Empirical Evidence of God

Musika said:
But you are appealing to extant evidence. You are simply swapping nouns for promoting ideas that are already present. Granted you are of the opinion that such a body of work, in its original form, doesn't constitute extant evidence, but you don't lend weight to your challenge any more than labelling energy, mass and the speed of light as Huey, Dewey and Louie changes anything specific in Einstein's work.
Click to expand...
No, the Cosmic Unicorn is not merely a euphamism for God. The CU operates in entirely different ways to God. For example, the planets are seeded by a flick of his pixie-dust-filled tail.
I am asserting that Bowser's image of God is incorrect.

And, since the evidence is certainly available to me - and anyone who opens their mind to it - Bowser's logic dictates that it must be acceptable to him.

Yes, I'm being facetious - it is not intended to mock. It's intended to point out that, if evidence is entirely subjective, and not open to inspection, then the conclusion too is just as subjective - trapped in Bowser's subjective mind.
 
Jan Ardena:

Jan Ardena said:
James why do you lie so much.
Having a discussion with a person that blatantly tells lies, is a pointless pursuit.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?

How often have you lectured us all on how evidence of God is only relevant to atheists, and theists like yourself don't require any?

Sure, in the past week or so, you seem to have come to a realisation that your argument that evidence is unimportant and that there is no empirical evidence to be had anyway is not flying very well. So, now you're falling back to a position where the existence of every tree and pile of bricks (to borrow from Neddy Bate's post, above) is evidence of God.

"When you look at a rock, can't you see God? No? You must be in denial, then, because you're an atheist."

That's how your latest line goes, isn't it?

The problem for you, Jan, is that you don't start each thread with a blank slate, able to tailor your argument to whatever best suits the topic. People remember what you wrote in the past. When you flip-flop back and forth from thread to thread, your readers notice.
 
Musika said:
Then perhaps you require a separate thread
Click to expand...
No, this is precisely the correct thread.

Bowser's logic - in this thread - results in a undefined number of conclusions. God is one. CU is another. They both require the same amount of explaining how they're real, while dispensing with the notion of examinable phenomena.
 
Unicorns are real. We wouldn't be talking about them so much if they weren't real. Some people just choose to not believe in them but that's due to not defining what a unicorn is precisely.

I don't struggle with them because they just are. They're all around for those who open their minds to them. Life is too complex for a unicorn not to have been involved.
 
Seattle said:
It was in response to the question about "what would it take for you to acknowledge that God exists" or whatever the question was.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but you did ask the question.

If you're not prepared to accept that God has God attributes, you may as well not ask the question.

If you accept God's attributes, then you cannot think the world would be the same without God.

If you think there is no evidence for God, therefore I can't assign attributes.
Then you imagine a world without God to be the same as it is now, based on a presupposition that there is no evidence for God.
For that to be real, you must currently believe that God doesn't exist.
Which is fine.But what about the fence-sitters? What do they believe?

You can't imagine a world where God doesn't exist.

jan.
 
DaveC426913 said:
No, this is precisely the correct thread.

Bowser's logic - in this thread - results in a undefined number of conclusions. God is one. CU is another. They both require the same amount of explaining how they're real, while dispensing with the notion of examinable phenomena.
Click to expand...
Perhaps ... at least until you went off on the tangemt about how the CU is distinct from God. If you are struggling with the "one God", you need to go back to Strangers joke thread until your puzzlement clears up.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Maybe so, but you did ask the question.

If you're not prepared to accept that God has God attributes, you may as well not ask the question.

If you accept God's attributes, then you cannot think the world would be the same without God.

If you think there is no evidence for God, therefore I can't assign attributes.
Then you imagine a world without God to be the same as it is now, based on a presupposition that there is no evidence for God.
For that to be real, you must currently believe that God doesn't exist.
Which is fine.But what about the fence-sitters? What do they believe?

You can't imagine a world where God doesn't exist.

jan.
Click to expand...
I don't know what fence sitters believe. Maybe one of them will post. Perhaps they will say that this world matches the world without God as a factual matter except for some attributes?

I guess that could be as simple as, "It doesn't seem that God exists but I'm not very knowledgeable regarding science and I'm told that God is necessary to create all I see around me". "I'm also told that there are no alien spaceships but I'm sure I've seen a few". "I don't know, I'm kind of on the fence...what to do?".
 
Seattle said:
I don't know what fence sitters believe. Maybe one of them will post. Perhaps they will say that this world matches the world without God as a factual matter except for some attributes?

I guess that could be as simple as, "It doesn't seem that God exists but I'm not very knowledgeable regarding science and I'm told that God is necessary to create all I see around me". "I'm also told that there are no alien spaceships but I'm sure I've seen a few". "I don't know, I'm kind of on the fence...what to do?".
Click to expand...

Your imagination appears to have been curtailed by your world view.

jan.
 
Seattle said:
I don't know what fence sitters believe. Maybe one of them will post. Perhaps they will say that this world matches the world without God as a factual matter except for some attributes?
Click to expand...

Not just ''some attributes'', but God attributes.

jan.
 
Musika said:
Perhaps ... at least until you went off on the tangemt about how the CU is distinct from God.
Click to expand...
Bowser's logic - the logic that he is hoping we will see - leads as easily to any other entity as it does to God.

You are dodging the question.
If a line of reasoning leads to in a literally uncountable number of equivalent solutions, then what makes one of them special?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Bowser's logic - the logic that he is hoping we will see - leads as easily to any other entity as it does to God.

You are dodging the question.
If a line of reasoning leads to in a literally uncountable number of equivalent solutions, then what makes one of them special?
Click to expand...
Not a dodge at all.
Far from being but one of uncountable solutions, the moment you are referring to an omnimax personality is the moment you are being necessarily singular.
If you want to discuss identities outside of the omnimax, then feel free to dodge away .... but preferably in a separate thread.
 
sweetpea said:
Dissociative Identity Disorder ?
Click to expand...

Bi polar (able to be everywhere even both poles of the Earth at same time)
Dissociative Identity Disorder (Helloooo Father Son AND Holy Ghost - Text book)

Why has no one performed a intervention and have him committed?

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Bi polar (able to be everywhere even both poles of the Earth at same time)
Dissociative Identity Disorder (Helloooo Father Son AND Holy Ghost - Text book)
Click to expand...
Well, it's looking to me that both Bowser and Jan are Hindu with their god taking many forms.
 
Consider that GOD ain't at your beck and call, never has been, and most likely never will be.

alternately: You cannot control TAO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top