Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

[Jan Ardena]

If they are visible.

To whom?

I have explained what it is: that which remains the same irrespective of perspective.

Do you mean anything that just Is?

I'm not asking you to explain what trained philosophers have difficulty explaining. I'm asking you if you can provide an example of something objective that is known to exist without evidence?

If trained philosophers have difficulty explaining it, and we are in a philosophy sub forum. How, as a non trained philosopher do you expect me, or anyone to explain it?



When I put the question to you for the first time, this was your response...

... As for your question: No, I have no evidence that God exists, nor that God needs evidence to be known. I have never claimed to have such evidence. However, can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular reasoning?

Your question implies that I have made a claim, but I have made no claims whatsoever. As I said, I am assuming God Is, for the purpose of discussion

So once again, how is this line of enquiry relevant? "However" doesn't cut it.

You said...

We don't [know if objective existence exists] , but unless you want to go down the whole route of God simply being a subjective matter....?[/QUOTE]

What does the italised section pertain to? Certainly nothing we are discussing.
So why troll with it?

So you chose to evade for the past 5+ pages rather than admit that? How dishonest of you.

I never claimed to understand it. Why would you think I did? Nobody can give a definitive answer to that question, so why would you think I can?

I am more interested in your explanation of how it is a relevant question for this thread.

I have explained. What of that explanation do you still not comprehend? Or are you simply going to continue to evade?

It's invisibility.
Can you provide me with the explanation again, but this time, actually type it out and send it? It would be much appreciated.

Both of these I have already done, Jan. Now stop with the continued evasion.

You gave me a dictionary definition of a vague term. You haven't explained it.
You certainly haven't given an explanation as to why it relevant to this thread.

Do people all have the same taste in music?

That wasn't the question.

The notes on the score, for example.

So we can dance, and enjoy squiggles on a piece of paper? Or does it require people to decipher them. That being said, are the squiggles actual music?
Will they mean the same thing in all possible worlds?

It is not my analysis but pretty much a truism. You have either wholly subjective, wholly objective, or a mix. What do you dispute about that?

What is a "wholly objective" experience?

So,, if you think "God Is", do you think that this means God is objective, subjective, or a mix of the two?

Already given my account.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yep, and then we die and there is only oblivion. Nothing to be afraid of.

I don't think anyone is projecting fear.

Anyways, I know we have all had experiences of not being consciously aware. Eg, sometimes when we are asleep, or, our birth, and for some months after.
But, we aren't dead.
So how do you know that consciousness ceases to be, upon the annihilation of our biological machines.we regard as "our bodies"?

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Yet another ridiculous statement, without being brought to task.

I was amused that you still used your definition of athiest after all the discussion in the past.
I was not trying to be disrespectful and I am sorry if I caused offence.

All that is left for you, and your atheist chums, is to invoke falseness, and make insults.

I dont invoke falseness and if you think I do please point out where so I can review the evidence as I prefer facts and truth.

But if you refer to my athiest position well we cant do much about that.

I know that I have said things that you could take as an insult in the past and I am sorry Jan.


You are entitled to believe whatever you wish without having someone like me point out where I think you are mistaken.

At first I was driven to help you just in the same way you feel driven to help me but I got carried away finding fault with the scriptures rather than acknowledging they were sacred to you.

I am sorry that I behaved that way and wish I had kept my critism to myself.

I behaved badly and less than I like to be.

My personal standard is to respect all people and I say that I do respect you and I should not have acted in a manner where I failed to respect your your right to hold your beliefs.

What a pitiful tactic.

I did feel uncomfortable trying to put forward my thoughts Jan as one can feel when being sincere.
It was not easy but doing the right thing is not always the easiest way but it is always the only thing to do.


But I felt driven to support you given it seemed to me no one should treat you badly.

I still feel uncomfortable because I know you will think that I was just being playful.

But I will stand by my effort to call upon others not to be hard on you.

Rather than go for the popularity vote, why don't you actually use your brain.

I am happy that I have used my brain (without any admission that I have a soul) and it told me to choose a course of respect as I most often will do.


Our views may be different and I respect that will be the way it is.

Unless of course, compassionate people with the ability of sight helps them out.

Yes and through all the banter I think you are indeed trying to help people find what you think is the truth.

In my own way that is what I try and do.

We have each found enlightenment but I think we each make the mistake of trying to deliver enlightenment to others.

I will be that person to lead you across the busy road of life. Don't rely on other blind folk.

That is nice Jan and I appreciate you trying to help and all I ask is you see my efforts similar.

Your compassion is about as real as your atheism.

Yes it certainly is and perhaps you will see my compassion as real if you can accept that I am an atheist.

The reason I felt uncomfortable was that I did expect you would think my compassion was a mere ploy or tactic and with your ability you could turn it against me so your responce was not unexpected...I dont blame you given you are in the middle of it all.. but I know there must be a Jan who knows sincerity and deep down who will accept that I am not being tactical.

See what I did there, I pulled it back to the actual topic. You should try it sometime.

You have every right to feel upset and lash out.

I have no need to fight back as I feel your pain.

It will pass.

We will both return to being decent.

You have a good day Jan and may you be at peace with yourself and others.

Alex

 

[Write4U]

Prayer can be seen as a mode of interface with the supernatural entity, just as typing a keyboard or using a voice command is on a computer. I know this may sound ridiculous considering some gods are conceptualized to have perceptive capabilities that would negate the need for such petitioning, but that’s just one of the countless inconsistencies that arise when a philosophy is governed by poorly defined logic.

Of course language is just representative of expressed thought.

So we can dance, and enjoy squiggles on a piece of paper? Or does it require people to decipher them. That being said, are the squiggles actual music?

The squiggles represent the notes and chords. And musical notation has been around for a very long time. Pythagoras was fascinated with music and harmonics.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html

Will they mean the same thing in all possible worlds?

Yes they do. These are some of the fundamental essence of the fabric of spacetime.
https://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I asked first.

Jan.

///
No. You did not.

<>

 

[billvon]

How do you work that out?

You don't even understand the point of your own arguments. Sad.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Excellent, and detailed explanation.
I really mean it. You have gone right to the edge of your reasoning, and, explanatory ability, and come up with that. And all I can do is repeat myself...

... You, and all atheists, are simply, without God, so it appears that everybody is without.



Wake up!
You've not stated one fact, other than, as far as you're aware, there is no God.



So you'd like to think.
You are atheist, a person who does not believe in God. As opposed to a theist, who does believe in God.
You are defending your position, as you say, because everything you spout, confirms your atheism.

Oh! How, in your estimation, would God show itself?

Jan.

///
I did explain it very well. No surprise you missed it or ignored it. As usual.

<>

 

[Baldeee]

Wow.
Not sure i've seen anyone, on any forum, spend more effort in evading issues and questions than Jan Ardena does.
If only he would put that effort into being civil and honest.
And it would surely take far less effort to actually address the question/issue.
Heck, then there might even be an actual conversation.

 

[Sarkus]

To whom?

Anything that can detect them.

Do you mean anything that just Is?

You'll have to explain what you mean by "just Is" before I can answer that.

If trained philosophers have difficulty explaining it, and we are in a philosophy sub forum. How, as a non trained philosopher do you expect me, or anyone to explain it?

Explaining it isn't the issue they have, Jan. Establishing whether or not it truly exists is the issue they debate.
Or do you intend to ignore every question you don't want to answer, on the grounds that you're not a trained philosopher. If that is the case, kindly remove yourself from the philosophy forum. This is where we amateurs like to discuss things.

When I put the question to you for the first time, this was your response...

... As for your question: No, I have no evidence that God exists, nor that God needs evidence to be known. I have never claimed to have such evidence. However, can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular reasoning?

Your question implies that I have made a claim, but I have made no claims whatsoever.

There is no implication of claim in my question, Jan. There is simply a question that, when you answer it... if you ever answer it... might go some way to helping you understand others' position. But since you seem incapable, or unwilling, to answer it, and constantly seek to evade it, I question yet again whether you are here to have an honest discussion, or simply troll the boards with your drivel.

As I said, I am assuming God Is, for the purpose of discussion

And how does that absolve you from needing to support that assumption. It doesn't, unless all parties accept the assumption for purposes of discussion. You are using that to wheedle your pathetic way out of having to address key issues to the discussion. You may not see them as key, but that is simply not the point, and to ignore them as you are doing, to want to bypass them as you want to do, is dishonest. Look, there's that word again, and supported by your actions... again.

So once again, how is this line of enquiry relevant? "However" doesn't cut it.

Explained in post #586.

You said...

We don't [know if objective existence exists] , but unless you want to go down the whole route of God simply being a subjective matter....?

What does the italised section pertain to? Certainly nothing we are discussing.

We you discussed it, though, Jan. At length. Especially with JamesR in other threads. And it pertains to God. With theism and, more pertinently, atheism, being with reference to God, it makes it of relevance to the topic at hand.

I never claimed to understand it. Why would you think I did?

Because honest people would admit from the outset that they don't understand the question, rather than merely try to evade. And I keep giving you the benefit of any small amount of doubt I have left on the matter as to your honesty, Jan.

Nobody can give a definitive answer to that question, so why would you think I can?

They can still give their view on the matter, Jan, however definite they think it is. That is all that is expected.

I am more interested in your explanation of how it is a relevant question for this thread.

Already given. Furthermore, you are using that as an evasion tactic.

It's invisibility.
Can you provide me with the explanation again, but this time, actually type it out and send it? It would be much appreciated.

Post #586, Jan.

You gave me a dictionary definition of a vague term. You haven't explained it.

What more explanation do you need than it being that which remains the same irrespective of perspective?

You certainly haven't given an explanation as to why it relevant to this thread.

More evasion, Jan. Why do you insist on obfuscating so much? Why do you insist on being the troll you so desperately don't want to be called yet seemingly do everything in your power to act out? You're like a politician trying to bury difficult issues in mountains of paperwork and bureaucracy. It's utterly pathetic, and it's certainly neither respectful nor part of an honest, civil discussion. Why do you bother here, Jan?

That wasn't the question.

No, but by answering it you will have the answer to your question.

So we can dance, and enjoy squiggles on a piece of paper? Or does it require people to decipher them. That being said, are the squiggles actual music?
Will they mean the same thing in all possible worlds?

The interpretation of the music is subjective. The score is objective. The squiggles are what they are.
If by music you only mean once the sound is produced, then the objective element is the soundwave produced by whatever is producing the music. The experience, however, is subjective.

What is a "wholly objective" experience?

I didn't mention any "'wholly objective' experience", specifically because experience is subjective.

Already given my account.

Then I must have missed it. Please can you point it out (post number?), detailing exactly where you have explained where you think it lies on the whole objective/subjective scale? Thanks.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

 

[James R]

↑
Atheist
ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun

1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Thank you for that Alex. I am forced to accept that definition, as it really encompasses the moder atheist.

The dictionary definition of disbelief is...

inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

... a description that fits you and modern atheists, so well.

Tell me, Jan: why did you ignore the second half of the disjunctive definition there? That's the part after the word "or".

You tell us you are "forced" to accept only the half of the definition that suits you, but for some reason no such "forcing" applies to the half that you don't like. You're allowed to ignore that part.

How does this work, Jan?

I've always said it mate, you're an honest atheist, unlike the fakes that fill the boards with inane drivel. As though you need all that crap.

It's a pity that you don't quite come up to the same mark as Alex when it comes to being honest, isn't it?

 

[James R]

Hi Jan,

Hi James,

We're going to have cease on these novel-length posts . Apart from that, yours mainly consists of you having discussions with yourself.
Hope that's okay with you

Is this your way of apolagising for your previous petulant outburst? Or more a case of you pretending it didn't happen? Never mind, let's move on.

You probably think "souls" are a separate idea. Understandable.

Why is there a separate word for them, if they aren't a separate idea?

I'll let you prove that it is nonsense.
Please explain how it occurs?
Also feel free to show the evidences that lead you Acceptance.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Emergent consciousness? Of course I can't explain how it occurs, exactly. That's a subject of ongoing scientific research. I don't think we'll have too long to wait before we see the first artificial examples of it, though. Even then, we might have a hard time explaining exactly how it occurs.

Emergent properties are notoriously difficult to explain, because they tend to arise in complex systems, and the micro-macro connections are often difficult to trace through.

As for Acceptance (with a capital 'A'), I've already talked about working hypotheses and the like in previous posts. The take-away message for you is that I don't Accept it on faith, like you Accept things on faith. Like I said, I'm not aware of any competing scientific hypothesis that would explain things better, so I'm going with the best that I know at present. Tentatively. With willingness to revise my opinion in light of new evidence, as I become aware of it.

Your so-called evidence is based on brain size. The bigger the brain, the higher the consciousness. One only has to read up about the African Grey Parrot, an animal with a brain, the size of a walnut, to rebut that.

That a valid point. As I said, there's a general correlation between brain size and level of consciousness. I also said that the level of complexity of the nervous system is important. Octopuses, for instance, don't exactly have just a single brain; their intelligence is apparently distributed around their body, which incidentally makes for a very interesting study.

Many birds, for the overall size of their brains, are actually surprisingly intelligent; the African Grey Parrot might well be a good example of that. This does not refute the general observation that I put to you, however. Bigger bodies tend to be correlated with bigger brains, and with higher levels of consciousness. However, it is very likely that the ratio of brain mass to total body mass is important too. Bigger bodies tend to require more nervous infrastructure than smaller ones. It could be that the "spare" capacity left over in the brain once control of basic body functions has been accounted for is what matters when it comes to intelligence or consciousness.

Show evidence from these scientists, that the brain is an emergent property of the brain, rather than simply default to worldview bias. It's that simple.

I've already got you started on that. Now it's your turn to go and find out some stuff for yourself.

I can confirm no such thing.

In other words, my assessment was correct.

Who mentioned belief?
Is there a God, as far as you're aware?
....
As far as any atheist is aware: Is there a God? Yes or No?

You talk about being "aware", but your use of that term in the context of theists being "aware" of God and atheists being unaware is really just your way of talking about belief.

There's no functional difference between your asking "Is there a God, as far as you're aware?" and your asking "Do you know there is a God?" That's because this isn't a question about "awareness".

Being "aware" of something means either knowing it, or perceiving it via the senses. God is, by your own admission, immune to being perceived with any of the normal senses examinable by science. Therefore, when you talk about awareness of God you must be talking about knowing there is a God.

Does any atheist know there is a God? Obviously not, since knowing there is a God entails believing there is a God, and atheists by definition don't believe there is a God.

Knowing would also require that the belief, if held, is also true and justified. So, it is not accurate to claim that any theist is aware of God, any more than any atheist is aware of God.

If I were to ask you, Jan, "Is there a God, as far as you're aware?", the only honest answer you could give would be "No." You're not aware of God, any more than I am. The difference between us is (merely) that you believe there is a God, whereas I don't have that belief.

I don't tell you what you believe.
I tell you that there is no God as far as any atheist, ever, past, present, and future, is aware.

Okay. I accept that. So what? There's no God as far as any theist, past or present, is aware, either.

Utter gobeldigook!

I note that this dismissal does nothing to refute the argument I put to you.

We claim ownership of our bodies and minds. Because we temporarily own them.

Repetition of your previous, rebutted, claim does nothing to further advance your argument.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I am incapable of explanation.

No need to assume. If you had even the beginnings of an explanation, I'm sure you would have provided it by now.

What does that have to do with anything?

It is suggestive that the dualistic notion of a soul that is separate from the body is a mistake.

Also, I suggest if you seriously want to explore the what the soul is, and how occupies its psition. Go and find out, by reading, listening, and observing.

I thought you might know something useful about them that you could share with me. Not the case? Okay then.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

That's not what I'm saying, obviously.
Atheists like to give the impression that they are scientifically based. When they are not.
Why do you do that?

Atheism is about belief, or rather, lack of belief. The reasons why an atheist doesn't believe in God can vary from atheist to atheist, just like the reasons vary from theist to theist.

One thing worth noting, though, is that atheism is consistent with - true to - the scientific method, in a way that theism is not. The scientific method says start with a hypothesis, gather evidence, then see whether the evidence supports or refutes the hypothesis. Provisionally accept that the hypothesis might be true if the balance of evidence tends to favour it. If the evidence as strong, you might even start to call it a theory. But always keep an eye out for new disconfirming evidence, and keep considering alternatives that might explain things better than current theories. Implicit in all this is that you don't accept a hypothesis unless there's positive evidence in its favour. Also, there is the underlying assumption that we look for evidence in nature, and we do not invoke supernatural causes to explain things in an ad hoc manner.

Theism, as you describe it, does not depend on evidence. You start with the hypothesis and then just faith it up. Then you have a Belief. The assumption is that no evidence will ever disconfirm that belief, so don't even bother looking for any evidence. Never mind if there's no unequivocal evidence of God in nature. You're free to assume the supernatural whenever it is convenient, like when you're attempting to explain souls or how you magically just know that God exists.

You refer to God as a concept. Admittedly, when discussing with atheists, I go along with it (for the purpose of discussion).

But yes, whateverone reads, or hears about God, is conceptual, if you approach the subject neutrally. And yes, you can know the same things as me.

Then again, bit is the same with any subject matter. Which kind of makes it a pointless observation.

Only if you fail to distinguish between objective and subjective reality. Which, as we have established previously, is a particularly stubborn blind spot of yours.

As far as I remember, I never use the term, "magic", yet you keep saying I do.
I do however, use the term, "natural"
Why don't you use that?

I think you don't use the term "magic" because your capacity to distinguish what is magical from what is natural is limited or compromised. Natural things have objectively observable features. Your God sense, to take one magical example, has only subjective features. Souls are another example of magic. They don't do anything that we can't account for by objective observation. For anybody to perceive a soul, they have to already believe it is there before they go looking for it. If you stop believing in it, it goes away.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

There is a spiritual component to this prohibition. For one, the people who God were relating to in the Bible, were vegetarian. At least before the flood.

The Garden of Eden and the Flood stories provide further examples of religious trappings used to promote certain notions of purity. Both are very good examples, actually. I don't really want to go into the details here; it would take too long.

You don't believe there was an actual Garden of Eden and an actual world-wide Flood, as described in the bible, do you?

It's not due to the presentation of the pig, that makes it unclean. It is the eating habits which are deemed unclean.

Like I said, the health message is submerged by the metaphysical prohibition.

So what?

So, you invited me to elaborate on what I was talking about when I said that there's a lot of stuff about metaphysical purity in religion, some of which has its roots in health and safety concerns. This is me introducing a new idea for your consideration.

What's the betting you're going to incorporate homosexuality in this thread, for no other reason than to try and illicit a provocative reaction, even though it is grossly off-topic.

I used that example to illustrate my point that religious people often have a preoccupation with somewhat screwy ideas about what is and isn't "pure" or wholesome.

I understand your reasoning, based on your worldview.

I don't think you do. Not really. If you did understand my reasoning, you might have considered the main point I raised, and asked yourself the questions that I put to you:

Now here's some more evidence again which you'll probably ignore or try to wave away. There's a correlation between being religious and regarding the eating of pork (or the practice of homosexuality) as impure or unclean. This raises issues of causation. Pertinent questions include: does religion make people more concerned about notions of "purity" or "cleanliness"? Did concerns about about purity and cleanliness (real or imagined) lead to the advancement of certain religious ideas?

Instead, as I predicted you would, you have waved this away as something you don't need to concern yourself with.

Let's look at it this way.
Do you agree that after your born, you must ultimately die?

As things stand currently, of course. That might not be the case for too much longer, of course, but that's a whole different topic.

The end times is something that is continuously in motion. Just like we are all experiencing our personal end times, as proprietor of these biological machines.

I was thinking more about the "end times" as described in, say, the book of Revelation, which are not your typical business-as-usual. The bible suggests those "end times" are a bit special. I was wondering whether you believe that those things will happen (or are happening now) as advertised. Don't worry. It's not very important, and we're drifting off topic for this thread with this anyway.

If you noticed, my response to Alex, came with an emoji. Indicating tongue-in-cheekness.

Yeah, I noticed. I should have known better than to ask you what your actual religious beliefs are, in any context. It's typically a waste of time because you never give a straight answer to such questions.

 

[Write4U]

That a valid point. As I said, there's a general correlation between brain size and level of consciousness. I also said that the level of complexity of the nervous system is important. Octopuses, for instance, don't exactly have just a single brain; their intelligence is apparently distributed around their body, which incidentally makes for a very interesting study.

9 brains to be exact, each capable of independent thought, allowing for multiasking and the ability for abstract thinking such as how to unscrew a lid from a canning jar, as well as remembering a maze.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Anything that can detect them.

You didn't answer the question.
To whom?

You'll have to explain what you mean by "just Is" before I can answer that.

I consider logic, and numbers, to just be.
Do you mean something like that?

Explaining it isn't the issue they have, Jan.

It is if you are asked to, Sarkus.

Establishing whether or not it truly exists is the issue they debate.

I don't see how your question follows on, which is why I'm asking you to explain how it does.

Jan..".Do you have any evidence that God, or the spirit soul, needs evidence to be known?"

Sarkus... can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?

Firstly, explain where I allude, or imply, that something can be known to objectively exist without evidence?
Then explain how your response secondary response relates to the question I asked?

And how does that absolve you from needing to support that assumption.

It is assumed that it has been supported, for the purpose of argument, and pointless, off-topic questions, or remarks.
Obviously it has gone straight over you troll head, as you continue to derail this thread.

We you discussed it, though, Jan. At length. Especially with JamesR in other threads. And it pertains to God. With theism and, more pertinently, atheism, being with reference to God, it makes it of relevance to the topic at hand.

How does it pertain to this thread?

Because honest people would admit from the outset that they don't understand the question, rather than merely try to evade. And I keep giving you the benefit of any small amount of doubt I have left on the matter as to your honesty, Jan.

I don't understand the question in relative context to this thread. I told you that some posts ago, and tried to get you to explain how it ties into the question I asked?
I know from the moment you keep repeating the question, that this is going to be your point of focus (trolling). If I bite, we go down a road that simply derails the thread. I don't want to derail this thread. Once we get pass the evidence of God issue, and return the thread topic, it can be good. So if you sincerely want to bring your question in, then explain how it is relevant. There's no way you can rationally draw ''things can objectively exist'' (whatever that means), without evidence. If I am wrong, then say why. Don't just derail the thread because you are angry, that I lump all atheist in the there is no God basket, especially as it is true by non designed definition.

Already given. Furthermore, you are using that as an evasion tactic.

You assume that I allude, or imply that objective existence, whatever that really is, without evidence. All I did was ask the question...
"Do you have any evidence that God, or the spirit soul, needs evidence to be known?"

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

You didn't answer the question.
To whom?

I did, Jan. If they are visible then they are visible to anything that can detect them. It's not rocket science.

I consider logic, and numbers, to just be.
Do you mean something like that?

Not really, as those things are only in reference to anything else. A brick has no numbers per se, or logic. It is just a brick. Or is your God just something that is applied to something else? Of when you say "God is" do you mean more than something that is applied, or in reference, to an object, or a premise?

It is if you are asked to, Sarkus.

So they have an issue in explaining if I am asked to explain??? No, Jan, the issue they have is not in explaining it. I don't come into the equation for them. What someone asks me is irrelevant to whether it is an issue for them.

I don't see how your question follows on, which is why I'm asking you to explain how it does.

Jan..".Do you have any evidence that God, or the spirit soul, needs evidence to be known?"

Sarkus... can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?

Firstly, explain where I allude, or imply, that something can be known to objectively exist without evidence?

Sure, and I have explained this already to you. If you ask me if I have any evidence that God, or the spirit soul, needs evidence to be known then you are offering up the notion, whether it is one you believe or not, that there might be something that can be known to exist without the need for evidence.

Then explain how your response secondary response relates to the question I asked?

I therefore ask you if you can provide me an example of something that is known to objectively exist without evidence. If you can then it examples the notion of things that can be known to objectively exist without evidence. If you can't then you'll have to explain why God is to be considered separate from all other in this matter.
The reason I specifically detailed "objectively exists" is because things either exist wholly subjectively, wholly objectively, or some mix (i.e. elements that are subjective, elements that are objective). Only those things that are wholly subjective would be excluded from my enquiry - which is why I asked you if you considered God to be wholly subjective. If that is what you think then we can revisit the notion of God being wholly subjective. If it is not what you think, if you think that God has at least some part that is objective, then the question is there for you to answer: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?

It is assumed that it has been supported, for the purpose of argument, and pointless, off-topic questions, or remarks.
Obviously it has gone straight over you troll head, as you continue to derail this thread.

What you are trying to do hasn't gone over my head, Jan. It is why I am calling you out for your utterly dishonest approach, your blatant evasion, and your continued disrespect for this site.
Simply put, you don't get to decide unilaterally what is beyond the need for support in a discussion.

How does it pertain to this thread?

See above.

I don't understand the question in relative context to this thread. I told you that some posts ago, and tried to get you to explain how it ties into the question I asked?

And I explained, some posts ago. Including the one I keep referring you back to.

I know from the moment you keep repeating the question, that this is going to be your point of focus (trolling).

It is not trolling to try to get you to stop evading a question, Jan. The evasion on your part, the bluster and smoke and detritus that you use for obfuscation: that is trolling. Me, I just want you to answer the question: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?

If I bite, we go down a road that simply derails the thread.

You don't get to prejudge that, Jan. That is simply you being dishonest. That is simply you choosing to evade. Answer the question. See where the path goes, and if it goes into off-topic areas then you get to claim that it is off-topic. Not before.

I don't want to derail this thread.

Neither do I, Jan. Now please answer the question: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?

Once we get pass the evidence of God issue, and return the thread topic, it can be good.

Please can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?

So if you sincerely want to bring your question in, then explain how it is relevant.

Done so.

There's no way you can rationally draw ''things can objectively exist'' (whatever that means), without evidence.

Please clarify your use of "draw" here?

If I am wrong, then say why.

You haven't answered the question yet, Jan.

Don't just derail the thread because you are angry, that I lump all atheist in the there is no God basket, especially as it is true by non designed definition.

Excuse me? You think I'm angry? I assure you it takes more than the continued trolling of a dishonest player like you to make me angry. Frustrated? Sure, sometimes. Do I despair at the multitude of ways you evade issues? Yes. But angry? No.
"Non designed definition"??? Please explain the difference between a "designed definition" and a "non designed definition". Examples of each would be good.
Do I get frustrated at your continued inability to recognise the agnostic atheist position as being fundamentally different from the strong atheist? Yes. Do I think you deliberately do it because deep down you have zero answer to those that don't commit to a belief? Yes.
But angry? No.

You assume that I allude, or imply that objective existence, whatever that really is, without evidence. All I did was ask the question...
"Do you have any evidence that God, or the spirit soul, needs evidence to be known?"

And presumably it is your lack of ability with logic that prevents you from seeing that the question you asked opens the door to the notion of there being something that needs no evidence to be known. Hence the question I asked you. That you have still yet to answer.
So let me ask you again: can you provide me with an example of something that can be known to objectively exist without evidence - and without circular argument?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Done so.

No you haven't.

Now can you please explain how your question is relevant. Thank you

And presumably it is your lack of ability with logic that prevents you from seeing that the question you asked opens the door to the notion of there being something that needs no evidence to be known.

Then please explain how your question is relevant. How many more times are you going to evade this question Sarkus?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

No you haven't.

Now can you please explain how your question is relevant. Thank you

Then please explain how your question is relevant. How many more times are you going to evade this question Sarkus?

To repeat post #586: "it follows because by asking the question you asked you are alluding to the possibility that something can be known to exist without needing evidence."

And then in just my post above this I provide you with a more detailed explanation, Jan, since it seemed you are incapable/unwilling to accept the one in #586. Specifically from "Sure..." and continued with the next paragraphs "I therefore ask...".
Now, if you want to accuse me of not explaining then that is your prerogative as the troll you are being. Just don't complain about the consequences. If, however, your issue is that you don't actually follow the explanation, that you still can't see how the question I ask is relevant, then, for a change, be civil, be honest, and state that you don't follow, provide your comprehension of what has been explained, and in that way progress may be made.
Unfortunately your manner, and not to mention your history, is simply one of evasion, and since you seem to do everything in your power to evade, such as (but not limited to) repeating a demand for an answer that has already been given to you, you come across as nothing more than a troll.

Even in trying to mirror the continuing demand for an answer you are in fact just trolling, because, as all can see, an answer has indeed been provided. And pointed out to you the next time you ask, and then provided again with even more clarification. And still you think you're being honest by simply repeating a demand for what has already been given. You see, Jan, you cant turn someone into a troll by simply calling them one. It does actually require that person to behave like one. The way you behave, for example.

 

[Jan Ardena]

To repeat post #586: "it follows because by asking the question you asked you are alluding to the possibility that something can be known to exist without needing evidence."

No I am not.
Can you explain how your question is relevant?

And then in just my post above this I provide you with a more detailed explanation, Jan, since it seemed you are incapable/unwilling to accept the one in #586.

No you didn't Sarkus...

"And I explained, some posts ago. Including the one I keep referring you back to."

That is not an explanation.
Now can you explain how your question is relevant?

because, as all can see, an answer has indeed been provided.

No one has seen an explanation, because there is no explanation.
So can you please provide an explanation of why that question is relevant. Thank you.

I await your explanation.

Jan.