In regards to atheism.

[Sarkus]

I've already explained how God is defined as existing.
Go, look see.

Defining something does not make it so. Frodo exists in the land of Middle Earth, Buck Rogers exists in the 25th Century, as these are how they are defined. But neither share an actual objective existence in line with their definition.
So, again, are you saying that God objectively exists?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You're always accusing me of stuff, I have no idea of doing.

So you don't care.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I think it's a little bit more than advanced humans.

Really?

How does Santa Clause equate?

 

[spidergoat]

There is, no God, as far as atheists are aware, which is why they are atheist (a priori).

That's incorrect. Even if I were "aware" of a god, I still could not believe it unless there was external evidence. I'm not an atheist because I can't perceive of a god, in fact I can. Experiencing a god internally is a trivial task for the human brain. We already have resident minds (left and right) that know ourselves completely. It can be convincing, especially if you have no critical thinking process that can determine what's real and what's not.

 

[Baldeee]

Jan Ardena: And you imply that this is more than your subjective view, and that it is objective reality.
Baldeee: No, I don't.

Then neither do I.

So you are saying that God is purely a subjective worldview.
Thank you.
It is now on record.
Now please use language that is consistent with this, rather than language that asserts God as having an objective existence.

Nope. The scriptures assert it, and it makes sense to me.

If you repeat something you agree with as part of your argument then you are asserting it, Jan, irrespective of who originally stated it.
If you quote someone/something in lieu of your own argument then it is the same as you stating that argument.
So stand by your arguments and own them.
It is utterly dishonest to relinquish ownership in the manner you are.

No need.
There is, no God, as far as atheists are aware, which is why they are atheist (a priori).

So you assert.
Now please state where an actual atheist has asserted that there is no God, as I requested.

No I'm not. If I am asserting anything, I assert that they are correct from their perspectives, and have done so on numerous occasions. I'm surprised you missed it.

No, I didn't miss it when you have stated that, but you seem to be ignoring every time you have used language inconsistent with "God is" being solely a subjective worldview.

''Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose''...

''The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

I think it's a little bit more than advanced humans.

Yet less than God.

And God does not exist as far as you're aware, is your subjective norm.

I thought you claimed you didn't dismiss anything people said.
Yet you consistently dismiss every instance where I have stated that my position is that I am not aware that God either exists or does not exist.

Calm down man!
We're just having a discussion.

I think you embue my words with some emotional content that is not there.
You lied.
I am asking you to stop.
Do you think it honest to lie while having a discussion?

I use the word ''lack'', not, ''wrong''.

No, you used the word "deny".
"Atheists seem hell bent (no pun) on denying God." - Jan Ardena, #1467
Do you think one can deny something that does not actually exist?
Thus by using the word "deny" you are asserting that God actually (i.e. objectively) exists.

I'm not quite sure why you think it's such a big deal.
Comprehending God, is simple. I guess it must seem extraordinary to you.

I'm not the one who keeps going on about how theists comprehend God and how atheists do not.
But I note your diversion, your response without actually answering the questions.
So again, how do you know that the theist comprehends God?
Is it because they happen to agree with you?

Why would you think it might not be God?

Again with the diversionary tactic.
So let me repeat the questions:
How do you know [that you comprehend God]?
How do you know that what you comprehend actually is God?

 

[Baldeee]

Please note that it is now on record (see post #1485) that Jan considers God to only be a subjective worldview, and not to have any objective existence.

 

[Jan Ardena]

First I wouldn't say that there isn't, only that I am not aware that there is.

So your awareness is as subjective as you say mine is. Correct?

Second, I would say that the onus is not on me to demonstrate an absence, but on the one making the positive assertion to show that it is true.

So if you aren't aware that there is no evidence, why do you need me to show that I am aware of that God Is?
Why can't you accept that you're simply not aware, and leave it at that?

Do you think its possible?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So you are saying that God is purely a subjective worldview.

Can you prove objective reality exists, without being subjective?

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

If I am dumb, at least challenge me, please.

 

[Baldeee]

Can you prove objective reality exists, without being subjective?

Prove?
Not that it is relevant but no, I can not.

Do you accept that there is such a thing as an objective reality, even if it is one that we can only experience second-hand, through subjective means?
Or are you of the view that there is only the subjective?
Noting that you have already stated that you consider God to be purely a subjective worldview.

 

[Sarkus]

So your awareness is as subjective as you say mine is. Correct?

Yes.

So if you aren't aware that there is no evidence, why do you need me to show that I am aware of that God Is?
Why can't you accept that you're simply not aware, and leave it at that?

You are asserting "God is" to be an objective reality. That needs supporting.
Or are you now reconfirming God to be wholly subjective, as Baldeee has seemingly already got you to state?

Do you think its possible?

That you are aware of God and I am not? Awareness implies that there is an objective reality to be aware of, to know, to comprehend etc. Show that God is part of objective reality and then I will likely accept that I have not, up to that point, been aware of God, and that you have been. But until then, I do not know whether there is anything to even be aware of. You keep asserting that there is, though.
But that all still assumes that God has objective existence (or indeed is objective existence) and that "God is" is more than just your subjective worldview, contrary to what you have seemingly already stated.
So which is it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You are asserting "God is" Ito be an objective reality. That needs supporting.

I assert that God Is.
Objective and subjective reality is accessible because of God, from all descriptions. So to say God exists, like a table exists, is to not comprehend the nature of God.
I have already explained this on numerous occasions.

Or are you now reconfirming God to be wholly subjective, as Baldeee has seemingly already got you to state?

What's up with you?
Are you blind?

That you are aware of God and I am not?

Erm, yes.

Awareness implies that there is an objective reality to be aware of, to know, to comprehend etc.

Awareness is the ability to directly know and perceive, to feel, or to be cognizant of events. More broadly, it is the state or quality of being conscious of something.

Show that God is part of objective reality and then I will likely accept that I have not, up to that point, been aware of God, and that you have been.

I don't accept concepts of God from atheists. If you believe that God must objectively exist, like cigars and microphones, then that explains why you're atheist.
I have asserted (your term) that God Is.
Deal with that.

But until then, I do not know whether there is anything to even be aware of.

A lack of knowledge would indicate a lack of awareness, so God does not exist as far as you're aware.
At last, an admission.

But that all still assumes that God has objective existence (or indeed is objective existence) and that "God is" is more than just your subjective worldview, contrary to what you have seemingly already stated.
So which is it?

There doesn't need to be any assumptions. You only keep bringing up objective existence because you think your on to something, because you, oh so, want me to slip up, so you can justify/validate your irrational, and illogical worldview.

I'm sure if we went deep enough into the reasons for (explicit) atheism, this mentality would be at the heart of them.

Would you mind if I asked some probing questions, to see if my hypotheses is correct?

Bear in mind it would require you to be honest, and unchallenging, and think you're too emotional for that.
Maybe I'll put it to Beerw/Straw.

Jan.

 

[river]

Show that God is part of objective reality and then I will likely accept that I have not, up to that point, been aware of God, and that you have been.

Intellect of life .

 

[Sarkus]

I assert that God Is.
Objective and subjective reality is accessible because of God, from all descriptions. So to say God exists, like a table exists, is to not comprehend the nature of God.
I have already explained this on numerous occasions.

Where have I asserted that "exist" is necessarily in the manner that I might think a table exists? That is simply you arguing against your strawman.
Now, that said, either things exist or they do not. They can exist subjectively, they can exist objectively, or they can not exist at all. They are the options. No playing semantic games with the terms.
Do you contend that God has an objective existence, or that God is wholly subjective?

What's up with you?
Are you blind?

Would it matter if I was legally considered blind?
As it is, you have stated that you consider God to be wholly subjective. Are you now going to go back on that assertion?

Awareness is the ability to directly know and perceive, to feel, or to be cognizant of events. More broadly, it is the state or quality of being conscious of something.

Okay, so you agree that you can be aware of wholly subjective things?

I don't accept concepts of God from atheists.

Said the person who never dismisses what people say. This, as you undoubtedly know, is an ad hominem fallacy - dismissing what people say purely on the grounds of who / what they are.
You'll have to do better than that, Jan.

If you believe that God must objectively exist, like cigars and microphones, then that explains why you're atheist.

Where have I ever stated that God must exist in the same way that I might consider cigars and microphones to exist? Cooeee... Over here, Jan. You're arguing against your strawman again.
Furthermore, who says that cigars and microphones have an objective existence?

I have asserted (your term) that God Is.

You are more than capable of using the term "assert", Jan. It simply means to confidently claim or declare. That is what you have been doing, and continue to do. Why do you have issue with it?

Deal with that.

To deal with it, Jan, we need to understand exactly what you mean by it. Do you mean that God has an objective existence or a wholly subjective one. You have claimed to know what is meant by those terms so I'm wondering why you struggle to give an answer, or even to confirm that what you told Baldeee was what you actually believe or was in fact a lie.

A lack of knowledge would indicate a lack of awareness, so God does not exist as far as you're aware.
At last, an admission.

No, it is not a lack of knowledge - at least not in the manner you use the term "lack" - as that is to imply that God actually exists. I have repeatedly stated that I do not know whether God exists or not. You claim that God does exist. You have yet to support that assertion.
Furthermore it is possible to be aware of something without knowing what it is you're aware of.
So feel free to try again.

There doesn't need to be any assumptions.

Says the person who starts from the a priori (or foundational notion) that God exists.

You only keep bringing up objective existence because you think your on to something, because you, oh so, want me to slip up, so you can justify/validate your irrational, and illogical worldview.

No, I bring it up to help me further understand your position. You are the one that clearly seems troubled by the questioning that you constantly evade the issue.
Does God have an objective existence or is God wholly subjective? You have claimed to understand the terms, so why do you avoid the question with bluster and evasive tactics?

I'm sure if we went deep enough into the reasons for (explicit) atheism, this mentality would be at the heart of them.

It is a character of rationality and critical thought that one reexamines their position if one can't defend it. This is true, or should be true, of all sides in a debate. But I do not justify or validate my position through one person's inability to respond. Justification and validation is done in the argument itself, an argument that is open to rebuttal, to counter, etc, and through the ability to respond with a consistent position to those counters and rebuttals. Until such time as one can't do so, at which time one reexamines.
So no, I don't agree with your statement as far as I am concerned. I can not speak for others.

Would you mind if I asked some probing questions, to see if my hypotheses is correct?

If you want, and I'll even try to ignore the irony of your request.

Bear in mind it would require you to be honest, and unchallenging, and think you're too emotional for that.
Maybe I'll put it to Beerw/Straw.

So you ask if I would mind, and then insult me when you change your mind.
As for being too me too emotional, I honestly think you read too much emotion into what people type.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Sarkus]

Intellect of life .

Price of milk.

 

[river]

Price of milk.

Explain

 

[Sarkus]

Explain

Sorry, I thought you were just throwing around irrelevant phrases so I thought I'd join in.
If you think what you said was actually relevant, could you explain how "Intellect of life" explains/shows how God is part of objective reality?
Do you think God has an objective existence, or do you, like Jan has confirmed, think God is wholly subjective?

 

[Jan Ardena]

If I am dumb, at least challenge me, please.

What exactly do you want to be challenged on?

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

I assert that God Is.

How do you know, apart from reading a definition?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

What exactly do you want to be challenged on?

Jan.

Morality.