I asked a simple question, which you still have not answered.
@ DMOE
Yes, "this", as in the comments I was quoting (i.e. commenting on the posting violations of others).
And thanks again for your cooperation.
Ask it again and I will report you for harassment.
P.S. or BTW - would/could it be considered "Trolling" if I said that I was enjoying y'alls little spat?
I don't think that anyone disputes that it's a fact that theists believe in the existence of God. (Leaving aside the question of what they take the word 'God' to mean.) The question that MR was speaking about is whether the word 'God' refers to or names some divine object that has independent reality apart from theists' own subjectivities.
If all theists on Earth ceased to exist tomorrow and all recorded references to 'God' were erased, would God still exist? Or would God disappear along with the subjects who once believed in him? Put another more theological way, did God create us and is our being dependent on him, or did we create God and is whatever fictional being that God has dependent on us?
There's a striking lack of clear and unambiguous evidence for the existence of God. Even many theists agree about that, hence theology's problem of the 'hiddenness of God'.
I personally interpret that lack of evidence as itself being evidence (not proof) that God probably doesn't exist.
For those who are more deeply embedded in the theistic tradition(s), especially those that ascribe "omni-" attributes to their deities, the question does arise of why God (hypothetically) chooses not to reveal himself unambiguously, choosing instead to remain hidden. That seems to me to be a problem for theists more than for me. I don't typically spend much time speculating about the hypothetical motivations of what seem to be non-existent beings.
Seems to me you just answered your own question...
Do you have trouble modelling the beliefs of others? Do you consider yourself to hold any beliefs?
If you lack the ability to model the beliefs of others, you will necessarily doubt their self-reported experience and discount anything but objective evidence, which those beliefs do not rely on. So it is quite critically relevant.
The philosophical issue here is what, if any, epistemological status other peoples' reports of their private psychological states might have as evidence of objectively existing but otherwise unseen supernatural realities.
No. The real philosophical issue here is the envy and the feelings of being threatened that atheists tend to feel toward theists and theistic ideas.
In and of itself, the existence of "God" is completely irrelevant until one settles on what one means by "God." And this is a matter of a personal decision which atheists, like zealot theists, tend to prefer to leave to their subconscious.
No. The real philosophical issue here is the envy and the feelings of being threatened that atheists tend to feel toward theists and theistic ideas.
That's ad-hominem, Wynn. You know that.
Your eagerness to expose and critique other people's imagined psychological weaknesses is a little hypocritical while you are doing everything that you can to avoid revealing anything about yourself. You've never told us what your own beliefs and motivations are.
But that stuff seems to me to be largely irrelevant. Launching into imaginative attacks on other people's personalities won't defeat their philosophical points. To do that, people need to make even better philosophical points.
In and of itself, the existence of "God" is completely irrelevant until one settles on what one means by "God."
MR was asking about objective evidence, and I clearly answer "no". That says nothing about any possible independent reality either way. God could be an emergent phenomena which would reemerge after being scoured from Earth, and that still would not be determinant of whether it has an independent reality.
It's equally applicable to anyone advocating a for/against policy.Wouldn't that point be even more applicable to theists?
Are you implying that I'm autistic again?Do you have trouble modelling the beliefs of others? Do you consider yourself to hold any beliefs?
You seem to be suggesting that if people don't believe whatever they are told, then they must have psychiatric deficiencies and lack the ability to understand that other people possess psychological states. That's just foolish.If you lack the ability to model the beliefs of others, you will necessarily doubt their self-reported experience and discount anything but objective evidence, which those beliefs do not rely on. So it is quite critically relevant.
The issue isn't whether or not people have psychological states such as emotions. It isn't even whether or not people have religious experiences.
The philosophical issue here is what, if any, epistemological status other peoples' reports of their private psychological states might have as evidence of objectively existing but otherwise unseen supernatural realities.
No. The real philosophical issue here is the envy and the feelings of being threatened that atheists tend to feel toward theists and theistic ideas.
More atheist bashing. We're autistic. We're envious of theists. We feel threatened. Typical adhoming resorted to by the desperate.
That's ad-hominem, Wynn. You know that.
Wouldn't that point be even more applicable to theists? They are the ones who are claiming that God exists. Presumably they think that the word means something.
I don't think that theists all mean the same thing when they speak of 'God'. There's the metaphysical functions. There's whatever the object(s) of mystical experience might be, if anything. There's sources of moral law. There's Yahweh, Vishnu and Allah. There's whatever people think gives the universe and their lives meaning and a human face. Sometimes theists claim to know what God's essential properties are, to be in communication with him and to know his will. Other theists say that God exceeds all words and concepts and can only be approached through a process of unknowing.
But despite all the diversity of the 'God' concepts, theists still use the same word 'God' word to mean whatever subset of that stuff that they are emphasizing at the moment.
One moment you claim God DOESN'T fall in the purview of science. The next moment you claim he does.MR was asking about objective evidence, and I clearly answer "no". That says nothing about any possible independent reality either way. God could be an emergent phenomena which would reemerge after being scoured from Earth, and that still would not be determinant of whether it has an independent reality.
So now God is an emergent phenomenon, something that clearly can be detected and defined as such scientifically? Where is the evidence for this emergent phenomenon? How is it detected? What are its properties?
These are simple yes or no questions. I will take your unwillingness to answer as an affirmative of the first and a negation of the second, since you seem unwilling to do anything but allow my unfettered assumptions.