To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

[Jan Ardena]

Capracus,

An art gallery is assumed to be filled with paintings of a single artist, but only one is singed. By applying your above reasoning we must conclude that the unsigned paintings cannot be the work of the artist in question. Does this seem reasonable to you?

By applying said reasoning, we identify the consistency, style, and character, of the artist's work. We then match that consistency with the other paintings. There we will find the evidence.

In all the great religions, and religious scriptures, there are consistent characteristics of God, where regardless of belief status, says this is what God does, and this is how He does it. Atheists try their best to make scriptures look like some kind of ad hoc, pieces of writings, created by dumb@sses who had a desire to fill in the gaps of their knowledge (which was hardly anything due to their lack of modern science?) with kiddy-like stories. Then proceeded to force every one to accept it or die.
They purposely put God, and gods in the same category so that it seems like every theist has their own personal god to suit their whims. That there is no consensus on who or what it is theists believe in.

This is the reason why they can compare, and make public, stupid things like equating God with unicorns and teapots. Right off the bat, it makes belief in God look childish, and therefore not desirable for some adults.

So we look at this claim which consistently tells us that God is the Supreme, original person, who creates material world. It tells us how He created it, and it tells us why He created it. Knowing that (regardless of belief status), why would you look for evidence of God, in any one particular genre?
Why would you expect such a being to come reveal Himself to the atheist community, or restore lost limbs as a parlor show for people cannot realize because of their own ignorance.

If God exists, then everything is actual evidence of that existence, by the definition of who and what God is. So if one wants to find out if God exists, one has no choice but accept the notion that God exists. In fact all knowledge is obtained by previous acceptance, of the teacher/literature, or more directly, experience. So why should this be any different?

Of course dishonest atheists will argue that I'm being illogical because i'm advocating one has to believe in order to believe. But I'm not as I have just explained.

You’ll probably counter by saying that God is (unjustifiably) presumed to be the only artist, and that assigning authorship to other paintings implies the impossibility of other painters, which brings up the question of not only evidentially discerning a single god, but potential multitudes of gods. You seem to be willing to apply a standard that assumes multiple creative entities in our personal reality, but inconsistently denies them universally.

You seem to be really trying hard to counter something that you cannot counter, without adding your own ideas, which have nothing to do with the essence of scriptures, or religion. The nonsense regarded as an explanation of absurdity, does the same thing. It creates a straw man God, then beats the crap out of it, leaving people who actually comprehend/understand the scriptures (even basically) wondering, wtf is this person talking about.

jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

I do not believe that you actually believe anything you have written on this website.

Why?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The argument seems to effectively be that God is a feeling like Love. Some people are more emotional than others and therefore more believing or more religious. It's too bad that society hasn't left it at that.

You either don't have supernatural beliefs or you are sensitive to the feeling called God.

Either way it's not worth getting worked up about as it is not negatively affecting anyone else. Of course in reality that's not the situation unfortunately.

What is it with you guys? No matter how much we explain something to you, it always comes down to what you think the reason for theism is.

R-e-a-d
t-h-e
w-o-r-d-s,
t-h-e-n
r-e-s-p-o-n-d
t-o
t-h-e-m
a-s
t-h-e-y
a-r-e
w-r-i-t-t-e-n.

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Why?

jan.

Why should I.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why should I.

Why should you what?

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Why should you what?

jan.

There you go.

 

[Capracus]

So we look at this claim which consistently tells us that God is the Supreme, original person, who creates material world. It tells us how He created it, and it tells us why He created it. Knowing that (regardless of belief status), why would you look for evidence of God, in any one particular genre?
Why would you expect such a being to come reveal Himself to the atheist community, or restore lost limbs as a parlor show for people cannot realize because of their own ignorance.

If God exists, then everything is actual evidence of that existence, by the definition of who and what God is. So if one wants to find out if God exists, one has no choice but accept the notion that God exists. In fact all knowledge is obtained by previous acceptance, of the teacher/literature, or more directly, experience. So why should this be any different?

I assumed you were advocating for a rational line of reasoning to support a belief in God, instead it turns out you’re simply attempting to rationalize a continued belief in primitive superstition. God exists because the ancients decreed it. No need for modern cosmology because the factual version was laid down ages ago. By your reckoning, unlike any other intellectual endeavor, metaphysical understanding is only degraded by continued investigation and discovery.

Of course dishonest atheists will argue that I'm being illogical because i'm advocating one has to believe in order to believe. But I'm not as I have just explained.

Why is it dishonest to desire rational reason in the pursuit of belief?

 

[Seattle]

What is it with you guys? No matter how much we explain something to you, it always comes down to what you think the reason for theism is.

R-e-a-d
t-h-e
w-o-r-d-s,
t-h-e-n
r-e-s-p-o-n-d
t-o
t-h-e-m
a-s
t-h-e-y
a-r-e
w-r-i-t-t-e-n.

jan.

Your reason for theism is just because it is. Others may have a more subtle approach.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Capracus,

I assumed you were advocating for a rational line of reasoning to support a belief in God, instead it turns out you’re simply attempting to rationalize a continued belief in primitive superstition. God exists because the ancients decreed it. No need for modern cosmology because the factual version was laid down ages ago. By your reckoning, unlike any other intellectual endeavor, metaphysical understanding is only degraded by continued investigation and discovery.

Why is it dishonest to desire rational reason in the pursuit of belief?

Okay. How do you know that God exists because the ancients decreed it?
Lets see real rationalism at work.

It's not dishonest to desire rational reason in the pursuit of belief, it is dishonest to act as though you are discussing something with someone, when in fact, you're not.
At least discuss with me, the points that you do make no sense to you, or where you think I'm irrational. This is a discussion board after all.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your reason for theism is just because it is. Others may have a more subtle approach.

Really?
Thanks for that in depth reasoning.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

There you go.

What are you talking about?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

So we look at this claim which consistently tells us that God is the Supreme, original person, who creates material world. It tells us how He created it, and it tells us why He created it. Knowing that (regardless of belief status), why would you look for evidence of God, in any one particular genre?

By genre, as applied to the search for evidence, you mean?
In general, if there is no evidence, or no evidence found, one is left merely with claims, no matter how old or revered those claims may be.

Why would you expect such a being to come reveal Himself to the atheist community, or restore lost limbs as a parlor show for people cannot realize because of their own ignorance.

No one expects anything, as there is no imperative to believe.

If God exists, then everything is actual evidence of that existence, by the definition of who and what God is. So if one wants to find out if God exists, one has no choice but accept the notion that God exists. In fact all knowledge is obtained by previous acceptance, of the teacher/literature, or more directly, experience. So why should this be any different?

Of course dishonest atheists will argue that I'm being illogical because i'm advocating one has to believe in order to believe. But I'm not as I have just explained.

And what you have explained is precisely that to believe one must believe.
One can accept the notion that God exists, and I just have... I have suspended my disbelief for the purposes of this discussion....
You say that if God exists then everything is actual evidence of that existence. Well, in my accepting way I can see that that is indeed a possibility, but whether I accept the notion of God existing or not (and at the moment I do) I am still beholden to the same way of thinking regarding evidence: I see none that can rationally and unambiguously lead to the conclusion that God exists. Sure, I accept God exists, but that doesn't change my view of what the evidence does or does not say, and where it does or does not lead.
And thus, to accept the evidence of God that you state is there, one not only has to merely accept the existence of God but one has to override their rational thoughts with regard that evidence, to favour the conclusion of "God" when no such favour is warranted other than through the requirement of belief.

Accepting is one thing, but belief...?
Yes, clearly dishonest of me to say that this is nothing but advocating the need to believe in order to believe.

And to throw your nonsense back at you: only a dishonest theist would disagree with me.

You seem to be really trying hard to counter something that you cannot counter, without adding your own ideas, which have nothing to do with the essence of scriptures, or religion. The nonsense regarded as an explanation of absurdity, does the same thing. It creates a straw man God, then beats the crap out of it, leaving people who actually comprehend/understand the scriptures (even basically) wondering, wtf is this person talking about.

Yet it amply describes why many atheists do not believe in God, and does so by comparing the essence of that reason found with God with the essence found in an absurd notion.
And no, that does not equate God to the absurd notion, it merely says that from the point of view of the atheist using the argument, neither God nor the absurd notion has any evidence supporting its existence.
If you think that means the two are being equated, perhaps you are being equated to a mouse when I say that I have seen neither you nor a mouse kick a football. Ooh, that must mean I'm comparing you in other ways to a mouse!

 

[iceaura]

You know very well, having had it explained to you dozens of times here in very simple terms, that nobody here has ever claimed to have observed the non-existence of any deity.
Of course I know that, but the question is: Do you?

No, that wasn't your question - that's just you trying to get off a hook. You claimed to not know that, now you claim to know it.

Your posting as quoted was based on you pretending that I had made such claim, when you knew I had not. That kind of rhetorical deception is how you came to be recognized as a fundamentally dishonest poster. That is why when you deliberately attempt to muddle and confuse, you are no longer given the benefit of the doubt. No one assumes you are honestly confused, honestly overlooking anything, honestly questioning or discussing anything.

Like this:

Bring what up?

What it said. You read it. There aren't any big words or grammatical complexities to confuse you.

and illustrating this:

3) The question now is far more interesting than yet another invisible unicorn argument for some deity. The questioning has become focused on the revealed level of bad faith, self-deception, and simple dishonesty inherent in so much theistic "argument". What is it about theistic belief that cripples people's ethical and moral considerations in rhetoric and persuasion? We know what it is in marketing - money - and politics - power. But theology?

What are you talking about?

We're talking about your posting, as typical in an important way of so much of the theistic posting here and throughout the US culture.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

By genre, as applied to the search for evidence, you mean?

Not sure what you mean.

In general, if there is no evidence, or no evidence found, one is left merely with claims, no matter how old or revered those claims may be.

Not quite sure what age or reverence has to do with anything, but you're quite right.

No one expects anything, as there is no imperative to believe.

Then don't worry about it then.

And what you have explained is precisely that to believe one must believe.
One can accept the notion that God exists, and I just have... I have suspended my disbelief for the purposes of this discussion....
You say that if God exists then everything is actual evidence of that existence. Well, in my accepting way I can see that that is indeed a possibility, but whether I accept the notion of God existing or not (and at the moment I do) I am still beholden to the same way of thinking regarding evidence:

Do you believe that it is possible for someone to love their spouse for the whole of their life (from the moment they he/she fell in love?

I see none that can rationally and unambiguously lead to the conclusion that God exists. Sure, I accept God exists, but that doesn't change my view of what the evidence does or does not say, and where it does or does not lead.

Now you accept God exists, what is your concept of God?

And thus, to accept the evidence of God that you state is there, one not only has to merely accept the existence of God but one has to override their rational thoughts with regard that evidence, to favour the conclusion of "God" when no such favour is warranted other than through the requirement of belief.

Don't you agree that if God exists, then everything is actual evidence?

Now I am not postulating that as evidence, I'm saying that it stands to reason that everything is evidence. This is the starting point.

Accepting is one thing, but belief...?
Yes, clearly dishonest of me to say that this is nothing but advocating the need to believe in order to believe.

Have I said that I believed in God because if God exists, then everything is evidence of His existence?
Had I expressed that, then maybe you'd have a point.

And to throw your nonsense back at you: only a dishonest theist would disagree with me.

Really? I don't think fully comprehend where I'm coming from. But it remains to be seen.

Yet it amply describes why many atheists do not believe in God, and does so by comparing the essence of that reason found with God with the essence found in an absurd notion.

The absurd notion simply conflates God with silly things, because that's what the atheist sees.
It explains nothing about God So how can it say what is and what isn't evidence. It is born of a typical atheist mindset. Looking out into the world for confirmation of something that is already within. The atheist wants to be convinced, instead of finding out for them self.

And no, that does not equate God to the absurd notion, it merely says that from the point of view of the atheist using the argument, neither God nor the absurd notion has any evidence supporting its existence.

Then how does the atheist see God?

If you think that means the two are being equated, perhaps you are being equated to a mouse when I say that I have seen neither you nor a mouse kick a football. Ooh, that must mean I'm comparing you in other ways to a mouse!

Okay. Let's see what you got.

We'll begin once you've given you're definition of God. And I don't fobbed off with any evasion.

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

What are you talking about?

jan.

I don't believe you.

 

[Sarkus]

Not sure what you mean.

You wrote: "...why would you look for evidence of God, in any one particular genre?". What do you mean by "genre" in this regard? How are their genre of evidence? Do you simply mean genus or type?

Not quite sure what age or reverence has to do with anything, but you're quite right.

It distinguishes the claims on which most people would assert their belief from those claims that Joe Blogs might make while passing, although the principle is indeed the same in both cases.

Then don't worry about it then.

I don't, but you seem to be worried that we're worried, when we're not. So stop worrying.

Do you believe that it is possible for someone to love their spouse for the whole of their life (from the moment they he/she fell in love?

Yes, but how is the question relevant in any way to the points made?

Now you accept God exists, what is your concept of God?

Originator of all.

Don't you agree that if God exists, then everything is actual evidence?

It is evidence, but not evidence that can unambiguously lead to the conclusion "God", especially if there is a competing theory that does not require God yet would claim the same evidence in support.
Yes, I would accept that the evidence does not disprove God, but I can not, in my accepting way, say that the evidence supports God any more or less than it supports the notion of "not-God".

Now I am not postulating that as evidence, I'm saying that it stands to reason that everything is evidence. This is the starting point.

It already is evidence for the notion of God, whether I accept God or not, but my acceptance of God does not alter that it equally supports the notion of "not-God". So we are left where we were, with the only difference that, in this scenario, I accept God whereas before I did not.
That said, I have always accepted it as a possible notion. Just not one I believe in.

Have I said that I believed in God because if God exists, then everything is evidence of His existence?
Had I expressed that, then maybe you'd have a point.

No you have not said that, nor do you have needed to have said that for my point to stand: you are advocating the need to believe to believe.
As argued above, my acceptance of God adds nothing to the equation, because I do not believe in god. To believe in god I do need to believe. And if I believe then I would believe in the evidence, in the scriptures, and everything else that reinforces that belief.
And thus the cycle turns.

Really? I don't think fully comprehend where I'm coming from. But it remains to be seen.

I can only comprehend as far as you are able to make it comprehensible.

The absurd notion simply conflates God with silly things, because that's what the atheist sees.

So you keep saying, yet while it is not true (that we see God as silly - although some may do), your comment seems borne from you only seeing in it what you want to see.

It explains nothing about God So how can it say what is and what isn't evidence. It is born of a typical atheist mindset. Looking out into the world for confirmation of something that is already within. The atheist wants to be convinced, instead of finding out for them self.

It doesn't need to say anything about God, it merely needs to say something about what the atheist sees as evidence of God. It is a comment on the current position the atheist holds. Whether or not they want to look, care to look, or whether there is anything to find or not, is ultimately irrelevant to the analogy being used.

Then how does the atheist see God?

I can't speak for them all. Perhaps as an unknown, unknowable notion. Perhaps as a redundant assumption. Others undoubtedly see God as a silly notion, but as said I can not speak for them.

We'll begin once you've given you're definition of God. And I don't fobbed off with any evasion.

Begin what? Do mice play games?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't believe you.

I don't believe you.

jan.

 

[Yazata]

You say that if God exists then everything is actual evidence of that existence. Well, in my accepting way I can see that that is indeed a possibility, but whether I accept the notion of God existing or not (and at the moment I do) I am still beholden to the same way of thinking regarding evidence: I see none that can rationally and unambiguously lead to the conclusion that God exists.

It seems to me that there's a big difference between saying that some state of affairs X is consistent with the truth of A, and saying that X is evidence of the truth of A.

X might be consistent with the truth of whole variety of possibilities, A, B, C... In a criminal case, if a witnesses' testimony is equally consistent with the defendant's guilt and innocence, it's hard to see how that testimony alone would point to the defendant's guilt.

In the current argument, if some state of affairs X is consistent with both naturalistic and supernaturalistic accounts, it's hard to see how that consistency in itself could be evidence of the truth of either metaphysics. There would have to be something more that favors one kind of account over the other, such as predictive success or perhaps explanatory consilience.

There are obvious problems with falsification as well, when we are talking about metaphysical theories that seemingly are consistent with any imaginable state of affairs.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I don't believe you.

jan.

There you go.

 

[spidergoat]

Thanks for your reply Spidergoat.





I will just dwell on your statement:




You mean there are scientists who claim on their scientist authority as men of science

“that things on the quantum scale do not obey typical laws of cause and effect.”​

Is this one of the laws of cause and effect not obeyed in the quantum scale of the universe?

"Everything with a beginning has a cause."​

Can you present an example of something in the quantum scale of the universe which has a beginning in existence but no cause brought it forth to its beginning.



See you guys again soon.
...

I can give examples of this. So called virtual particle pairs arise with no apparent cause in the vacuum of space. Radioactive decay also seems to occur with no cause. So yes, the science shows that not everything with a beginning has a cause, at least not for quantum scale events.

With regard to your characterization of the science, no, scientists do not assert these conclusions based on their authority as people of science, that would be an argument from authority, a logical fallacy. They assert these things based on objective, peer reviewed evidence that can be independently replicated.