In regards to atheism.

[DaveC426913]

I've separated these out because I'll be referring you to them should you contradict yourself by claiming subjective existence.

Yes existence is objective, and God is.

Perfect.
Your assertion is that God objectively exists.
And that, when someone denies that God objectively exists, they are, in actuality, wrong.
So, there's no confusion or paradox here about existing for one person but not another, since it's objective existence we're talking about.

By that logic monetary wealth doesn't exist for starving children in Africa.

Yes it does. They just don't get it.

Perfect.
Your assertion is that, when starving children think monetary wealth doesn't exist, they are, in actuality, wrong. Because objectively, monetary wealth does exist.
So, there's no confusion or paradox here about monetary wealth existing for one person but not another, since it's objective existence we're talking about.

Now we've pinned at least one thing down that you will stand by.

We've made progress. There won't be any more sidetracks about God existing for one person but not for another.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So, to sum:
God does not exist for atheists.
God does not exist for theists.

Yes, from every atheist perspective.

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, from every atheist perspective.

One post later, and you have already contradicted yourself.

I refer you to post 901, where you are quoted acknowledging we are discussing objective existence.

This obliterates the contradictory part of your post leaving only this:

God does not exist for atheists.
God does not exist for theists.

Yes

 

[Dywyddyr]

One post later, and you have already contradicted yourself.

Jan is incapable of consistency except for one thing: he utterly believes that "god" exists and ANYTHING that casts any shadow of doubt on that must - ipso facto - be wrong.
He will contradict, obfuscate, lie, twist and generally denigrate any view that is contrary to his (unsupported) belief - but will claim that he's being objective and looking at the question rationally.
Neither of those two latter traits are part of his make up despite his protestations to the contrary: it is, I have found over the years, entirely futile to engage him on the topic because he cannot[1] look at the topic except from his own perspective: god exisr and anything that says different (or even questions) must be false.

1 I did, at one time, suspect him of deliberately trolling but have come to the conclusion that he's simply incapable of entertaining anything other than his own belief.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

but have come to the conclusion that he's simply incapable of entertaining anything other than his own belief.

Me to.
Even though one can show evidence scriptures are wrong Jan keeps the blinkers in place.
Anyways good luck to Jan ... It would be funny if he (probably she) turned atheist and I am thinking about a smoker who gives it up and become the most anti tobacco advocate you could find.
But in this thread I think you must give the game and win to Dave by a clear margin.
It is a pity the debate section here could not be used for a one on one battle as it would be most entertaining.
It would be interesting to see if Jan's ability could extend to a different subject matter. Dave would not have a problem as I think Dave could make a good case for whatever case he was asked to promote.
Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

:blush:

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

:blush:

No need I think others will agree and of course if they don't we will hear no doubt.
I like Jan and enjoy his (or her) posts but I call it as I see it.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Perfect.
Your assertion is that God objectively exists.
And that, when someone denies that God objectively exists, they are, in actuality, wrong.
So, there's no confusion or paradox here about existing for one person but not another, since it's objective existence we're talking about.

I meant "God Is". Sorry, my bad.

Your assertion is that, when starving children think monetary wealth doesn't exist, they are, in actuality, wrong. Because objectively, monetary wealth does exist.

No. My assertion wasn't based on what starving children think.

So, there's no confusion or paradox here about monetary wealth existing for one person but not another, since it's objective existence we're talking about.

Does monetary wealth exist for starving children? No. Does monetary wealth exist? Yes.

We've made progress. There won't be any more sidetracks about God existing for one person but not for another.

It's understandable that you want to just wrap everything up in a neat little package. But God does not exist for you.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Does monetary wealth exist for starving children? No. Does monetary wealth exist? Yes.

That's the point, Jan, that DaveC is trying to get across to you: he is interested in the objective issue yet all you do is discuss the subjective issue. DaveC, to continue the analogy, wants to discuss whether there is monetary wealth. You just keep asserting that monetary wealth does not exist for starving children.
Stick to the objective issue: does God exist or not? If you say any more about "exist for me, not exist for you" (or words to that effect) then you have drifted yet again to God being a subjective issue, not the objective issue that others are discussing. Yes, awareness is a subjective matter, and so awareness of God is subjective. But the issue here is simply whether God exists objectively or not. If God exists objectively then God exists objectively for all, not just for some. That is what it means to be objective.

So, are you going to play ball and address the issue: the objective existence (or otherwise) of God?
If you're not willing, just say so and save everyone the bother. But if you are then please stick to it and not drift back to the subjective issue. Your current tendency toward flip-flopping between the two, and your inconsistent arguments, simply destroy any otherwise meaningful discourse.

 

[DaveC426913]

Does monetary wealth exist for starving children? No. Does monetary wealth exist? Yes.

Contradicted yourself again.

You acknowledged and confirmed that

Yes, existence is objective

See post 901.

But God does not exist for you.

Which, by your own admission, means God does not exist for you.



Jan has willingly directly contradicted his primary argument.


His primary premise is that

God exists

He has explicitly said

existence is objective

But then followed with

God does not exist for you.

Therefore, God does not exist objectively i.e. for anyone.

Having your opponent show his primary argument to be directly contradictory.

That, friends, is how you win a debate.

 

[Dywyddyr]

That only "wins" the debate so far as rational people are concerned.
Your "opponent" doesn't fall into that category and, therefore, will come back (if he does) with more obfuscation and an utter refusal (or inability) to follow the quite simple logic you've laid out.
You will not (and cannot) influence his total conviction that:
A) "god" exists and
B) any argument that calls that belief into question must be flawed because of point A.

In other words you're on a hiding to nothing.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If God exists objectively then God exists objectively for all, not just for some. That is what it means to

I made that point ages ago.
Because God does not exist for you, does not mean God does not exist. That is why 'without God' is a better explanation of your position. But you deny that because it implies God Is.

Your mistake is to think God exists like anything else exists, which is why objectivety is an issue.

You cannot accept that God Is, and existence is an aspect of His Being. You are only prepared to accept God if He can be observed via the mundane senses. Hence God does not exist, because you have no sense of God. Yet the very apparatus, and ability available to you, is due to God.

You're like people trapseing round the world trying to find yourself, when you are you all along.

Jan.

 

[karenmansker]

I agree with Jan . . . . IMO, either one believes in God, or one doesn't. Those who do believe likely have more to look forward to (both objectively and subjectively) than those who don't. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Atheists appear to be fewer in foxholes!

 

[Randwolf]

I agree with Jan . . . .

Of course you do - you agree with any position that cannot be defended with logic and evidence.

IMO, either one believes in God, or one doesn't.

Wrong again - false dichotomy. Perhaps god is simply "unknowable" - as in agnostic. I'll leave you to parse that, I expect a fail...

Those who do believe likely have more to look forward to delusions (both objectively and subjectively) than those who don't.

Fixed.

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is also not evidence of existence, contrary to crackpot logic.

Atheists appear to be fewer in foxholes!

And you know this how, exactly?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Hi Karen you know that sounds OK but really absence of evidence is sort of strong evidence in support of absence.

Atheists appear to be fewer in foxholes!

You really don't know if that is a fact and I don't know how one could find evidence in support.

Some may out of desperation call out to a mythical god but I suspect many would when presented with the horror of death all around them give up on any notion they may have held that there was a god.
How could you believe there was a god when up to your knees in body parts.

Why it unreasonable to demand that evidence be presented which gives support to a claim? Any claim needs evidence one must think.

Is it reasonable to answer such a demand by offering no evidence and yet to then say...well just because I can't offer any evidence in support of my claim that does not mean what I say is not a fact.

The words "put up or shut up" should apply.

Jan thinks, in my opinion but who could really know, that these discussions somehow makes god real. No so.

A statement "god is" is about his best shot...deepity...nonsence.

And after many pages of argument we still have "an absence of evidence" which is "evidence of absence".

Alex

 

[Dywyddyr]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Absence_of_evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes#Notable_counterexamples

 

[karenmansker]

claim
klām/assert, declare, profess, maintain, state, hold, affirm, avow;More
argue, contend, allege;
formalaver
"Davies claimed that she was lying"

• assert that one has gained or achieved (something).
  "his supporters claimed victory in the presidential elections"
• formally request or demand; say that one owns or has earned (something).
  "if no one claims the items, they will become government property"
  synonyms:lay claim to, assert ownership of, formally request
  "no one claimed the items"
• make a demand for (money) under the terms of an insurance policy.
  "she could have claimed the cost through her insurance"
  synonyms:request, ask for, apply for;More
  demand, exact
  "you can claim compensation"
• call for (someone's notice and thought).
  "a most unwelcome event claimed his attention"
• cause the loss of (someone's life).
  synonyms:take, result in the loss of, cause the loss of
  "the fire claimed four lives"

noun
noun: claim; plural noun: claims

Hi Karen you know that sounds OK but really absence of evidence is sort of strong evidence in support of absence.


You really don't know if that is a fact and I don't know how one could find evidence in support.

Some may out of desperation call out to a mythical god but I suspect many would when presented with the horror of death all around them give up on any notion they may have held that there was a god.
How could you believe there was a god when up to your knees in body parts.

Why it unreasonable to demand that evidence be presented which gives support to a claim? Any claim needs evidence one must think.

Is it reasonable to answer such a demand by offering no evidence and yet to then say...well just because I can't offer any evidence in support of my claim that does not mean what I say is not a fact.

The words "put up or shut up" should apply.

Jan thinks, in my opinion but who could really know, that these discussions somehow makes god real. No so.

A statement "god is" is about his best shot...deepity...nonsence.

And after many pages of argument we still have "an absence of evidence" which is "evidence of absence".

Alex

Alex: See above definition. Usage of the term 'claim' requires no proof, it is simply an assertion. A 'claim' that proof is required to support another's 'claim' is disingenuos, to say the least. It's rather "making a mountain out of a molehill" (a traditional old saying), IMO. Likewise, in my previous post, I paraphrased the old saying "There are no atheists in foxholes" - not as a claim, but as a traditional saying from an anonymous traditional source. It seems (IMO) that arguing for evidence of the truth of such traditional sayings is a ludicrous trolling manouver that serves no useful purpose. BTW: It seems to me (IMO) that too often a few members here seek to dominate otherwise reasonable discussions with 'their ego-centered need for recognition' (a claim? . . . for which evidence is abundant in this particular discussion!).

 

[karenmansker]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Absence_of_evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes#Notable_counterexamples

Thanks! Here is additional info excerpted from that same source: Wikipedia:

The statement "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an aphorism used to argue that in times of extreme stress or fear, such as during war ("in foxholes"), all people will believe in, or hope for, a higher power (and there are therefore no atheists).[1]

Origin[edit]
The origin of the quotation is uncertain.[2] U. S. Military Chaplain William Thomas Cummings may have said it in a field sermon during the Battle of Bataan in 1942,[3] though scholars have been unable to find a firsthand witness to the sermon.[4][5]Other sources credit Lieutenant Colonel Warren J. Clear (or the anonymous sergeant he spoke with there), who was also at Bataan and published the usage in 1942;[6] or Lieutenant Colonel William Casey. The phrase is often attributed to war correspondent Ernie Pyle;[7][8][9][10] however, no such source published prior to Pyle's death is known. It was also quoted by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in remarks broadcast from the White House as part of a February 7, 1954, American Legion Program. With slightly different wording, the statement appears much earlier in press reports dating from the end of the First World War, while a similar concept has been sought in Plato's Laws.[2]

 

[Michael 345]

It is correct to assert that

Evidence of Absence

is in and of itself

EVIDENCE

and

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

Christopher Hitchens

Also Absence of Evidence does NOT correlate with a proposition being true

It may be

true

false

(it cannot be both)

no evidence (or not enough evidence) has been collected to PROVE true or false

unknowable due to limitations within the ability of KNOWING with CERTAINTY anything

More in the links

https://googleweblight.com/?lite_ur...ki/Argument_from_ignorance&ei=chB4q09h&lc=en-

ID&s=1&m=369&host=www.google.co.id&ts=1491790369&sig=AJsQQ1DW1USj3BIRURIjgo_0Rc0pAUagkg

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Alex: See above definition. Usage of the term 'claim' requires no proof, it is simply an assertion. A 'claim' that proof is required to support another's 'claim' is disingenuos, to say the least.

Thank for taking your time to look into the meaning of "claim".
Maybe I should try and find another word which means what I think of when I use the word claim.
Let mean try again.
If someone presents an account of their belief, in an entity which does not seem to exist, then in my opinion if they expect to be taken seriously they should present reasonable evidence in support.
If they are unable to present evidence that should be the end of the matter and resorting to a reply which in effect tries to move the burben of proof to a childish prove me wrong does not wash with me.
I hope I have conveyed my meaning better than my earlier attempt.
Simply "put up or shut up" is my call.
You say you own a car... show it to me but dont expect me to believe you if all you can say is... You prove I dont own a car.
You have a god then show me but dont say you prove I have no god.

I dont care if you want to call my approach disingenuos, you can lable things whatever way makes sence to you.

IMO. Likewise, in my previous post, I paraphrased the old saying "There are no atheists in foxholes" - not as a claim, but as a traditional saying from an anonymous traditional source.

Fair enough and I did not think you were the first to say same but having presented it I merely made my comment.

It seems (IMO) that arguing for evidence of the truth of such traditional sayings is a ludicrous trolling manouver that serves no useful purpose. BTW: It seems to me (IMO) that too often a few members here seek to dominate otherwise reasonable discussions with 'their ego-centered need for recognition' (a claim? . . . for which evidence is abundant in this particular discussion!).

I seem to have upset you which was not my intention.
Alex