Re: ATHEISTS .... explain
Okay, I'll bite.
No, they're based on subjective qualities. Kind of like calling somebody "good". The criteria for verifiability only applies to reoccurring natural phenomena. Why does God fall in that category? In any case, the original question stands. Verifiability seems like a cop-out.
So I understand you can claim anything and everything based on faith only.
LOL...and what universal, verifiable principle states that this is a question you don't need to answer? Non-existence being unknowable requires validation, in any case...at least by your own standards...
No in this case the validation is not required, how can you validate "nothing". Anything which "is" requires validation. Otherwise how would you know that it "exists".
No...not really. Incapability precludes the possibility for there ever being evidence. Again, this is something vastly different than, say, gravity or optics.
Incapability/Inability is different from person to person. Why do we think that it is impossible to understand or know God if it exists. All religions say that its impossible and this is the end of any investigation/questions into the matter. Why and what is the theological standpoint beyond scriptures for God being unknowable.
Sounds like a matter of faith to me...
Yes it is a matter of faith. I have no say in it, if you want to believe in limited unverifyable knowledge.
And to all your 'unverifiable' responses, nor are they refutable.
Fair enough, then its not confirmed as well. Its 50/50 chance. I am ready to say I have 50% chance of being wrong. Are you ready to say the same.
Verfication makes sense only when there's a common vocabulary, or conceptual common ground to work with. Theology can't be expressed in any logical system, so asking for verification falls into the realm of the absurd. Again, it's a cop-out...an excuse not to think out of the box.
Comon yaar, all the theological systems show some kind of validation as their proof of being the only true religion. Based on that if I ask the same question it goes under "absurd". From my point of view this is a cop out.
End users see the manual...with little to no concern for design. Want to find the design, feel free to reverse engineer...
That was just an example. Lets go back to the old convesation, if you meant that the words in all the known languages are not capable descibing God, then how do you know you got it right onthe first place.
And what natural phenom. does 2+2=4 approximate? Think more along hte lines of Newton's formulation for gravitation. It is at some level wrong, but it's good enough to get as around the solar system.
We were talking about langauge barriers or incapability of languages. In that context the example is acceptable.