elte
Valued Senior Member
No idea, though i have been called it a few times.
Anyone?
In my opinion it's a poster who isn't interested in sharing ideas, but intent on causing emotional rises and conflicts (drama).
No idea, though i have been called it a few times.
Anyone?
Then do so. You have not yet done so, despite all your words.For the purpose of debate that is the proposition.
And that is what we are into, to prove the proposition from facts and logic.
No. That is the proposition you want us to have, but that is not the proposition at all, no matter how many times you have been told.Now, what is your proposition as an atheist?
That God does not exist?
We don't. We merely await you to prove your proposition, as you claim to be able to do by "thinking on facts and logic".And how do you plan to prove the proposition from yourself?
We haven't come to any such certainty - or at least the vast majority of us have not - I do not wish to speak for everyone.You will tell me, you don't have to prove anything because you are not into affirming anything; but still you have to explain how you came to the certainty of there being no God.
No, it's not necessarily impossible to prove a negative position. This is a strawman on your part.And also you will tell me that it is impossible to prove a negative proposition, that is where you are in gross error.
You can certainly not prove that you cannot write such a thesis or a dissertation, as while it may be that no such dissertation or thesis has ever been written, that in itself is not proof that it is impossible.Do something reading and thinking on facts and logic, what is the peculiar nature of a negative proposition; consider that you cannot write a thesis much a dissertation on a negative proposition.
It simply means that he who makes the assertion has the onus to support it.And also do some reading and thinking on facts and logic, what is the meaning of burden incumbent upon the prop0nent of a claim.
Then try it yourself, if you deem yourself to be a rational entity, because as of yet you have shown precious little example of it.At all costs, believe me, no human in possession of an active mind can proceed with arbitrariety on adopting any proposition at all, be it an affirmative one and neither a negative one: it is his office as a rational entity to be in possession of an explanation for any side of a question, be it the affirmative side and also the negative side.
This is an invention, not logic.So, logically some entity is in charge.
There's no evidence of one.When you write to reply to me, tell me what you think, an entity is in charge or no entity is in charge, or what.
It is a fact that there is order and stability in the universe, and that accounts for the nose not falling off uncertainly from our face.
There appears no necessity for such a thing. The laws of physics seem to be managing quite well all on their own.So, logically some entity is in charge.
We just ask that you reply with your proof. You have made the claim. You insist others "think on facts and logic", so we expect you to do the same. So far you have not.I can't be replying to you all everyday.
And your logical reasoning for this is...??So, I will just ask atheists who do see the big picture of things, namely, the universe and then our nose.
It is a fact that there is order and stability in the universe, and that accounts for the nose not falling off uncertainly from our face.
So, logically some entity is in charge.
Personally I do not know whether an entity is in charge or not. But nothing has led me so far to believe that there is anything but natural laws at work within the universe, and I have no reason to think that analogous laws apply everywhere else, if such even has meaning.When you write to reply to me, tell me what you think, an entity is in charge or no entity is in charge, or what.
We know the concept of God that you, the theist, is advocating.
We have known from the outset. We have asked you to present your argument for claiming that this God exists... The "proof" suggested in the thread title. You have offered nothing. We have waited. We do wait. We undoubtedly shall continue to wait.
1. No, we have no need to prove that there is no entity corresponding to that concept of God.
2. It is solely for you to show that there is. If you can not, that is the end of the matter, irrespective of what we can show or not.
3. Now, if some atheists among us held the view that this concept of god does not exist, then the onus on them would be to prove it as you suggest.
But the majority of us here do not make such a claim, we merely claim that you can not prove it, that your concept of God can not be proven.
After all, if God does not exist and we exist then our existence is itself evidence that God does not need to exist, and it would prove your concept of God non-existent.
Please do so or retract your accusation. He is not here to defend himself, and so I must ask you to defend your accusation.
I admit that in this case we are using the concept of God that Pachomius keeps referring to. We are discussing that concept.IOW you have a concept of God but you don't want to admit it.
I'm guessing it's not fashionable to do so.
On the contrary, we have heard Pachomius' concept; we have accepted Pachomius' concept for the purpose of this discussion; and we are not only interested but insistent that he actually puts forth reasons for his claim of God's existence.You only need to search the internet for numerous presentations for the claim that God exists, some of which are a far better put explanations, than we can produce.
But I'm guessing you're not interested in hearing reason's for the claims of God existence.
There is no subject matter here.Actually you're not waiting, you simply want to kill anything he has to say without actually engaging yourself, meaningfully, in the actual subject matter.
First - please do not put numbers into my quote... I didn't put them, so please don't add them.1. Of course there is no need to rule out the idea that the cause of the universe was due to intelligence as opposed to matter. Why would there be? That would mean you would have to discard your current indoctrination.
It's not solely on the theist, but solely on the person making the claim, whatever that claim may be.2. Why is it solely on the theist?
Why would you be interested in such an idea? Especially if it forces you to accept ideas contrary to your own.
The "atheist natural position"?? What is that supposed to mean?3. The atheist natural position is one that God does not exist, as there is no way to demonstrate that one neither believes ore disbelieves the existence of God, outside of lip-service.
Please feel free to demonstrate a practical expression of agnostic-atheism, one that we can say ''Yeah that dude is an agnostic atheist''?
Yet in a discussion about "proof of the existence of God" - as this is - it is sufficient to kill the "proof" presented if it is not supported logically, as is claimed.That's a fair point if your only interest is to kill all inquiries, and keep your head firmly planted in that bucket of sand around your neck.
There is no point in entertaining the idea the God does not exist, in a discussion about God's existence, unless your aim is to kill all discussion.
If you intend to offer your own concept of God, as opposed to the one to which I was responding in those quotes, feel free. But please do not quote responses to one concept as though they are responses to other, unless you can show how those responses are necessarily encompassing of your concept as well.The concept of God is not about God existing separately to us, as such an agent falls short of the definition of God, ie, The Supreme Being. Our very existence, in light of the concept of God, is born out of God's Will. Much like this response is born out of my will, by manifesting the symbols in a precise way.
The discussion - which again you appear not to have read in any meaningful detail so as to inform your response - was with regard accusations of flippancy on the part of Russell specifically in his debate with Copleston.He may not be here to defend himself, but his thoughts are, and they are up for grabs. Regarding his dancing teapot nonsense (with regard to revealed scripture that explains God, and some of God's activities), he himself is not required to be here.
"It is a fact that there is order and stability in the universe, and that accounts for the nose not falling off uncertainly from our face.
So, logically some entity is in charge.
When you write to reply to me, tell me what you think, an entity is in charge or no entity is in charge, or what."
Oh Pachomius, the trouble with you is that you don't realise we don't need one.Oh atheists, the trouble with you is that you don't have a thesis.
You don't get to decide what our thesis is, for to do so is to raise a strawman, unless you can logically show how it follows from what we do say.Read this below and know what is a thesis and how to prove it in few words.
I say:
...
Just perhaps scrambling together all your pseudo arguments, you are trying to put forth this thesis which is a most deficient statement of your heart, but no mind so it matters not.
Not necessarily. Not all atheists have the same view of things. They merely share the same lack of belief in gods.I see that you atheists are of the idea [your pseudo thesis] that the universe has always existed, therefore it could evolve into what we now see, etc.
No, science tells us that what we consider to be space and time began at what we consider t=0. But it can not tell us whether this is just one of many cycles, or the absolute beginning of the universe.But science tells us that the universe has a beginning.
We don't need to prove anything. You do. You are the one making the claim. "Burden of proof" etc.Even then, granting though not conceding that the universe has always existed, that does not mean that it is the totality of existence, unless you can prove that the universe makes up the totality of existence.
If we only know 4%, as you suggest (please provide a reference to support this) then that is quite possibly sufficient to establish many things, such as the relative uniformity of the universe, that there are universal laws, that the universe in that 96% operates in the same way, with fundamentally the same concentrations of matter, energy etc.Besides, granting though not conceding that the universe makes up the totality of existence, still we know only 4% of the universe; so there are still 96% of the universe we do not know: wherefore there is the evidence from the 4% we know to infer to the existence of God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning: of the 4% we know and of all the remainder we do not know, of which remainder there exists God the creator and operator of the universe in all the percentage that is not God Himself.
Put up or shut up, Pachomius.Think about that on facts and logic, no need to go into verbosity in aid of self-pomposity but vacuous altogether no matter the hot air.
Oh atheists, the trouble with you is that you don't have a thesis.
Read this below and know what is a thesis and how to prove it in few words.
I say:
It is a fact that there is order and stability in the universe, and that accounts for the nose not falling off uncertainly from our face.
So logically some entity is in charge.
When you write to reply to me, tell me what you think, an entity is in charge, or no entity is in charge, or what.
Just perhaps scrambling together all your pseudo arguments, you are trying to put forth this thesis which is a most deficient statement of your heart, but no mind so it matters not.
I see that you atheists are of the idea [your pseudo thesis] that the universe has always existed, therefore it could evolve into what we now see, etc.
Even then, granting though not conceding that the universe has always existed, that does not mean that it is the totality of existence, unless you can prove that the universe makes up the totality of existence.
Besides, granting though not conceding that the universe makes up the totality of existence, still we know only 4% of the universe; so there are still 96% of the universe we do not know
This is how you know that you are dealing with a liar. All these "I will prove God exists" types are liars. They want to control some aspect of the world or some group of people and they will gladly lie to do it.My thesis is that your definition of God, "Creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning" is unsatisfactory, because it leaves out what most theists believe is most important about God, namely his being a 'person' and his moral and soteriological qualities. It doesn't tell us why a metaphysical function should be worshipped as being divine.
Many atheists admit that they do not know. It could be that the universe always existed. You are right to say that simply making something up isn't a good solution. Sadly, saying that God-did-it is not better.Are you into insisting that the existence status came forth from the non-existence status, meaning in plain language: there was literally nothing then something came forth?
This doesn't make sense. All science has to say about cause and effect it says within spacetime as we know it. All the well-thought-out claims that I know of that involve a beginning to spacetime as we know it either say nothing about any cause outside of spacetime or imagine yet another spacetime, like the one we are in, in which cause and effect takes place. So none of these theories involve cause and effect outside of "time".You see, you keep on and on insisting in your understanding of beginning as a time concept, but beginning also means a causative beginning.
Now, you will ask, can causation occur outside time?
Yes, of course: because science tells us time has a beginning, so on causative antecedence in which antecedence there was no time, time itself by causation came into existence, so that all things in time existing are now subject to time.
I don't think that there is any lesson in that passage. It seems not to be coherent.Here, think on facts and logic on this idea or distinction:
1. Time based causation which is what we humans observe all the time in time; let us call this chronological causation.
2. Timeless based causation which is what we can know even though we never experience any causation in which time antecedence is not involved; let us call this second case a-chronological causation.
The lesson you must always bear in mind is that you cannot without absurdity maintain that something came forth from nothing, i.e., you must maintain with certainty at the cost of going absurd: that something always exists even in the causative antecedence of time, meaning when time has not begun to exist by causation, it the something already and always (non-chronological already and always) exists.
I admit that in this case we are using the concept of God that Pachomius keeps referring to. We are discussing that concept.
Do I have any other? I have many - as I am happy to discuss any concept that is presented.
I have none that I believe in, or adhere to, or fall back on. Which is what you seem to require of me.
So I have a concept in this discussion - it is Pachomius' concept - and I have not only admitted it now but many times in this thread previously.
Perhaps you have simply not read this thread in all its glory from the beginning?
On the contrary, we have heard Pachomius' concept; we have accepted Pachomius' concept for the purpose of this discussion; and we are not only interested but insistent that he actually puts forth reasons for his CLAIM of God's existence.
And not only that he put forth reasons but that he shows, given his penchant for such, how they follow from "thinking on facts and logic", and that he supports his reasons against the criticisms levied against them.
He has failed to do so.
Perhaps you would care to take up the his baton?
I don't rule out the idea that it was due to intelligence, or Xanu, or God, or anything else. There is nothing I have read that leads me to believe that such is the case. At best it reinforces my conclusion that we can not know.
Again, as with every time you debate with atheists, you seem to ignore their agnosticism and consider all atheists to be of the "God does not exist" variety. Maybe one day in the future you will stop doing so. I wait in hope.
It's not solely on the theist, but solely on the person making the claim, whatever that claim may be.
Don't think for one moment that my position is due to him making theistic claims he can not support - it is due to him simply making claims that he can not support.
The "atheist natural position"?? What is that supposed to mean?
The atheist practical position - i.e. how they live their life - is as though God does not exist.
But if you assume the intellectual position from the practical position, when you know that the same practical position can be the result of more than one intellectual position, is to be fallacious in your reasoning.
Yet in a discussion about "proof of the existence of God" - as this is - it is sufficient to kill the "proof" presented if it is not supported logically, as is claimed.
And any "proof" that starts with the a priori assumption that God exists is already going to struggle.
Maybe you want to offer your own concept of God for discussion, and offer a "proof" of your own that we can examine?
If you intend to offer your own concept of God, as opposed to the one to which I was responding in those quotes, feel free. But please do not quote responses to one concept as though they are responses to other, unless you can show how those responses are necessarily encompassing of your concept as well.
So, do you intend to put forward a concept of God that differs from Pachomius', and do you intend to provide a "proof of the existence of God" as per the thread title?
Or is your sole intention to try to argue against atheiswherever you find it, irrespective of the context of their on-going discussion?