The Christian Flimflam
“Asking for empirical evidence for God is like asking for geological evidence for math. It’s a nonsensical category error.” ~Christian (See comments.)
Christian adeptness for bullshitting is profound and disturbing. I discussed how Christians hijacked philosophy in the past, but this point cannot be stressed enough due to their philosophical flimflam that fulfills their secondary purpose of convincing nonbelievers.
Secondary, you say? What could be more important than converting nonbelievers?
Maintaining the herd.
The more literate Christians realize the difficulty of converting people with their asinine arguments and concentrate on shooting down sound arguments or “reality” to keep the flock from straying too far into critical thought. Want proof? Read the comment again and consider what this “philosopher” tries to pass off as a meaningful.
The Christian “philosopher,” like all Christians, must dismiss any criticism via philosophy, as in this case, by arguing the category fallacy caused by my assumption that something as “immaterial” as God would have testable evidence. His argument assumes “God is not subject to empirical evidence and that it makes no sense to apply empirical testing standards to God.” Conveniently, the most effective means of proving a thing’s plausibility cannot be used to prove the Christian God.
That is bullshit!
Consider what is said:
You cannot apply empirical or factual evidence to God.
Of course, you can and should expect empirical evidence since that is how rational creatures operate. Christian philosophers argue this point by claiming God exists outside of the material world and cannot be tested by science. Yet they still want you to believe, so they begin arguing from the point of possibility — where Christians must always argue. You can see this line of BS unfolding with the immediate introduction of Cosmological arguments as proof since these implausible theories are the only evidence for Christianity’s possibility.
If your head is swimming in boredom, I understand, so let’s return to the purpose of his argument. Arguing against factual evidence proves nothing except that he has a poorly constructed, derivative claim, ultimately leading to the noncontingent God or first mover argument. The more likely purpose is to show Christians there exists no need for facts or proof, so they can just accept what they already believed since he has “disproved” my argument by claiming empirical evidence does not apply to God.
The argument keeps Christians satisfied by flimflamming them with fallacies to deny the right to ask for evidence. This tactic works because Christians are already biased and need only the most ludicrous of proof to maintain that belief. All over the internet, Christian metaphysicians deliberately shoot from the hip pithy, jargon-filled responses aimed at critics because the “philosophers” know this tactic works.
Why? Because they know their fellow Christian’s illiteracy and lack of critical thought.
You can argue this was not the intention of the “Christian philosopher,” and perhaps it wasn’t in this case, but what a coincidence his comment forms the same modus operandi of the Christian fraudsters. They never prove anything about their God, never argue with facts or practicality, never cite empirical evidence, and never pass up the opportunity to voice some uncompelling or absurd argument. All that matters is satisfying their fellow ignorant Christians and keeping the herd together.
Deliberately-placed self-confirming arguments fill YouTube and social media for Christians to discover. Many famous people help herd the Christians to Christ, even if they have not entirely admitted they are Christians. Here is one of those arguments now, told by the supposed genius Jordan Peterson:
You can’t know God, and so, can you know something exists that you can’t understand? And the answer is, well, then maybe that is why you only see God’s back in some real sense, right? You get hints, and maybe you get hints if you open yourself up in the right way. ~Jordan Peterson
The Best Argument for the Existence of God - Jordan Peterson
We cannot know God so we should believe in God in order to get the proof so we can have meaning since the only way to have meaning is by believing in the divine. Makes perfect sense, Jordan! You wowed the Christians once again!
Here, Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein discuss the nature and value of truth. Notice how the conversation of truth manifests possibilities and value based on metaphysical ideas, metaphors, and how these compare with literal truth. Think about what they say.
Hint: Notice how quick Weinstein says he would never lie about porcupines throwing needles after claiming it is literally false yet metaphorically true and by heeding the falsehood we come out ahead.
The fact that Christian “philosophers” and others share this MO of arguing nonsense when trying to convince people of possibilities, like God instead of plausible realities, clarifies how little they think of their fellow Christians. They just assume Christians are complete idiots who will believe anything.
Sadly, they are correct.
