Dear Razor,

I explained that I do not worship evidence and in reply you wrote:
«Another misconception. Evidence (Oxford): "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."»

And this, in your view, is a valid reason to worship it?

I collect neither propositions nor Pokémons. Religion is about coming closer to God, not about asserting beliefs and propositions.

Now I have no idea why you addressed the following to me:
«Evidence captures all means of knowing whether a deity such as God exists, or in fact knowing anything.»

1. I just wrote (to Spencer, top of page 22) that I disagree with the conception of God as a deity.
2. I have explained before why "God exists" is a logical contradiction.
3. I didn't speak about wanting to know anything.

«The only way you're going to know something is by the available facts or information pertaining to it.»

Perhaps, but God is not a something.

«This challenge I give: Any means by which you claim to know the existence of God counts as evidence.»

Look, existence is your cup of tea - not mine. You already demonstrated your own prejudice and narrow-minded addiction to it when writing to Spencer, «No point trusting anything that doesn't exist».

<<<<And this, in your view, is a valid reason to worship it?>>>>
nope, your projection.

<<<<<Religion is about coming closer to God, not about asserting beliefs and propositions>>>>

Relies on God existing. I don't care what mystical, evidence resistant, non-real world, invisible, non-existent notion of God you have. If there is not entity such as God then you're talking about nothing. IF God is epistemologically equivalent to things that don't exists then there's no point in trusting in it.

If you want to define belief in God as trust in God then you still have to wrangle with the question of what is God.

<<<<<I have explained before why "God exists" is a logical contradiction.>>>>>

Not, that I've seen.

Before seeking to redefine the views of others it'd be advisable to develop a coherent theory of your own.

It seems like you are seeking to define God as somehow outside of the bounds of existence. That's incoherent.

Dear Razor,

I have been offering my views on OLO for many years now, especially about God and religion.

«If there is not entity such as God then you're talking about nothing.»

Indeed, I am not talking about a thing. Things come and go, things are affected by time, things change as they interact with each other, but you cannot say the same about God. You cannot for example even say that "He is the creator of this world", because then, He would have been modified by that action from being a potential-creator to being an actual-creator.

It would be foolish of me to attempt to define God as my betters for 1000's of years have already explained why this is not possible. They did however explain that one, especially intellectually-oriented people, can approach God by a process of elimination, looking at different objects in turn, contemplating them, then discarding them saying "Nay, God is not this", "Nay, God is not that". You may learn more about this process here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti

Sure Yuyutsu

I'm familiar with the "not this" and "not that" process of elimination.

That's great.

But they end up with a something, not a nothing. Some say its the Absolute.

No matter what form of woo-woo you invoke, you cannot claim that nothing actually amounts to something while remaining nothing.

RationalRazor,

Yuyutsu will happily speak about his god as though it exists, while simultaneously claiming that it doesn't exist so that you cannot get a toehold on what he's talking about.

His tactic is designed to frustrate you with responses like, "But God is not a thing", "But God is not a concept", "But God is not a God", so that you cannot get to the next logical step in your argument, and he doesn't have to think.

Dear Razor,

«But they end up with a something, not a nothing. Some say its the Absolute.»

The word 'with' implies duality - as if they and God, the Absolute, were ever different. In turn, that would render both themselves and God as things because only things can be different from each other.

Though the process cannot truly be adequately described, it can be better described as subtraction rather than addition and it is more accurate to say that they end up WITHOUT something(s) - without their impurities. One is still who they were, one is still what they were, one "has" nothing new, but now one has shed their excess baggage, one has let go of feeling as if they were what they are not, one is now free because they no longer hold that burden.

«No matter what form of woo-woo you invoke, you cannot claim that nothing actually amounts to something while remaining nothing.»

We have reached the limit of language here. Language can only describe things, but while you can realise through the process of elimination that you are not a thing, does not-being-a-thing mean that you are in fact, nothing? While one can deny that they are this-or-that, no matter what evidence, proofs, punishments or rewards you are presented with, could you ever deny that you are? False notions about yourself can and should be eliminated, but your true self is not a thing and cannot be eliminated - you are God, the Absolute.