Empirical Evidence of God

[Xelasnave.1947]

///
He is so busy defending what???

<>

Defending his unsupported position and his unsupported claims ...lets face it that must be a full time demanding task... always being on the back foot finding it difficult to even move sideways and having to ignore statement of fact that the God stories are made up..lets review some key points of the God story...a non identified author proclaims God creates the world and gets key points horribly wrong and the obvious observation can only be made that no one could have witnessed creation such to present an account of the event...the flood was impossible and the "facts" would see a group of eight individuals regrouping and in 4500 years be responsible for a world population of some 7 billion and of course the nonsence that suggests it was possible to restart the world animal population from just two of each is so stupid the only reason it bears mention is to provide the best possible example of stupid thinking.
And of course we need to embrace the stupidity that humans started from two individuals who were on speaking terms with a serpent...and somewhere in this mix we have "original sin" that God would fix by appearing as a man in some obscure part of the planet so he could by sacrificed to himself to fix the problem he could not head off with an appropriate application of godly wisdom.
We also must get around the various moral difficulties such God presents by his incessant calls to kill this person or that because they worked on rest day or were unruly children...wow your kid is difficult to control then he shall be stoned..not high but pelted with rocks until he dies from multiple wounds.
Lovely.
What tripe.
And then this JC God having opportunity to explain the horrors of the old testament proclaims all of it to be law...and stupid believers say oh the new civenant blah blah...fools they dont even read their own good book.
Its all too much.
Then we have the soul and after life and the devil and a tribe of angels and bullshit dressed up as bullshit talking bullshit and the folk dribling this bullshit somehow think because they feel good about the made up God stories they must be real.
Give me strength.
I have concluded only today that atheist represent the next step in the evolution of humans.
We clearly have a greater ability to think and reason and no doubt in the future when historians write about human evolution we will be presented as those who developed superior intellect that allowed the first humans to escape the confines of superstition.
I do wonder if their problem is some sort of parasite that eats away part of the brain rendering it incaplable of reason.
Look at some of the believers..seemingly intelligent but lights on no one home but a note on the door " there is a God, there is a God there is a God"
Ask them anything all you get "there is a God"... lets eat "there is a God thank him for the food" stuff the farmer, the chemist who invented the fertilizer, the workers who planted and harvested, the folk who transported and put the food on the shelves, the person who exchanged resourses to aquire the food, the cook who made the meal ...oh the craziness of it all.
Honestly I feel like I am a bad dream full of crazy zombies who just keep coming forward muttering "there is a god, there is a God"...
But the good thing is when I leave here I dont think about God or the bullshit or the crazy folk ... clearly we are on a couple of rungs higher on the human evolution ladder.
Religion can claim more con artists than you can list..not one or two but...well you could make another list...yet the brain dead still keep muttering "there is a God"...
Zoombies real zoombies.
Alex

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

He seems to me to not be even attempting to defend anything. And it seems intentional.

<>

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So look at what Jan has to defend.
I dont know how he does it.
I dont know how he can switch off his brain when presented with the truth that the God story is made up nonsence and not even plausible nonsence...
Go Jan I could not kid myself the way you do...I really just dont know how you can lie to yourself and look in the mirror without feeling dirty.
Alex

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

So look at what Jan has to defend.
I dont know how he does it.
I dont know how he can switch off his brain when presented with the truth that the God story is made up nonsence and not even plausible nonsence...
Go Jan I could not kid myself the way you do...I really just dont know how you can lie to yourself and look in the mirror without feeling dirty.
Alex

///
About all he says about god is god is. He refuses to offer anything on why he believes or why he thinks others should believe.
The large majority of his posts are not even about god. They are about his warped view of atheists. Yet he does not even try to support his silly attempts to criticize atheists.

<>

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

///
About all he says about god is god is. He refuses to offer anything on why he believes or why he thinks others should believe.
The large majority of his posts are not even about god. They are about his warped view of atheists. Yet he does not even try to support his silly attempts to criticize atheists.

<>

Yes but the strawman of Jan I have constructed fills in the bits he leaves out.
Theists are above all predictable.
Alex

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena,

It is still ''your body'', ''your car''.
You say all your body parts are attached to ''you''. What is the ''you'' in that scenario?

I don't say all your body parts are attached to "you". What I wrote was that the boundary of "you" ends at your outer skin. What's inside the boundary - arms, ears, brain, etc. - are all "you".

Here's the relevant part of my previous post, edited down a little for easier digestion. Please ask questions if you don't understand:

When I look at you, the boundary of what is you and what is not stops at your body. All your body parts are attached to you, so they are "yours", rather than, say, mine or somebody else's. Moreover, recognising your autonomy as a human being, I do not believe that somebody else can own you like they own a car.

There's also the matter of who or what is in control. Your brain controls your body, and it self-regulates. Nobody else controls your arm except your brain, under ordinary circumstances. So, that, too, gives us good reason to say it's "your" arm and not somebody else's.

Your assertion is that your consciousness is not ultimately a function of your biological brain, but rather a product of an immaterial, undetectable, soul. You say that because you can refer to "my brain", it means that the "I" that owns or controls the brain must necessarily be separate from the brain itself. But the situation you find yourself in is no different from that which my mobile phone finds itself in, vis a vis its central processing unit. We refer to "the phone's CPU" without a problem. We could program the phone to refer to the CPU as "my CPU", and there would be no strain in the language to do so. Everybody would understand what was meant.

There's one further layer, of course. The brain itself is not exactly what you think of as "you", just as the operating system of the mobile phone is not the CPU. It is more accurate to say that the "I" is the "software" that the brain runs, just like the operating system is the software that the CPU of the phone runs. This software picture is what we're referring to when we say that the "I" is an emergent property of the brain. Extending the CPU metaphor a bit, the "I" in your brain is a lot application software stored in the memory of the phone. The storage method is a different, of course, but the principle is the same.

There's no need to assert that the phone must have a soul in order to be able to refer to "the phone's operating system". In short, this diversion of yours into language is, as I said, a waste of time. You can't draw any conclusions about the existence of souls from the way we use words.​

Sorry but I don't get your point.

What part don't you get?

There's no reason to assume a soul is needed to house consciousness or a sense of identity into your brain, any more than it is necessary to assume a soul is needed to house any of the software in a phone. And if you do assume that, it's just that: an assumption you can't justify.

You don't have to draw conclusions on stuff you already know.

So what's all this stuff about "there must be a soul or I couldn't say 'My body'" that you're going on with? If you aren't trying to justify the existence of a soul on the basis that you can refer to "my brain", what are you doing? It seemed to me you were trying to argue a point there. If you weren't, and you agree the point is irrelevant, why did you introduce it?

So how exactly did the mind produce the ''I''?

Earlier, you asserted that you were asking a straightforward question. But I knew from the start that you were opening a whole can of worms.

The short answer to this latest follow-up of yours is: nobody knows, exactly. Of course, nobody knowing doesn't mean we default to "a soul is required". For that, you'd need positive evidence for the soul.

The longer answer is that it makes evolutionary sense for the brain to evolve a self-concept - the illusion of an "I", if you like. There are most likely survival advantages to separate conscious and unconscious processing in the brain - separating the automatic processes like digestion, breathing, heart beat etc. from the higher-level decision making (where to go to find food and shelter, how to make shelter, how best to make sense of the sensory inputs from the outside world, etc.) The concept of an "I" can be a spur to conscious action - the body will act in such and such a way because "I" want this or that.

In terms of mechanics of how the mind produces the "I", the answer is the same as for how the brain produces anything. It lies in chemical processes, connectivity between neurons, the self-organisation of brain regions and structures, all dictated in part by genetics and in part by environmental factors.

At this point, I've barely scratched the surface of starting to answer the question you asked. If you're really interested, you probably need to go off and do some reading on the relevant science yourself.

And so we're back to your belief.
I don't share it.

You don't believe in evolution in general?
Or you don't believe that human beings evolved from ape-like ancestors?
Or you don't believe that our ape-like ancestors had any ability to perceive things like pain or hunger?
Or what?

You've made a very unhelpful statement about which parts of this particular belief you don't share with me and, as usual, you have utterly failed to justify your lack of shared belief on any of these points.

We can't have a discussion about this unless and until you say what you do believe, and why.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

What are you offering in terms of objective evidence for your fundamental worldview?

Which fundamental worldview? If you're talking about atheism, there are two answers. First, because atheism is an absence of a belief rather than a belief in itself, positive evidence for it is not required. I don't need to provide positive evidence that Grog the Great Sky Beetle doesn't exist in order to justify my a-Grogism. If somebody asserts that, contrary to what I currently believe, Grog actually exists, then it is up to them to provide the appropriate positive evidence.

Another example: I lack the belief that pouring water onto wood causes it to catch on fire. But I'd be quite willing to give up on that belief if you could demonstrate wood catching on fire when you douse it with water. That would be you providing positive evidence for the belief in question.

In fact, in the particular example of the wood, my position goes beyond a mere lack of belief: I hold that pouring water onto wood does NOT cause it to catch on fire. I could in principle provide you with a lot of evidence for my holding that particular "negative belief" - many practical demonstrations of wood not catching on fire when doused, which justifies my holding the negative belief as opposed to merely lacking the positive belief.

Coming back to Grog the Sky Beetle for a moment, note the nature of my a-Grogism, especially. It is n0t that I believe Grog doesn't exist. Rather, I'm a Grog skeptic. I don't much care about Grog one way or the other, but I'm open to the belief if somebody can provide appropriate evidence. My lack of Grog-belief isn't central to any "worldview" I have. The only thing central to my worldview is my commitment to rationality and the need for evidence to justify any belief you care to name.

Theism is natural, not atheism.

So what if it is? That doesn't mean it's correct or true or morally good.

There are really only different degrees of theism.

Degrees ranging from no theism, through shades of wishy-washy theism, to full-on committed theism.

There are plenty of evidential explanations of God out there, you may not agree with them, but that's not my problem.

What if there are? I'm not dealing with somebody else's arguments for God. I'm addressing your arguments. And you keep telling me you don't need any evidence. God Is just because you're a theist. That's how it goes, isn't it? It's natural for you to believe. Why do you care about evidence all of a sudden?

I'd be very happy to have a discussion about evidence for God. You've never wanted to have a discussion like that before. It might be a pleasant surprise if you do want to have such a discussion. Generally, you settle for trying to define God into existence, or just asserting God.

I accept that as your understanding (let's not forget it is an atheist one .

It's not just my understanding. It's one of those inconvenient objective facts you'd rather not talk about. You make claims to knowledge that you can't justify, consistently and continually. But that's what faith is: pretending to know stuff you don't know.

If you have made the subconscious commitment of ''there is no God'', God will allow your fantasy.

Apparently so - if there's a God to allow anything, that is.

Keep telling yourself that, and you won't have to accept.
''The fool has said in his heart, there is no God''.

Forget God. My statement wasn't restricted God - it was more general.

Are you saying you're urging me to accept the opposite - namely that it is rational to believe in something for which there is no evidence? Have you got any examples apart from your God belief, of things you believe without any evidence, but which you can nevertheless provide a rational argument for?

The better question is ''Is Mickey Mouse a real cartoon character in movies''.
To which the answer is, yes.

That's not the point that is in question. I agree with you that "God is a real character in the bible", for example. No argument at all from me on that. But you assert that God is a real person, in addition.

If you're satisfied with my acceptance that God is a real character in scripture, or real in your mind, and that's as far as it goes, then we have no dispute. If theism is merely the belief in God as a character, then I'm a theist, too, by that definition.

Yes. A real fantasy figure,

So your argument is that God, like Mickey Mouse, is a real fantasy figure? Is that all?

Whatever floats your boat.
I'm good with my own understanding of it.

Okay. I'm with you. I'm not an a-Mickeyist, because I accept that Mickey is a "real fantasy figure". So, I've changed my mind. I'm a theist, like you, because I accept that God is a "real fantasy figure".

Something tells me, though, that you're not serious about this being your description of theism.

I'm saying that for you, there is no God. So you view the world from that perspective.

You have it backwards, as usual. There appears to be no God, so I'm an atheist. Not: I'm an atheist, so there appears to be no God. My belief follows the evidence; the evidence doesn't follow from my belief.

You wouldn't have to ''share my perspective'' if you were a theist. You would have your own perspective.

I simply mean that we'd have the same opinion on the question of God.

As for your question. If you were a theist, you would have a theist perspective, as you are an atheist, you have an atheist one.

That's stating the bleeding obvious, isn't it? Where are you going with this? Or is that your end point?

I don't care. Why do you think that is my goal?

What is your goal, then?

I don't give a monkeys about changing your opinion. Again. Why do you think that is my goal?

Are you hoping to sway the opinions of other readers, then?

If you don't give a monkey's about what anybody thinks about what you post, why do you post? I'm puzzled. Do you just like the sound of your own voice? Is that it?

You haven't made a point that is in line with your worldview. You only seem bent on refuting mine, which of course you can't.

What's to refute?

You're telling me you have a belief that comes "naturally" to you, that is not evidence-based and, at bottom, irrational. How can I refute that? Say that, contrary to what you write, you don't have the belief, after all? That would be silly. (Worth reflecting here on your own arguments about atheists secretly believing in God etc. here, too.)

You're not making any argument, you tell me. You don't give a monkeys.

There's nothing to refute, from you.

So you end with an ad-hom, the atheist default.

Why do you believe? The only answer you have come up with is: it comes naturally to you. You believe because you believe. And you don't give a monkeys whether that thing you believe is true or false.

There either is objective evidence, or there isn't. I believe there is. You believe there isn't.

So objective evidence is important to you, after all? Or it's not important to you, but you think there is some, at least.

Maybe you could present some of this objective evidence you have. Because objective evidence is important to me. I'd be interested to learn about any objective evidence for God. Can we discuss that? That's actually the thread topic, according to the title, you know.

Regardless of your philosophical mumbo jumbo, there is no God, as far as you're aware (or you wouldn't be atheist).

Mumbo jumbo? What is it that doesn't make sense to you? You can ask questions if it seems like mumbo jumbo. I'm happy to clarify.

On what basis do come to the conclusion there is no God?
Let's say you reply with, no evidence.

On what basis do you conclude that there is no evidence for God?

When I write "There's no evidence for God", I typically, though perhaps not always, add "as far as I'm aware". I have also spent some time talking about good evidence vs poor evidence, in terms of the persuasive weight that said evidence might carry.

The basis of my current opinion that there is no good evidence for God is my reading on the matter, which is reasonably extensive. Add to that my personal experience (or lack thereof) of God, and my awareness of my own state of belief when I was theist. Add also my (also reasonably extensive) scientific knowledge about why belief in God might be "natural", even if not true. Lastly, factor in the general motto that "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence", and the fact that there doesn't appear by anything particular extraordinary, especially in light of the previous factors, and there you have it.

The caveat, of course, is that, like most of my beliefs, this one is provisional and open to revision in the light of new evidence that might come to my attention some time in future.

What you don't seem to want to comprehend is that there is, from my perspective objective evidence for God, and from your perspective, there is no objective evidence for God.

Let's talk about your objective evidence for God then. That puts us squarely back on topic for the thread.

What objective evidence are you thinking of? Can you give at least one example?

 

[Sarkus]

///
About all he says about god is god is. He refuses to offer anything on why he believes or why he thinks others should believe.

Not quite true... he does claim that belief in God is natural, which he asserts due to his (imo mistaken) interpretation of an article he read regarding the propensity for humans to hold metaphysical beliefs. Given that he holds belief in God to be natural, he thus washes his hands of any requirement to provide further support, rather he requires anyone who goes against what he sees as being natural to support their position. In his view, it being natural to believe in God is all that is required to justify the belief.
When atheists (weak or strong) humour him in this regard and offer their justification for not believing, all he offers in return is "well, you would think that because, for you, there is no God" or words to that effect.
It seems that Jan is simply content with his belief that his belief in God is natural, and happy with his belief that this means he doesn't have to question it further. At least that is how he portrays it on this website.
I guess one way of dealing with his inability to offer anything is to simply repeate to him: "well, of course you think that, because you believe in God," and leave it at that. It is tantamount to a refusal to discuss with him, but one that is a more active refusal than simply putting him on ignore.

The large majority of his posts are not even about god. They are about his warped view of atheists. Yet he does not even try to support his silly attempts to criticize atheists.

Yes, he has this wonderful strawman of an atheist tucked away in his barn, ready to poke a stick at. Unfortunately it's a strawman of a strong atheist, but Jan gets especially pleased and animated when an actual atheist displays antics or holds a belief that is similar to that of his strawman, as if the one example validates his entire view of them.

 

[Write4U]

Something tells me, though, that you're not serious about this being your description of theism

Precious.....

This is a perfect example of the power of centuries of inculcation.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

You're free to spin it how you like James. But either you accept God Is, or not.

I need a reason to accept that God Is. Without sufficient justification, it makes no sense to accept that proposition.

By the way, I'm keenly aware that I'm part of a minority (though not a particularly small minority) when it comes to this kind of thing. Many (most?) people are reasonably happy to jump willy-nilly into believing certain things for reasons that have nothing to do with the truth of what is believed. People are prone to biases and to wishful thinking. People are prejudiced. I'm not immune to these human foibles myself. But I've spent quite a lot of time thinking the whole God thing through, and I've tried hard to do so as objectively as possible. I've discovered not only that some people have trouble considering this particular question objectively, but also that a lot of people actually prefer not to look at the issue too closely, perhaps for fear of what they might find.

That is secondary. Either God Is. Or there is no God.

Forgive me if I remain unconvinced that you truly understand the difference between objective and subjective reality.

What does it matter what I think? All that is secondary. God Is, or there is no God. That is the basis of our worldview.

No. Our worldviews can only be based on whether we think or believe there is God, or no God. If God Is, and you don't know it, then your worldview might well be that God Isn't. Similarly, if God Isn't, you can still believe that God Is. Reality doesn't necessarily constrain what you believe. Plenty of people say they don't believe in climate change; their beliefs aren't constrained by reality.

That's your problem. Not mine.

I have made myself crystal clear.​

No, you really haven't. Nevertheless, I have managed to work out what your position is by sorting out the consistent themes in your posts.

Either you accept God, or you don't accept God.
You don't accept God.

What's to accept? And why should I accept it? Like I said, I'd like a reason before I make a habit of accepting things willy-nilly.

Be my guest in showing that you perception is the correct one.

I've already spent thousands of words showing you that. You're not listening.

It's not my job to convince you of theism.

It's okay. I absolve you of that particular obligation! I'm quite happy to just toss the ideas around to see what falls out.

I might say, in passing, that when I was a theist, the argument for God that I found most convincing was the Argument from Design. Not that my God belief was ever based solely on rational philosophical arguments like that one. Over time I learned about the flaws in that argument, from several different perspectives, and the flaws in the other major philosophical arguments for God. But, I confess, I'm still somewhat partial to the idea, even though it doesn't persuade me. Like all the best philosophical arguments, it's not something one can ever hope to conclusively disprove.

You can stay atheist for all I care.

Thank you for your kind sentiment. Of course, I equally respect your right and freedom of choice to "stay theist", regardless.

I am always very consistent.

You mistake repeatedly arguing a certain set of mutually-contradictory propositions for consistency. (Sorry, that's a bit harsh, isn't it?)

You are simply frustrated because you cannot justify your worldview, through the demolition of my own.

No, that's not it. I'm frustrated that, even when people (myself included) make careful efforts to explain certain flaws in your arguments to you, or to present you with new information, you so often end up ignoring those discussions and reverting to type.

I'm really not into demolishing anybody's worldview, Jan. I don't have it in for theists. I don't wish everybody was atheist - even though it is an eminently sensible position to take. I actually enjoy diversity and different perspectives. I don't like group-think.

Your worldview is like a paper house. It has no foundation by itself. The worldview itself, is only visible through the light of my worldview.

You're right. If nobody believed in God, there would be no reason to label certain people "atheists". They'd just be people. If brightness didn't exist, there'd be no reason to refer to darkness. Darkness is only visible when contrasted with light. (And I'm NOT making a metaphor that atheism is the brightness and theism is the darkness here!)

If you cannot demolish my worldview, you must accept it. That frightens you.

Why should I be frightened?​

 

[Write4U]

Why should I be frightened?

Theists are struggling to maintain control and power, like they used to have during the dark ages.

That scares me. I've been victim of it.......

 

[DaveC426913]

...God, regardless of whether you think it is possible, or you're not aware of all the facts or evidence, does not exist, as far as you're aware. Now you can prove me wrong, by admitting God Is. But you can't, because there is no God, as far as you're aware.
​

This is the fallacy of begging the question. Jan again assumes his conclusion (that there is objectively strong evidence of God) in his premise. That is an invalid argument.

This isn't about Jan's confidence that there is evidence, that's not at-issue in the discussion. What is at-issue is that his conclusion cannot be reached unless his premises are granted. And they haven't been.

Either you accept God, or you don't accept God.

This is a false dichotomy, constructed by Jan, because he is not being objective about this issue.

Both premises make the same a priori assumption - that there is a God to accept or to not accept.

Regardless of Jan's confidence on that matter, the premise cannot be taken as granted in the discussion since that very point is what is under debate.

So, the third option - that Jan simply won't entertain - is: acceptance of a thing must be preceded by the establishment that it exists at all.

Jan has essentially built himself a tautology. "Conclusion: God exists, premise: God exists."​

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't say all your body parts are attached to "you".

So what are they attached to?

When I look at you, the boundary of what is you and what is not stops at your body. All your body parts are attached to you, so they are "yours", rather than, say, mine or somebody else's. Moreover, recognising your autonomy as a human being, I do not believe that somebody else can own you like they own a car.

So you are saying all my body parts are attached to me.
Make your mind up.

Why can't somebody else own you like they own a car?
Does your ruling apply to other animals?

Your brain controls your body, and it self-regulates.

If it is ''my'' brain, as you correctly imply, then I control my body, and my brain does what it does.

Your assertion is that your consciousness is not ultimately a function of your biological brain, but rather a product of an immaterial, undetectable, soul.

That's not my assertion.

But the situation you find yourself in is no different from that which my mobile phone finds itself in, vis a vis its central processing unit. We refer to "the phone's CPU" without a problem. We could program the phone to refer to the CPU as "my CPU", and there would be no strain in the language to do so. Everybody would understand what was meant.

We could create a doorbell that rings ''my house, my house''

Everybody would understand that it is ''your'' mobile phone, just like they would refer to your legs as ''your'' legs.
I think you need a better analogy.

There's one further layer, of course. The brain itself is not exactly what you think of as "you", just as the operating system of the mobile phone is not the CPU.

So what exactly is the brain?

It is more accurate to say that the "I" is the "software" that the brain runs, just like the operating system is the software that the CPU of the phone runs.

I'm not so sure, as you haven't explained what the brain is, as yet.
Why would you assume it is ''more accurate''?

This software picture is what we're referring to when we say that the "I" is an emergent property of the brain.

I'm sorry. What is the brain, in this scenario?
Are you suggesting that the software evolved from primordial goo?

Extending the CPU metaphor a bit, the "I" in your brain is a lot application software stored in the memory of the phone. The storage method is a different, of course, but the principle is the same.

You need to slow down, and think about what you're saying.
Firstly, explain what you mean by brain.

There's no reason to assume a soul is needed to house consciousness or a sense of identity into your brain, any more than it is necessary to assume a soul is needed to house any of the software in a phone. And if you do assume that, it's just that: an assumption you can't justify.

I don't.
It is pointless explaining to you, yet again, what spirit-soul means. So I won't.

So what's all this stuff about "there must be a soul or I couldn't say 'My body'" that you're going on with?

Show where I have said that.

The short answer to this latest follow-up of yours is: nobody knows,

So why assert it as though it's true.

The longer answer is that it makes evolutionary sense for the brain to evolve a self-concept - the illusion of an "I", if you like. There are most likely survival advantages to separate conscious and unconscious processing in the brain - separating the automatic processes like digestion, breathing, heart beat etc. from the higher-level decision making (where to go to find food and shelter, how to make shelter, how best to make sense of the sensory inputs from the outside world, etc.) The concept of an "I" can be a spur to conscious action - the body will act in such and such a way because "I" want this or that.

So you think it is correct because it makes sense to you?
Here's me thinking you were some kind of science guy.

In terms of mechanics of how the mind produces the "I", the answer is the same as for how the brain produces anything. It lies in chemical processes, connectivity between neurons, the self-organisation of brain regions and structures, all dictated in part by genetics and in part by environmental factors.

So how does the brain produce the ''I''?

At this point, I've barely scratched the surface of starting to answer the question you asked.

Barely scratched the surface?

If you're really interested, you probably need to go off and do some reading on the relevant science yourself.

I am, and I have, thanks.

You don't believe in evolution in general?

I don't believe humans evolved from anything non human.

You've made a very unhelpful statement about which parts of this particular belief you don't share with me and, as usual, you have utterly failed to justify your lack of shared belief on any of these points.

I don't have to justify it.

We can't have a discussion about this unless and until you say what you do believe, and why.

We've already discussed this, numerous times.
I find the fundamentals of this belief far more interesting than the belief itself.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Which fundamental worldview?

The one that asserts (explicitly, or implicitly) ''there is no God''.

First, because atheism is an absence of a belief rather than a belief in itself, positive evidence for it is not required.

How convenient?

So if you get pulled by the cops, and upon being asked for your drivers licence, you reply ''I'' don't have it with me''. Would you regard that as your licence being absent at that time?
Or, upon being pulled by the cops, and upon being asked for your drivers licence, you reply ''I'' don't have a drivers licence''. Would you regard that as your licence being absent at that time? of

I actually agree with your definition of ''absence of belief'' because it ties right into the literal, and original meaning of the term atheist, in which the ''a'' prefix means ''without''. I think atheists are without God. I think they, at a subconscious level choose to be act as though there is no God.

I don't need to provide positive evidence that Grog the Great Sky Beetle doesn't exist in order to justify my a-Grogism.

Are you saying God doesn't exist?
I have to ask because you change your position more times than magician clothes changes, or face changes.

Another example: I lack the belief that pouring water onto wood causes it to catch on fire. But I'd be quite willing to give up on that belief if you could demonstrate wood catching on fire when you douse it with water. That would be you providing positive evidence for the belief in question.

You wouldn't give up on that belief. Why say you would?

If you want empirical evidence of God, there are plenty of great explanations, discussions, and debates out there. Go find it for yourself.
I'm more interested in discussing your fundamental designation.

In fact, in the particular example of the wood, my position goes beyond a mere lack of belief: I hold that pouring water onto wood does NOT cause it to catch on fire. I could in principle provide you with a lot of evidence for my holding that particular "negative belief" - many practical demonstrations of wood not catching on fire when doused, which justifies my holding the negative belief as opposed to merely lacking the positive belief.

I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm not really interested in discussing things that are obvious to me, which includes whether or not God exists.
I'm more interested in why you would believe that water poured on wood causes it to catch fire, or why for you there is no God.

Coming back to Grog the Sky Beetle for a moment, note the nature of my a-Grogism, especially. It is n0t that I believe Grog doesn't exist. Rather, I'm a Grog skeptic. I don't much care about Grog one way or the other, but I'm open to the belief if somebody can provide appropriate evidence. My lack of Grog-belief isn't central to any "worldview" I have. The only thing central to my worldview is my commitment to rationality and the need for evidence to justify any belief you care to name.

Blah! Blah! Blah!

So what if it is? That doesn't mean it's correct or true or morally good.

Why not?

Degrees ranging from no theism, through shades of wishy-washy theism, to full-on committed theism.

Aw, that's cute. You want to put atheism first.

...

 

[Jan Ardena]

What if there are? I'm not dealing with somebody else's arguments for God. I'm addressing your arguments.

My arguments are other peoples arguments. But theirs are expertly arranged.

And you keep telling me you don't need any evidence.

What do you mean by ''evidence'' in this context?
Bear in mind the subject matter.

I'd be very happy to have a discussion about evidence for God. You've never wanted to have a discussion like that before.

What do you mean by ''evidence for God''?
Bear in mind the subject matter.

It's not just my understanding. It's one of those inconvenient objective facts you'd rather not talk about.

The problem is, I have spoken, and continue to speak on the subject of God, but it goes straight over your head. You have forgotten what God is. To the point where you cannot distinguish whether or not we are talking about God.

You make claims to knowledge that you can't justify, consistently and continually. But that's what faith is: pretending to know stuff you don't know.

You don't know what faith is. You have it, in abundance. But because you're so busy distancing yourself from God, you've become confused.
I will discuss these topics with you, in more depth, once you can sort out this confusion. Otherwise we're just going to get bogged down in pages and pages of writing.
It's bad enough now. What if I lost control and introduced Darwinian evolution, and the existence of God.

...​

 

[Jan Ardena]

Apparently so - if there's a God to allow anything, that is.

For you, there isn't, as far as your currently aware.

What if there are? I'm not dealing with somebody else's arguments for God. I'm addressing your arguments.

My arguments are other peoples arguments. But theirs are expertly arranged.

Have you got any examples apart from your God belief, of things you believe without any evidence, but which you can nevertheless provide a rational argument for?

What are you talking about?​

This is why I don't engage in these types of discussions with you James.

But you assert that God is a real person, in addition.

Bear in mind the character, and ability of God (that we can comprehend), why couldn't God be a real person?

If you're satisfied with my acceptance that God is a real character in scripture, or real in your mind, and that's as far as it goes, then we have no dispute. If theism is merely the belief in God as a character, then I'm a theist, too, by that definition.

Of course you'd be happy with that, as it would perpetuate your little fantasy.

So your argument is that God, like Mickey Mouse, is a real fantasy figure? Is that all?

To you, God is.

Something tells me, though, that you're not serious about this being your description of theism.

Something tells me you're up to your old obfuscation tricks.
*very boring*.

There appears to be no God, so I'm an atheist.

What do you mean by ''appears''?
Bear in mind the subject matter.

Not: I'm an atheist, so there appears to be no God. My belief follows the evidence; the evidence doesn't follow from my belief.

How do you conclude that there is no evidence of God?
Bear in mind the subject matter.

...​

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If you want empirical evidence of God, there are plenty of great explanations, discussions, and debates out there.

There are none Jan.

Not one single piece of evidence...not one...the only evidence that comes forward is that its all made up.... and if there was one single piece you would present it ...but you have no evidence and can not even provide a single link...this evidence you claim is as non existent as your God..not one single theist has evidence not a one...cause if there was one tiny bit of evidence it would be head line news.

You have nothing except your fear of death and hell and wishful thinking about a notion to escape death and hell...you are just like all theists....their fear prevents them being truthful and accepting that the made up God story is a mere fairey tale.

If you had anything you would table it but you cant table a thing because there is nothing you have to work with except made up superstitious stories.

So now call me an atheist call me whatever you like but either put up this evidence you claim is out there or shut up.

Simple ..really what have you got?

Anyways I hope you are well.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

So objective evidence is important to you, after all?

About as important as the wood, water, and fire thing you mentioned earlier.

Maybe you could present some of this objective evidence you have. Because objective evidence is important to me. I'd be interested to learn about any objective evidence for God. Can we discuss that? That's actually the thread topic, according to the title, you know.

I've presented loads, over the years. It just seems go over your head. So now I direct you to people who can explain it in a language you can appreciate.
Don't worry, once you come back with stuff, I will be able to discuss it with you.

I simply mean that we'd have the same opinion on the question of God.

Why would we have any question of God?

That's stating the bleeding obvious, isn't it? Where are you going with this? Or is that your end point?

I think you need to begin from these simple points, and work your way up.
The problem is, you are so far gone in your delusion, you have almost completely forgotten God. But you're not aware that you have.
So you talk as though you have some idea, and then expect me to keep responding. You then get frustrated because I'm not answering, or responding to your questions, or points, in a way that satisfy you. So we end up going round in circle.

What is your goal, then?

To learn about the delusions of atheists.

If you don't give a monkey's about what anybody thinks about what you post, why do you post? I'm puzzled.

Do you think everybody posts here to change the opinions of others?
Is that what you do?

What's to refute?

There's nothing to refute, from you.​

Theism, James. You want to refute theism, so you can live happily with your atheist delusion.
Theism will always be a thorn in your side, because it constantly reminds you of that which you want to forget.
The problem is, you have forgotten, but that is not enough. It needs to be completely removed.

You're telling me you have a belief that comes "naturally" to you, that is not evidence-based and, at bottom, irrational.

You're telling me you literally blend dog poo with water melon, and drink it. Ew!

​

 

[Jan Ardena]

You're not making any argument, you tell me. You don't give a monkeys.

That's right. I don't give a monkeys about turning you into a theist, or changing peoples minds.
If peoples minds are changed, then so be it. But it's not my intention.

Why do you believe?

Why don't you believe?

The basis of my current opinion that there is no good evidence for God is my reading on the matter, which is reasonably extensive.

Why is that your opinion?

Add to that my personal experience (or lack thereof) of God, and my awareness of my own state of belief when I was theist.

What did you believe in, and why did you believe, ''when you were a theist''?

...
​

​

 

[Jan Ardena]

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"

What would you regard as ''extraordinary evidence''?
Bear in mind the subject matter.

The caveat, of course, is that, like most of my beliefs, this one is provisional and open to revision in the light of new evidence that might come to my attention some time in future.

What's to stop you simply denying and rejecting evidence, like you always do?

Let's talk about your objective evidence for God then.

I'd sooner discuss what you would expect objective evidence of God to be.

What objective evidence are you thinking of? Can you give at least one example?

The material world.
Can you give one example of what you would expect objective evidence of God to be?

Bear in mind, for us to continue this part, you need to answer my questions regarding theism, and God.

jan.

No more of these long posts please. Thanks.


















​