In regards to atheism.

[Jan Ardena]

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.

Have you not been reading my posts?
You cannot convince somebody that God exists, when for them God does not exist.

If and when you turn toward God, it will be your own doing.

By discussion.

I've already started the ball rolling.

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.

Go on then.

There is nothing on my list of signs of God.

Of course there isn't. So why bother with this fake cooperation?

Jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

How do you know [the evidence for God's existence is] subjective and very weak?
What are you weighing their potential validity against?

I weigh it against the kind of evidence we have for the existence of anything.

Take a (specific) rock for example. You say it exists. I say "Ok, show me." So you take me to where the rock is. I see the rock. I touch the rock. I can take photos of the rock. I can talk to other people who tell me that they have also seen, touched and photographed the rock. I can look at the photographs of the rock. I can see other rocks that are not so very different from the rock you describe. I am aware of what rocks are, and what they look like, in general. Rocks fit into the world without being miraculous or needing special pleading to establish their existence.

Or take yourself. I know you exist because I write words on the internet and you reply to them. I know that human beings write words like you do, so its safe to assume you're a human being who exists. If I wanted to I could, in principle, trace your IP address back to a physical location and find more substantive evidence that you exist. But your existence fits into the world without being miraculous or needing special pleading.

The evidence that God exists isn't like the evidence that the rock exists, or the evidence that you exist. Nobody sees God. Nobody touches God. Nobody photographs God. There's nothing else like God in the world. God is miraculous and needs people to plead specially, so that others recognise his existence. But there is no objective evidence of God - only people's stories and descriptions of their personal experiences. This is why I call the evidence for God weak and subjective.

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

But you add extra baggage to the concept of God that you do not add to the concept of the universe. You use different words for "the universe" and "God", and you use those words in different contexts, so they are clearly not synonymous for you.

We both agree that the universe exists. If you want to name the universe "God", that would be perverse, given how other people use the term "God". But I could accept that you were just using language poorly again. The problem is, I know that you don't mean simply "the universe" when you talk about God, and you also know that.

The thing is, everything is evidence ...

Then God is an unfalsifiable concept, and therefore not a very useful one.

"Look! There's a rock. Therefore God exists!"

Meh. That's fine if God is a rock. But when you say "God" you don't mean a rock. You mean a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, personal Creator, which is quite a different animal.

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 do you seek to comprehend about God?

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

So I'm morally at fault for failing to believe in God. Am I? It's a character flaw of mine, is it? Whence cometh such a flaw, in your opinion?

As far as I'm aware God does exist, I don't need to define Him into existence.

Where does this "awareness" that God exists come from, for you?

Do you look at a rock and think "Well, that seals it. God obviously exists"? Or is it, rather, that you assume that God exists and you think "God exists, therefore he made that rock"?

I don't think your "awareness" of God is based on observing the natural world at all. I think your "awareness" is just an imagined thing - an internal, subjective feeling you have. You start there, and then you go out looking for confirming evidence, such as your "scriptures", that tend to corroborate your feelings.

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?

This thread is titled "In regards to atheism", remember?

I'm quite happy to have some other discussion in a different thread, but this one is mainly concerned with your attemptsto define "atheist" in such a way that the existence of God is assumed.

I've never said we are God.

I'm sure you've said that you believe we are all aspects of God, or part of God, or something along those lines.

Besides, you said just about that God is the universe, so we, being part of the universe, are part of God, too. Are we not?

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

A "true theist" would, I assume, believe in God for the right reasons, and not just believe that God exists but "believe in God" in the sense that you think is important. In other words, a "true theist" would be somebody who believes in God your way, the way you approve of. Understandably, though, you would label any such person as merely a "theist", because somebody who claims that God exists but who does not believe in God in the right way would, for you, be an atheist.

It's common feature of devout religionists to out-group others who they see as insufficiently devout.

All your queries default to God's existence. You seem unable to talk about anything else.

Here I'm interested in the definition of "atheist". That is the thread topic.

You've been slithering around defining "atheist" as "without God", which you explain means that atheists reject God, even though God exists. You say there can only be atheists if God exists. The atheists here dispute that, so the discussion devolves into one about God's existence, necessarily.

I believe you are without God, which is why you can't get past existence.

And I believe that you've missed the very important step of establishing existence before you started believing in something.

You don't want to entertain the idea that maybe you currently can't comprehend God, while theists currently can.

Sure I'll entertain that idea.

Please tell me why it might be that I can't currently comprehend God, while theists can. And what went wrong with me? I seemed to do just fine in the past, in that respect?

I'm quite interested in how and why you think somebody becomes an atheist, having been a believer.

Of course, I don't expect much from you on this matter, because this has come up in the past. What you did previously was to deny that I was ever a "true theist", and was always, in effect, a closet atheist, or something similar. Conveniently, this lets you avoid having to face the issue head on.

Maybe you feel that God should pander to your personal order carrier.

That would be nice. He's supposed to be a loving God, isn't he? I'm not feeling the love.

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.

The "scriptures" are somewhat ambivalent about God's nature. There's a lot of negative stuff in there about God along with the positive stuff. But mostly, God just comes across as a sort of super-human. He has all the same character flaws that people do, and the same good features.

I'm not sure why you think I'm negative about God. I'd same I'm realistic about God (as described in the scriptures and by theists).

What does compassion involve?

Well, let me pull out my dictionary...
1. A deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering.
2 The humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it.

Not so hard to understand, Jan. Point being, of course, that one doesn't need to have compassion in order to comprehend what it is, or to perceive it in other people.

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

What's to understand? What's the most important thing they are missing?

Why?

Altogether now...


... Because the atheist is without God.

Or... all together now ...

... because God doesn't exist!

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

I have supported my claim that compassion has objective existence above. Explaining this point may well be futile when it comes to you, I understand.

Explain how compassion objectively exists. Please?

Good question.

The first thing to say is that "compassion" is different from something like a rock. This is because "compassion" is intangible. It's a state of mind. It's an attitude. It's not a collection of atoms. You can't touch compassion. You can't photograph it. It requires interpretation.

Nevertheless, compassion objectively exists. If you like, you could define "compassion" as a (large) collection of specific behaviours that some human beings exhibit. The specific behaviours objectively exist, as I'm sure you'll agree. We stick a collective label on them which we call "compassion". Hence, compassion exists.

Now, you might argue that, following your assertion that the universe is God, that because the universe objectively exists, we can stick a label on it called "God", and be done with it. And that would be just fine, were it not for the fact that you also want to assign attributes to "God" that "the universe" as whole does not possess. Take for example, God's personal nature, or the supernatural nature of God.

 

[river]

Hmmm....

I think Jan confuses abrahamic god , with the god or life in all things .

 

[James R]

(continued...)

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.

Does God have a purpose? The universe doesn't appear to have any obvious purpose.
Does God care about individual human beings? The universe doesn't appear to.
Is God supernatural? The universe isn't.

It seems to me that the idea that the universe and God are synonymous is problematic.

I don't need to explain nothing, anymore than you need to explain anything about your position.

Why are you here? Why are you posting, Jan?

If you don't want to try to convince anybody of anything, what are you here for? Is this a kind of trolling exercise for you? Or what?

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?

How do I know what? Which part of my statement are you disputing?

Try offering a counter-argument, if you have one.

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

Don't worry Jan. I don't blame God for my choices, I assure you. God probably doesn't exist, remember.

Being able to blame God is one of the perqs that theists get with their belief package. Atheists don't have that luxury. Atheists have to take personal responsibility.

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

You asked a general question about how one goes about evaluating evidence. To answer it, I would need to digress in general on the subject of critical thinking.

If you'd like me to comment about some specific piece of evidence, that would be a narrower and potentially more manageable inquiry.

A nonsensical response.

There's nothing nonsensical about the idea of objective existence, as opposed to a subjective perception of existence.

It is telling that you think this is nonsensical, though.

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.

Back at you, Jan.

You will never find our that God does exist, as any kind of fact. God existing is in your head. The only direction you can go is to stop pretending you know things that you really don't know.

You claim there is no evidence for God.

No. It's annoying that you still repeat this after I have explained my actual view several times. What is your problem? Do you really not see what you don't want to see? Or you blot it from your memory? Or are you trying to be annoying?

One more time then: I claim that the available evidence for God is subjective and weak.

Now let's not have you lying about my position on this again, ok?

You claim that there should be external evidence that proves God's existence.

Yup.

Without evidence there is no way anyone can know that God exists, so until such time that evidence comes forth, God does not exist.

Until such time that evidence comes forth, there is no way anybody can know that God exists.

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.

I know what God is. If I didn't, I could look it up in the dictionary, to start with.

What I feel is beside the point. In fact, it is quite important that I don't decide this on the basis on what I feel. And you shouldn't either.

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.

I look at a rock, which you say is evidence of God. I can't see God in the rock. I pull the rock apart, analyse its constituents and - guess what - there's no God in there.

Where's the God to be found in the rock, Jan? How exactly does one become aware of the God in the rock?

God's existence is not the same as anything's existence.

How is it different?

Plus why would you start at non-existence.

You wouldn't. You'd start with an open mind. Then you'd look at the available evidence, and reach a provisional conclusion based on that.

I'll dispense with the "probably" as that is irrelevant. I think you maintain that to appear rational on this matter.

It's not just an appearance of rationality; it is rational.

What's irrational is to claim that you know for sure that God exists, or that he doesn't exist, because you don't know.

The reality is that God does not currently exist for you, so God does not exist.

Not biting this time on this fallacy, Jan.

There is no possibility of knowing that God doesn't exist.

You're probably right about that.

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?

See above. The rational position is holding that God probably doesn't exist. Anything else is a false claim to knowledge.

 

[river]

Jan

What god(s) are you referring to ?

 

[James R]

Jan

What god(s) are you referring to ?

It's pointless going down that path with Jan.

Jan believes that all gods are aspects of the one true God.

 

[Baldeee]

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.

So do you agree that God exists?
Do you finally agree that you have claimed (implicitly) that God exists?
Despite your protestations to the contrary?

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.

So finally you do agree that God exists.
Thank you.
So when you say that you have not claimed that God exists you were wrong, and thus have been inconsistent in your arguments.

You don't seem to understand that seeking external evidence for God's existence, is a part of your belief.

No, it's not part of my belief.
It's part of the reason for my lack of belief.
It is part of the reason I lack belief that many things don't exist.

Why do think God can be proven, from your current position?

I don't think God can be proven, but am open to being wrong on this matter.

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.

I don't think God exists like anything else.
I do and have studied information about God, and that is where my comprehension does begin.
You, however, seem to draw conclusions about what someone has said that simply do not follow from what they have said.

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?

I'm happy to consider any characteristic you want for your God.
And I'm sure that there is "evidence" that, once the characteristic is assumed, can be said to be "evidence of God", but is actually merely question begging.
There needs to be something to support the assumption of the characteristic as being the truth.
And something more than just it saying so in a book, or it being a definition of God (unless you want to go down the route of asserting things exist simply because of their definition?)

So what characteristic do you want to apply to God?
How does this lead to finding evidence of God, other than through simple question-begging?
What do you have to support the veracity of the characteristic as applying to God?

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

No, it emphasises why I maintain my position.
There is no real effort involved.
Nor in actually being rational, as it follows what I deem to be rational.

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?

There are some conceptions of God, and of gods, that we can prove don't exist.
But God as the cause of all is absolutely beyond our ability to prove doesn't exist.
We can only ever prove things through logic, through mathematics, and we can only know that they are applicable to our universe.

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

No, I am making no such accusation.
I am accusing you of only wanting to discuss with those already of the same opinion as you.
Not necessarily on the matter of God existing, but on the matter of atheism.

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

At least what you think is the foundation.

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.

Well, at least you are honest in how dishonest you actually are.
Atheism is an intellectual position.
It is an ontological position, a position of belief, which is intellectual.
Sure, it manifests itself in the practical, but the intellectual is more varied than the black and white of the practical.
That you are more interested in the practical just speaks to the strawman you have created, that you are not actually interested in understanding or conversing with atheists any more than to confirm your strawman.
And to do that simply through looking at the practical is as dishonest as it comes.

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?

Yet you don't read the contents of the book.
You just look at the practical manifestation of reading it, the smile or frown as someone else reads it, and judge on that.
By only being interested in the practical, to judge on that basis, and to ignore the actual contents, is utterly dishonest.
The pity is that you have convinced yourself that in doing so you are gaining an understanding, that your judgement is fair, that your comments and assertions of the atheist has relevance.

I do listen to what atheists tell me. But I also make my conclusion about what you tell me.

None that seem to follow any logic from what was actually written.

That's what you do with me, and I'm okay with it. Are you afraid of being on the other side of scrutiny?

No, I'm happy for the scrutiny.
I just prefer it to be by someone without a preconceived idea of what atheism means, without simply seeking to affirm that preconceived notion, but more importantly by someone who can logically follow what was said.
And someone who is more interested in the intellectual position rather than just the binary practical application.

If I was to ask you to roll a die and tell me what number you think would come up and you said "five" then would it be right for me to say that you definitely think it's going to be a "five"?
That you think there is no possibility of it being otherwise?
Would it be right for me to build a strawman of you that asserts the absolute truth to be that it will land on a "five"?

By looking at the practical you simply miss the reality of the atheist.
Why would you want to do that, if you are genuinely interested in discussion with them?
Why would you do that, unless it is that you wish to avoid that which you can not comprehend?

 

[Baldeee]

The rational position is holding that God probably doesn't exist. Anything else is a false claim to knowledge.

I disagree.
I would say that the rational position (for me at least) is that we can't know if God (as "cause of all") exists or not.
I would not assign any level of probability to it as I think even that is one step too far.

Why would you think that God "probably" doesn't exist?
Sure, there are certain conceptions of God that more probably do not exist - e.g. those that go against our understanding of the laws of the universe etc (such as allowing relevation, miracles as described in scripture, etc) but God as simply "cause of all" would, for me, have to be simply a case of "I don't know".

 

[Jan Ardena]

Take a (specific) rock for example. You say it exists. I say "Ok, show me." So you take me to where the rock is. I see the rock. I touch the rock. I can take photos of the rock. I can talk to other people who tell me that they have also seen, touched and photographed the rock. I can look at the photographs of the rock. I can see other rocks that are not so very different from the rock you describe. I am aware of what rocks are, and what they look like, in general. Rocks fit into the world without being miraculous or needing special pleading to establish their existence

I agree with you from your perspective.
Somebody claims that God Is. You look around, and low and behold you don't see any person or object that is called God.

You have experience of things existing like rocks. You see nothing but things that aren't God (at least as far as you comprehend what God is.

So for you God does not exist. Your only problem is you think that it is the same for everyone.

My reality is different to yours, in that God Is. So from my perspective you are without God, which is why you can't
comprehend Him

That is all I'm saying.

The evidence that God exists isn't like the evidence that the rock exists, or the evidence that you exist. Nobody sees God. Nobody touches God. Nobody photographs God. There's nothing else like God in the world. God is miraculous and needs people to plead specially, so that others recognise his existence. But there is no objective evidence of God - only people's stories and descriptions of their personal experiences. This is why I call the evidence for God weak and subjective.

There is no way that you can know that. All you know is that God does not currently exist. Your problem is that you apply your situation to everyone else.

But you add extra baggage to the concept of God that you do not add to the concept of the universe. You use different words for "the universe" and "God", and you use those words in different contexts, so they are clearly not synonymous for you.

I meant to say that I'm okay that you see God as the universe. My bad.

Maybe there is extra baggage, but it gets you thinking about God. When you start thinking about God, you learn more. Right now you're only interested in validating your own position, by claiming everyone necessarily thinks like you.

Then God is an unfalsifiable concept, and therefore not a very useful one.

Then remain in your position. There's not much more I can day, as for you God does not exist, and you are therefore without God.

What do you seek to comprehend about God?

God.

So I'm morally at fault for failing to believe in God. Am I? It's a character flaw of mine, is it? Whence cometh such a flaw, in your opinion?

That's something you find out for yourself.

Where does this "awareness" that God exists come from, for you?

It's entirely natural.

Do you look at a rock and think "Well, that seals it. God obviously exists"?

No.

I don't think your "awareness" of God is based on observing the natural world at all. I think your "awareness" is just an imagined thing - an internal, subjective feeling you have. You start there, and then you go out looking for confirming evidence, such as your "scriptures", that tend to corroborate your feelings

What else could you thin? God doesn't exist as far as you're aware, which is why you are as your label suggests, without God. There's no getting around it.

I'm sure you've said that you believe we are all aspects of God, or part of God, or something along those lines.

So why didn't you say that, instead of using a dishonest tactic. You say I'm inconsistent, then write crap like that.
You're so easy to work out, it borders on ridiculousness.

Besides, you said just about that God is the universe, so we, being part of the universe, are part of God, too. Are we not?

My bad. I meant to say you can see God as the universe.

I suppose you look at it like that. I'm quite you can work stuff out. I have faith in you.

A "true theist" would, I assume, believe in God for the right reasons, and not just believe that God exists but "believe in God" in the sense that you think is important. In other words, a "true theist" would be somebody who believes in God your way, the way you approve of. Understandably, though, you would label any such person as merely a "theist", because somebody who claims that God exists but who does not believe in God in the right way would, for you, be an atheist.

OK, I get you now.

You've been slithering around defining "atheist" as "without God", which you explain means that atheists reject God, even though God exists. You say there can only be atheists if God exists. The atheists here dispute that, so the discussion devolves into one about God's existence, necessarily.

James, you keep going round these same points. As far as you're concerned God does not exist. You obviously won't see yourself as being without God, but that implies God exists. But God does not exist as far as you're aware. To a theist God Is, therefore from that perspective you are without God. That's just the way it is.

The discussion descends into God's existence because you refuse to accept all sides. You want to fit everything into your own little mindset, where God does not exist, and your position is validated. You want closure, which is why are still discussing this topic

And I believe that you've missed the very important step of establishing existence before you started believing in something.

I can see why you would believe that.

Please tell me why it might be that I can't currently comprehend God, while theists can. And what went wrong with me? I seemed to do just fine in the past, in that respect?

I've already explained.

I'm quite interested in how and why you think somebody becomes an atheist, having been a believer.

What issue?
Who is/was God in your theistic days.
How did you comprehend. God?

That would be nice. He's supposed to be a loving God, isn't he? I'm not feeling the love.

You most certainly aren't. The love is there though.

Not so hard to understand, Jan. Point being, of course, that one doesn't need to have compassion in order to comprehend what it is, or to perceive it in other people.

What is compassion James? You're definition explains the symptoms, not the properties. It exists, you accept that it exists. So according to your logic you are supposed to be able to show what it actually is, not just the symptoms.
I'm waiting.

What's to understand? What's the most important thing they are missing?

They are without God. Haven't you been listening?

Not so hard to understand, Jan. Point being, of course, that one doesn't need to have compassion in order to comprehend what it is, or to perceive it in other people.

Yes but they have no experience of it, so it is nothing more than a concept, which they can tailor how they like. The person who possesses it doesn't need to analyze it, or debate its existence, unless they choose to.

That is the same with theists. We don't have to explain, or prove it. Unless we want to. You on the other hand, as evidenced your whole campaign, can only comprehend concepts of God.

Or... all together now ...

... because God doesn't exist!

Good lad. That is as far as you can currently go.

Now, you might argue that, following your assertion that the universe is God,

My bad. I explained earlier. Hope you're not going to carry on with this. I believe I have made assertions about God earlier.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Hmmm....

I think Jan confuses abrahamic god , with the god or life in all things .

Why would you say something like that?
Where did you get this idea?

Jan.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Hmmm....

I think Jan confuses abrahamic god , with the god or life in all things .

Why would you say something like that?
Where did you get this idea?

Jan.

Just trying to understand your concept of god .

 

[Jan Ardena]

Baldeee, your just going in circles.
I literally cannot be bothered to keep repeating myself.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Just trying to understand your concept of god .

So why don't you find out by asking me?

Jan.

 

[river]

So why don't you find out by asking me?

Jan.

Fair enough

I ask , what is your concept of god ?

 

[Baldeee]

Baldeee, your just going in circles.
I literally cannot be bothered to keep repeating myself.

Classic evasion on your part, Jan.
But I guess when you are offering nothing of value, to repeat it you are still just offering nothing of value.
So perhaps best you don't just repeat the dishonest claptrap you've previously offered.

Do you have anything else to offer?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Fair enough

I ask , what is your concept of god ?

My concept of God can be anything I want to be, which is why I try to give scriptural definitions.

But I guess as a start, God is the totality, and summum bonum .

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Classic evasion on your part, Jan.
But I guess when you are offering nothing of value, to repeat it you are still just offering nothing of value.
So perhaps best you don't just repeat the dishonest claptrap you've previously offered.

Do you have anything else to offer?

You can spin it how you like Baldeee.

I currently don't have anything else to offer.

Gee! I guess that makes you the Victor.
Good show!

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

If the end result is a thread free from your belligerence, dishonesty and fallacious argument, then I'll take that as a victory.
I'd prefer, however, an actual discussion.
Do you think you can manage that?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Does God have a purpose?

Does it matter?

It seems to me that the idea that the universe and God are synonymous is problematic.

You could be right. But more importantly it gets you thinking.

If you don't want to try to convince anybody of anything, what are you here for? Is this a kind of trolling exercise for you? Or what?

I'm talking about stuff in regards to atheist, namely the original meaning of the term, and how it perfectly fits every single atheist. What are you here for?
Are you kind of trolling?

How do I know what? Which part of my statement are you disputing?

Try offering a counter-argument, if you have one.

I am questioning all of it.
How do you know?

I don't know what to counter, as yet.

remember

I remember.

Being able to blame God is one of the perqs that theists get with their belief package. Atheists don't have that luxury. Atheists have to take personal responsibility.

Really?
I hope all you atheists are reading this. Don't cry foul when and if I decide to adopt the same attitude.

You asked a general question about how one goes about evaluating evidence. To answer it, I would need to digress in general on the subject of critical thinking.

If you'd like me to comment about some specific piece of evidence, that would be a narrower and potentia

Don't worry about it James.

Back at you, Jan.

You will never find our that God does exist, as any kind of fact. God existing is in your head. The only direction you can go is to stop pretending you know things that you really don't know.

We're in agreement James. God does not exist as far as you're aware, and God Is, as far as I'm aware.

One more time then: I claim that the available evidence for God is subjective and weak.

Okay. Keep your socks on.

Until such time that evidence comes forth, there is no way anybody can know that God exists.

Does your concept of God hold that God is a material being?

What I feel is beside the point. In fact, it is quite important that I don't decide this on the basis on what I feel. And you shouldn't either.

Your mind is already made up.

I look at a rock, which you say is evidence of God

Not to mention your ability to see, and make sense of stuff.

Where's the God to be found in the rock, Jan? How exactly does one become aware of the God in the rock?

I wouldn't worry yourself about it James. God doesn't exist as far as you're aware.

How is it different

Already explained.

It's not just an appearance of rationality; it is rational.

No it's not.
It's purposely placed there because you don't want to admit that God doesn't exist.

What's irrational is to claim that you know for sure that God exists, or that he doesn't exist, because you don't know.

Let's get it right. For you God does not exist. That is all you understand. It is only your ego that demands everyone should necessarily think and conclude like you.

Or are you trying to be annoying?

No more than you are James.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If the end result is a thread free from your belligerence, dishonesty and fallacious argument, then I'll take that as a victory.
I'd prefer, however, an actual discussion.
Do you think you can manage that

In other words you don't feel satisfied.
You don't have closure.

I can manage a discussion. What would you like to discuss?

Jan.