Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, actually it is the reverse. The foible of belief in a supernatural being belongs to all classes of theists.
Evidence that God is real
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
It's more the case that practically no theist advocates God as being "supernatural". The real question here is why its only atheists that insist on such eccentric descriptions.
So far it seems clear that its only atheists who have a belief about God being "supernatural".
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
The God of any coded scripture is by definition of a supernatural nature. It is a completely imaginary formless but intelligent existence, which identifies as "I am That, I am"...
Hey, Me too.....
Incorrect.The God of any coded scripture is by definition of a supernatural nature. It is a completely imaginary formless but intelligent existence, which identifies as "I am That, I am"...
Hey, Me too.....
That definition is predominantly foisted by atheists.
Why?
Given that this thread is specifically for theists to present whatever it is they consider to be evidence of God, however they wish to define "evidence" and/or "God", your comments here are once again symptomatic of you being a troll. Please desist. If you have nothing to say in line with the OP, simply do the decent thing and £&@# right off.
Your wilful ignorance astounds me, Jan. But your argument from personal incredulity unfortunately does not establish it as fact.
So you believe. So you keep asserting.
Knowledge: justified true belief. Please justify God Is to my satisfaction. Please show that it is true. Please then show that I believe it.
Without just one of these, Jan, there is no knowledge.
Children most likely have a concept of God, typically in the west it is a Sky Daddy concept. It really depends upon your upbringing. Babies, though? Please provide evidence that babies know God.
You decry the atheist for setting up a version of God that suits their non-belief, yet when invited to provide your own definition you evade, and then continue crying foul that the atheist version is wrong.
Can you please provide a definition that does not beg the question of its own existence, that is not defined as existing? Or is your belief so reliant upon such that you can't offer one?
Until you do, Jan, your claims of foul will be ignored for the trollish behaviour it otherwise is.
First, I'm fairly sure in the past you have claimed that theism/atheism is not actually a choice, but a fundamental. And now you claim it to be a choice. Is that a choice like whether I would pick door A or door B, or a choice like which colour do I prefer out of red or blue? Are you aware of the difference between those types of "choice"?
Second, delusion is the holding of a position despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument. You have yet to provide a sound rational argument for the existence of God, and you seem unable to point out where the "delusion" is contradicted by reality. As such your claim of it being a delusion is wrong, and not a little bit insulting, given that it is most commonly associated with mental disorder.
You are deflecting, Jan. What you mean is that you won't respond as requested in the OP because you realise (and with history to support that view) that you are unable to put together a coherent and consistent argument that you feel "defeats" the atheist view.
And that's your problem, Jan. Not that you can't put forth such an argument, but that you feel you need to defeat the atheist view. You can't. Just as the atheist can't defeat the theist view. You, and others here, are fighting an unwinnable fight, and doing so in threads that are set up simply for discussion of others' views.
You don't even do that, Jan. You not only don't discuss, but you don't understand atheism enough to be able to discuss it meaningfully even if you eventually decided to discuss it. You would try to discuss your strawman version of atheism and ignore and evade any mention of atheism that doesn't conform to that.
But this is not the thread for it.
That's because most theists irrationally assume that unsubstantiated qualities such as omniscience, omnipotence, incorporeality and immortality are “natural” occurrences.
Because every time I ask a theist for a definition of god, I get - "You know - God." As if repeating the word defines it.
When you say that the evidence of things unseen is faith, that means it can't be naturally known. Even if they don't use the term, they and you place god in an intellectual realm separate from the possibility of evidence, and that's what we call supernatural.
So instead you choose to define God in an eccentric manner typical of atheists who are ignorant of vast tracts of history and philosophy?
Why?
Last edited:
Your opinions on what is and isn't substantiated aside (aka, begging the q), why would an omnimax, et al, personality be rationally relegated beyond the "natural"?
Did I say that?
On the contrary, its clear that atheists predominantly choose to define "evidence" in a manner to suit a particular intellectual realm suited to their own purposes.
In fact one could argue far more easily and convincingly that the notion of drawing a complete picture of reality via the exclusive use of empiricism as a supernatural belief.
In other words, they care about whether something is true.
Did I say complete? No one said that. You are basically saying that we can't prove you wrong because we aren't omniscient. We can't prove you wrong, but you can't prove it right. And that's why I don't believe, not because I think evidence shows god doesn't exist, but because no evidence has convinced me that it does.
In order to consider qualities such as omniscience, omnipotence, incorporeality and immortality to be natural, they first have to be demonstrated to be actual. If I claimed to possess these stated qualities myself would you believe me? If no, why not?
Then present the evidence that humans have the ability to create God.
I believe in God, because I accept God.
I don’t deny or reject God.
Your satisfaction is of no interest to me.
You crave satisfaction to keep your delusional worldview alive in your mind.
That is the concept you have chosen to accept, so that you can keep your delusion intact.
I’m not going to waste my time providing anything, because you already know why.
You have simply forgotten due to your delusional state.
The thing to do is to discuss your delusion at length, in the hope that you will remember. Are you prepared to do that?
It is easy for you to set up barriers against theists. But it is a lot harder to put up barriers against the truth that you know.
I’m more interested in discussing your delusion, commonly known as atheism.
Belief isn’t a choice, but to accept, or deny, is
You deny God, and that is now your fundamental position. God is merciful, because God will grant not only remberance, but forgetfulness to those that ask for it sincerely.
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.
I don’t have to provide anything. You already know God Is. I just need to keep discussing your delusion, so eventually you come the realisation by your own volition.
You’re already defeated.
You need to keep denying, and rejecting God, to satisfy your delusion. This is why you never tire of discussing God. You have a need to have an answer for every point made, or scripture. That way you fool yourself into thinking there is no God.
And yes you are trying to convince yourself there is no God. And it would probably work if you could show that there is no evidence for God, despite not knowing where your ability to come to any conclusion is derived from.
You’re already defeated.
But you are right, if theists try to convince atheists that God exists, we would be engaging an unwinnable fight. Because you are simply going to reject and deny.
It is better for both theist and atheist to discuss your delusion.
Atheism literally means that one is without God. Everything else including lifestyle, perception, grandiose titles, emanate from that.
I simply prefer to go straight to the source.
It appears that way because you have decided to reject, and/or deny God.
Jan.
God is supernatural. By definition. If God were natural we'd call it climate or astrophysics or something.
Merriam-Webster:
=======================
Definition of god
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b: Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
Oxford:
========================
god, n. and int.
a. A superhuman person regarded as having power over nature and human fortunes
So unless the dictonaries of the world are "select atheist echo chambers" you are, once again, dead wrong.
He has admitted he can present no evidence for God - so I doubt he will be discussing the OP much.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Because we previously established that - not only does is no one willing to lay out a definition we can work with - but that no one has a more authoritative definition than anyone else.
Therefore, gmilam's working definition is as good as any other, and one that, by your own admission (since you can't correct it), you'll have to accept.
You made that bed; lie in it.