In regards to atheism.

[spidergoat]

God is the source of our ability to know

How do you know?

What is your reason for being an atheist?

I'm not convinced that there is a god.

 

[karenmansker]

Jan, I pretty much agree with your arguments . . . . . IMO, God works in a binary fashion Spectacular universal creation (from energy, according to physical and other laws) in the long-run (evolving universe), while quietly and subtley - of more immediate shorter-term (i.e., personal). The former we can observe physically and the latter we can sense emotionally, spiritually, or non- (or meta-) physically

Now for a bit of levity . . .

Who said (or words to that effect): "I'll be back!"? and who do you believe?

1. The Terminator
2. Jesus
3. Douglas MacArthur

 

[Jan Ardena]

I said there is evidence that people put forward to argue for God's existence, but it is very weak and subjective.

How do you know they are subjective and very weak?
What are you weighing their potential validity against?

Of course, if you claim that everything is God, then the fact that anything exists counts as evidence for you. But then you're not really talking about God; you're simply redefining the term "God" to mean "the universe", in effect. I agree with you that the universe exists

I'm okay with seeing God as universe. It's better than no acknowledgement.

We're talking about an all-powerful being here. I think he could choose to make some evidence available if he existed. Don't you?

The thing is, everything is evidence, which is why the original meaning of atheist applies perfectly to you.

God, being an omnipotent being, would necessarily be incomprehensible to any human being, theist or atheist.

It's not God's omnipotence that we seek to comprehend. Maybe that's the thing, you want to see God's power and opulence.

What you're really suggesting here is that I'm somehow unable to perceive God - I lack the required "God sense", or something.

Something like that.

And, yes, that's possible. Who knows, maybe this all-powerful God of yours has Created me in such a way that I am unable to perceive him. Maybe he did that to punish me for sins in a past life, or something. It's all possible. Just very implausible.

I doubt that. I would say you are the architect of you current position. The body vehicle is equipped for comprehension of God.

Tut tut, Jan!

You chopped off half of what I wrote there. That's dishonest of you. So, go back and assemble the full quote, and try responding to that, including the half you don't like. Don't just pretend it wasn't there.

I take it you mean this...

Your definition of "athiest", to paraphrase, is " a person who is 'without God' because he or she refuses to 'acknowledge' the God who Is."

That's trying to define God into existence. You're sayingthat a person can't be an atheist unless God exists. Therefore, since people do claim to be atheists, therefore God exists.

It's a bizarre way to try to define God into existence, yet this is what you're asking your readers to accept.

As far as I'm aware God does exist, I don't need to define Him into existence.
You approach these discussions as if there is no evidence for God, therefore defining Him out of existence.
Why should your ideology be the one we work with?

According to you, we're all God, or parts of God. Isn't that right? How, then, can anybody be "without God", according to you?

I've never said we are God.

For a "true" theist, like you claim to be,

A true theist?
What is the difference between a theist and a "true theisy"?

God plays a very significant role in their life. They think about God. They act with God in mind. They pray to God or otherwise worship him. They "live their life by their belief".

A theist basically believes in God.

But you do need to discuss things in good faith, if you are to have a productive discussion at all. Ignoring points that don't fit your narrative isn't discussing things in good faith. Never attempting to justify your own position is not discussing things in good faith.

I don't ignore points atheists make. However, if I have already explained the points, I refuse to keep repeating myself.

All your queries default to God's existence. You seem unable to talk about anything else. I believe you are without God, which is why you can't get past existence.
You don't want to entertain the idea that maybe you currently can't comprehend God, while theists currently can.

Anyway, if I'm stuck, I'm stuck, I guess. I can go no further, as you say. Does that mean God has failed with me? I mean, it's not my fault I don't believe in him, as far as I can see. He could do a much better job of it if he really wanted me to believe

Maybe you feel that God should pander to your personal order carrier. I've noticed that although you you think God doesn't (probably) exist, you cannot bring g yourself to think of Him, the he described in the scriptures. You are always negative. What does that say about you? I think K you don't like God, or the idea of God.

I think you're right on one thing, though. Unless good faith is forthcoming from you, the best option for me might well be to move on an cease engaging with you.

I'm sure you'll understand that I don't take anything that say I say, seriously.

No, that's wrong. A person who is without compassion can understand what compassion involves.

What does compassion involve?

Similarly, an atheist can understand what belief in God involves.

Atheists can understand belief, but they don't understand God. Hence they don't understand belief in God.

Nor does he feel God's presence, or whatever,

Why?

Altogether now...


... Because the atheist is without God.
Just the label means.

Also, you're committing your usual fallacy again here by asserting that there's "existence for you" and "existence for me", without acknowledging the element of objective existence. Compassion objectively exists as a phenomenon, regardless of the fact that some people lack compassion

I've already explained that, using compassion as an analogy. Your futile attempt to explain it away is laughable.
Try again.

Compassion objectively exists as a phenomenon, regardless of the fact that some people lack compassion.

Explain how compassion objectively exists. Please?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

You approach these discussions as if there is no evidence for God

So prove us wrong. This is your big chance (again).

Atheists can understand belief, but they don't understand God. Hence they don't understand belief in God.

This is not true. I do understand belief in God. I grew up believing in God.

But as I grew up I began to dispense with many naive things that were drilled into me when I was guileless. Santa, the Tooth Fairy, God...

I realized, with my newfound wisdom, that God was far more consistent as a human construct than as an entity in nature.

I am not certain that this is true (it is impossible to be), which is a big plus in the 'rational' column.

 

[spidergoat]

As far as I'm aware God does exist

Why do you think so?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nonsense. You would never believe you were having a conversation with someone who did not exist.

If I'm having a conversation with someone, where would the notion of the person not existing come into the conversation?

You're back to defining the universe to be God.

I've no problem with you viewing it like that. You may be currently without God, but that notion is the link that can change your position in the future. It wouldn't surprise me if Anthony Flew left that air-hole open.

If God is different from the universe, you need to explain the sense in which God is different from the universe, or from you or me. And you need to tell us how we can find this God and see that he is distinguishable from the universe.

I don't need to explain nothing, anymore than you need to explain anything about your position. The difference between you and I is that you are atheist, I'm not.
Both positions are correct from our perspectives.

Existence is an all-or-nothing thing. Either you've got it, or you ain't got it. So, if God exists, he exists in the same way that newspapers exist.

How do you know?

But I have a problem with your "without God" terminology for reasons I've explained at length above. I don't embrace the idea that God exists and I'm merely rejecting him (for reasons unknown to myself) or that God exists and he's specially made me so that I can't detect him.

Don't blame God for the choices you make.
Your being without God is your own doing

I'm not going to attempt to teach you Critical Thinking 101 in this thread, Jan. Sorry.

In other words, you don't evaluate the evidence. Just as I thought.

But I still have that niggling feeling that you really want "without God" to mean "they don't believe in God, yet God exists".

That's your problem. As far as I'm aware God exists, and like you, I will discuss from my own position.

I do think that if God doesn't exist, then God universally doesn't exist for everyone, regardless of whether they happen to believe he exists. That is, God's existence or non-existence is universal. There's no "existence for you" vs "non-existence for me". We've been through that.

A nonsensical response.
You will never find out that God does not exist, as any kind of fact. God not existing is in your head. The only direction you can go, is to accept God.

No, in the sense that atheists don't have an a priori conclusion that God does not exist.

You claim there is no evidence for God.
You claim that there should be external evidence that proves God's existence. Without evidence there is no way anyone can know that God exists, so until such time that evidence comes forth, God does not exist. This is just the tip of the iceberg of your claims. How is any of this observational. You don't know what/who God is, and because of that you feel that God does not exist. All your own theoretical suppositions.

Actually, to tell you the truth, Jan, my conclusion is only provisional. I've already told you that. I'm quite willing and ready to change my mind if new and convincing evidence comes to light at any point.

This statement betrays you.
In this state of mind you will never believe in God, because by definition, everything is evidence of God, but you aren't aware of that, and I don't think you're in any hurry to change that.

Yes, in the sense that the default assumption for the existence of any X is that X probably doesn't exist.

It depends on subject matter.
God's existence is not the same as anything's
existence. Plus why would you start at non-existence. I'll dispense with the "probably" as that is irrelevant. I think you maintain that to appear rational on this matter. The reality is that God does not currently exist for you, so God does not exist.

Investigating the question honestly demands that we keep both possibilities open at the start - that God exists, and that God does not exist

There is no possibility of knowing that God doesn't exist. You accept that God doesn't exist, but you don't want to say that because you're concerned with not being seen as irrational. Why don't you just admit it?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So prove us wrong. This is your big chance (again).

I've told you. You're not wrong from your perspective, that God does not exist, because for you He doesn't.

You prove to me that God doesn't exist (you can use probably if it makes you feel better.

This is not true. I do understand belief in God. I grew up believing in God

No you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't accept that God doesn't exist. What you believed was a concept, and it failed to fulfil, you moved on to something else.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why do you think so?

Because it makes complete sense.

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

You prove to me that God doesn't exist (you can use probably if it makes you feel better.

Evasion.

No better indication of a lack of substance behind your perspective.

No you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't accept that God doesn't exist.

How about don't tell me what I did or didn't think.

Yes. I believed in God.

The big advantage of being rational about the world is that one can embrace new evidence and change one's mind based on it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So you don't know that God is?
If you know (or even if you just claim to know) then you are claiming "God is" to be a fact.

As much as I claim compassion is a fact, which is not a lot.

So enough already of your claptrap

Excuse me?
Don't be rude.

The efforts you go to in your desire not to have to acknowledge your inconsistencies are remarkable, even if the end result for you is simply to reveal the depths of nonsense you are prepared to plummet to.

I'm afraid it is you that plummeted. You're running around like a headless chicken, trying to gain control, but you seriously lack the resources in the form of refutations. So now you default to ad hominems , baseless accusations, and requests to show external evidence of God, in hope of regaining some level of composure.

Now if only you focused that effort on being consistent in the first instance.
It might save you from having to post the utter catastrophe that you do.

If only you'd realise your position is that you are currently without God, you can never know that God doesn't exist, and all this, plus the irrelevance of the term "probably" is pointless, I think we'd have some decent conversations.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Evasion.

No better indication of a lack of substance behind your perspective.

No it's not. I don't have to attempt to prove anything. Obviously you don't feel you have to. So it's mutual.

How about don't tell me what I did or didn't think.

How about you do the same?

Yes. I believed in God.

I don't think you did.

The big advantage of being rational about the world is that one can embrace new evidence and change one's mind based on it.

How is this related to the discussion?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

How about you do the same?

I only address things you have actually said, here.
That is not the same ting as re-writing what you think might have gone on in my head decades ago.

I don't think you did.

That is not your call.

Recently, you said to Baldee: don't be rude. Asserting what you think someone else was thinking - in the face of them telling you what they were thinking - is quite rude.


And it would be simple to respond in-kind, and simply tell you 'I don't think you believe God exists at all'
But that's not a discussion is it?

How is this related to the discussion?

The discussion is about atheism. Atheism is nothing more than people making rational conclusions about the world. If one is not willing to change their view in light of new evidence, then that's dogma. Not good for convincing other of the truth of one's claims.

 

[Baldeee]

As much as I claim compassion is a fact, which is not a lot.

So let me clarify: you don't claim that "God is" is a fact?
You don't know that "God is"?
And you don't acknowledge the implication from "God is" to "God exists"?

Excuse me?
Don't be rude.

There's nothing rude about asserting your comments to be claptrap when that is indeed what they are.
You claim one thing and then deny the logical implications from that claim.
You then claim the opposite later on.
Your inconsistent arguments lead to nonsensical notions.
Hence claptrap.

I'm afraid it is you that plummeted. You're running around like a headless chicken, trying to gain control, but you seriously lack the resources in the form of refutations. So now you default to ad hominems , baseless accusations, and requests to show external evidence of God, in hope of regaining some level of composure.

There are no ad hominems, Jan.
Everything I have stated is in reference to your arguments, not your person.
Nor are the accusations baseless, having been supported each time.
As for "trying to gain control" - the only thing I'm trying to gain is for you to be able to hold coherent discussion, Jan.
The matter of control does not enter the fray.
And we ask for external evidence of God not to gain composure but because that is upon which we build our beliefs, Jan.
Clearly you don't.
Why is that?

If only you'd realise your position is that you are currently without God, you can never know that God doesn't exist, and all this, plus the irrelevance of the term "probably" is pointless, I think we'd have some decent conversations.

First, I am already of the opinion that one can never know that God doesn't exist.
Second, all you want is for people to believe exactly as you do, to ignore their actual positions and to behave just as your strawman requires.
Since you seem incapable of doing anything but argue against your strawman view of atheism, since you seem incapable of actually listening to what atheists tell you, and since you seem incapable of anything other than inconsistent arguments and evasion, I will once again bid you adieu.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I only address things you have actually said, here.
That is not the same ting as re-writing what you think might have gone on in my head decades ago

I'm not telling you what went off in your head decades ago. I am only addressing what you say on here.

That is not your call.

Why isn't it my call?

Recently, you said to Baldee: don't be rude. Asserting what you think someone else was thinking - in the face of them telling you what they were thinking - is quite rude.

Go back through any discussion I have had with the usual suspects, and you will find them doing just that. The problem is that you all get away with it so much you don't realise you are doing it. When someone like me treats you the same as you treat most theists, who speak positively about theism and God, you become intolerable, and start to bring the discussion into a personal domain. Much like you're doing now.

And it would be simple to respond in-kind, and simply tell you 'I don't think you believe God exists at all'
But that's not a discussion is it?

On the contrary. Such honesty would be more productive, than simply defending your position as though it is universal.

The discussion is about atheism. Atheism is nothing more than people making rational conclusions about the world.

So theism isn't about people making rational conclusions? Why? Because theists are irrational?

If one is not willing to change their view in light of new evidence, then that's dogma. Not good for convincing other of the truth of one's claims.

I've told you time and again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You cannot convince somebody for whom God does not exist, that God exists. In fact I think it can be dangerous in the sense that if it goes wrong you stand the risk of turning people completely the other way. Most probably happened to yourself and other atheists.

But why do you think there is a possibility of new evidence that may cause you to change your mind, regarding the existence of God.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So let me clarify: you don't claim that "God is" is a fact?
You don't know that "God is"?
And you don't acknowledge the implication from "God is" to "God exists"?

God is the source of existence. Things exist because of God. Our awareness of things that exist, is due to God. That's what" God is "means.

You claim one thing and then deny the logical implications from that claim.

To say God exists is to say water is wet, or fire is hot. God's existence is the source of everything that exists. As such I accept that God exists, but not in the way anything exists.

And we ask for external evidence of God not to gain composure but because that is upon which we build our beliefs, Jan.

You don't seem to understand that seeking external evidence for God's existence, is a part of your belief. Why do think God can be proven, from your current position?
Why do you think that God exists like anything else? Why can't you study information about God, and begin your comprehension from that point.

It's as if you're only prepared to accept a particular concept of God,, for example God must exist as all other things exist, so there should be evidence of His existence. You purposely deny any characteristics of God that characterizes Him as the transcendental source of everything else. Himself not under the influence of time.
Without that characterization how can you ever find evidence of God?

It emphasises your effort to maintain your position, despite your effort to come across as rational.

First, I am already of the opinion that one can never know that God doesn't exist.

Why do you think that?
I can understand having that opinion about yourself, but how does it transfer to every single human being that has ever been, currently living, and yet to be born?

Second, all you want is for people to believe exactly as you do, to ignore their actual positions and to behave just as your strawman requires.

You keep accuse me of wanting to convert people despite having no confirmatory evidence. Please stop. Thanks.

I don't ignore your position, I just think the foundation is important., as it brings out your character.

All the probably stuff, and lack belief because of lack of evidence, are intellectual conclusions, they aren't practical.

I'm more interested in the practical, because it represents your current position.

Would you rather take an authors word as to how great his latest novel is, or read the book for yourself and make your decisions on the contents of the book?

Since you seem incapable of doing anything but argue against your strawman view of atheism, since you seem incapable of actually listening to what atheists tell you, and since you seem incapable of anything other than inconsistent arguments and evasion, I will once again bid you adieu

I do listen to what atheists tell me. But I also make my conclusion about what you tell me. That's what you do with me, and I'm okay with it. Are you afraid of being on the other side of scrutiny?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

How do you know

I'm talking definitions.

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

you become intolerable, and start to bring the discussion into a personal domain.

YES. THIS. Utterly agree.

We would ALL very much like this to NOT be in a personal domain.

Unfortunately, the only place we can all agree that God exists is in your beliefs. You assert that he's there; you also assert that we simply can't see him.

But yeah, lets stop with the personal domain stuff and start discussing a God we can all examine. From this point forward, let's all agree with Jan and discuss only the aspects of God available to all of us.

Let's start with a list of the signs of God that we can all see.
Jan? Why don't you start?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Unfortunately, the only place we can all agree that God exists is in your beliefs.

Why do you want to agree that God exists?

But yeah, lets stop with the personal domain stuff and start discussing a God we can all examine.

Examine in what way?

Let's start with a list of the signs of God that we can all see.
Jan? Why don't you start?

Okay. Yourself.
Your turn.

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Why do you want to agree that God exists?



Examine in what way?



Okay. Yourself.
Your turn.

Jan.

Hi Jan
I have been following this thread and determined I wont comment but this last post of yours erodes my faith in you.
Dave is being honest and reasonable so I am somewhat disillusioned by your reply.
Are you going to fall into my stereo type theisist who I regard as dishonest evasive and insincere.
Dave deserves a decent responce and you should provide a decent redponce.
Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

Why do you want to agree that God exists?

We're trying to come to terms with all seeing the same objective reality. If you can convince us God exists objectively, we can all be in agreement. If we could convince you that there my be some question as to whether it does, then we wold likewise, all be in agreement. We would have consensus, and this thread would have accomplished something.

Examine in what way?

By discussion. By reaching common grounds on what is extant and what is not. Finding things we both agree upon and building from there until we reach a point where we disagree.

Okay. Yourself.
Your turn.

(I was going to lead off, but thought it better if you did.)
There is nothing on my list of signs of God.


I'll address your item 1.

It makes my heart feel fresh and new again every time I ponder the events that led to my existence. The 4 forces that sprung out of the Big Bang created mass and energy. The simple properties of those few components interacting in such a way as to create the emergent things that are galaxies, stars and planets, is itself, wonderful. The fact that the atoms and energy on at least one of those planets self-organized - simply due to their basic properties - and formed self-replicating components is also wonderful. That those components, powered by light and chemistry, became so complex, through a purely mechanical process of self-selection is likewise wonderful. That these organisms could get so sophisticated in both their senses and their internal thinking that they can identify themselves as distinct from the environment around them, and ponder that - is wonderful.

I find that far, far more hopeful than the idea that some thing has manipulated all this into existence, and lets it continue only at its whim. Lets me continue only at its whim.

I have no fate but what I make. No one to answer to but whom I choose (I choose my fellow man). No one watching me. Who I am is truly my own doing, and I am proud of that. And, ultimately, I choose to be - and act to be - the person I can be proud of.

It is the ultimate state of being a "grown up". A state toward which all should - and many are - striving.