Well some people believe in a god which somehow transcends how we normally categorise Existence, that's what makes it a god.Prof Bulani wrote: ↑January 12th, 2020, 7:49 amThere is an interesting paradox that occurs when people who claim to believe that God exists are made to logically follow the ramifications of this claim. If the statement "God exists in reality" is true, this necessarily puts God into the category of "things that exist in reality". Being in this category imposes its own limitations, which God-believers immediately become uncomfortable with. And that's the paradox. You cannot define God as something that exists without imposing the limitations of existence upon God. Removing those limitations will automatically remove God from the category of things that exist.
I have never met someone who argues that God exists and is simultaneously comfortable with God being in the category of things that exists. Even the philosophers that famously claimed to prove that God exists (h_k_s will be happy to furnish you with a list of these philosophers) all succumbed to this logical conundrum. The only God worth believing in is one that transcends the limitations of the "things that exist" category. A God that fits into such a category is too basic and unimpressive to live up to the ideal entity believers wish to align with. Therefore, a God exists in reality is always ultimately rejected by those who believe in God, and a God who cannot possibly exist in reality is the only God that believers want to be associated with.
Not only can God not possibly exist from an atheist perspective, God cannot possibly exist even from a theist perspective.
Here's an exercise I invite everybody to participate in. Provide a definition of God. Then let's examine that definition to determine if such a definition allows for God to exist in reality. If such a God can possibly exist, we'll keep that definition. If such a God cannot possibly exist, we'll throw out the definition. Then we should have a good idea of what kind of God can actually exist, and how that definition aligns to the God that believers would like to exist.
Unless you're saying we know that the way we normally/scientifically categorise Existence is full and accurate, then rebutting their claim by saying this doesn't fit with how we normally/scientifically classify what counts as existing doesn't really work.
The real problem for people making such claims is how do they evidence their assertions that they have this special knowledge, which is not available to our usual agreed ways of testing claims.
At that point you can start picking apart their position, if you want, if it's evidence or reason based. If it's faith-based, or based in personal 'revelation', that's a personal thing, not really open to philosophical discussion.