Empirical Evidence of God

[Xelasnave.1947]

You have to back that with sometheing.

Why? Why should I even bother to think about any claim that is unsupported and prima facie suggest delussional thinking on the part of the proponent.

Your attempt to crawl out from under your burden of proof fails and demonstrates a clear dishonesty in arguement.
You know it I know it and all who read your words have before them evidence of a dishonest attempt to avoid supporting your unfounded claims that there exists a mythical entity that although made up you now suggest is somehow real.
The burden is with you and the default position remains that there is no god until evidence can demonstrate otherwise.

Any evidence yet, no...default no god.

Perhaps the question that could be asked is why do you believe the scriptures are not made up given it has been demonstrated that is the case.

You must have accepted my proposition that they are made up or we would have heard a strong protest from you and as we have heard nothing, and in your favour you have a lot of that to offer, it seems you now accept those undeniable facts.

I suppose another question could be is why do folk hang onto this notion of a god when there is absolutely no support for the notion...
Jan why do you hang onto this notion of God?
Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

There are two positions atheist, and theist.

Logical fallacy: False dichotomy.

It is as false as:
There are two positions: UFO-believers and a-UFOists.
There are two positions: magic-believers and a-magicists.l

People who just go about their lives do not get forced into a position simply because a buncha other dudes have a belief.


I don't post this for Jan's sake, because he is beyond reach. I post this for the benefit of followers of this thread.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Logical fallacy: False dichotomy.

It is as false as:
There are two positions: UFO-believers and a-UFOists.
There are two positions: magic-believers and a-magicists.l

People who just go about their lives do not get forced into a position simply because a buncha other dudes have a belief.


I don't post this for Jan's sake, because he is beyond reach. I post this for the benefit of followers of this thread.

I sometimes think Jan understands more than he lets on...well he must surely...if not he is indeed fortunate that we can guide him to enlightement.

I think he is here trying to build courage to escape whatever cult group has him mentally imprisoned.

Jan must realise he cant take his claim past the default position so maybe that is why he is engaged in a perpetual crab walk to avoid facing the reality that folk can not just make up stuff and proclaim their fantasy is real without thinkers presenting a red flag and shooting down their fairey tale universe.

Maybe he has minders who force him to make unsupported claims and approach his arguements in a less than honest manner.

I think Jan may be just another victim the way he is stuck in the same old rutt.

I often think Jan is an atheist trying to paint theists as circular thinkers who will employ dishonest arguement to shore up their unsupported claims.

Still I find it all entertaining light hearted fun about superstitious humans and their bronze age cute ways of decribing the world back then.. .but in the modern era..its like finding a tribe who has never had contact with civilized humans... it is just so quaint.
Alex

 

[Sarkus]

Logical fallacy: False dichotomy.

It is as false as:
There are two positions: UFO-believers and a-UFOists.
There are two positions: magic-believers and a-magicists.l

People who just go about their lives do not get forced into a position simply because a buncha other dudes have a belief.


I don't post this for Jan's sake, because he is beyond reach. I post this for the benefit of followers of this thread.

I think it depends on how you view the a- position. If it is simply someone/anyone who does not hold the belief in whatever it is (magic, alien visitations etc) then anyone who has not even considered the position would presumably be among the a-.
Personally I think the a- position needs at least to be a considered position. I don't consider a newly born baby to be an atheist or theist, simply because it lacks the cognition to comprehend what God / god(s) refers to, and is unable to form an opinion. So in that regard I think you're right, but as far as those who have considered the position, I think the digital position is correct - you either hold the position or you don't.
If, however, you hold the a- position to be "I believe it doesn't exist" type of "strong" position, then sure, it is a false dichotomy, as the "weak" versions are left out.

 

[Bowser]

Logical fallacy: False dichotomy.

It is as false as:
There are two positions: UFO-believers and a-UFOists.
There are two positions: magic-believers and a-magicists.l

People who just go about their lives do not get forced into a position simply because a buncha other dudes have a belief.


I don't post this for Jan's sake, because he is beyond reach. I post this for the benefit of followers of this thread.

What alternatives are you willing to offer in your argument. Can we boil the proposition to those who are spiritual and those who are not?

 

[sweetpea]

So I'm just supposed to accept that, and move on? Now we both know you haven't answered the question, so I'll put it up again.
You said; I perceive I'm part of Nature for the good times and bad. That means ''you'' perceive that you are merely part of nature. So what is the other part of you? Simple question sweatpea.

My continued self awareness or consciousness (living forever in your parlance) is a product of Evolution. Evolution of instincts not just the physical.
Ants, Bees and other animals go out and collect things for their nest. Why do they bother to return? What makes them return?
A super being made it so! How did the super being become aware of its own awareness, that's where the Double super being comes in.

It's not so much ''living forever''. It's the part of you that is not nature, the part you, and every person instinctively know, and express through everyday language, that is eternal, as opposed to temporary. jan.

Well, to me it is all part of Nature.

 

[Capracus]

So you're saying we are brains in a vat. Interesting.

I didn’t say it, but it’s always a possibility.

What do you mean by ''your'' brain?
Where I'm from, if something is mine, I own it, and I'm separate from it.

Whatever you consider “You” to be, you don’t claim ownership of it? Are you someone’s slave?

Why would it need a body to animate the brain?

Ever try to think with an inanimate one? I guess you're under the impression that when your brain dies, what you consider “You”continues on.

How do you know this, especially if all you are is neural activity?

Because I’m part of a package of neural activity that is able to experience a reality that contains you, me, and the Pope.

Given that you are neural activity, how do you determine what is reality?

Reality is what we experience individually, and define collectively as sentient beings.

What is ''You''that identifies?

The unique neural activity produced by my unique brain and body.

If I is neural activity, and consciousness is the product of neural activity, what is the point of ''You'', or , ''I''?

Your neural activity is unique to your brain and body, mine is unique to mine.

Neural activity identifies neural activity, as neural activity. Neural activity identifies that the seat of neural activity is set within a skull, identified as neural activity.

Let’s try an alternative. Sperm meets egg and a soul is conceived. When a brain develops in this growing body the soul takes up residence in it. The soul uses the maturing body and its senses to experience reality and mature itself. Eventually the body wears out and dies and the soul pulls the ejection lever and navigates to a new location. Does this seem more realistic to you? And if you consider a soul to be "You," what is this soul composed of? What are the physics of its animation? You see, however you choose to describe the seat of consciousness, you're still going to be faced with explaining the dynamics of that description.

 

[DaveC426913]

What alternatives are you willing to offer in your argument. Can we boil the proposition to those who are spiritual and those who are not?

It's a Venn diagram.

Of the set of all people, some subset believes in God.

The point is that when a subset decides to distinguish itself, that does not change any property of the superset.

If a group decides to draw a line around itself and label it "We are znazzles". That does not suddenly make the rest of the set of people "anti-znazzles".

Notice in the above diagram, the declaration of znazzles has had no effect on either 'all people' or on 'God-believers'.

Look:

5 seconds ago, a guy in South Uganda made a group called "Mango-lovers of South Uganda". Does the rest of the world suddenly have out-of-date resumes? Because we now have to add 'Haters of South Ugandan Mangos' to our infinitely growing list of groups.

No. Most of the world are simply not undefined on the Ugandan Mango-loving issue.

 

[Sarkus]

It's not so much ''living forever''.
It's the part of you that is not nature, the part you, and every person instinctively know, and express through everyday language, that is eternal, as opposed to temporary.

You honestly believe not only that everyone instinctively knows there to be some part of us that is eternal, but also that we express this instinctive knowledge through everyday language? Unfortunately that is simply not true. I certainly don't know it to be true, if indeed it actually is true (not that you can provide any convincing argument for it to be accepted as true), and that is not because I am rejecting or denying what you claim I instinctively know. Sometimes not knowing something is simply because it is not known, whether that is because it is not actually true (and thus can't be knowledge for anyone) or because of a lack of belief, lack of rational justification, or anything else that one requires for something to be considered knowledge.

No doubt you'll spout some argument about how we can talk about "our body" that, to you, seems to be proof, or at least convincing evidence, of substance dualism. But not only does everyone not share your view of this being convincing evidence, or proof, but even if there is substance dualism there is nothing to suggest it is eternal.
I really hope you know you're just grasping at straws here, Jan, 'cos that's all it appears to be. That and simply asserting your belief as if it means anything other than your opinion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why? Why should I even bother to think about any claim that is unsupported and prima facie suggest delussional thinking on the part of the proponent.

Why do you support your own claim?
You think my idea is a claim, and as such you think it is as you suggest.
I think your claim is as you suggest.

Your attempt to crawl out from under your burden of proof fails and demonstrates a clear dishonesty in arguement.

Burden of proof? For what.
I am theist, your are atheist. It is you that does not believe in God. It is you that makes the claim that there is no God.

You know it I know it and all who read your words have before them evidence of a dishonest attempt to avoid supporting your unfounded claims that there exists a mythical entity that although made up you now suggest is somehow real.

I claim I am a theist, and the reason why I am a theist is because God Is.
There are empirical evidences that show that explain the world, and the reason that there is something rather than nothing, better than any atheist attempt.
In fact, atheists do not have an explanation as to why there is no God. They merely believe there is no God. I'm okay with just leaving it at that, but it seems as though atheists aren't.
It seems atheists want there to be no God, and try to do so by mocking, and knocking Christianity, other organized religions. Like you, they don't seem to comprehend what God is supposed to be.
Which kind of fits with their designation.

Any evidence yet, no...default no god.

What is the claim of God?
God creates material worlds. God inhabits such worlds. Just to name two simple claims.
Are there worlds? Is at least one of those worlds inhabited (as far as we know)?
Can you state why you don't believe that?

Perhaps the question that could be asked is why do you believe the scriptures are not made up given it has been demonstrated that is the case.

It hasn't been demonstrated that is the case. You merely assert it has been made up.
I don't need to assert that it has not been made up, because I have no reason to.
Therefore it is you that makes a claim, which so far you have failed to back up.

You must have accepted my proposition that they are made up or we would have heard a strong protest from you and as we have heard nothing, and in your favour you have a lot of that to offer, it seems you now accept those undeniable facts.

Your belief that they are made up, are insignificant.
There is no need of a strong protest against your actual claim.
I don't believe scriptures sanction slavery, and I don't believe we are talking about talking snakes (as we know snakes to be).

I suppose another question could be is why do folk hang onto this notion of a god when there is absolutely no support for the notion...
Jan why do you hang onto this notion of God?

Atheists hang on to the notion of God.
Theists believe in God.
Those are the two fundamental positions.
You've accepted one, I've accepted the other.
The one I have accepted is natural to human beings, and the one you've accepted is the denial, and rejection of what is natural to human beings.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No doubt you'll spout some argument about how we can talk about "our body" that, to you, seems to be proof,

It doesn't need to be proof. It is what it is, because it is.
''I'' own my car, ''I'' own my fingers. They essentially, not to mention obviously, mean the same thing.
We just need to come to terms with why/how.
You can either just accept it, and move on, or create unnecessary mystery and remain stuck.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

My continued self awareness or consciousness (living forever in your parlance) is a product of Evolution. Evolution of instincts not just the physical.
Ants, Bees and other animals go out and collect things for their nest. Why do they bother to return? What makes them return?
A super being made it so! How did the super being become aware of its own awareness, that's where the Double super being comes in.

What makes you know that consciousness is a product of evolution?
What is the ultimate advantage of instinct? We see species become extinct, but what does it matter?
If every living being became extinct, and the universe imploded, becoming lifeless fragments, how is that anymore of an advantage, from your worldview perspective?

Consciousness is a part of God's Nature. God doesn't become self-aware.
That's how we can comprehend God. From your worldview perspective, there is nothing, which is why you have to borrow from a theist perspective, but deny and reject God.

Well, to me it is all part of Nature.

You said you perceive that you are merely a part of nature. Which is it?

jan.

 

[sculptor]

Consciousness is a part of God's Nature. God doesn't become self-aware.

jan.

Huh Wut?

Jan: I agree with a lot of your posts. However some of your words are akin to fingernails scratching a chalkboard: For instance:

Like you, they don't seem to comprehend what God is supposed to be.

"what God is supposed to be."
WOW
(ok---i can see a bit of a double entendre there------------care to clarify?) (if I suppose you to be 5 feet 7 inches tall, are you then supposed to be 5 feet 7 inches tall------------then what happens if you are a different height than you were supposed to be?)

...............................................................................................
(I ain't completely confused yet, but I am working on it.)

 

[sweetpea]

What makes you know that consciousness is a product of evolution?

What makes you think it's something supernatural?

What is the ultimate advantage of instinct? We see species become extinct, but what does it matter?
If every living being became extinct, and the universe imploded, becoming lifeless fragments, how is that anymore of an advantage, from your worldview perspective?

Intelligence may be an evolutionary dead end, so what? bacteria seem to live everwhere, are they conscious?

Consciousness is a part of God's Nature.

Consciousness is a part of Nature.

God doesn't become self-aware.

How do you know that? Is that something written in the ''scriptures''? ''Vengeance Is Mine'' there's lots of I when your god talks.

You said you perceive that you are merely a part of nature. Which is it? jan.

If the word ''perceive'' is bugging you, then just go for... My consciousness is part of Nature.
If it is the word ''part'' that's bugging you, then go for... My consciousnes comes from Nature.

 

[Jan Ardena]

"what God is supposed to be."
WOW
(ok---i can see a bit of a double entendre there------------care to clarify?) (if I suppose you to be 5 feet 7 inches tall, are you then supposed to be 5 feet 7 inches tall------------then what happens if you are a different height than you were supposed to be?)

If you have my description, but you reject that description, in favour of anything you prefer in order to show that I do not exist. Then you are not discussing me.

There are characteristics that help to define God. If you deny and, or reject those characteristics, you're not discussing God. Those characteristics are, to some degree or other, in any scripture.

If God became self-aware then God is no different to any other being that suddenly becomes self-aware.
We only use the term "self-aware in relation to not being self-aware.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What makes you think it's something supernatural?

What is the point of nature evaluating itself? Trying to find it's own origins?
Why is consciousness necessary for nature?

If you stop tidying your house, and garden. What happens if you leave it to nature? Eventually it runs down, and deteriorates. That is nature. Nature does not need conscious maintenance to be natural. When we maintain stuff from being consumed by nature, we are being unnatural.

So what makes you think consciousness is a product of evolution?

Intelligence may be an evolutionary dead end, so what? bacteria seem to live everwhere, are they conscious?

Why don't you answer the question?

Consciousness is a part of Nature.

How so? This what I want you to explain.

How do you know that? Is that something written in the ''scriptures''? ''Vengeance Is Mine'' there's

It's not about how I know. That is the definition of God. That you don't accept the definition, is due to your worldview.
My acceptance is due to my worldview.

the word ''perceive'' is bugging you, then just go for... My consciousness is part of Nature.
If it is the word ''part'' that's bugging you, then go for... My consciousnes comes from Nature.

That doesn't explain anything.
Do you want to change your original statement, or what?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

It doesn't need to be proof.

Which is fortunate given that it isn't.

It is what it is, because it is.

So, at least, you believe.

''I'' own my car, ''I'' own my fingers.

"I" own my own "I". "I" own my own sense of self. "I" own my own soul, as some might believe.

They essentially, not to mention obviously, mean the same thing.

??? You think owning your car is essentially and obviously the same thing as owning your fingers?

We just need to come to terms with why/how.

Well, you could settle on a belief and just spout it thereafter without any critical thought whatsoever, or you could actually try thinking about what you're saying and why you're saying it.

You can either just accept it, and move on, or create unnecessary mystery and remain stuck.

Ah, yes, "God IS": the great solution to every otherwise unanswerable question.
No, it is lazy thinking... at least the way you present it, Jan. You portray someone who has given it minimal thought, and rely on repetition of mantras and statements of belief in lieu of argument.

Yawn.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Why do you support your own claim?

Good morning Jan.

I asked why I should I should respond to previous claims and I dont feel you answered that.

The default is there is no god and if you wish to take it past that it is you who must offer support and take your God from mere imagination standing to something that can be demonstrated to exist.

Its the way it is...someone invents bigfoot well ok but before we accept bigfoot lets get some dna and see what it may be. .

Still no dna...default position ..
No bigfoot.

The interesting thing is there are eye witness reports and photos for big foot which may indicate such a creature exists or that folk involved are dishonest on the one hand and gullible on the other.

But dna would be handy.

I gather you are unable to grasp my observation that the account of creation was made up and that any account can only be made up because even on a biblical account at that time no human was alive to report on Gods alledged activities.

The account of creation was made up how is that not absolutely clear to you...

It seems you can not accept the endorsement for slavery by God is in the good book.

The calls to kill others are found in the good book can't you find these sections?

The observations I make are valid and perhaps unpleasant to have to face so I guess that is why you are unable to do so.

The whole god story is like a blanket with loose threads all over..each thread you pull leaves a little less of the blanket and so with your theist position we find similar...thread by thread the god story comes apart due to the abundance of loose threads.

Anyways Jan it is a pleasure to have met you and hear something about your beliefs and observe your methods of argument but I have decided to return to my default position which is I dont really care. ..fairey tales are only made up stories and just because others may believe them there is no reason I should care....although it is hard to tolerate the problems etc that flow from religion and superstitious ignorance that infects even very clever humans such as yourself.

I sincerely feel sorry for you even though you are probably happy ...

Have a good life...and have good lives from all the lives you expect.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

I asked why I should I should respond to previous claims and I dont feel you answered that.

Oh well!

The default is there is no god and if you wish to take it past that it is you who must offer support and take your God from mere imagination standing to something that can be demonstrated to exist.

That's your default.
Otherwise why develop a term 'atheist'.

The account of creation was made up how is that not absolutely clear to you...

That's just a reason that contributes to your atheism.

The calls to kill others are found in the good book can't you find these sections?

Never said it wasn't.

The whole god story is like a blanket with loose threads all over..each thread you pull leaves a little less of the blanket and so with your theist position we find similar...thread by thread the god story comes apart due to the abundance of loose threads.

What is the ''god story''?

Anyways Jan it is a pleasure to have met you and hear something about your beliefs and observe your methods of argument but I have decided to return to my default position which is I dont really care. .

There are some that do care.
But I can understand that you don't.

I sincerely feel sorry for you even though you are probably happy ...

No you don't. Your just frustrated because you cannot gain control of the situation.
Your the type of atheist that needs God to not exist, because you cannot relax in your carelessness.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

"I" own my own "I". "I" own my own sense of self. "I" own my own soul, as some might believe.

That's not part of the language Sarkus.
We tend to own things that are are separate to us, and language reveals this.

??? You think owning your car is essentially and obviously the same thing as owning your fingers?

How is it not?

Well, you could settle on a belief and just spout it thereafter without any critical thought whatsoever, or you could actually try thinking about what you're saying and why you're saying it.

I agree.

Ah, yes, "God IS": the great solution to every otherwise unanswerable question.

Is it?

No, it is lazy thinking... at least the way you present it, Jan. You portray someone who has given it minimal thought, and rely on repetition of mantras and statements of belief in lieu of argument.

I disagree.

jan.