things that don't.

Nonsense, even on your terms, can't create false realities, or false positives.

:lol: