Can you quote/ direct to the parts of scripture which revealed your god to you?
Again, what parts of scripture would help a fool to do this?
Empirical Evidence of God
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
I believe we've told you. It's natural.
You have to suppress your connection, but it applies to you also.
Only to suppress your own.
We won't tell.
Oops!
So let's stop pretending you believe that.
Consider it brung, Brah!
Now explain why you're not satisfied.
Jan.
Your belief is that fragile you pretend to play the jester to not get hurt.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Natural does not equate to true.
It's natural to dream, but you don't believe everything you dream.
It's natural to worship one's parents as heroes, but not all parents are heroes.
Because you want to something to be a certain way doesn't make it that way. That's called wishful thinking.
The rest of your post is just a series of ad homs. But do keep making them. Every ad hom is an example of you not having a valid argument to make.
But we do dream.
Show that it's natural to worship one's parents as heroes
Sorry, I thought we were talking about theism being natural to human beings.
The evidence has been put forward.
It is you that has to argue against it.
Instead you're just pretending you don't need to, by acting as though you have.
So come on!
The ball is in your court.
What have you got?
Jan.
Bowser's approach aside, he took it to the next level with the question "Ok, you don't accept this as physical evidence of God, so here is a thread for you guys to discuss what you think would qualify as physical evidence for God (since you guys obviously have some sort of working notion - albeit theoretical - about what God is and how that should manifest in the language of the physical world). Here is your chance to offer what you think would be a physical indication of God."
Quite a few of our resident atheists understood this and offered ideas, and a small minority hasn't and are still ranting in the manner of the old thread that drove Bowser to create this one.
Of those who have understood it, it seems they all discuss the performance of some wondrous powers, but admit it may not necessarily be God but a mere display of something greater than the conceivable powers of our necessarily limited human experience.
Of those who have not understood it, they are still revolving around generic arguments and challenges about and from atheism that are a dime a dozen.
Of those who have understood it, it raises an interesting question. If you are going to venture into analyzing an omnimax personality, you will need some omni quality to measure it against.
Actually this q of Bowsers is much like a similar thread in a different subforum discussing whether infinity can be a real or abstract phenomena. If you encounter something that was actually infinite, what would you measure to determine that was its nature (as opposed to merely really, really, really big)?
IOW the only means to measure an infinite quality would be with something that also has an infinite quality. Or to put it it simply, one would not expect an infinite number to measurable by anything less than an infinite tape measure.
So the question then arises, "Does the living entity share a quantitative (since we are talking physical, aka empirical, here) equivelence with God?"
IOW, just like God is purported to, does the living entity partake of the capacity to cause the physical world from the position of an unmutable identity, in full cognizance of the expanse and origins of such a manifestation?
Or to put it simply, is the living entity one with God in quantity?
The obvious answer is "no".
From the "physical" quantitative standpoint, our identity and powers are not immutable or unlimited.
So if the problem of identifying God does not meet a tenable solution on the "quantitative" front, is it possible to meet a tenable solution on the "qualitative" front?
How much water would you require to test if it came from the ocean? Just a drop, it seems.
It is obvious we do not share God's "quantity", but do we share God's "quality"?
To cut to the chase, empiricism isn't epistemologically suited to answer that question and atheism is not ideologically suited to answer that question. So if you have atheists citing the authority of empiricism in an effort to answer the question it leads to predictable results.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I have been watching youtube videos presenting "proof of god".
I came away with proof that theists are liars.
Not one movie have I watched could you say is free of lies....not a single one.
They start with lieing to themselves and lieing becomes somewhat normal.
And I meant what I said.
I am sick of the waffle and lies and this approach of lets talk about god to feel warm and fuzzy whilst there is a complete failure to support the claim.
Clearly there is no god so stop pretending and making stuff up.
There is no proof for one obvious reason...there is no god ...so short of proof we get this "lets talk about how great god is"...
I dislike dishonest folk.
Alex
As I said before, if one is not prepared to work with at least theoretical ideas of God, its difficult to understand what they would hope to achieve by participating in threads like "What does God want?" or "How is God evidenced?".
We get it, that you don't think God exists. And no doubt the reason for your participation in these sorts of threads is driven by the desire to show that "If we look at what God wants, it proves God doesn't exist" or "If we look at how God is evidenced, it proves God does not exist "
But if you really want to get these conclusions off your hot little hands and on the table, you will have to at least have the patience to work with theoretical definitions of God.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Theory implies certain things starting with hypothesis, mixing in evidence and making testable predictions ... go ahead.
Alex
Quick.
Go to the time travel thread and shut it down.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Crab walk.
Alex
Just pointing out how over 98% of theoretical discussions on this site don't meet your criteria .... despite many of them going on for hundreds of pages.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Your understanding of why other people participate in a thread is not required.
Stop wasting screen space asking derailing questions. Stay on-topic.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That would be a silly way to do things.
Silly Lawyer: "Your Honour, we wish to start the proceedings by asking Your Honour what evidence he would accept that would make my client innocent."
Logical Judge: "Innocent of what, exactly? Why don't we wait for the prosecution to actually make an accusation, and to make their case with some evidence?"
The onus remains on the claimant to first produce evidence they deem as compelling. Then skeptics decide whether it qualifies.
You're dodging. Just like Jan. You're hoping to tie the discussion up in meta-discussions about who gets to discuss and who shouldn't be here.
Do you have any evidence or not? Present it.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Sure but perhaps you could address my post and proceed to lay out your theory approach.
Alex
It would be a waste of time.
I am pretty sure your "beef" is with what the "theory" implies and have zero interest in applying it.
I mean in all those time travel etc threads, I'm pretty sure not much of it is spent on the point of ".... but wait up guys, we don't actually know how to travel backwards in time."
In a universe where all things are possible, assuming he lives through you and me.