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

[Jan Ardena]

Seattle,

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".

No. I'm saying you have to be open to the claims of God and by God, if you want to find 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.

You don't have to feel that it exists, you simply accept all the claims and info about it, without bias, then you will know what the evidence needs to be. Looking for evidence in the wrong places will yield no positive results.

If you aren't open to Bigfoot without physical proof then you won't find the "evidence" that a believer could find.

If you are open to the claims, and information regarding Bigfoot, your more likely to understand what would constitute evidence, than someone is not open to the claims and info. It stands to reason.

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.

Okay, that is a good question. Now where do you go from here, to obtain the answer?

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.

I don't need to show you, the information is already there, you only have to look.

jan.

 

[Seattle]

I don't need to show you, the information is already there, you only have to look.

jan.

I can see the physical world (your evidence) but I don't see that it requires a God so what exactly is it "evidence" of?

 

[spidergoat]

She means there is no objective evidence, only subjective bias reinforcement.

 

[Sarkus]

I can see the physical world (your evidence) but I don't see that it requires a God so what exactly is it "evidence" of?

The issue Jan continually fails to address is that what might be seen as evidence of God if one decides to "accept all the claims and info about it, without bias", can also be seen as evidence of a universe without God, if one decides to "accept all the claims and info about it, without bias".

You are then left with competing theories, for which the available "evidence" fits both equally.
It is not simply a case of "Ooh, a concept: let's see if the evidence fits... it does... therefore let's believe it true!" but of comparing all the concepts that the evidence fits. I.e. if you follow Jan's rationale you are potentially left following mutually exclusive concepts, such as "God exists" and "God does not exist".
This is the critical thinking that appears lacking in what Jan suggests as the way forward.
Jan suggests you follow only half the possible story... but claims you do so "without bias". Ooh, the irony.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

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.

What way would that be?

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.

Everything we conceive of is based on something that does exist. We can't literally think of something absolutely brand new that has absolutely no connection to anything we know. A celestial teapot may be far fetched, but the term ''celestial'', and the form of a ''teapot'', are very much known.

Why would it be dishonest to claim that if that is the situation?

Because the universe, and the material manifestation is evidence, if God exists.
Based on that, what do you think the evidence should be?

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.

Why would you even ask me that?
Haven't you comprehended what I've been saying regarding the definition of God?

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

Well I certainly had the picture form in my mind upon it's first mention, so yes I took it in, and saw it for what it was, Then dismissed it as pointless. Fortunately, after that first encounter, I don't have to keep repeating the proccess.

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.

Your ''I don't know'' is based on a method, and that method restricts you from discriminating between concepts like accept and belief, and from accepting things as they are. To me, your system is so much like a belief system. So I can't agree with you on that one.

You can define God however you want for your own personal reasons.

That goes for everything, so it is hardly relevant.

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.

It doesn't matter if they don't believe in the veracity of the scriptures, God still has the characteristics that can be found in scripture.
The difference are more social and culteral issues, than definitions of God.

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.

He means Superman cannot fly, period.

If you don't see a need for theists to be open-minded, don't claim that theists are so.

I don't see how being open to the idea that God might not exist, is an open-minded thing.
If a theist suddenly get a materialistic revelation that proclaims ''God does not exist'', then yes I could see how a theist might change.
But I don't see anything in this world that suggests that God doesn't exist. Your idea of God means there can be no evidence, but your idea of God is quite limited, because you haven't taken into account the bigger picture. Again I will state, you don't have to believe it, but at least you'll have some idea of what the evidences of God should be.

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..

That's fair enough, but it's not like that for everyone.

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.

And your method of thinking is the only way one can obtain knowledge, it doesn't matter that belief in God is for all intent and purpose, a perfectly natural state for humans, which could well suggest a fault with your thinking methodology, because you'll no doubt have a fallacy title up your sleeve that will prevent you acceptance, and give you the invisible authority to write it off as, "Comfort, security, fear, hope, lack of critical thought, delusion, mental illness etc."
...

 

[Jan Ardena]

...

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.

The atheist accepts God does not exist, and the theist accepts God does exist. That, as I have said is the starting point.
The atheist says there is no reason to accept God because nature has within it all the answers regarding origins, and the theist says that matter cannot bring itself into being, neither can it maintain itself without some kind of intelligence. The theist sees the hallmarks of intelligence in nature, whereas the atheists refuses to accept it as intelligence, prefering randomness, and chance. Upon acceptance of God, one can eventually comprehend how it is God creates and maintains the material manifestation, one only has to look in the scripture. Upon non acceptance of God, one assumes that the scriptures are nothing but ideas of people who had no knowledge. However, when one reads and understands the essense of scriptures, and how that essence permeates through everything, one can understand that atheist is quite clueless about what it is they vehemently dismiss.

Air can be shown to exist. Thus endeth the relevance of your analogy.

Like God, the majority of people accept the existence of air without having to know anything about it, and without seeing it. This is because they comprehend what air is, because it does what it is supposed to.
God makes claims, but you haven't investigated those claims because you refuse to accept that God exists, then hide behind the bogus idea of ''no evidence'' to give you comfort.

I have accepted that a transcendental God may exist,

No you haven't. You can't even bring yourself to describing God in realistic detail, because you've spent so much time in denial.
If you accepted a transcendental God, then you would know that your claim of no evidence is naiive at best.

...but I am not aware of experiencing such.

Let's say God exists, then isn't your own existence an experience, regardless of whether you know it, or agree with it or not?
How could you find evidence of that in the dirt, or bouncing particles of each other?

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.

More like you are not prepared to entertain the idea of something like that.

"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?

Line it up with the other explanations, then you'll see it's the best.

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.

Can you explain what the effects of God not existing could possibly be?
That statement is only effective in relation to God, and therefore devoid of merit. Come up with something whic has a logical basis that does not rely on the existence of God. As for adding nothing to the status quo, you are wrong. At the very least it informs you of what should constitute as evidence so you can make an informed choice.

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.

I said: If God exists, then it is reasonable to assume that everything is evidence. So if you're looking for evidence within what is the evidence, and disregarding your own existence and abilities, you have effectively ignored the claims of God, and decided upon what you think God is, which is evident because you have decided there is no evidence. Then you search for evidence of that concoction, yielding only the results that match your condition.

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.

The knowledge is there. That's what scriptures are for, they explain how God interacts, How God creates, and other stuff. So you don't need me to provide you with anything, you only need go and study for yourself. That way you decide what you think, and not have to be convinced of anything, because in my experience, having to be convinced of things is not the way to go.

Are you saying that God is transcendental?

I'm not saying God is transcendental, God IS transcendental by all accounts, and by His own word (fictional or factual).

If so, how can you say "everything is evidence"?

I said: its reasonable to assume.

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"?

Go read the Bhagavad Gita, and see what the claims are, because I don't think you fully grasp them. Otherwise you're just gonna keep going round in circles. You're asking me for whole explanation which would have to be several different threads to really do them justice.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

What way would that be?

As said in the same sentence: "we extrapolate from what we do know for the purpose at hand."

Everything we conceive of is based on something that does exist. We can't literally think of something absolutely brand new that has absolutely no connection to anything we know. A celestial teapot may be far fetched, but the term ''celestial'', and the form of a ''teapot'', are very much known.

As is "source", "greatest", "cause", "first". There is nothing about one's concept of "God" that is not similarly extrapolated.

Because the universe, and the material manifestation is evidence, if God exists.
Based on that, what do you think the evidence should be?

Something that isn't also evidence for the theory that God does not exist.

Why would you even ask me that?
Haven't you comprehended what I've been saying regarding the definition of God?

I have comprehended as far as I can through your contradictory messages, but the question still stands: "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."

Well I certainly had the picture form in my mind upon it's first mention, so yes I took it in, and saw it for what it was, Then dismissed it as pointless. Fortunately, after that first encounter, I don't have to keep repeating the proccess.

So you accepted the notion and then reasoned to a conclusion of pointlessness. Now, for the purpose of discussion, assume that it isn't pointless, that it is actually of some significance. Now, on what basis do you conclude either that it exists or does not exist, or that you don't know?

Your ''I don't know'' is based on a method, and that method restricts you from discriminating between concepts like accept and belief, and from accepting things as they are. To me, your system is so much like a belief system. So I can't agree with you on that one.

It doesn't restrict me at all. I have explained numerous times what I consider it means to accept: to hold as true for practical purposes (e.g. for discussing)... as in "let's accept that Superman actually exists... how come he doesn't disintegrate?" etc.
As such "accept" is very different from "belief", as has been explained to you previously.
So no more of claiming I think otherwise.

That goes for everything, so it is hardly relevant.

It is relevant, as it is true that there is no single definition or understanding of "God". Deal with it.

It doesn't matter if they don't believe in the veracity of the scriptures, God still has the characteristics that can be found in scripture.
The difference are more social and culteral issues, than definitions of God.

Not at all. Deism is a very different concept of God than is found in the scriptures. As is any that notion that does not accept that God reveals himself through scriptures. By their very definition, the scriptures are meaningless with reference to that notion of God.

He means Superman cannot fly, period.

Then it would be a simple matter of going to the person who made up the idea of Superman, of showing the person the origins of that concept. We can not do that with God. So again, your analogy fails.

I don't see how being open to the idea that God might not exist, is an open-minded thing.

Because you are close-minded.

If a theist suddenly get a materialistic revelation that proclaims ''God does not exist'', then yes I could see how a theist might change.
But I don't see anything in this world that suggests that God doesn't exist. Your idea of God means there can be no evidence, but your idea of God is quite limited, because you haven't taken into account the bigger picture. Again I will state, you don't have to believe it, but at least you'll have some idea of what the evidences of God should be.

Then show me the evidences of God... you keep telling me they exist... so show me.
Or are you going to stick with "everything is evidence"?

That's fair enough, but it's not like that for everyone.

Certainly other people think that God can, but noone has been able to explain how, in such a way that distinguishes itself from the machinations of nature.
Of course, one could say "God is nature!" which answers nothing and is the same nonsense of "everything is evidence of God!"

And your method of thinking is the only way one can obtain knowledge, it doesn't matter that belief in God is for all intent and purpose, a perfectly natural state for humans, which could well suggest a fault with your thinking methodology, because you'll no doubt have a fallacy title up your sleeve that will prevent you acceptance, and give you the invisible authority to write it off as, "Comfort, security, fear, hope, lack of critical thought, delusion, mental illness etc."...

Whether belief in God is a natural state or not is irrelevant with regard the actual existence of that tenet of that belief.
Belief in a flat earth was "for all intent and purpose, a perfectly natural state for humans".
The only real difference is God is not subject to falsifiability, so can not be shown to be either true or false. As such it has remained rooted as a belief due to what that belief (not the existence of the thing, but the belief in the thing) can offer people.
But we shouldn't confuse the benefit of holding the belief with that being evidence of the existence of what is believed in.
So why would this suggest a fault with my thinking methodology?
And as for naming the fallacies I see in your arguments, you can certainly try to ridicule the fact that I raise them, but the better course of action for all concerned, especially for yourself, would surely be to address those fallacies - or at least show why you do not think your arguments are fallacious (and yes, I do try to explain why I think it a fallacy, unless i think it so obvious that the mere identification and naming should be sufficient)?

 

[Sarkus]

The atheist accepts God does not exist, and the theist accepts God does exist. That, as I have said is the starting point. The atheist says there is no reason to accept God because nature has within it all the answers regarding origins, and the theist says that matter cannot bring itself into being, neither can it maintain itself without some kind of intelligence. The theist sees the hallmarks of intelligence in nature, whereas the atheists refuses to accept it as intelligence, prefering randomness, and chance. Upon acceptance of God, one can eventually comprehend how it is God creates and maintains the material manifestation, one only has to look in the scripture. Upon non acceptance of God, one assumes that the scriptures are nothing but ideas of people who had no knowledge. However, when one reads and understands the essense of scriptures, and how that essence permeates through everything, one can understand that atheist is quite clueless about what it is they vehemently dismiss.

Where to start:
- The theist not only accepts God does exist, but believes God does exist.
- The atheist accepts, from a practical point of view, that God does not exist, but (like me) may neither believe in the existence nor non-existence of God.
- The atheist does NOT necessarily say that nature has within it all the answers regarding origins, and for you to think so is quite shocking. I certainly don't say that. I say that such questions are unknowable. Most atheists I know would also say the same. I can not think of any who actually would think as you say they do.
- The rest of your comments regarding theism is merely a process of belief reinforcement from what I would consider an irrational starting point.

Like God, the majority of people accept the existence of air without having to know anything about it, and without seeing it. This is because they comprehend what air is, because it does what it is supposed to.
God makes claims, but you haven't investigated those claims because you refuse to accept that God exists, then hide behind the bogus idea of ''no evidence'' to give you comfort.

As said, unlike God, "air can be shown to exist. Thus endeth the relevance of your analogy."
Merely repeating the irrelevancy doesn't make it relevant.

No you haven't. You can't even bring yourself to describing God in realistic detail, because you've spent so much time in denial.
If you accepted a transcendental God, then you would know that your claim of no evidence is naiive at best.

Then show me the evidence, or at least tell me what that evidence will be, what form it takes, and stop being so contradictory with regard your other claim that "everything is evidence"!

Let's say God exists, then isn't your own existence an experience, regardless of whether you know it, or agree with it or not?

Let's say God does not exist, then isn't your own existence an experience that reinforces the notion of God not existing, regardless of whether you know it, or agree with it or not?

How could you find evidence of that in the dirt, or bouncing particles of each other?

Argument from personal incredulity? Or is it from ignorance?
Besides, if God does not exist then the evidence is as much in the dirt, or bouncing particles, as in anything else... i.e. "everything is evidence" of no God being necessary.
Basically you are simply looking at one theory, seeing that what you accept as evidence fits what you accept as the theory, and claiming the theory correct / sufficient for belief.
What you are not doing, or at least not with the lack of bias you insist from others, is looking at alternative theories that also fit all of what you accept as evidence.
I find your entire approach to be flawed in this regard.

More like you are not prepared to entertain the idea of something like that.

You are confusing lack of occurrence with me not entertaining the idea.

Line it up with the other explanations, then you'll see it's the best.

I have lined it up, and it falls short... the only answer I can see that makes no unwarranted assumptions is "I don't know".

Can you explain what the effects of God not existing could possibly be?

That would depend on whether God is necessary for our existence or not. If God is necessary, then God not existing means we would not be having this conversation. If God is not necessary then it would make no difference.

That statement is only effective in relation to God, and therefore devoid of merit.

No, it's in relation to the belief in God, and thus has merit.

Come up with something whic has a logical basis that does not rely on the existence of God. As for adding nothing to the status quo, you are wrong. At the very least it informs you of what should constitute as evidence so you can make an informed choice.

Not when that evidence is equally supportive of the notion of God not being necessary.
This is the side of the equation you simply refuse to address.

I said: If God exists, then it is reasonable to assume that everything is evidence. So if you're looking for evidence within what is the evidence, and disregarding your own existence and abilities, you have effectively ignored the claims of God, and decided upon what you think God is, which is evident because you have decided there is no evidence. Then you search for evidence of that concoction, yielding only the results that match your condition.

Drivel. You simply are looking at one possible theory / notion and seeing the evidence fit are claiming "God exists!". There is a competing theory ("No-God") to which the evidence equally fits. It is you who are ignoring this, because you are unwilling to even contemplate the possibility, as you are wrapped up in your cycle of belief reinforcement.

The knowledge is there. That's what scriptures are for, they explain how God interacts, How God creates, and other stuff. So you don't need me to provide you with anything, you only need go and study for yourself. That way you decide what you think, and not have to be convinced of anything, because in my experience, having to be convinced of things is not the way to go.

The knowledge is not necessarily there... the claim of knowledge is there. Whether it is knowledge or not, or simply made up by Man for his own agenda, is as much up for grabs and subject to the same issues as the question of God's existence.

I'm not saying God is transcendental, God IS transcendental by all accounts, and by His own word (fictional or factual).

So you're not saying God is transcendental, but you're saying God is transcendental...
FFS, how contradictory do you intend to get and still think you remain coherent?
So if God is transcendental, how can "everything be evidence"?

I said: its reasonable to assume.

You did. But you also believe in God, and thus you must believe that "everything is evidence", the logic of which has been outlined previously to you. Unless of course you are agreeing that you are not reasonable?

Go read the Bhagavad Gita, and see what the claims are, because I don't think you fully grasp them. Otherwise you're just gonna keep going round in circles. You're asking me for whole explanation which would have to be several different threads to really do them justice.

I don't fully grasp them if your contradictory comments are what results.
I find it surprising that you don't see them as such, and continue to make them.

 

[spidergoat]

...The atheist accepts God does not exist, and the theist accepts God does exist. That, as I have said is the starting point....

It is not the starting point, nor should it be. Evidence should be the starting point. If you can only perceive the evidence due to your beliefs, then it is not evidence, it's personal bias. Atheists don't acknowledge that there is any reliable evidence for God, so they don't believe it. It doesn't matter if there is no other explanation for something.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Motor Daddy I am glad that you care to interact with me; you see I choose to react only with Spidergoat because I cannot be reacting to you all, and Spidergoat is into something that really interests me, namely, virtual particles popping in and out of nothing without cause.

Now, it seems Spidergoat has opted out with interacting with me.


Let us go to this text from you me and you.

Motor Daddy, Tuesday at 5:47 PM Report #313
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/to...nvisible-unicorns.143034/page-16#post-3252108

Pachomius said:

You mean that distance and time or shall we use instead of distance, space? wherefore according to you space and time have always existed.

​

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?

​

Let us first work together to concur on what we mean by;

Distance
Space
Time
Infinity
​

You bring in the terms distance and infinity, so I will ask you to present what your concepts are of distance and infinity.

I will take up space and time, but you can correct me.


Before anything else space and time are things in objective reality we can talk about.

In regard to space, it is something that is between you and me when we are not stuck together so that we both occupy the same space which is impossible unless we both get ourselves compressed inside a steel box, in which case we stop existing as living humans.

In regard to time, it is something that is required for us to even just exist though not doing anything at all, and also to do anything we need or want to do, like for example eating or using the comfort room, or playing tennis, there is limited time for us humans to even just do nothing but stay alive, for we will surely use up time when we die, necessarily die when the limit is reached, which other humans know it is reached when we do die and they take down in record our time of death.


Now, it is your turn to give me what you know to be the concepts of distance and of infinity.


Why do we have to work to come to concurrence on what is time, distance, space, infinity?


Because I am of the position that science tells us the universe has a starting point in time and also a starting point in space, and you are of the position which I will know when you explain what is your concept of distance, space, time, and infinity.

 

[spidergoat]

...Because I am of the position that science tells us the universe has a starting point in time and also a starting point in space, ...

How do you know that? This is not a settled question in science.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

As said in the same sentence: "we extrapolate from what we do know for the purpose at hand."

So we must instinctevely know God, if we extrapolate concepts from what we know.

As is "source", "greatest", "cause", "first". There is nothing about one's concept of "God" that is not similarly extrapolated.

These words describe God, they aren't God. The idea of a Supreme Being is not to be found within any animal forms, or nature which also includes humans. There is nothing on earth, that we know of, that is a cause of all causes, there is nothing on earth that created everything including the earth. There is nothing on earth that is defined as pure spirit, I'm sure you get the picture. God is absolutely, and obviously unique.

Something that isn't also evidence for the theory that God does not exist.

What is the theory that God does not exist?

I have comprehended as far as I can through your contradictory messages, but the question still stands: "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."

You are simply running away, and trying to do so with your credibility in tact. I don't have to show or prove that God exists (not that i could) because that is not the nature of what I'm saying. You're trying to include my theism as a side track, so you can avoid answering the real questions I put to you.
There is no scientific evidence regarding God, and for good reason. So how can I dismiss it?

So you accepted the notion and then reasoned to a conclusion of pointlessness. Now, for the purpose of discussion, assume that it isn't pointless, that it is actually of some significance. Now, on what basis do you conclude either that it exists or does not exist, or that you don't know?

No I didn't accept it. To accept something is to to take or receive something offered with approval.

I don't care whether or not it exists, because it's existence wasn't the point of the concept, other than to equate silliness with belief in God.

It is relevant, as it is true that there is no single definition or understanding of "God". Deal with it

There's no single definition or understanding of you. Your male, you go bv a name of Sarkus, if you have kids, your a father, if you have a wife, your a husband. If you're a doctor, your known as doctor, if your a computer programmer, then you are the computer programmer. All of these designations are different aspects of you. Why should God be any different, if we are caused by Him.

Not at all. Deism is a very different concept of God than is found in the scriptures. As is any that notion that does not accept that God reveals himself through scriptures. By their very definition, the scriptures are meaningless with reference to that notion of God.

No it's not. It is simply a rejection of scripture as an authority. They believe that the natural world is suffiecient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe. They just see that as God, but the idea of God comes from God and the scriptures, including theirs.
In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna reveals His universal form to Arjuna, and this form is material. So it's not outside the scriptures.

Then it would be a simple matter of going to the person who made up the idea of Superman, of showing the person the origins of that concept. We can not do that with God. So again, your analogy fails.

You can do that with God. You can study the scriptures.

Then show me the evidences of God... you keep telling me they exist... so show me.
Or are you going to stick with "everything is evidence"?

I said: it can reasonably be assumed that if God exists, then everything is evidence.

I've already instructed you to study Bhagavad Gita.

Certainly other people think that God can, but noone has been able to explain how, in such a way that distinguishes itself from the machinations of nature.
Of course, one could say "God is nature!" which answers nothing and is the same nonsense of "everything is evidence of God!"

Go study the scriptures, every explanation you could ever want about God, is in there.

The only real difference is God is not subject to falsifiability, so can not be shown to be either true or false. As such it has remained rooted as a belief due to what that belief (not the existence of the thing, but the belief in the thing) can offer people.

So what?
What does this have to do with God?

And as for naming the fallacies I see in your arguments, you can certainly try to ridicule the fact that I raise them, but the better course of action for all concerned, especially for yourself, would surely be to address those fallacies - or at least show why you do not think your arguments are fallacious (and yes, I do try to explain why I think it a fallacy, unless i think it so obvious that the mere identification and naming should be sufficient)?

You hide behind them, so you don't have to deal with question that will force you to change your stubborn position.

...

 

[Jan Ardena]

...

- The theist not only accepts God does exist, but believes God does exist.
- The atheist accepts, from a practical point of view, that God does not exist, but (like me) may neither believe in the existence nor non-existence of God.

The atheist accepts that God does not exist, and also believes that God does not exist. Why did you think it would be any different?

The atheist does NOT necessarily say that nature has within it all the answers regarding origins, and for you to think so is quite shocking. I certainly don't say that.

You don't have to say that, it is a natural consequence of your belief system. You don't know very much about God, you say you accept the reasonable assumption, but still claim there is no evidence. And rather than seek out the claims to decide what the evidence needs to be, despite now realizing that no evidence claim is merely lip service, you ask me to show you evidence. This isn't you trying to find evidence of God, it is you defending your belief which at its heart lies, God does not exist.

I say that such questions are unknowable. Most atheists I know would also say the same. I can not think of any who actually would think as you say they do.

How do you know it's unknowable?
What is it about those questions that lead you to the knowledge that the answers are unknowable?

The rest of your comments regarding theism is merely a process of belief reinforcement from what I would consider an irrational starting point.

Just push it to one side why don't you!
There's the conditioning.

As said, unlike God, "air can be shown to exist. Thus endeth the relevance of your analogy."
Merely repeating the irrelevancy doesn't make it relevant.

If you understand the definition and descriptions of God, God can be shown to exist, in the same way air can.

Let's say God does not exist, then isn't your own existence an experience that reinforces the notion of God not existing, regardless of whether you know it, or agree with it or not?

How would my experience reinforce the idea of God not existing?
What does ''non existence'' do in order to reinforce?

Besides, if God does not exist then the evidence is as much in the dirt, or bouncing particles, as in anything else... i.e. "everything is evidence" of no God being necessary.

Sorry, I'm not sure what the impact of God not existing has on anything.
Are we talking about the fictional or non fictional God not existing?

Basically you are simply looking at one theory, seeing that what you accept as evidence fits what you accept as the theory, and claiming the theory correct / sufficient for belief.

But it's not a theory if God exists. So if I'm looking for evidence of God, I have to take that into consideration. If I simply push it to one side and say ''there is no evidence'' then I've effectively ignored information which is crucial to an honest investigation. Nothing meaningful will come of it. And if I do that knowingly, then I would be purposefully fooling myself.

I have lined it up, and it falls short... the only answer I can see that makes no unwarranted assumptions is "I don't know".

In what way does it fall short?

That would depend on whether God is necessary for our existence or not. If God is necessary, then God not existing means we would not be having this conversation. If God is not necessary then it would make no difference.

That's not an effect or consequence of God not existing. Try again.

No, it's in relation to the belief in God, and thus has merit.

It doesn't address belief, only God.
My reasonable assumption is solid, whereas yours, is nothing but mine is reverse, and opposite to solid.

Not when that evidence is equally supportive of the notion of God not being necessary.
This is the side of the equation you simply refuse to address.

Oh! So it's God is unecessary now, is it?
So you don't think theists are open to the idea that God is unecessary?

Drivel. You simply are looking at one possible theory / notion and seeing the evidence fit are claiming "God exists!". There is a competing theory ("No-God") to which the evidence equally fits. It is you who are ignoring this, because you are unwilling to even contemplate the possibility, as you are wrapped up in your cycle of belief reinforcement.

''No God'' theory doesn't explain anything, it simply denies God. That said, there's nothing to discuss. We are talking about God, not no God.

The knowledge is not necessarily there... the claim of knowledge is there. Whether it is knowledge or not, or simply made up by Man for his own agenda, is as much up for grabs and subject to the same issues as the question of God's existence.

Nonsense. Man may have penned the scriptures, but it is not simply the thoughts of men, and to write it off as that shows that you haven't really taken them in or tried to meaningfully grasp what is being said.

So you're not saying God is transcendental, but you're saying God is transcendental...

My theism isn't necessary in this discussion. Why do you keep wanting to drag it in?

You did. But you also believe in God, and thus you must believe that "everything is evidence", the logic of which has been outlined previously to you. Unless of course you are agreeing that you are not reasonable?

Is it not a reasonable assumption?
If not, why?

I don't fully grasp them if your contradictory comments are what results.
I find it surprising that you don't see them as such, and continue to make them.

Which is why you should study something like the BG.

jan.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Dear Motor Daddy...blah blah blah...


In regard to space, it is something that is between you and me when we are not stuck together so that we both occupy the same space which is impossible unless we both get ourselves compressed inside a steel box, in which case we stop existing as living humans.

You FAILED! Remember I requested you learn to quote properly? Your post is not quoted properly. If you can't take the time to quote properly then add me to the list if people that don't respond to you. Maybe there's a clue there as to why others don't respond to you?? Try to collect as many clues as you can!! Let me know if you need help!

BTW, you FAILED to comprehend the difference between distance and space. There might be a clue there too!!

 

[iceaura]

and the theist says that matter cannot bring itself into being, neither can it maintain itself without some kind of intelligence.

Which is a false assertion, according to all the evidence. So why does the theist say that?

So you don't think theists are open to the idea that God is unecessary?

Most aren't aren't willing to acknowledge the observation that their God is unnecessary.

Some are, but you can find intellectual respectability anywhere, it seems.

Man may have penned the scriptures, but it is not simply the thoughts of men,

By observation, the scriptures are the thoughts of man.

Is it not a reasonable assumption?
If not, why?

Because it negates itself, so that no conclusions can be drawn from it, or inferences made. It's unreasonable to make assumptions from which no conclusions can be drawn, or inferences made.

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".

His point is also that if you don't find evidence you haven't been open to God - that the experience of having been open to God and not finding evidence is impossible.

His is the invisible unicorn type of deity, emperor's clothes division; in this case one which you are sure to see if you are open to the possibility of its existence, so that failure to see it indicates a refusal to be open to seeing it.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

 

[Sarkus]

So we must instinctevely know God, if we extrapolate concepts from what we know.

Why must be this the case? Is nuclear physics instinctively known about, even though the ideas around it were generated from extrapolation and manipulation of existing ideas?
And it is not "know God" but "know the concept of God"... I wouldn't want to beg the question of God's existence.

These words describe God, they aren't God. The idea of a Supreme Being is not to be found within any animal forms, or nature which also includes humans. There is nothing on earth, that we know of, that is a cause of all causes, there is nothing on earth that created everything including the earth. There is nothing on earth that is defined as pure spirit, I'm sure you get the picture. God is absolutely, and obviously unique.

Your argument is utter nonsense, and is nothing but a case of special pleading.
Do we or do we not know that, as experienced, effects are generally caused? Thus we can extrapolate to the notion of a first cause.
Do we or do we not know that some things are "greater" than others? Tis we can extrapolate to the notion of that which is greatest.
Do we or do we not recognise beneficial patterns, the cause of which we do not know? And from this we can extrapolate the notion of a benevolent watcher / causer of those patterns.
Are we not often affected by that which we can not see? And from that we can extrapolate the notion of the non-material / spirit.
So please, just use some intelligence before you start writing. Intelligent nonsense is one thing, but your nonsense is evidence of nothing but your blinkered thinking and your inability to think critically on this matter.

What is the theory that God does not exist?

There are many, all as unscientific as the theory that God exists. But they all give rise to the various notions that the universe has no intelligence behind it, that there was no ultimate cause of all, no benevolent creator etc.

You are simply running away, and trying to do so with your credibility in tact. I don't have to show or prove that God exists (not that i could) because that is not the nature of what I'm saying. You're trying to include my theism as a side track, so you can avoid answering the real questions I put to you.
There is no scientific evidence regarding God, and for good reason. So how can I dismiss it?

I am not running away, I am waiting patiently for you to provide that which you claim exists... and you see my repeated requests as running away. How precious.
You claim "everything is evidence" of God (which is a logical conclusion of your reasoning plus your belief in God, whether you want to dismiss that or not), then you claim God is transcendental, now you claim there is no scientific evidence of God. I am including your theism because it is pertinent to understanding your reasoning.
Just provide what evidence you can... however you want to define it, whatever you want to call it, whether it is scientific or not.

No I didn't accept it. To accept something is to to take or receive something offered with approval.

There need be no approval. One accepts the proposal (of what X is) and only then can one dismiss it, and choose to believe that it exists or not.

I don't care whether or not it exists, because it's existence wasn't the point of the concept, other than to equate silliness with belief in God.

And this is you simply being dishonest, by crying foul when there is none, in an effort to evade.

There's no single definition or understanding of you. Your male, you go bv a name of Sarkus, if you have kids, your a father, if you have a wife, your a husband. If you're a doctor, your known as doctor, if your a computer programmer, then you are the computer programmer. All of these designations are different aspects of you. Why should God be any different, if we are caused by Him.

And yet more contradictions, given that you have previously argued that there is only one correct understanding of God (yours). And now you are claiming that there can be multiple understandings?

No it's not. It is simply a rejection of scripture as an authority. They believe that the natural world is suffiecient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe. They just see that as God, but the idea of God comes from God and the scriptures, including theirs.
In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna reveals His universal form to Arjuna, and this form is material. So it's not outside the scriptures.

The notion of God comes before scriptures. Scriptures are merely a written text. Or are you proposing the scriptures sprung into being and brought with them the notion?
As for deism, don't confuse it with pantheism. Deism is not the belief that the universe is God.
To claim all notions of God are inspired by the scriptures is no different than claiming that all notions of superman are inspired by the 1978 film... i.e. Choosing to ignore that it, too, was based on a concept that had developed over time leading up to that point.
Merely writing it down first does not mean that it is the source of the concept. Many would argue that man is the source, and through man's interaction with other men and with the environment it developed a notion that attempted to cover all bases, and was then written down.

You can do that with God. You can study the scriptures.

Yep, I can do that with scriptures, and show that the source of the notion of God is Man... As he wrote it down.
You would be correct with your comparison if the earliest documents containing superman somehow suggested that it was based on a real person that could fly, with super powers etc.

I said: it can reasonably be assumed that if God exists, then everything is evidence.

So you keep saying, yet you appear utterly unable to deal with the contradictions this raises with much of what you otherwise say, not least that you seem not to take it as logically implying that you believe everything is evidence of God.

I've already instructed you to study Bhagavad Gita.

The Bhagavad Gita is not evidence... It is a book that some deem holy.
And I've already instructed you to think critically.

Go study the scriptures, every explanation you could ever want about God, is in there.

I have studied the Bible. And I'm sure if I believed in God I would it and the other scriptures most enlightening as a means of reinforcing that belief. But your very attitude in this regard appears to me to be indicative of your utter inability to provide me with anything that does not rely on a pre-existing belief in its veracity.
I do not have that belief. There is nothing in the scriptures that can thus lead me to conclude that God necessarily exists.

So what?
What does this have to do with God?

It speaks to a possible reason why people cling to the belief in what may not exist. After all, you have argued that you wouldn't believe in anything that does not exist, as if that lends credence to the truth of the existence of that thing.
Belief, however, is based on concepts of things. Things we believe exist. But without the concept we can not believe. And the concept can exist (in the minds of Man) without the thing existing outside of the mind.
Oh, yes, I forget, you have previously claimed that you have no concept of God.

You hide behind them, so you don't have to deal with question that will force you to change your stubborn position.

I am not the one arguing from them. It is you who hides behind them by arguing from them and refusing to address their fallacious nature. It is you who hides behind your inabilityto think critically about what you read, what you are told, and ultimately in what you believe.
Your entire position is built upon such, yet you keep propping up these defences and hiding behind them, and all we can do is show them for what they are.
And you have the audacity to accuse me of hiding, of being stubborn, and atheists of being close-minded!

 

[Sarkus]

The atheist accepts that God does not exist, and also believes that God does not exist. Why did you think it would be any different?

No matter how many times you are told otherwise you keep insisting on claiming atheist believe that God does not exist.
They don't, not necessarily. I am an atheist, and I do not. Most atheists here do not (some do, though). We simply do not have the belief that God exists.
Why do you need this explaining to you every time???

You don't have to say that, it is a natural consequence of your belief system. You don't know very much about God, you say you accept the reasonable assumption, but still claim there is no evidence. And rather than seek out the claims to decide what the evidence needs to be, despite now realizing that no evidence claim is merely lip service, you ask me to show you evidence. This isn't you trying to find evidence of God, it is you defending your belief which at its heart lies, God does not exist.

Your logic is flawed. I have no belief, I also have no understanding of God beyond being claimed as the "cause of all", and I see no way to be able to prove or disprove that claim. I am thus agnostic. Simples, really. I have no belief to defend. I merely ask that if you want to claim that something exists then provide the reasoning/evidence/logic, and if you don't want to accept the analogies that we use to describe our position, that you have the decency to actually understand our position.

How do you know it's unknowable?

I don't know for sure, but it is seems the rational conclusion based on what we do know, or what we consider to be knowable. We can only know that which exists within our universe; if the workings of our universe can be explained wholly naturally then it stands to reason that only the origin of our universe would be left to know about. And this would thus be unknowable.

What is it about those questions that lead you to the knowledge that the answers are unknowable?

Because there is no way to check the veracity of whatever conclusion one reaches about them, other than through the introduction of unwarranted / biased assumptions, such as "if you believe X then the conclusion is Y".

Just push it to one side why don't you!
There's the conditioning.

Then simply show me how you can check the veracity of your conclusion in favour of any other, without already believing in the veracity of that claim. All you can do, and all you have done so far, is say: "if God exists then everything is evidence of God". And you've been shown numerous times why this is a flawed route.

If you understand the definition and descriptions of God, God can be shown to exist, in the same way air can.

So please show me the scientific evidence that supports the existence of God.
If God is defined then we must be able to test that definition in a way that can falsify it. Otherwise you are simply treading on the merry-go round of believing to believe, whether you are aware of it or not.

How would my experience reinforce the idea of God not existing?

Because if God does not exist, and if you are experiencing, then those experiences would reinforce the notion that God does not exist. Unless you are hooked on the belief in the concept of God, of course, as you are.

What does ''non existence'' do in order to reinforce?
...
Sorry, I'm not sure what the impact of God not existing has on anything.
Are we talking about the fictional or non fictional God not existing?

Wow, you are simply incapable of thinking critically, aren't you! Or maybe your are being dumb as a deliberately dishonest tactic... I'm not too sure which it is, but it's definitely one.

Let's start again... and you need to be open-minded, and not start from your dogmatic belief that God exists, but imagine you are coming at this from afresh... that the veracity of the existence of God is not known.
Consider it a thought experiment, and do not bring into the equation any preconceived notions or beliefs about the existence of God. Are you capable of doing that? After all, you claim not to be on a cycle of believing to belief, so help me appreciate that by demonstrating that you are capable of this...

Now, if God exists, whether we are aware of his existence or not, everything would be evidence of his existence. And we would be having this discussion whether we believe in his existence or not.
Now, if God does not exist, whether we are aware of his non-existence or not, everything would be evidence of God not needing to exist. And we would be having this discussion whether we believe in his non-existence or not.

So quite simply, once you take out any preconceived notions of God existing or not, it is shown that us experiencing this conversation, that everything, is neither evidence for nor against the existence of God.

This is the starting point that I and many atheists are at. It is how we think critically about the question, about the notion.
You are not. You have a belief that God exists that seemingly overrides any ability you have to think critically about it.

But it's not a theory if God exists. So if I'm looking for evidence of God, I have to take that into consideration. If I simply push it to one side and say ''there is no evidence'' then I've effectively ignored information which is crucial to an honest investigation. Nothing meaningful will come of it. And if I do that knowingly, then I would be purposefully fooling myself.

It IS a theory if you don't know whether God exists or not. It only stops becoming a theory when you can prove that the alternatives are incorrect. And until then, while there are multiple theories in play, one accepts at a practical level that which they find most rational.
To accept that God exists (as a premise) and then to see that the "evidence fits", and then to believe in God as a result, is to dismiss the other alternative, that the premise is that God does not exist, and the "evidence fits" that premise as well.
So to come at the question with such a preconceived notion, or belief, is not something I do.
You do, though, or you seem to, and you reinforce that belief through seeing that the evidence fits your belief. And as a result you also seem incapable of even considering that alternative notions exist with as much support from the same evidence that fits your belief.

In what way does it fall short?

It postulates that for which I have no evidence that rationally and unambiguously supports the veracity of the postulate.

That's not an effect or consequence of God not existing. Try again.

No, Jan, you simply need to think critically, actually go through the thought experiment, and remove your preconceived belief from the equation. Can you do that? Or are you so wrapped up in your self-validating cycle of belief?

It doesn't address belief, only God.
My reasonable assumption is solid, whereas yours, is nothing but mine is reverse, and opposite to solid.

How £&@?ing childish do you want to get, Jan?
My assumption is simply not to have one to begin with regarding the nature of God's existence. Period. That is my starting point.

Oh! So it's God is unecessary now, is it?
So you don't think theists are open to the idea that God is unecessary?

You don't seem to be, given your inability to go through the logic of the thought experiment above without coming to a crashing halt whenever you're asked to think about the notion of God not actually existing.

''No God'' theory doesn't explain anything, it simply denies God. That said, there's nothing to discuss. We are talking about God, not no God.

They are the two sides of the same coin! Whenever you talk about whether something exists or not, of course you have to consider the option of it not-existing. Why is this so hard for you to fathom, or is it simply another evasion tactic?

Nonsense. Man may have penned the scriptures, but it is not simply the thoughts of men, and to write it off as that shows that you haven't really taken them in or tried to meaningfully grasp what is being said.

And what support do you have for them being "not simply the thoughts of men"? Would it perchance be the scriptures themselves? Your belief?
And you claim you're not in a cycle of believing, yet everything you say suggests otherwise, although it is clearly apparent you are not aware of it, nor seem to have the capacity to appreciate it.

My theism isn't necessary in this discussion. Why do you keep wanting to drag it in?

It is necessary, as explained previously. You argued what would be reasonable if God exists, and since you believe God exists you must believe that which you think is reasonable.
This then keeps going counter to what you also claim, creating contradictions.
So yes, it is necessary. A please stop wondering why I dragged it in.

Is it not a reasonable assumption?
If not, why?

It is a reasonable assumption, if God exists, and thus since you believe in God you clearly believe the assumption.
And this creates contradictions with what else you claim, but not does it actually speak to the veracity of the premise that God actually exists.

Which is why you should study something like the BG.

Yet me studying it isn't going to improve your apparently woeful ability to think critically.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Why must be this the case?

You tell me, you're the one who said:
"we extrapolate from what we do know for the purpose at hand."

Is nuclear physics instinctively known about, even though the ideas around it were generated from extrapolation and manipulation of existing ideas?

It was discovered through the process of scientic methodology, a different process than instinct.
Everyone pass a certain age has an idea of God, in at least one of God's aspects. Is it reasonable to assume that God is more than some made up character?
Why is ''God is a made up character'' any more reasonable?

And it is not "know God" but "know the concept of God"...

Not by all accounts.
But you know this how?

Do we or do we not know that, as experienced, effects are generally caused?

Our experience tells us effects are caused.

Thus we can extrapolate to the notion of a first cause.

Why do we?
We don't ordinarily extrapolate things things to their first cause.

Do we or do we not know that some things are "greater" than others?
Tis we can extrapolate to the notion of that which is greatest

Again, we don't generally do that. We don't extrapolate God as the fastest, from Usain Bolt. We simply accept that Bolt is currently the greatest sprinter on the planet. No need extrapolate further. See?

Do we or do we not recognise beneficial patterns, the cause of which we do not know?
And from this we can extrapolate the notion of a benevolent watcher / causer of those patterns.

Maybe you do (whatever floats your boat i say), I don't, and I don't know anyone that does.

Are we not often affected by that which we can not see?
And from that we can extrapolate the notion of the non-material / spirit.

We are affected by lots of things we can't see, it would be tedious going through the process of ascribing non material spirits to everything.
As a species, we just tend to get on with our lives, and try and live them as best we can. That's the general mindset.

Intelligent nonsense is one thing, but your nonsense is evidence of nothing but your blinkered thinking and your inability to think critically on this matter.

My thinking is very critical on this matter. Thank you very much.

There are many, all as unscientific as the theory that God exists. But they all give rise to the various notions that the universe has no intelligence behind it, that there was no ultimate cause of all, no benevolent creator etc.

Name one theory that shows evidence of No God. I'm not interested in explanations or extrapolations, just theories that show evidence of No God. Thanks.

How precious.You claim "everything is evidence" of God

I said: It is reasonable to assume that if God exists, everything is evidence. That is my claim. Now please deal with it.

then you claim God is transcendental,

I haven't made the claim. God IS transcendental by all accounts, including His own (be He fictional or non fictional).

now you claim there is no scientific evidence of God.

I've looked, and haven't found any, plus I don't see how science can ever get information about something that is outside of it's radar (so to speak). At best science can explain the workings of the effects.

I am including your theism because it is pertinent to understanding your reasoning.

My reasoning, is the "reasonable assumption", which does not require us to discuss my personal belief, or anyone else's. It simply exposes that lack of thought, and the intention of the absurd explanations. I'm not really interested, for the purpose of this discussion, in discussing the existence of God.

Just provide what evidence you can... however you want to define it, whatever you want to call it, whether it is scientific or not.

I've given you your first instruction, go and read the BG, comprehend who and what God is, get a load of the claims that God makes, then get back to me. If you want evidence of God, then you must lose your current idea of God.

...

 

[Jan Ardena]

...

There need be no approval. One accepts the proposal (of what X is) and only then can one dismiss it, and choose to believe that it exists or not.

It is not acceptance if there is no approval or favour. I didn't accept it because I saw it for what it was/is.

And this is you simply being dishonest, by crying foul when there is none, in an effort to evade.

How can it be dishonest if I'm being honest, and I know I'm being honest.

And yet more contradictions, given that you have previously argued that there is only one correct understanding of God (yours). And now you are claiming that there can be multiple understandings?

I'm saying that although you are you, you also have these various other aspects. Each aspect is known by some people, the complete you is not known by someone unless you make the effort to reveal all the other aspects. But we can understand that you one person with different aspects, or we can simply accept you as the ''doctor'', and have no knowledge of you outside of that.

The notion of God comes before scriptures. Scriptures are merely a written text. Or are you proposing the scriptures sprung into being and brought with them the notion?

It didn't start out as writing, they were passed down aurally before that.

As for deism, don't confuse it with pantheism. Deism is not the belief that the universe is God.

Fair enough. Do they still believe God created the universe?
Is that one of the claims God makes?

To claim all notions of God are inspired by the scriptures is no different than claiming that all notions of superman are inspired by the 1978 film... i.e. Choosing to ignore that it, too, was based on a concept that had developed over time leading up to that point.

Actually I can see how Superman would have been inspired by aspects of God.

But it's obvious that they are. I'm surprised that you find objection to that.

Merely writing it down first does not mean that it is the source of the concept. Many would argue that man is the source, and through man's interaction with other men and with the environment it developed a notion that attempted to cover all bases, and was then written down.

You're just basically inventing a story, and then convincing yourself that it's true, therefore you never have to study, or just read a scripture without bias. If these men who wrote the texts did it out of their own imagination, then these guys are supermen, because the content is so complete within itself, and so informitive of things that couldn't have been known at that time without the aid of scientific instruments, that it beggars belief.

Yep, I can do that with scriptures, and show that the source of the notion of God is Man... As he wrote it down.
You would be correct with your comparison if the earliest documents containing superman somehow suggested that it was based on a real person that could fly, with super powers etc.

I am correct with my comparison, and we both know it.

So you keep saying, yet you appear utterly unable to deal with the contradictions this raises with much of what you otherwise say, not least that you seem not to take it as logically implying that you believe everything is evidence of God.

It doesn't matter whether I imply it or not, it is not relevant to the reasonable assumption.
From the reasonable assumption, you cannot say that there is no evidence of God, unless you change the definitions and claims of God to suit you conclusion. No need to bring my theism into this.

The Bhagavad Gita is not evidence... It is a book that some deem holy.

But the answers to the questions you and others keep asking, regarding how God interacts with matter, is in there. It is explained far better than I could. So if your questions are sincere, then you will find the answers in there.

And I've already instructed you to think critically.

My thinking is very critical on this subject matter.
Study the BG, then you'll have a much clearer of where I'm coming from.

I have studied the Bible. And I'm sure if I believed in God I would it and the other scriptures most enlightening as a means of reinforcing that belief.

Why are you sure?

But your very attitude in this regard appears to me to be indicative of your utter inability to provide me with anything that does not rely on a pre-existing belief in its veracity.

You've asked me a question regarding God's interaction with matter, and I'm simply pointing you to an answer. And this is all the thanks I get? Sheesh!

I do not have that belief. There is nothing in the scriptures that can thus lead me to conclude that God necessarily exists.

Scriptures aren't about belief in God. At least you can know what and who God is, and you can get to grips with His claims. In this way you can decide if there is or isn't evidence of God. But at present your cry of ''no evidence'' is simply a dogmatic reaction to question of God.

It speaks to a possible reason why people cling to the belief in what may not exist.

It say's nothing about God. At least understand who and what God is (fiction/non-fiction).
You accuse me of not thinking critically, and I accuse you of not knowing the subject matter enough to make these sweeping statements.
When I speak about God in this discussion, it is based on something. When you speak about God, period, it is based on nothing but bits and pieces of ideas thrown together to make a strawman, so you can comfortably deny him/it, and remain in your constructed, reasonable bubble.

Regarding logical fallacies, you use them to prevent you from answering question.
When talking about God, we have to use logic differently because of the nature of what we are discussing. The main thing to be aware of is that God has no duality, God just is, and everything is because of Him. That's not my definition, but God's definition (fictional or non fictional). As long as you maintain you understanding of God within the limitations scientific discovery, you will never have a full conception of God, and therefore your cry of ''no evidence'' is no more than a cry.

And you have the audacity to accuse me of hiding, of being stubborn, and atheists of being close-minded!

Who the cap fits..

...