Empirical Evidence of God

[Jan Ardena]

Pixies and gods are the same thing. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

That's not for me to demonstrate, as I'm not claiming anything.
You OTOH, claim that there is no difference between God, and pixies.

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

That's not for me to demonstrate, as I'm not claiming anything.
You OTOH, claim that there is no difference between God, and pixies.

You claimed that pixies are off-topic, so it's up to you to demonstrate the difference. If the topic was fruit, it would be up to you to demonstrate that either apples or oranges were off-topic.

 

[Write4U]

We’re potentially dealing with infinite levels of order up and down the scale.

Right, but IMO, this would not support the notion of a motivated sentience, but might well be a result of a mathematical hierarchical pseudo-sentience, similar to a natural form of a mathematical computer operating platform. The Universal Constants.

The very fact that we can translate every aspect of reality into mathematical equations would seem to rule out any intentional (miraculous) deviation from the mathematical functions, as humans often try to do....

p.s. As I understand, Roger Penrose proposes that pseudo-intelligent information sharing already begins with the "quantum collapse of the wave function" which creates a treshold "bing", causing a cascading hierarchy of information exchange.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You claimed that pixies are off-topic, so it's up to you to demonstrate the difference. If the topic was fruit, it would be up to you to demonstrate that either apples or oranges were off-topic.

I'm happy to agree to disagree.
I bet you're not, but if you give the impression that you are, one would have to ask why it is you can't make the distinction.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well, we are, but we're not just our bodies. Our bodies have brains, and the brain produces the mind. The mind produces the "I". Your self-concept is a product of your brain. What else could it be?

If bodies are "ours", as cars, or houses are "ours". How can "we" be a product of that which is "ours"?
Did human beings at any time, have no self-awareness?
You ask what else it could be. It could be that self-awareness is the nature of all living entities. And they exhibit that through the bodies the bodies they inhabit. That goes further to explain why we regard our bodies as "ours".

The problem is clear: Jan identifies his own subjective impressions with objective reality. That is, he perceives no distinction between what he believes and what is real.

I could just as easily say that about you.
For what it's worth.

Jan would have to agree that "There is evidence for God because I believe in and accept God, and as such cannotreject anything pertaining to God."

You're missing a component.
The fact is, theism and atheism was here before me. I didn't create them.
Every person is either theist or atheist.
I'm theist, you are atheist.

Thisis the logical counterpoint to the quotedstatement above. Evidence for Godcomes from Jan's belief; Jan's beliefdoes not come from evidence.

How would you know? You're an atheist. The reality is, you only perceive God, and theism, from an atheist perspective, which is, there is no God as far as you're aware.

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

... one would have to ask why it is you can't make the distinction.

If you can make the distinction and I can't, wouldn't the polite thing be to help me know how? I'm happy to explain to you any distinctions that I see. If you don't show me how to make the distinction, I have to conclude that either you can't do it or you're just being rude.

 

[Jan Ardena]

, I have to conclude that either you can't do it or you're just being rude.

As you are happy to play the fool, I will accommodate you. You can choose either of those options, but bare in mind you are l playing the fool.

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

You can choose either of those options, but bare in mind you are l playing the fool.

I would suggest that the one who can't or won't explain himself is the fool. But I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. In simple terms, explain to us how we can learn to tell the difference between gods and pixies.

Or feel free to ask questions. I'll be happy to tell you more than you want to know.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What Jan means? Jan is just trolling, trying (very successfully) to keep all the board's idiot-atheists crazily barking.

"Idiot atheists"? That's no way to refer to the atheists who post here. What makes you better than them?

'Denial' in the epistemological context means declaring an assertion to be untrue.

Denial; the action of denying something,

a statement that something is not true.

the refusal of something requested or desired.

In the case of assertions that God, pixies or pink unicorns exist, denial would be the claim that they don't.

Wrong. Denial is the insistence that they are related, despite knowing that they are not.
If an atheist, in this thread insists that they are, then maybe this isn't the thread for them.

That's all I read the Greek 'a-' prefix in 'atheist' as doing, expressing 'not-theist'. It needn't be read as 'without' and can just as correctly be read as 'not'.

A-Theos - without God.
A-Theos - not God.

I don't see how that works. How does it work for you?

If Jan wants to make a convincing argument that atheism is 'denial' in the tendentious Freudian sense, then he or she needs to make a convincing case that God's existence should be obvious to everyone.

I don't have to make a case for anything.
I'm not the one making claims about God. I am a theist, and that's that.
The atheist makes lots of claims, like there is no evidence for God, God does not exist, there are no satisfactory explanations, or reasons to accept God exists., to nam but a few.
They tie themselves up in knots, in a bid to make their view the dominent one. They seem to change the meaning of their fundamental designation with the wind. They seem to think they have science on their side, when they clearly do not.
I could go on an and on about atheists. You really are a fascinating bunch.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

Your tendency to get bogged down in hair-splitting over language, as if it proves something about the existence of your God, is almost always a time waster.

It's like saying; "In your own words, tell us what happened"......

 

[Jan Ardena]

In simple terms, explain to us how we can learn to tell the difference between gods and pixies.

Or feel free to ask questions. I'll be happy to tell you more than you want to know.

Nope. Work it out for yourself, then we'll discuss.

Jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

I could go on an and on about atheists.

You do go on and on but you run away from any honest discussion. Your pontification is as empty as the idea of gods.

 

[sideshowbob]

Nope. Work it out for yourself, then we'll discuss.

Jan.

Did you have teachers with that MO? That would explain a lot. As my father would say, you learned nothing and forgot nothing.

If you want people to think you know something, it would be wise to demonstrate what you think you know. As it is right now, claiming there's a god behind the curtain is like claiming you have a Ferarri under the tarp. Unless you show us what's under the tarp, we have no reason to think it's anything but a pile of empty boxes.

 

[Seattle]

More denial, and rejection.

You know we're not discussing ''unicorns''. So why bring ''unicorns'' up?

jan.

Just because you reject unicorns and are thus without unicorns doesn't mean that they can't be discussed. What is your definition of unicorns anyway? Maybe that is the problem?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Just because you reject unicorns and are thus without unicorns doesn't mean that they can't be discussed. What is your definition of unicorns anyway? Maybe that is the problem?

Start a thread where we discuss belief or lack of, in unicorns. But as far as I am aware, we are talking about God.

Jan.

 

[Seattle]

Start a thread where we discuss belief or lack of, in unicorns. But as far as I am aware, we are talking about God.

Jan.

Things aren't that black and white. You have to give us your definition of unicorns and your definition of God and then we'll take it from there.

 

[Write4U]

Jan Ardena said:
More denial, and rejection.
You know we're not discussing ''unicorns''. So why bring ''unicorns'' up?
jan.

Because we are discussing mythology, which includes flying unicorns.

Flying horses or winged horses are mythological and fictional creatures. They are horses which fly, some of which are equipped with wings.

Flying horses include:

• The horses of Eos, Helios, Apollo, and Sol Invictus
  • Phlegon, Aeos, Aethon, Pyrios, Aethiops, Abraxas, Therbeeo, Bronte, Sterope
• Pegasus, a winged horse in Greek mythology; or Chrysaor, the twin brother of Pegasus
• al-Buraq, a winged horse in Islamic tradition
• Haizum, a heavenly winged horse, ridden by Gabriel according to Islamic tradition
• Chollima, in Korean myths
• Ponkhiraj (fr), a flying horse from Bangladesh
• a wind Horse in Mongolian, Tibetan and ancient Turkish traditions
• A winged horse, see list of winged horses
• A winged unicorn [/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_horses

 

[Jan Ardena]

Did you have teachers with that MO? That would explain a lot. As my father would say, you learned nothing and forgot nothing.

I have had teachers who encourage me to work things out for myself, to get a first-hand understanding. Rather than take what other people say as true.
I think in this case, that would be a good option for you, if you're serious.

If you want people to think you know something, it would be wise to demonstrate what you think you know.

The same can apply to you, seeing as you're the one who thinks God, and unicorns are the same.

As it is right now, claiming there's a god behind the curtain is like claiming you have a Ferarri under the tarp.

Not the same thing.
Plus, I've never claimed God is behind the curtain, or any kind of similar rhetoric.

I understand that for you, there is no God. But it isn't the same for everybody

You simply deny and reject God. One way you do that is by associating God with unicorns and whatnot.

Unless you show us what's under the tarp, we have no reason to think it's anything but a pile of empty boxes.

That's your business, not mine.
I've told you to find out for yourself, if you are serious. Otherwise carry on being an atheist.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because we are discussing mythology, which includes flying unicorns.

Theism isn't mythology. At it isn't as far as I'm concerned. It is belief in God. Nothing more nothing less.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

Theism isn't mythology. At it isn't as far as I'm concerned. It is belief in God. Nothing more nothing less.

Jan.

It is mythology......trust me.....