I really like it when Noam Chomsky called Hitchens and co., “Religious Fanatics.” Look at the youtube of the Four Horsemen, Hitchens, Dawkins and two other atheists. They stumble when they get to noumenon, “perennial philosophy.” 
There is a step I deliberately left out because of the religious overtones,
What is the self?
If I define the self as merely a construct like the chair, how do I explain sensory experience of purely self-defining phenomena?
I hope that makes sense to you. I agree the argument is not connected at precisely this spot.
There are really two questions regarding the existence of God:[ol]
[li]Does God exist by some convention agreed upon or not?[/li][li]Does God ultimately exist?[/li][/ol]
There’s also “Why should anyone believe in such blatant wish fulfillment nonsense?”
Because that’s all it is. There’s no evidence for any god, much less a “Big G” God which is really just the Christian god with the serial numbers filed off. It’s blatantly something people made up to fulfill their fantasies, and nothing more. For adults to actually believe such nonsense is just as laughable as for them to still believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
No there are not.
There’s only question number 2, “does God exist?”
Something’s existence is not dependant on what concepts or views any outside agent has of it. Let alone whether there is agreement on the matter.
Whether we call a “chair” a chair or a chaise or a Stuhl or a penguin, the object is still there, regardless of what concept we have of it.
Yes, a falling tree makes “noise” (displacement of air) whether or not there is an ear to register the waves.
(I am rereading the Patrick O’Brian Aubrey–Maturin series and will answer metaphorically from that perspective). Your Boat has sunk! We have towed the PolyChrest as far we were able, but had to cut her loose, and she sunk. You did not make the transfer. Here is a PFD, consider existence and non-existence.
Consider leaving metaphors to those that understand their proper use and just answering the question.
Gibberish.
Noumena are as interesting as qualia, and about as useful. i.e. not at all. Damn that Plato, he sticks around like herpes.
The point I was attempting to make with number 1 is it is very difficult to prove either existence or non-existence of God by some form of logical argument. and becomes a waste of time. The point of “chairness” is there is no external quality that imbues one entity over another if both are equivalent in form and function.
Right. So, in the absence of any evidence or indication that an entity called “God” exists, there is no reason to accept the unsubstantiated claims that there is a god.
Which is neither here nor there.
There is an analogy that might be relevant to you.
No chairness means no essence of chair,
no essence of self means no soul.
It does not prove the non-existence of God, but it does hand him a pink slip.
No, your entire post is just meaningless gibberish. Logically incoherent and mostly speaking of things that don’t even exist. There’s no such thing as an “essence” any more than there are souls or gods. Nor does the self have anything to do with the soul even if the soul existed. Nor does the existence of souls or the lack of them have much relevance to whether or not gods exists or have functions if they exist.
Gibberish onion.
Layers!! It has layers..
As does the city dump.
The dump makes sense and is actually useful, though.
Point taken.
Actually it’s trivial, for most precise definitions of “God”. Of course, pinning the theists down on that definition is the hard part. But that’s OK, too.
I don’t think I understand… I won’t cry “gibberish,” but, um, maybe you can clarify?
For my part, I think I agree. There is no “soulness” of any idea, no Platonic ideal. There is no “ideal chair” from which all real chairs are only shadows.
(I’ll go with the “fuzzy set” idea. The set of all chairs has a very fuzzy boundary. An ordinary living room or dining room chair is near the center of the set. Avant-garde experimental minimalist or surrealist sculpture “chairs” are way out toward the boundary, where one can argue that they might not actually be “in” the set at all.)
And, yes, I would agree that if one rejects the idea of Platonic Ideals, one puts the notion of God in some peril. Much of Christianity depends on defining God as “perfect” in certain ways, and if we don’t accept “perfection” as meaningful, we would have to question that definition of God.
eta: “sorry” for “using” so many “quote marks.”