Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe

[Sarkus]

No, extensions of Newtons equations.

Which in turn were ultimately theorised on observations. The analogy stands.

Theorised? No idea, someone made something up for sure but we have no idea when or how that started.

So what? It is a theory, is it not? It may not be a scientific theory, it may be believed as true by some, but it is nonetheless a theory.

 

[Pinball1970]

Which in turn were ultimately theorised on observations. The analogy stands

Observation that were verified, theories that were demonstrated to work. This is not the same as inventing a monster, man, animal, god or goddess from nothing, out of someone's head.

So what? It is a theory, is it not? It may not be a scientific theory

You answered your own Question here Sarkus, there is a world of difference between the scientific method and scientific theory and "theory" in the context we are discussing. This is not pedantry, this key to this difference.
An inference is still an inference? Yes, but equating the process and the foundations is not equivalent.

 

[Trek]

My personal concept of God is that it is likely a construct of superstitious minds, passing their superstition from generation to generation.

So you’re personal concept of God does exist! While theists do no agree with your concept, it is still a concept of God when all is said and done, from your own testament.
So why do you ask for evidence?
It seems there’s a good chance your personal concept of God is real.

]We know for a fact that people do have superstitions, and the concept of a god is very consistent with human psychology. It just happens that bunch of us know that superstitions don't equal reality.

What are you talking about?
Anyway no need you’ve given your concept of God which does exist for you as I’m sure there are superstitious minds passing their superstition from generation to generation.

So there's mine. Where's yours?

I’ve already given mine which I deemed suitable for the purposes of this conversation. Supreme being, creator of the universe, and the object of faith.

 

[Trek]

Evidence is a broad spectrum.

Some types of evidence are very weak; lending itself to an array of explanations. Testimonials and anecdotal documentation are weak.
Some types of evidence are strong; it can be tested by independent studies, in controlled conditions, and repeatably.

Naturally, you know that just any old evidence will not do. God is, by most accounts, a pretty big deal. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why do you ask such a hypothetical question? Unless you're going to do an about face, there isn't going to be any evidence presented, but I would very much enjoy being wrong.

Dave, let me ask the question again. It appears you didn’t understand it based on that word salad of an answer. Also bear in mind we’re not talking about your concept of God. We’re talking about mine…
Would you believe God is real if evidence that God is real was presented to you?
It should be a simple yes or no answer Dave

 

[DaveC426913]

So you’re personal concept of God does exist! While theists do no agree with your concept, it is still a concept of God when all is said and done, from your own testament.

It is a concept of the phenomenon of belief in God. You are aware that a concept of faeries doesn't mean faeries are real, right? My concept of faeries is based on descriptions from other people. That does not imbue them with existence.

Note that my concept of what people think God includes the fact that there are as many ideas of what God is as there are believers on the planets. This is a damning hole in its logic. In fact, it is much more consistent with God being a manifestation in each of those minds.

Think of dreams. we all have dreams. But in the morning we become aware that no one else on the planet had the same experience we did. That is what we call a subjective experience. When it conflicts with other people's experience, we call that a hallucination.

If everyone has their own idea of God, that each point to an individual, subjective experience. When these subjective experiences all clash, it indicates that they are not part of the objective world, and points to the source of the idea beiong in each individual head.


All of this requires no new concepts or entities we don't already know from psychology and cognition science. Your task - should you choose to accept it - is to convince any remaining discerning skeptics why our kown understanding of the psychology of superstition is not sufficient to explain the belief in God.

So why do you ask for evidence?

For the same reason I participated in discussions about American politics.
1. It affects other people and other people affect me. That makes it a part of my world whether I want it to or not.
2. I bridle at weak logic, misinformation and undefended claims. They contribute to an ignorant, superstitious world.

What difference does it make why? Is this another attempt to dodge the obligation to provide your own evidence for your concept of God?

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about you. I am surmising that your need to believe in a God is based in superstition.

Anyway no need you’ve given your concept of God which does exist for you

No one ever said concepts don't exist.

This is the exact same confusion Jan had many years ago. He confused the existence of a concept of a thing with the thing itself. He didn't understand that thinking about a faery sprinkling pixie dust everywhere doesn't imbue the faerie with existence.

Maybe you should stop pulling straight from Jan's playbook.

I’ve already given mine which I deemed suitable for the purposes of this conversation. Supreme being, creator of the universe, and the object of faith.

Well, Supreme being is a title. It could mean anything, including being retired for 13.69 billion years.
OK, creator of the universe. Got it.
OK, object of faith. This is redundant, since you explicitly have faith in it.


So this God created the universe, and then ... retired? Did he do anything else?
You call him an entity, does that means he has consciousness and intelligence?
Where did he come from? Is he an alien being from a past universe? Is he the only one who survived?
Why do you believe he exists and created the universe?

Dave, let me ask the question again. It appears you didn’t understand it based on that word salad of an answer.

If you don't understand the difference between good evidence and bad evidence then we can't continue discussion. This is key.

Would you believe God is real if evidence that God is real was presented to you?
It should be a simple yes or no answer Dave

Here is why this is a malformed question. Answer this, and I can answer your question:

Trek: Have you stopped beating your wife yet? That should be a yes or no answer.

I am not dodging your question, I will answer it as soon as you answer mine, which I am asking solely for the purpose of addressing your question.

 

[Trek]

It is a concept of the phenomenon of belief in God.

So it’s not your personal concept of God despite you saying it is.
I’m interested in your personal concept of God.

This is the exact same confusion Jan had many years ago.

Why do you keep bringing up Jan Ardena? Is this going to be an on going thing?

Well, Supreme being is a title that you give him. It's not exactly something that can be evidenced, unless he has a plaque on his desk.

I didn’t present my definition as evidence of God. Why did you think I did?

OK, creator of the universe. Got it.
OK, object of faith. This is redundant, since you explicitly have faith in it.

Again this is my definition of God. I have already given my evidence, and am not interested in proving anything, as nobody can prove anything. This has been established so stop beating that dead horse.

So God created the universe, and then ... retired? Did he do anything else?

Like what?

He's an entity, deos that means he is consciounsess and intelligence?

Yes, I believe he is.

Where did he come from? Is he an alien being from a past universe? Is he the only one who survived?

According to the Bible God is reality, and it is us and the physical manifestation that comes from God

Why do you believe he exists and created the universe?

It makes perfect sense, and it is by far the best and most logical explanation. Nothing comes close. If you have any ideas feel free.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As I was going up the stair
I met a god who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today!
I wish, I wish he'd go away!

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Tidy forum. BZ

 

[Trek]

For the same reason I participated in discussion about American politics. It affects other people and other people affect me.

How does God affect you?

I bridle at weak logic, misinformation and undefended claims. They contribute to an ignorant world.

I am in agreement. So let us persist.
Earlier you said if God came before you, in your sight, and did God-like things you would accept he is real. Or words to that effect.
What do you regard as “God-like things/activities?

What difference does it make why? Is this another attempt to dodge the obligation to provide your own evidence for your concept of God?

I have provided evidence of God, and I agree with what I have provided. So please accept my entry. If I asked you for evidence of Darwinism, would your expression be based on sources?

I'm talking about you. I am surmising that your need to believe in a God is based in superstition.

You have yet to provide a definition of God. You earlier attempt was silly. Please be serious in your attempt to define God. I don’t mind if you use a source, but let it represent your concept. Don’t worry it won’t mean you are a theist if you define him properly. Don’t be afraid.

 

[DaveC426913]

So it’s not your personal concept of God despite you saying it is.

I don't have a personal concept of a thing that I don't have reason to think exists. that is paradoxical.

I’m interested in your personal concept of God.

See above.

Why do you keep bringing up Jan Ardena? Is this going to be an on going thing?

Only as long as you act as a clone of him. That's up to you.

I didn’t present my definition as evidence of God. Why did you think I did?

Yup. I retracted that and changed it.

Again this is my definition of God. I have already given my evidence,

I am aware of no evidence you have given. If you do not want to list it (again, I guess) can you please point me at a specific post number.

and am not interested in proving anything, as nobody can prove anything. This has been established so stop beating that dead horse.

Have I asked you to prove anything? I fancy myself a man of science. Proofs are few and far between. What I look for is a preponderance of strong, compelling evidence.

Like what?

OK, if you don't have ideas about what this God might have done after creating the universe, I will provisionally conclude that you think he effectively retired. Feel free to correct or nuance that.

Yes, I believe he is.
According to the Bible God is reality, and it is us and the physical manifestation that comes from God

Ok, so you believe what the Bible tells you. Why? These are the same people who thought you should stone your daughter if she lay with a man or something (don't quote me on this) suffice to say, we know the Bible is rife with inaccuracies, parables and self-inconsistencies. Why do you take anything it says as unassailable truth?

It makes perfect sense, and it is by far the best and most logical explanation. Nothing comes close. If you have any ideas feel free.

It meets your bar for evidence.
"Best" is subjective.
"Logical" is less subjective. Let me clarify:

Inaccurate historical documents full of parables and self-inconsistencies are objectively weak evidence. Does it not concern you that your belief is founded on weak evidence? That's not objectively logical.

And perhaps, more to the point - surely you acknowledge why so many others don't take such weak evidence to form the foundation of their lives. Surely you are able to say "Well, I'm satisfied with my bar for evidence of God but I can certainly accept that others set their bar in a different place then me."

 

[Trek]

As I was going up the stair
I met a god who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today!
I wish, I wish he'd go away!
As cells form in gloopy goo
I find that me and my atheist crew
Are as happy as can be
For we are right
As long as we agree

 

[DaveC426913]

You have yet to provide a definition of God.

Asked and answered. Again: I cannot provide a definition of a thing that I have no reason to believe is more than a figment of 6 billion imaginations. There are 6 billion ideas of what God is. Which one would choose? Each is just as unsupported as the other. Best I can do is describe the phenomenon of the belief in it.

You earlier attempt was silly. Please be serious in your attempt to define God.

Note, I have never accused your belief in God as being silly (which is a vacuous criticism), nor have I told you your weren't being serious about it (which attempts to speak to the machinations of my mind - a mistake you have previously gotten temporarily banned for). With a desperate invocation of gaslighting, you lose this round.

We're back to this:

Trek: Have you stopped beating your wife yet? That should be a yes or no answer.

I am not dodging your question, I will answer it as soon as you answer mine, which I am asking solely for the purpose of addressing your question. You're not dodging mine, are you?

 

[Trek]

I don't have a personal concept of a thing that I don't have reason to think exists. that is paradoxical.

Sorry I mistakenly thought you were an atheist. My bad.

I am aware of no evidence you have given. If you do not want to list it (again, I guess) can you please point me at a specific post number.

What I look for is a preponderance of strong, compelling evidence.

For that you need to know what you’re looking for evidence of. Someone doing Godlike things doesn’t cut it. Try your best to be serious.

OK, if you don't have ideas about what this God might have done after creating the universe, I will provisionally conclude that you think he effectively retired. Feel free to correct or nuance that.

Let’s just deal with basic discussion of God for now. Once we come to a mutual understanding we can take it further

Ok, so you believe what the Bible tells you. Why?

Thats not important for now.

These are the same people who thought you should stone your daughter if she lay with a man or something (don't quote me on this) suffice to say, we know the Bible is rife with inaccuracies, parables and self-inconsistencies. Why do you take anything it says as unassailable truth?

We can get into all of that at some point when it becomes relevant.

So what is your definition of God (proper).
What evidence would convince you of God if your reason for disbelief is lack of evidence?
What is God why think you need evidence that he is real?

 

[Sarkus]

Observation that were verified, theories that were demonstrated to work. This is not the same as inventing a monster, man, animal, god or goddess from nothing, out of someone's head.

You answered your own Question here Sarkus, there is a world of difference between the scientific method and scientific theory and "theory" in the context we are discussing. This is not pedantry, this key to this difference.
An inference is still an inference? Yes, but equating the process and the foundations is not equivalent.

I understand all of that. My point was that your comment suggested that inference itself was sufficient to dismiss. I addressed what you wrote. You have clarified your position, and in doing so agreed with what I also said.
Anything else?

 

[Trek]

Asked and answered. Again: I cannot provide a definition of a thing that I have no reason to believe is more than a figment of 6 billion imaginations.

Imaginations are a complex psychological state that is important to all human beings. Abiogenesis is also a figment of imagination regardless of whether you believe it is real. Imagination is something all humans use to visualise concepts. So to use that is weak.
If you are atheist then you are without a belief in God. It means you have come to that conclusion. If you base that conclusion on other theists, then you are in denial of God, and this conversation is pointless.

There are 6 billion ideas of what God is. Which one would choose? Each is just as unsupported as the other. Best I can do is describe the phenomenon of the belief in it.

Are you really sure there are 6 billion ideas of what God is?
Please explain how you know this?

Note, I have never accused your belief in God as being silly (which is a vacuous criticism), nor have I told you your weren't being serious about it (which attempts to speak to the machinations of my mind - a mistake you have previously gotten temporarily banned for). With a desperate invocation of gaslighting, you lose this round.

If you display the machinations of your mind for all to see, I believe I am within my rights (even on here) to critique it, especially as you are dodging questions. So far you have not been serious in our conversation. What are you afraid of?

I am not dodging your question, I will answer it as soon as you answer mine, which I am asking solely for the purpose of addressing your question. You're not dodging mine, are you?

I have answered your questions.
You have my definition of God
You have my evidences for God
You have my reason for belief in God
All I have from you is
God is the figment of 6 billion folks imaginations.
There is no good evidence for God (whatever that means)
And some other stuff that has nothing to with the conversation.
I think you need to step, cause your looking quite silly right now (outside your cozy atheist bubble)

 

[DaveC426913]

For that you need to know what you’re looking for evidence of.

Something supernatural would be a good start. I have yet to see strong evidence of anything in nature that cannot - at least in principle - be eventually explained by natural (i.e. non-supreme entity) causes.

Someone doing Godlike things doesn’t cut it. Try your best to be serious.

I'll decide what cuts it for me.

Your comment about not being serious speaks more to you than to me. You try to speak to the machinations of mu mind. You've been caught out on that before and it got you temporarily banned.

If you feel I'm not being serious then feel free to disengage.

Thats not important for now.

It is the core question. The only important question. This thread is about evidence fro God's existence. You believe in God. and you believe that the Bible tells you God is real (paraphrased). That is the only question at-hand.

We can get into all of that at some point when it becomes relevant.

We are on post 550. It has been relevant since post 1. Get to it.

So what is your definition of God (proper).

Asked and answered. See post 550, and many prior posts.

What evidence would convince you of God if your reason for disbelief is lack of evidence?

Asked and answered. Turning the world inside out while turning day into night would be strong evidence.

What is God why think you need evidence that he is real?

This is unparsible. Rephrase?

 

[DaveC426913]

Re: post 552:
Are you aware of this tool? It's how you can fix broken quotes.


I'll wait.

 

[Trek]

Something supernatural would be a good start. I have yet to see strong evidence of anything in nature that cannot - at least in principle - be eventually explained by natural (i.e. non-supreme entity) causes.

You're aware that there are theists who haven’t experienced the “supernatural”.
What makes you think that is a requirement for evidence?

Your comment about not being serious speaks more to you than to me. You try to speak to the machinations of mu mind. You've been caught out on that before and it got you temporarily banned.

If you feel I'm not being serious then feel free to disengage.

I feel you’re not being serious because I don’t think you’re being honest when it come to seriously defining God. I think you know exactly why you’re atheist but you are obfuscating and being disingenuous. It comes across as you’re being afraid to really define God, the object of your atheism, seriously.

It is the core question. The only important question. This thread is about evidence fro God's existence. You believe in God. and you believe that the Bible tells you God is real (paraphrased). That is the only question at-hand.

So based on that you would think I became a theist because I read the bible. Right?
Well you’re wrong. So let’s move on. The bible has nothing to do with theism other than it assumes theism. Prior to that you have use your own intelligence to conclude Gods is real. The bible is there for us to know more about God.
Do you understand?

We are on post 550. It has been relevant since post 1. Get to it.

I agree.
Give me a proper definition of God so we can talk about evidence. It is because you refuse to do so why we are this many posts into the thread.

Asked and answered. See post 550, and many prior posts.

Thats not a serious definition.
Come on Dave you know exactly what I’m asking for.

Asked and answered. Turning the world inside out while turning day into night would be strong evidence.

Why would that be evidence and not natural causes? What would be Godlike about those actions?

 

[DaveC426913]

You're aware that there are theists who haven’t experienced the “supernatural”.
What makes you think that is a requirement for evidence?

It is a litmus test I use.

If the world is explainable using natural means (i.e. the physics we know or will know eventually), then invocation of something supernatural is not merely counter-productive but harmful to knowledge.

I feel you’re not being serious because I don’t think you’re being honest when it come to seriously defining God.

Well as long as we're talking about feelings and (since you keep kicking this door open) suspicions of what we think is happening in others' minds, I believe you are Jan Ardena.

You use the exact same dishonest tactics:
- never answering a question except with another question
- dodging any question you are uncomfortable with (as you continue to do even now)
- trying to invert the onus of responsibility
- gaslighting
- obsession with God's use of sound
- characteristic grammatical gaffs like a signature or fingerprint

These are all tactics Jan used, or errors he committed, and that is sufficient evidence for me that you are Jan. I ended my relationship with Jan for these reasons, and Jan was eventually banned because everyone else saw you as dishonest as well.

To all your subsequent questions, I have the only correct response: asked and answered.

 

[Trek]

If the world is explainable using natural means (i.e. the physics we know or will know eventually), then invocation of something supernatural is not merely counter-productive but harmful to knowledge.

Nobody is invoking the supernatural.
We are talking about defining God. We don’t need supernatural events to believe God is real.
I think abiogenesis is a supernatural event as it just by chance created the most complicated system in living beings, the cell. But let’s not get into that, let’s stay in topic.

Well as long as we're talking about feelings and (since you keep kicking this door open) suspicions of what we think is happening in others' minds, I believe you are Jan Ardena.

Talk about digressing. There’s nothing I can do about that. If that’s a botheration to you let me know and I will stop conversing. I don’t mind.

You use the exact same dishonest tactics:
- never answering a question except with another question
- dodging any question you are uncomfortable with (as you continue to do even now)
- trying to invert the onus of responsibility
- gaslighting
- obsession with God's use of sound
- characteristic grammatical gaffs like a signature or fingerprint

These are all tactics Jan used, or errors he committed, and that is sufficient evidence for me that you are Jan. I ended my relationship with Jan for these reasons, and Jan was eventually banned because everyone else saw you as dishonest as well.

To all your subsequent questions, I have the only correct response: asked and answered.

I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere Dave. Your head is not in it.
We may as well stop the conversation.
It’s a pity but you’re not going to let this go