Yes you would.
jan.
I won't argue back & forth with you like 7 year old children.
To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.
- Thread starter Pachomius
- Start date
- Status
I won't argue back & forth with you like 7 year old children.
You are proof that an omnipotent benevolent god does not exist.
You don't manage to get anything clear. I must wonder whether you are serious.
Evidence is entirely significant in this thread: the applicability of the analogy that you dislike so much is about the evidence that the atheist considers themself to have that leads them to conclude in the existence of God - i.e. none. So if you dispute their view then it is you who is claiming that there is evidence... So provide it, and we can all go home.
So we "haven't got to that stage yet" and in the next sentence you say "what you do from there is up to you". And you wonder why I think your responses are full of contradictions??
What I did from there, as you so graciously allow me to do, was explain that if God does not exist then the existence of everything is "evidence" that god does not need to exist.
So "everything" is evidence both in favour of God, and not in favour of God. Thus it is not evidence that can rationally blah blah blah.
Correct. That is what I said. What of it?
It shows that if you think critically about what you are observing, and see how it would be as observed under both theories (the God and no-God theory) then to conclude on one while ignoring the other is, to me at least, irrational and spawned from bias and unwarranted assumption.
And as I have repeatedly said by way of counter: if God does not exist then it stands to reason that everything, including the manifestation of the material world, is evidence that God does not need to exist.
Whether God exists or does not exist we are still having this conversation. Therefore us having this conversation does not logically lead to the conclusion that God exists.
Whether God exists or not, you still believe in God. Your position would still be the same. You would still be having this discussion.
Did you not attend Logic 101?
I don't care if you said it should or not, the simple fact is that it doesn't. Previously you also said that I what I did from there was up to me... and now you complain when I expand on the reasoning to reach a conclusion.
If I solely use the single conditional that you are repeatedly saying then my reasoning would be fallacious due to excluded middles etc.
It is not irrelevant but utterly relevant.
If I stand at point A, how does that tell me which of path X or Y I took to get there? You are looking at path Y and saying, well, if that one leads from my home then I must have taken that one.
But you are ignoring, for whatever reason (dishonesty or ignorance of the logic being the two main contenders), the notion that path X could also have led from your home.
Furthermore, you can provide me with no evidence that shows that path Y is the correct one, other than to keep saying: "well, if it does lead from home then it stands to reason that it is the correct path".
That is your attempt at logic. And it is woeful.
Yes you did... It is the logical conclusion of your reasoning (that if god exists then everything is evidence of God's existence) coupled with your belief in God's existence.
Period.
Your repeated refusal to accept that this is what you have said is now tiresome and bordering on inane.
You have it sightly backward: I have no reason to assume that God exists. If I have no reason to assume that something exists then the default position is one of assuming non-existence.
You have no reason to assume the celestial teapot exists. Or would you prefer me to word that as: You have no reason to assume that the teapot does not exist, other than you want to.
And I have no evidence that dismisses the notion of God's existence: I just have none that supports it in favour over competing theories that do not require God's existence.
No, I have concluded that I do not believe in God's existence because I see no reason to. That then leaves me in the default of not believing. I have not concluded that God does not exist. To me it is no more provable to conclude God does exist than God does not.
But heck, why you should you remember each time I correct you on that point about what I do or don't believe: you'll just continue to assume what you want about what atheists do and do not believe.
Are theists open to the possibility that God does not exist?
No, it was a statement of fact. Note that there was no question-mark at the end denoting a question, rhetorical or otherwise.
Accepting God as defined does not equate to believing in God (as defined). Accepting God does not equate to theism. Theists are such when they believe, and when they believe they close their mind off to the possibility of there not being a God.
So by applying this to theists you are arguing for the open-mindedness of people who have closed their mind off.
By critically examining what is presented as evidence and seeing which notions it supports. If all evidence that one is aware of can rationally not support either in favour over the other, it is not deemed evidence for either. And it is simply easier to say that there is "no evidence" as shorthand for words to the effect of "no evidence that rationally and unambiguously leads me to conclude in..." etc.
No, they do not equate the evidence needed to find God. They equate the evidence that they have with what they have for silly notions... i.e. None.
Not when it clearly counters your claims about what you have or have not argued.
You can't bring up a line of arguing about what is held as evidence IF god exists, and then claim that you have not also said, in doing so, that you hold it as evidence... as you are an example of someone who believes in the existence of God.
QED.
So please stop with the claiming that you didn't make such a claim when it is merely the inescapable logical conclusion of your statements and your theistic position.
Further, just to repeat the point again: if God does not exist then it stands to reason that everything is evidence that god is not needed, and thus the fact that everything exists does not lead one to conclude blah blah blah.
Need me to repeat that again for you? (And yes, this one was rhetorical).
You're the one that dragged the discussion to issues of evidence, through your inability to see the analogy as solely being about what the atheist considers themself to have by way of evidence for God. You then started down the route of trying to show that there is evidence, that the atheist isn't even aware of the nature of the evidence etc.
And now when your butt is handed to you because of your inability to follow logic, not only of the atheist position but even, it seems, of your own statements, you look to push the discussion aside.
Hey ho.
One only means that if one has a poor grasp of logic and the ability to think critically about how it has been applied. Which explains why you think that is what I meant to say.
OHNO!!! That can't be. It just can't be! I cannot accept it therefore it can't be. I cannot face reality so reality must be what I need it to be!
Whew. I feel much better now. That was close! I nearly accepted facts.
Thanks everyone for your posts.
I had invited Spidergoat to exchange views with me, because he says that he has an example of something with a beginning but no cause, namely, virtual particles which pop in and out of nothing without cause (this view from Spidergoat).
But to date he seems to have opted out of his statement above, and also stopped so far from replying to my posts addressed specifically to him.
So I will now interact with anyone who has the idea opposite to mine, namely, there exists God in concept creator of the universe and everything with a beginning.
Dear Motor Daddy, you are the only one to have replied to my last post here prior to the present one.
So, let us we two engage in a dialog on whether God exists or not, I take the positive side and you the negative side, is that okay?
Now, you say for a starter:
That is a good starting point for us two to take up the issue God exists, yes or no.
You mean that distance and time or shall we use instead of distance, space? wherefore according to you space and time have always existed.
Now, are you aware that according to the vast majority of scientists today, space and time had their beginning when the universe started to exist?
And what about the beginning of the universe, you ask me?
Well, the universe started to exist at the point in space where space started to exist and at the point in time when time started to exist.
So, against your statement, space and time do have a beginning, i.e. at the starting point of existence of the universe.
You are wrong, again, from the standpoint of the vast majority of scientists today, namely, that space and time have a beginning -- you say space and time have always existed.
Do you find something peculiar with my thinking, and I always tell people that I think on facts and logic.
And that I am certain God exists in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, that conclusion I base it on my thinking on facts and logic.
Okay, what do you say in reaction to this post from me?
But take up your idea of space and time having always existed, whereas the vast majority of scientists today say that space and time started with the commencement of the universe.
Annex 1
Annex 2
I had invited Spidergoat to exchange views with me, because he says that he has an example of something with a beginning but no cause, namely, virtual particles which pop in and out of nothing without cause (this view from Spidergoat).
But to date he seems to have opted out of his statement above, and also stopped so far from replying to my posts addressed specifically to him.
So I will now interact with anyone who has the idea opposite to mine, namely, there exists God in concept creator of the universe and everything with a beginning.
Dear Motor Daddy, you are the only one to have replied to my last post here prior to the present one.
So, let us we two engage in a dialog on whether God exists or not, I take the positive side and you the negative side, is that okay?
Now, you say for a starter:
The way I understand things, distance and time has always existed.
[See Annex 2 for your statement.]
[See Annex 2 for your statement.]
That is a good starting point for us two to take up the issue God exists, yes or no.
You mean that distance and time or shall we use instead of distance, space? wherefore according to you space and time have always existed.
Now, are you aware that according to the vast majority of scientists today, space and time had their beginning when the universe started to exist?
And what about the beginning of the universe, you ask me?
Well, the universe started to exist at the point in space where space started to exist and at the point in time when time started to exist.
So, against your statement, space and time do have a beginning, i.e. at the starting point of existence of the universe.
You are wrong, again, from the standpoint of the vast majority of scientists today, namely, that space and time have a beginning -- you say space and time have always existed.
Do you find something peculiar with my thinking, and I always tell people that I think on facts and logic.
And that I am certain God exists in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning, that conclusion I base it on my thinking on facts and logic.
Okay, what do you say in reaction to this post from me?
But take up your idea of space and time having always existed, whereas the vast majority of scientists today say that space and time started with the commencement of the universe.
Annex 1
From Pachomius
I have searched for Spidergoat's reply to my last post prior to this one, and I have not found it.
So, you realize that your virtual particles popping in and out of existence without cause are not science but pseudo-science or science fiction.
Now I like to talk with you on two facts:
Dear posters here, let us all talk about the verity or fact that there has always existed something instead of nothing.
If you dare not talk about that, then you are not willing to face the real issue at the end of the day of so much useless talk over virtual particles popping in and out of existence without cause.
See you guys again.
Pachomius, Yesterday at 7:31 AM Report #286
I have searched for Spidergoat's reply to my last post prior to this one, and I have not found it.
From Pachomius:
Pachomius, Saturday at 11:13 AM #255
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/to...nvisible-unicorns.143034/page-13#post-3251195
To Spidergoat, are you opting out of your statement that an example of something with a beginning but without any cause are virtual particles which pop in and out of existence without cause? See Annex, text in bold.
Pachomius, Saturday at 11:13 AM #255
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/to...nvisible-unicorns.143034/page-13#post-3251195
To Spidergoat, are you opting out of your statement that an example of something with a beginning but without any cause are virtual particles which pop in and out of existence without cause? See Annex, text in bold.
[From Spidergoat] I don't even need to show an example of something that began with no cause.
So, you realize that your virtual particles popping in and out of existence without cause are not science but pseudo-science or science fiction.
Now I like to talk with you on two facts:
1. There has always existed something instead of nothing.
2. There has existed a first cause to everything that is with a beginning.
2. There has existed a first cause to everything that is with a beginning.
Dear posters here, let us all talk about the verity or fact that there has always existed something instead of nothing.
If you dare not talk about that, then you are not willing to face the real issue at the end of the day of so much useless talk over virtual particles popping in and out of existence without cause.
See you guys again.
Pachomius, Yesterday at 7:31 AM Report #286
Annex 2
From Motor Daddy
Pachomius said:
The way I understand things, distance and time has always existed. Let's recap some of the basics, shall we?
K. I'm ready to listen to you on these existences. Distance and time, the real issues!!
If, in fact, God is so powerful, then he must be able to do work. If he did work then it took time. If he did work then there was an opposing force, otherwise there was no force. No force means no work. No work means no power. No power means powerless. So how do you figure God is powerful if there was nothing in the beginning to oppose him? What good is a powerless God anyway?
Edit: What makes you think if there was a God that this is his first design attempt? Doesn't it make you wonder if this is his 345,876,093,181st attempt at a good design, and each failure came to a disastrous end? Do you think he'll ever get it right? How many attempts do you think it will take? How will this attempt end?
Is that a preliminary message letting us know you're out of here?
Motor Daddy, Yesterday at 8:35 AM Report #287
Pachomius said:
Dear posters here, let us all talk about the verity or fact that there has always existed something instead of nothing.
If you dare not talk about that, then you are not willing to face the real issue at the end of the day of so much useless talk over virtual particles popping in and out of existence without cause.
The way I understand things, distance and time has always existed. Let's recap some of the basics, shall we?
Work=Force times distance
Power=Work/time
Energy=Power times time
Power=Work/time
Energy=Power times time
K. I'm ready to listen to you on these existences. Distance and time, the real issues!!
If, in fact, God is so powerful, then he must be able to do work. If he did work then it took time. If he did work then there was an opposing force, otherwise there was no force. No force means no work. No work means no power. No power means powerless. So how do you figure God is powerful if there was nothing in the beginning to oppose him? What good is a powerless God anyway?
Edit: What makes you think if there was a God that this is his first design attempt? Doesn't it make you wonder if this is his 345,876,093,181st attempt at a good design, and each failure came to a disastrous end? Do you think he'll ever get it right? How many attempts do you think it will take? How will this attempt end?
Pachomius said:
See you guys again.
See you guys again.
Is that a preliminary message letting us know you're out of here?
Motor Daddy, Yesterday at 8:35 AM Report #287
Last edited: Yesterday at 9:54 AM
Sarkus,,
I know that’s how you see it, but the reality of those analogies is, they aren’t addressing God, based on what would be reasonable evidence if God existed. That said, in the name of honesty, you would be required to change your perception on what would constitute evidence for God, upon that understanding.
You seem to be of the mind, that accepting this means you believe this, which is why you believe. But the fact is, your wrong. Maybe that is your idea of what “belief” is.
If you actually read carefully what I’m writing, you will see that there is nothing that leads to belief of anything. It is merely an acceptance of something (could be factual, or fictional), then look at that thing how it’s meant to be looked at, and drawing reasonable conclusions from what is presented about that thing.
What ‘’no God’’ theory?
“If God does not exist’’ is simply a derivative of God, and God, be He real, or unreal, has made claims. Now what are these claims? For one, He is the Supreme Cause. So how does one find evidence to back up this particular claim,? Wouldn’t you have to take the nature of the claim, into consideration, to have some idea of where or how one could find the evidence? How is it that you can say there is no evidence of God, yet have no real idea of what it is you’re looking?”
“If God does not exist’’ has no basic in logic or reason, by itself, it is not tangible in any way. One cannot find any philosophical ideologies where one can ponder on the non existence of God. Indeed there is no point to it. It is just another aspect of God.
Why would we be? I’m not in the habit of discussing things that don’t exist with people.
From my perspective this conversation has nothing to do with leading to any conclusion. You having a party, and you’re the only one invited.
Why would I believe in God if He didn’t exist?
Sarkus, I don’t know what you’re talking about, and I’m wondering whether or not this response has anything to do the point you aimed it at.
If God didn’t exist, I wouldn’t be having this conversation, because if God didn’t exist, there would be no “God” to know about. I think you’re making the mistake of thinking that, like you, I’m making God up, so I can just as easily unmake Him. But I don’t look at God, the way you do. I accept that the claims of God, like The Supreme Cause, cannot be proven scientifically, or evidenced in such a way that everybody will simply know that God exists .It is the level to which I understand myself, others, the world around me, my place within that world, and other experiences over time, that lead me to understand that God exists. Like I said, the nature of the evidence must match the claim that is being made. It has gone beyond acceptance, but acceptance had to be there in the beginning. It is impossible to believe anything unless some part of that thing somehow relates to you, and even then the belief is only in relation to that particular experience.
Firstly, I said: If God exists, then it is reasonable to assume that everything is evidence of His existence. There is nothing in there which expresses belief, or having to believe. It is based on reason. Why do you continue to put words in my mouth?
Are you trying to avoid that reasoning because it would mean you have to accept that your ‘’no evidence’’ reason for not believing God exists, carry’s no weight?
Just as you have no reason to assume invisible pole dancing tree in the sun, but say’s a lot about how you see God, and with God, in that light, I would have to agree with you. But the thing is there are effect in this world that make a claim to God, and all these claims have specific signatures which can only be the hallmark of this thing we call God. Why don’t you look at God in that light, rather than look at Him/It in the light of things you obviously have no reason, or even desire to assume existence?
What need is there to assume something exists, without some kind of experience that leads one to assume that something does exist?
What is apparent is ‘’I have no reason to..’’. Or IOW, I don’t accept it, therefore I don’t need to go down the road of assumption or belief. But you are accusing me of purposely believe in God, to get to the point of believing in God. I mean… really?
What do you know about God, that you say something doesn’t require God’s assistance?
Especially, as God is defined as a, Supreme Being, The Supreme Cause, of all causes.
Isn’t that just a case of, I just don’t believe it, as opposed to, there is no evidence of His, existence?
Acceptance of those absurd explanations make that very clear.
Why would they have to be open to it? If they come to the conclusion that God does not exist, then for them God does not exist. Being open to the notion that God does not exist, suggests that God doesn’t exist for them. It’s like being open to the notion of I may not love my wife, is sign that one isn’t sure whether one loves his wife now. It’s basically toying with the idea. To me, that is a different category.
That’s what I’ve been telling you. But go on…
Are you saying that theists are already theists when they become theists?
At what point would one decide that God does not exist?
Scientific evidence?
A couple of beers?
What would be the point being open to the possibility that God does not exist, outside of not actually believing in God in the first place, but thinking you did?
Jan.
I know that’s how you see it, but the reality of those analogies is, they aren’t addressing God, based on what would be reasonable evidence if God existed. That said, in the name of honesty, you would be required to change your perception on what would constitute evidence for God, upon that understanding.
You seem to be of the mind, that accepting this means you believe this, which is why you believe. But the fact is, your wrong. Maybe that is your idea of what “belief” is.
If you actually read carefully what I’m writing, you will see that there is nothing that leads to belief of anything. It is merely an acceptance of something (could be factual, or fictional), then look at that thing how it’s meant to be looked at, and drawing reasonable conclusions from what is presented about that thing.
What ‘’no God’’ theory?
“If God does not exist’’ is simply a derivative of God, and God, be He real, or unreal, has made claims. Now what are these claims? For one, He is the Supreme Cause. So how does one find evidence to back up this particular claim,? Wouldn’t you have to take the nature of the claim, into consideration, to have some idea of where or how one could find the evidence? How is it that you can say there is no evidence of God, yet have no real idea of what it is you’re looking?”
“If God does not exist’’ has no basic in logic or reason, by itself, it is not tangible in any way. One cannot find any philosophical ideologies where one can ponder on the non existence of God. Indeed there is no point to it. It is just another aspect of God.
Why would we be? I’m not in the habit of discussing things that don’t exist with people.
From my perspective this conversation has nothing to do with leading to any conclusion. You having a party, and you’re the only one invited.
Why would I believe in God if He didn’t exist?
Sarkus, I don’t know what you’re talking about, and I’m wondering whether or not this response has anything to do the point you aimed it at.
If God didn’t exist, I wouldn’t be having this conversation, because if God didn’t exist, there would be no “God” to know about. I think you’re making the mistake of thinking that, like you, I’m making God up, so I can just as easily unmake Him. But I don’t look at God, the way you do. I accept that the claims of God, like The Supreme Cause, cannot be proven scientifically, or evidenced in such a way that everybody will simply know that God exists .It is the level to which I understand myself, others, the world around me, my place within that world, and other experiences over time, that lead me to understand that God exists. Like I said, the nature of the evidence must match the claim that is being made. It has gone beyond acceptance, but acceptance had to be there in the beginning. It is impossible to believe anything unless some part of that thing somehow relates to you, and even then the belief is only in relation to that particular experience.
Firstly, I said: If God exists, then it is reasonable to assume that everything is evidence of His existence. There is nothing in there which expresses belief, or having to believe. It is based on reason. Why do you continue to put words in my mouth?
Are you trying to avoid that reasoning because it would mean you have to accept that your ‘’no evidence’’ reason for not believing God exists, carry’s no weight?
Just as you have no reason to assume invisible pole dancing tree in the sun, but say’s a lot about how you see God, and with God, in that light, I would have to agree with you. But the thing is there are effect in this world that make a claim to God, and all these claims have specific signatures which can only be the hallmark of this thing we call God. Why don’t you look at God in that light, rather than look at Him/It in the light of things you obviously have no reason, or even desire to assume existence?
What need is there to assume something exists, without some kind of experience that leads one to assume that something does exist?
What is apparent is ‘’I have no reason to..’’. Or IOW, I don’t accept it, therefore I don’t need to go down the road of assumption or belief. But you are accusing me of purposely believe in God, to get to the point of believing in God. I mean… really?
What do you know about God, that you say something doesn’t require God’s assistance?
Especially, as God is defined as a, Supreme Being, The Supreme Cause, of all causes.
Isn’t that just a case of, I just don’t believe it, as opposed to, there is no evidence of His, existence?
Acceptance of those absurd explanations make that very clear.
Why would they have to be open to it? If they come to the conclusion that God does not exist, then for them God does not exist. Being open to the notion that God does not exist, suggests that God doesn’t exist for them. It’s like being open to the notion of I may not love my wife, is sign that one isn’t sure whether one loves his wife now. It’s basically toying with the idea. To me, that is a different category.
That’s what I’ve been telling you. But go on…
Are you saying that theists are already theists when they become theists?
At what point would one decide that God does not exist?
Scientific evidence?
A couple of beers?
What would be the point being open to the possibility that God does not exist, outside of not actually believing in God in the first place, but thinking you did?
Jan.
Last edited:
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
God is a spirit that resides in those that believe. If you challenge that, then by all means, show me what ya got!
Does everybody else ignore you? I wonder why nobody responds to you?
God is a spirit that resides in those that believe. I do not believe, and from what I gather from your statements, you do believe in a guy in the sky. So we can chat!
Yes!!
Space is 3 dimensions, so "space" is not the same as distance. There is distance between you and the moon now, but you can't tell me the volume (space in 3 dimensions (x,y,z)), can you?
When I say time has always existed I do not mean that we have been measuring time forever, I mean that time has always existed. In other words, if you have a firm grasp of the concept of infinity you can surely understand that if you look back 1 day it was yesterday. If you look back 20 days it was 20 days ago. If you look back 2,837,987,987,345,853,765 years, it was that many years ago. But that was chump change compared to what you could have measured if you'd have been there at that time. But you weren't, were you?
Sounds like you are saying they started measuring time at the big bang so time began at that time. Is that like saying the stop watch starts at the beginning of the race? The measured time started at t=0, but there was time before that, presumably unmeasured time??
Is this where you start telling me about the guy in the sky? Are you gonna start talking about Heaven too?
So you're saying there was this point in space where it started, and that was the universe when it started to exist.
Question: Was there distance from that point in space (volume) before the beginning of the universe? If not, was it a thick brick wall that you couldn't travel through? No space to travel in? As usual, please clarify!
So if that was almost 14 billion years ago when it started, then there is no such thing as 298 billion years ago? What happened to time in the past that it doesn't keep going back infinitely like the future does?
I don't base whether I am wrong or not on what today's scientists have to say about things. Most of them don't know how to count. They don't know how to tell time either. They also think .999... is equal to 1.
Yes. I find it very peculiar that you have faith in a guy in the sky. It's almost as if you still believe in Santa, and presents (Heaven) is the reward!! Kinda greedy in that respect, are ya? God throws you a line with a Heaven bait on it, and you take it hook, line, and sinker!
You have no facts or logic if you think there is a guy in the sky and you go to Heaven when you die! You have faith, not logic, remember?
I've said it. What do you have to say in reply?
I say it's impossible to start time. I do think it's possible to start measuring time. What say you?
Note: Learn to quote like above.
Last edited:
How many times do people need to tell you: the analogy is not aimed at addressing God but at the evidence the atheist perceives themself as having regarding God, irrespective of what their view of God might be.
Do you not comprehend the difference between "God" and "perceived evidence of God"?
At the moment you are doing nothing but disliking an analogy without understanding what it is an analogy of and what it's purpose in, and then requiring that people change their views as a result of that misunderstanding that you have.
Accepting what, exactly? I have detailed before that I consider accepting and belief to be different. And what exactly am I supposed to be believing??
This entire paragraph smacks of a non sequitur... but if it's not you have some clarification to do, please.
i can argue the same line whether I use "accept" throughout or "believe"...the logic remains valid. Thus your complaint is moot.
Shorthand for the notion that the universe and existence itself requires no God. If one talks about the existence of X, an immediate alternative is not-X, and if one reverts to the former as the "X theory" then the latter is the "no X theory". It's not too difficult a shorthand to grasp.
Eh??? What do you mean "derivative of God"? And what do you mean "God has made claims"? If God does not exist, how can God make claims??
Again, if one does not even have a notion of God, let alone what you consider to be the correct/only notion, how can one claim to have evidence to support that notion?
Do you have evidence of the existence of Plurghsxts? The simple answer is you can't say you have, because you have no idea who or what I am referring to.
But let's take it a step further...
If I said that they are gigantic teapots that created the Earth, then your argument would be that yes, you have evidence of them, as the Earth exists!! And this you would see the Earth as evidence of their existence.
Others, such as myself, consider that the Earth may well have been created without these Plurghsxts, that the claims of them creating the Earth may be wrong. Afterall, if they don't exist then, since the Earth is still here, the Earth is actually evidence that the Plurghsxts did not need to create the Earth.
Thus the Earth is evidence for and against the notion of their existence, and thus can be concluded as no evidence at all.
It is a proposition that forms part of a logical argument. Of course it is in reference to something, and that something is the actual existence of something that is otherwise nothing but an abstract concept within the minds of those that refer to it.
But if you want to dismiss the proposition as being pointless etc then feel free never to discuss with atheists again.
Were you ever any good at algebra at school, or did you dismiss it out of hand as being "not tangible in any way"?
That is nothing but circular reasoning: "God exists, therefore I can discuss God, and because I am discussing God, God therefore must exist (because I don't discuss things that don't exist)!"
You certainly believe that God exists, that much is clear. And it is that belief that gives rise to your willingness to discuss.
I'll ask again, is English your first language? A conclusion is the result of a logical argument. If you discuss something, and intend to be logical with your claims, then what you state is (one hopes) the conclusion of that logic, that starts with premises, with propositions etc.
That would be for you to assess, you being such an "open-minded" theist.
People believe in things for many reasons, though: security, comfort, fear, lack of critical thought, mental illness, and undoubtedly many others.
And yet this very conversation is about the celestial teapot, and invisible unicorns. Are you, or are you not, having discussion about that?
Oh, clearly I'm responding to a figment of my own imagination, because such things don't exist, and therefore you wouldn't be having this conversation.
You certainly believe that God exists.
But the logic is that whether God exists or not, you are having this conversation.
And whether or not God exists, you do believe in the existence of God.
You can dismiss the notion of God not existing as pointless, but your logic in doing so is simply a gross circular reasoning: God must exist because I believe God exists, and I wouldn't believe he exists if he didn't.
At a more basic level all you are saying is: God exists because God exists.
I don't, I merely extrapolate your argument with known facts:
Do you deny that you believe God exists?
Then, given what you have said above, it is reasonable to assume that you believe everything is evidence of His existence.
The only alternative is that you believe in God yet to do not believe that everything is evidence of His existence, in which case either it is not reasonable to assume that everything is evidence of His existence (if He exists), or that you are not reasonable in your thought process.
I have not avoided that reasoning at all, and I have accepted it from the outset. I have merely extrapolated it, and also provided a counter example using that same reasoning which nullifies any conclusion that can be drawn from using just one side.
There really is nothing more to it.
You have yet to provide a single example of anything that has this hallmark that can not equally be attributed to a universe where God merely exists as a fabrication of the mind... or as I have termed it previously, the "no-God theory".
You keep claiming therefore such effects with these signatures, so provide examples of them. Please?
Comfort, security, fear, hope, lack of critical thought, delusion, mental illness etc. A wide range of reasons that can lead one to interpret their experience in a way that leads them to believing in something that doesn't exist. But I don't deny that there would be some kind of experience. Heck, maybe it's just gas.
No, it's not "I don't accept it, therefore...". This is your misunderstanding.
One does accept it. One looks at it for what it is claimed to be. Then one looks for the reasons to believe that it exists. If there is zero evidence that rationally and unambiguously leads to conclusion that it does... Great.
Presumably you mean "existence"?
I don't need to know anything. If something can be explained without recourse to "God did it!", or if something can not yet be explained such that "I don't know" suffices, then what requirement is there for God as an explanation?
You can define god however you want, but if there is no compelling reason to conclude in the existence of that thing, however you have defined him... :/
So much for your claims of theists being more open-minded. :/
They are theists from the moment they believe in the existence of God, whenever that may be.
If you hold to the notion that if you believe then you have always believed, then they will always have been theist. It may be true, but I'm not sure I do hold to that.
In my experience one concludes first that God is not evident within the universe, and that at best we can take existence itself as the only evidence. And then one concludes that there is no reason to believe even that, that such matters are simply unknowable.
This takes one usually to agnosticism, and usually by now that they no longer hold the belief that God exists, so they are also atheist. (But that said, I do know some who still hold on to their belief, even while being agnostic.)
How one goes from there to strong atheism, to the "I believe God does not exist" camp, I do not know... The reasoning that took me to agnosticism would prevent me from becoming such a strong atheist.
But there would undoubtedly be some concepts of God that I would actually believe do not exist as anything other than concepts.
Sarkus,
I don't have to provide anything, it's all there if you want investigate. If for you there are only two alternatives and one of those alternatives is ''God is a fabrication of the mind'', then fine. But at least show, to a reasonable extent, how it is that God could become nothing but a fabrication of the mind.
By ''signatures'', I mean the various claims that are in the scriptures, about what and who God is, and claim of what God Himself says about Himself. You most certainly do not have to accept or believe these accounts, but it would be dishonest of you to claim that the reason for you disbelief is due to no evidence, if the evidence that you require to believe, is the same that requires you to believe in stupid things that just fly off the top of your head.
IOW, if you disbelieve God exists because there are no bones, or dna, which say's "I am God", in the dirt. Then you would be correct, but that, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It means that you conception doesn't exist, and that concept can change to fit your perception.
Why does every experience have to a negative one?
Why couldn't their experience be exactly what was experienced?
I don't accept the idea of teapots orbiting Jupiter, therefore it doesn't matter if it's true or false. If at some later date such a phenomenon is found, then I will believe it to be true. But I can only believe it to be true upon seeing it. Whereas believing in God is different, because the object, and the subject of ones belief in different. So if I can't find evidence of a orbiting teapot, it doesn't mean I can't find evidence for God.
No I mean ''assistance'' because that was the word used at the time I wrote this.
That's fair enough, but recoursing to ''God did it'' doesn't necessarily mean you believe ''God did it'', anymore than recoursing to ''God didn't do it'', or ''I don't know'' are to be necessarily catalogued as beliefs.
None of the above gets one any closer to the truth of the matter.
Well no, you can't define God however you want, for example you can't define God as a purely material being, because by all accounts He never defined as a material being, and could never match up to His own claims and abilities, unless you believe matter has the ability to stay tranfixed in an unchangable state once it has brought itself into being. So God has to be beyond this plane of material existence. This is the danger of trying to define God, using a whimsical idea. It begs the question as to why one would not define Him in the way He say's, regardless of whether or not you believe it be what He actually said. The only outcome of that manouvre is a detachment from what God said. How then, can that definition lead to any meaning knowledge of God? Let's say I wanted to know everything about Superman, I got comic's, movies, art, and all that. Now let's say I'm telling explain who Superman is, to an audience who are Superman enthusiasts, but don't have the extent of knowledge and works, that I have. I begin by telling them that Superman can't fly. What do you think the reaction would be?
My point is: Why would you need to open minded about the possibility of God not existing, in this lifetime?
What would be the point of it, and again, how would I conclude that God does not exist, if for me He does exist?
"Existence'' is neither here nor there, because of the definition of God (The Supreme Cause), that has to be accepted or not. Just as we have to accept Superman despite knowing that it is not true, in order to simply understand and enjoy the story. The more we accept, the more we understand the bigger picture. It doesn't mean you have to believe in it though.
We can't believe in something because we want to, we always end up realizing we never really believed in the first place. It works the same way with anything that becomes real to you.
We can't see air, but we know it's there because it's doing what it's suppose to do, and we simply can understand that without it we will suffocate.
There are lots more layers of knowledge regarding air, which is unknown to the masses, but everybody knows enough for it to be effective.
Isn't that more of a methodology, as opposed to an experience?
Also, this says that you have accepted a specific concept of God which requires physical evidence, and physical evidence can be explained by physical processes, therefore a transcendental God will never exist. The origin of the material manifestation can only be explained, but it can never be known by material senses, because they are limited.
God is the best explanation.
You can say, "I don't know", but it doesn't change that. You can say "God did, or didn't do it", without any thought or reason behind it, it still won't change that.
As long as you choose to see God simply as varying concepts, you will not fully comprehend what God is. You will have as many fragments as there are concepts. If you're really searching for evidence of God, you have to accept that if He exists, everything is evidence. That has to be your starting point.
jan.
I don't have to provide anything, it's all there if you want investigate. If for you there are only two alternatives and one of those alternatives is ''God is a fabrication of the mind'', then fine. But at least show, to a reasonable extent, how it is that God could become nothing but a fabrication of the mind.
By ''signatures'', I mean the various claims that are in the scriptures, about what and who God is, and claim of what God Himself says about Himself. You most certainly do not have to accept or believe these accounts, but it would be dishonest of you to claim that the reason for you disbelief is due to no evidence, if the evidence that you require to believe, is the same that requires you to believe in stupid things that just fly off the top of your head.
IOW, if you disbelieve God exists because there are no bones, or dna, which say's "I am God", in the dirt. Then you would be correct, but that, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It means that you conception doesn't exist, and that concept can change to fit your perception.
Why does every experience have to a negative one?
Why couldn't their experience be exactly what was experienced?
I don't accept the idea of teapots orbiting Jupiter, therefore it doesn't matter if it's true or false. If at some later date such a phenomenon is found, then I will believe it to be true. But I can only believe it to be true upon seeing it. Whereas believing in God is different, because the object, and the subject of ones belief in different. So if I can't find evidence of a orbiting teapot, it doesn't mean I can't find evidence for God.
No I mean ''assistance'' because that was the word used at the time I wrote this.
That's fair enough, but recoursing to ''God did it'' doesn't necessarily mean you believe ''God did it'', anymore than recoursing to ''God didn't do it'', or ''I don't know'' are to be necessarily catalogued as beliefs.
None of the above gets one any closer to the truth of the matter.
Well no, you can't define God however you want, for example you can't define God as a purely material being, because by all accounts He never defined as a material being, and could never match up to His own claims and abilities, unless you believe matter has the ability to stay tranfixed in an unchangable state once it has brought itself into being. So God has to be beyond this plane of material existence. This is the danger of trying to define God, using a whimsical idea. It begs the question as to why one would not define Him in the way He say's, regardless of whether or not you believe it be what He actually said. The only outcome of that manouvre is a detachment from what God said. How then, can that definition lead to any meaning knowledge of God? Let's say I wanted to know everything about Superman, I got comic's, movies, art, and all that. Now let's say I'm telling explain who Superman is, to an audience who are Superman enthusiasts, but don't have the extent of knowledge and works, that I have. I begin by telling them that Superman can't fly. What do you think the reaction would be?
My point is: Why would you need to open minded about the possibility of God not existing, in this lifetime?
What would be the point of it, and again, how would I conclude that God does not exist, if for me He does exist?
"Existence'' is neither here nor there, because of the definition of God (The Supreme Cause), that has to be accepted or not. Just as we have to accept Superman despite knowing that it is not true, in order to simply understand and enjoy the story. The more we accept, the more we understand the bigger picture. It doesn't mean you have to believe in it though.
We can't believe in something because we want to, we always end up realizing we never really believed in the first place. It works the same way with anything that becomes real to you.
We can't see air, but we know it's there because it's doing what it's suppose to do, and we simply can understand that without it we will suffocate.
There are lots more layers of knowledge regarding air, which is unknown to the masses, but everybody knows enough for it to be effective.
Isn't that more of a methodology, as opposed to an experience?
Also, this says that you have accepted a specific concept of God which requires physical evidence, and physical evidence can be explained by physical processes, therefore a transcendental God will never exist. The origin of the material manifestation can only be explained, but it can never be known by material senses, because they are limited.
God is the best explanation.
You can say, "I don't know", but it doesn't change that. You can say "God did, or didn't do it", without any thought or reason behind it, it still won't change that.
As long as you choose to see God simply as varying concepts, you will not fully comprehend what God is. You will have as many fragments as there are concepts. If you're really searching for evidence of God, you have to accept that if He exists, everything is evidence. That has to be your starting point.
jan.
Last edited:
If you can't support your arguments or your claims...
The same way that Zeus, Jupiter et al could be, or the celestial teapot, or Frodo and Bilbo, or anything else that we conceive of that don't exist... we extrapolate from what we do know for the purpose at hand. Not everything that we can conceive of exists, and God may or may not be one of those. You contend it isn't but you can not provide me with anything to support your claim.
Why would it be dishonest to claim that if that is the situation?
Then show me that God exists, and do so with evidence that rationally and unambiguously leads to that conclusion... whatever form you think the evidence needs to take, please provide it. You have dismissed scientific evidence, so then provide what evidence you can, please.
Who said it had to be a negative one? Why do you make stuff up about what people have written, or is it merely a lack of comprehension?
And the interpretation can be accurate - you'd just have to provide evidence to me that it is before I would be willing to accept the interpretation as accurate.
The only difference is in the significance of the veracity of the claim to people. The existence or not of an orbiting teapot is generally irrelevant to most people, and apathy would thus be common.
But for you to say that you "don't accept the idea of teapots orbiting Jupiter" is simply dishonest. You may not accept it as true, but unless you are a simpleton you are capable of conceptualising the notion of a teapot in orbit around Jupiter. That is all "accepting" the idea means, and from that we reason to whether or not we believe it to be true or false, or sufficiently irrelevant to warrant an apathetic response.
I never wrote "assistance" so either you can't read, or just enjoy asking non sequiturs.
I'm not talking about the flippant response of "God did it!" as a phrase to mean "something we don't know did it" but a claim that describes a belief. So yes, recoursing to "God did/didn't it" is the same in this context as believing "God did/didn't it".
"I don't know" is the absence of belief.
You can define God however you want for your own personal reasons. If you want to discuss with others what their concept of God is then feel free, and if you want to claim that your God is supported by Scriptures then this God is the one that is supported by Scriptures.
For those that do not believe in the veracity of the Scriptures, they will have their own definition and understanding of God, and your only means of telling them they're incorrect is via recourse to that which they do not hold as true.
As for Superman, it would depend on which version of Superman you are talking about.
Superman certainly goes through stages of not being able to fly, at least in some versions.
If you don't see a need for theists to be open-minded, don't claim that theists are so.
I am not sure that you could conclude that God does not exist. I don't claim that God doesn't, so I have no argument to provide in that regard.
I could argue that everything that occurs within the confines of our Universe is of natural cause... and we are improving our understanding of the workings of the universe with each passing moment.
I could also argue that there is no logical means of God interacting with the material realm in such a way as to distinguish that interaction from natural cause.
Thus one is left to consider what gave rise, if anything at all, to our Universe. You claim "God did it" and define God not only as the original cause but other attributes that scriptures claim.
I could concur that there may well have been a cause to the universe, but that would be as far back as I could go... what caused whatever caused the universe? Does "causation" have any meaning outside our universe? All questions for which I have no answer... thus I conclude "I don't know".
Can I claim that "God does not exist"? No. So I don't.
How can you say that His existence is neither here nor there? It is at the very heart of what an atheist is, what a theist is, and is rather pertinent to this thread.
Air can be shown to exist. Thus endeth the relevance of your analogy.
It is my experience of how things work for me.
I have accepted that a transcendental God may exist, but I am not aware of experiencing such. I am not even aware of how it is possible to experience something that I can't see as being able to interact with us. But my lack of knowledge is insufficient for me to believe in the non-existence of that concept. I am agnostic.
If someone can explain how a transcendental God can interact with us and provide us with that which we need to believe, go ahead.
"Best" for who? What does it actually explain? How is it useful in any way? What can "God did it" do for us that "God didn't do it" can't also do - and if nothing, why accept either of those answers?
I have accepted that. But as pointed out to you before, if He does not exist, everything is evidence that He does not need to exist. Thus "everything" is simply not evidence for or against the existence of God.
Thus that acceptance adds nothing to the status quo.
Further, I am confused by yet more contradictory messages from you: first you say that if I require physical evidence then a transcendental God will never exist (for me, I presume), but then you say that if God exists then everything is evidence.
Do you not see the contradiction here?
Are you saying that God is transcendental? If so, how can you say "everything is evidence"?
If you are saying that God is not (just) transcendental, then how can you agree that physical evidence can be explained by physical processes and thus won't be evidence... if "everything is evidence"?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
What Jan is arguing isn't necessarily logical but I think his point is that you have to be open to God without their being evidence and once you are open then you start to find/experience "evidence".
This works just as well with Bigfoot however. Once you feel that it may well exist then when you glimpse something in the woods you feel it "could" be Bigfoot. When you have a warm fuzzy feeling it could be coming from Bigfoot, etc.
If you aren't open to Bigfoot without physical proof then you won't find the "evidence" that a believer could find.
It's illogical, in part, for the reasons mentioned in a prior post...if God is transxendental and nature doesn't require God to function then how can "everything" be evidence of God.
If he is transcendental then only the transcendental would be "evidence" unless you can show how he can effect the material world. If he affects the material world then there should be material tests that could verify this claim.
This works just as well with Bigfoot however. Once you feel that it may well exist then when you glimpse something in the woods you feel it "could" be Bigfoot. When you have a warm fuzzy feeling it could be coming from Bigfoot, etc.
If you aren't open to Bigfoot without physical proof then you won't find the "evidence" that a believer could find.
It's illogical, in part, for the reasons mentioned in a prior post...if God is transxendental and nature doesn't require God to function then how can "everything" be evidence of God.
If he is transcendental then only the transcendental would be "evidence" unless you can show how he can effect the material world. If he affects the material world then there should be material tests that could verify this claim.
It's not that I don't want to communicate with you, it's just that it gets tedious. You get hung up on minor details. I didn't say virtual particles were science fiction. But if you want to assert that you only accept material objects that can be verified in the same way as the nose on your face, you will not be satisfied with virtual particles (or anything on the quantum level, for that matter) because measurement always changes a quantum system, meaning that measurement will always be incomplete (the quantum uncertainty principle). I said already, we don't know if the universe had a beginning or if it existed forever. Or both. But it's not likely there was a first cause. Because a first cause also requires a cause. If you think that God can be the first cause but is himself outside of the realm of cause and effect, that's a logical fallacy called "special pleading". It is more plausible that it's origin was uncaused, as with quantum events like radioactive decay or virtual particles. This would not be incompatible with known physics.
And even if you discovered that there could be a cause that was itself uncaused, it would fit your narrow definition of God, but it wouldn't be God the creator and planner of the universe, because your definition does not include that. A material cause is not necessarily a God. A tiny quantum particle is exactly the opposite of God.
- Status