Jan Ardena has blustered on about how he isn't interested in evidence, yada yada yada. As far as actually presenting any goes, there are two things. At one point he appeared to suggest that everything in the world is evidence of God, but he couldn't quite bring himself to commit to that position when asked the question directly. Apart from that, he suggested that the "scriptures" are evidence of God, without providing any particular reason as to why they should be considered as such.
You are an obfuscation expert James.
I see this mash-up of misrepresentation, as a sign of frustration. You need to get closure on the issue of ''there is no God'', but you can't.
You try to convince yourself there is no God, by twisting what theists say.
I cannot convince you that scriptures are evidence of God, because for you there is no God.
The problem is you are an atheist by choice.
Of course you're going to claim that you have not stated, there is no God. But you don't have to say it. It is conclusive that for you there is no God.
I know. Have you got any evidence?
Based on what I said I believed, what would you regard as evidence?
I think you've tied yourself in a knot again. I invited you to address the issue of "real" when you provide evidence, if you think you need to. That invitation remains open. We can discuss it when and if you decide to present some evidence.
Given the subject matter (God) what would you accept as evidence?
As is clear from the statement I made (which you quoted in the process of producing this response), I am bothered about presupposing truths. I also wrote quite extensively on my thoughts about the possibility of accessing the Truth, with a capital "T".
You can grammar it how you like James. Truth is truth. If I said I was a man, I would be telling the truth. If I said I was the fastest sprinter in the world, I would not be telling the truth. Do you want to know the truth, or aren't you bothered. That is the question. I'm not interested in your long-winded answers. Just a simple yes or no.
But, again, this talk of "Truth" is just a distraction on your part. If you think you have some True evidence, why don't you just present it? That's what the thread is about.
You mean evidence aside from the ability to perceive something as evidence?
That would mean presupposing I am separate to God, and my faculties are independent of God.
That is your delusion, not mine.
Are you willing to change your mind about the reality of God, in principle? (Watch the cartwheels start.)
Firstly, I would have to consider what ''willing'' is. Whether or not it was a part of the reality, that it would need to separate itself from in a bid to independently find the reality that is real. The problem is that in doing so, I would lose access to reality, and consider my delusion a reality. In that way, I will have deemed myself, God. Similar to what atheists do.
I'm not so sure about that, but it's a discussion better suited to the Philosophy forum.
There's no need to hash this out with philosophy. There is a truth. Whatever happened for us to be here today, happened, and here we are.
I must say, it's remarkable in this thread that you, one who is so often demonstrably unable to distinguish subjective from objective Truth, are suddenly an enthusiast for the One Truth.
You’re the one who has trouble. You don’t even realise that you’re predisposed toward truth, even in your world where you try to make it possible there could be a God, but there would have to be independent evidence.
What do you think God is, why there could be independent evidence?
I think I have said all I need to say thus far.
I suggest you stop with obfuscating, and simply respond to what I say, so we can progress.
You are in your position, and I am in mine.
To make things short, but informative, I suggest you bring forth a definition of God that is acceptable for both of us. Then we can move forward.
Jan.
