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

[spidergoat]

If God exists, what wasn't evidence before is still not evidence.

 

[Sarkus]

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

To which you claimed: "So we must instinctevely know God, if we extrapolate concepts from what we know."
I asked you why must be the case, and you want me to answer this question for you???
Why must we instinctively know God if all concepts are merely extrapolations? I even gave you an example where it is not the case, so now I am asking you to support your claim.

It was discovered through the process of scientic methodology, a different process than instinct.

Instinct is not knowledge. Instinct is a reaction to a perceived notion. It does not validate the actuality of that notion.

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?

Because the existence of God is not needed in order to explain that which we can observe and interact with.

Not by all accounts.
But you know this how?

I know that it must be that if I am not to beg the question with unwarranted assumptions.

Our experience tells us effects are caused.
...
Why do we?
We don't ordinarily extrapolate things things to their first cause.

And professional sprinters don't sprint everywhere.
If one is talking about the very notion of cause and effect then the question of the initial cause is an inevitability.

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?

No, we don't generally do it. It only has to happen once and take root. Our ancestors look at what they can not understand, and imagine that someone more powerful than them is controlling things (like the weather, the seasons etc). And from there they compare notions ("Mine is bigger than yours" etc) until one says that their's is the greatest. Etc.

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

Actually it's you that does, and me that doesn't. You do, after all, believe in God and claim that everything is evidence of God.
Plus I'm not talking about individuals in current society, but the evolution of thoughts and ideas over thousands of years in our past, giving rise to the notions we have now.

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.

It is now, yes. But we're talking about the evolution of ideas from the earliest times of being self-aware, not the present situation.

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

Try to demonstrate some critical thinking then. And just to be clear, i'm not talking about being decisive, or it being crucial to you.

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.

Sure, and I'll use one that follows your rationale: "God does not exist. We exist. Therefore God did not create us and could not have created everything. Therefore everything that exists is evidence that God does not exist."

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

If you claim that X=2, and you have also separately claimed that X+2 = Y, then in claiming X=2 you are also claiming that Y=4. If you then claim that Y=3 you are offering contradictory claims.
This is what you have done, and you seem incapable of understanding it, let alone accepting it.
You claim that it is reasonable to assume that if God exists, everything is evidence.
You also believe that God exists.
Therefore, being the reasonable chap you are, you believe that everything is evidence.
Why do you dispute that this is your claim? Or do you think that only what you actually write should be used, and not what can be logically drawn from what you write??

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

You surely realise that typing "God IS transcendental" you are claiming that God is transcendental???
And then you say you haven't made the claim??
Why are you so contradictory, and openly so?

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.

And how they arise from the cause, yes. Yet you claim everything is evidence. So how is scientific evidence suddenly not evidence?

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.

Sure, you can ignore issues of the existence of God, but since the thread is about the views that the atheist has of the evidence supporting the existence of God, it does raise the question of why you're on this thread at all.

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.

You mean God isn't the origin of all???
And then tell me why the concept of God I will garner from the BG is true, and why it is not simply a self-reinforcing unfalsifiable notion that ultimately offers nothing?
Oh, and go and learn how to think critically, comprehend what it means, how to apply it, then get back to me.

 

[Sarkus]

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.

I'll ask again, because it's getting tiresome having to work out which definition of a word you're going to go with despite knowing the context, but is English your first language?

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

If it's not dishonesty then it stems from your lack of being able to think critically, rationally, reasonably about notions. Apologies if I therefore overestimated you in that regard.

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.

And yet what happens when two people have mutually exclusive notions of who I am: one claims I am a black-haired doctor, the other claims I am a red-haried professor. Deism does not hold with a God that is in any way active within the universe. You do. Mutual exclusivity. Shock!

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

Indeed, that is how the idea evolved up to the point it was written down, and then subsequently adopted as scripture for those that believe it to be so.

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

The Deistic God makes no claims. It is not active within the universe. It is a mutually exclusive version of God in such matters to yours.

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.

Oh, argument from personal incredulity 101.
There's really not much else to be said about your comment.

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

As already explained, you're not. But if your only recourse is such childish responses, then it speaks to your (lack of) abilities to actually argue your point.

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.

And as already explained, many times, to conclude as you do you need to look at the premise in isolation of other theories, such as the theory that God does not exist. And lo and behold, all the evidence also fits that theory.
Your acceptance of one theory over the other, without even having the capacity to address the other issue, is simply gross bias on your part.

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.

It certainly claims that that is how God does it, but it is subject to the same issues of circularity - you need to believe it to believe the evidence is evidence etc.

Why are you sure?

I have seen it in others.

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!

Which is caught up in the circularity of belief. Yes, it can provide an explanation, I have no doubt of that. But that is all it can do... it can not support it, other than with evidence that requires you to be in the circle of belief in order to accept it, as you do, of being evidence (that does not also act as evidence for the alternatives).

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.

No, it's not. I have studied the Bible. Are you claiming the Bible is not scripture?

It say's nothing about God. At least understand who and what God is (fiction/non-fiction).

It doesn't need to. It does what it says on the tin.

You accuse me of not thinking critically, and I accuse you of not knowing the subject matter enough to make these sweeping statements.

I know the subject matter, the subject matter being what I perceive as being evidence for the existence of God. What of that do you not understand?

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.

So you would prefer me to express belief in that which you claim I do not know anything about? You would prefer to me say that I have evidence of that which you say I have the wrong conceptualisation of? How rational would either of those make me??
So why can't you accept that I (and other like-minded atheists) have no concept on which to assess whether or not we have any evidence, and as a result we conclude we have nothing on which to base a belief in the existence of that for which we have no concept? And as such the analogy to the teapot is accurate with regard the level of evidence, albeit we at least have a concept of a celestial teapot.

Regarding logical fallacies, you use them to prevent you from answering question.

I don't use them. I spot them and don't allow myself to be drawn into them.

When talking about God, we have to use logic differently because of the nature of what we are discussing.

Utter &%$*!! Special pleading of the highest order. You are simply excusing your belief on applying logic differently, and actually implying that God is illogical.
And you still expect me to take you seriously?

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.

Whether it is merely a cry or not, if it accurately reflects what we understand of our position then the analogy to the teapot is valid in describing our understanding of our position.
Period.

Who the cap fits..

The saying is "IF the cap fits..."
But thanks for supporting your claim with such profound insights.

I think we're done here.
You concluded the discussion when you claimed "we have to use logic differently...".
With that you demonstrated amply that you are really just a chess-playing pigeon.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If God exists, what wasn't evidence before is still not evidence.

Don't get you.

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Don't get you.

jan.

I was tempted to say you never will get it but I actually cannot know that any more than you know gods exist.
Many atheists were once very much like you.
OR very much like you pretend to be.

 

[Seattle]

Jan, you claim that children past a certain age know the characteristics of God.

Only in the sense that they "know" the characteristics of Santa.

These aren't real characteristics of anything. Whether God exists or not, we wouldn't know the characteristics of God.

Maybe there is a God in a spiritual world but since we are in a material world we have no way to know if God exists, if a spiritual world exists or what characteristics God would have if God should exist.

You "know' the characteristics of God in the same way that we "know" the characteristics of Superman. Superman doesn't exist and any characteristics that we "know" were made up by man...just like God.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

I'll ask again, because it's getting tiresome having to work out which definition of a word you're going to go with despite knowing the context, but is English your first language?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accept

And yet what happens when two people have mutually exclusive notions of who I am: one claims I am a black-haired doctor, the other claims I am a red-haried professor. Deism does not hold with a God that is in any way active within the universe. You do. Mutual exclusivity. Shock!

Who goes round making such claims? People generally accept the relationship for what it is.
Deism believes in a creator of the universe. Only God holds that title, and
God explains how.
Where are likely to find that explanation?
That's right. In the scriptures!
And where do you think they got the notion from?
That's right. In the scriptures!

Indeed, that is how the idea evolved up to the point it was written down, and then subsequently adopted as scripture for those that believe it to be so.

As usual, you're wrong.
It is a devolutionary process.

The Deistic God makes no claims.

Of course the deist God makes claims, but the deists refuses His and scriptural authority.

It is not active within the universe.
It is a mutually exclusive version of God in such matters to yours.

It is the same God, but a different aspect. It could be likened to Brahman.

As already explained, you're not. But if your only recourse is such childish responses, then it speaks to your (lack of) abilities to actually argue your point.

I know you know you know I'm correct with my comparison, but don't worry about it.

And as already explained, many times, to conclude as you do you need to look at the premise in isolation of other theories, such as the theory that God does not exist.

It's not a theory, as there is no effects to show God does not exist. It is your way of trying avoid facing the reality of exposing your belief system as a whimsical one, based on nothing but an idea of oneself being correct.

And lo and behold, all the evidence also fits that theory.

Seeing as Water Cress does not take long to grow shoots, I'm going to conduct a little experiment. I'm going to plant no Water Cress. I'll keep you posted of its development.

Your acceptance of one theory over the other, without even having the capacity to address the other issue, is simply gross bias on your part.

It's not a theory. It's a cop out.
Your belief system is revealed.

It certainly claims that that is how God does it, but it is subject to the same issues of circularity - you need to believe it to believe the evidence is evidence etc.

I didn't say it was evidence. Again you distort. It comes naturally with you. Doesn't it?
Any questions you may have about how God creates the universe, how God interacts with the universe, and so on, the answers can be found in scriptures. I clearly said you are not under any obligation to believe it. But you will, if you're honest have to take another look at your claims of no evidence. Or just stay wilfully ignorant.

Which is caught up in the circularity of belief.

No it's not.
Don't be afraid dear Sarkus, the words won't jump out of the book and force you into submission.

Yes, it can provide an explanation, I have no doubt of that. But that is all it can do...

Then it should alter or change your current the notion of what constitutes evidence for God's existence.

it can not support it, other than with evidence that requires you to be in the circle of belief in order to accept it, as you do, of being evidence (that does not also act as evidence for the alternatives).

You don't know that untill you comprehend it (at least), otherwise you're just exhibiting a dogmatic fear of theism (which explains your atheism, but that's a different thread)
Fear not, Sarkus.

No, it's not. I have studied the Bible. Are you claiming the Bible is not scripture?

When I first started to enquire about what and who God is, I read the Bible a good few times, but it didn't explain in much detail who and what God is, so my interest in what and who God is, started to fade. It wasn't until I read the BG, that I had a clear comprehension of who and what God is. Now when I read the Bible it makes alot more sense. So from my experience, I cannot confirm that the Bible works in the form of an analytical tool, right off the bat.

I know the subject matter, the subject matter being what I perceive as being evidence for the existence of God. What of that do you not understand?

Only the notion of you knowing the subject matter. If that is true then you confirm your wilful iognorance.

So you would prefer me to express belief in that which you claim I do not know anything about?

Yet another aversion.
I would prefer you to know what the claims of God are, so that you can see if your no evidence claim is right.
You don't have to believe. But if you're really worried, wear a tin foil hat.

You would prefer to me say that I have evidence of that which you say I have the wrong conceptualisation of? How rational would either of those make me??

You cannot explain what would constitute evidence for God's existence, because you have no concept of what God's existence entails.
You don't want to enquire as to what God's existence entails because you fear you will have to believe. So you bypass enquiry with the notion, God can just as easily be non existent as He can be existent, you simply choose non existent (no God), and voila! Now you can define God how you like, and lo and behold, there is no evidence for God.

So why can't you accept that I (and other like-minded atheists) have no concept on which to assess whether or not we have any evidence, and as a result we conclude we have nothing on which to base a belief in the existence of that for which we have no concept?

Again. I'm not talking about belief. If you don't believe in God, that's your business.
What is it you have no concept of, exactly?

I don't use them. I spot them and don't allow myself to be drawn into them.

If you accept the reasonable assumption, is it not logical to assume that our previous notions of God has to be suspended, and also previous notions of His effects. Not forgotten, or disgarded, but suspended. Why? So that we can understand what is being said without interuption. Then, when you have sufficent understanding, you make a statement, or conclusion based on what you understand. Your tedious use of logical fallacies, as I said allows you to not have to face anything that challenges your belief system. You claim I am using circular reasoning by stating one has to believe in order to believe, so you have to bring other elements into the discussion (my theism) to bolster that claim. But despite me telling you that is not how it goes, you still insist that I believe to believe. The long and short of it is, you need to have that in there so you can derail things that expose your weakness.

Utter &%$*!! Special pleading of the highest order. You are simply excusing your belief on applying logic differently, and actually implying that God is illogical.
And you still expect me to take you seriously?

It would be special pleading if I couldn't justify the exception. I think the reasonable assumptiom justifies God as an exception. Don't you?
God's claims require more than the scientific method to investigate. Period.

Whether it is merely a cry or not, if it accurately reflects what we understand of our position then the analogy to the teapot is valid in describing our understanding of our position.
Period.

Of course it's valid. It's neatly designed to be.
But in reality, it is an important psychological process that keeps you ignorant of what an who God is. And you have demonsrated that ignorance in this dicussion.

And as such the analogy to the teapot is accurate with regard the level of evidence, albeit we at least have a concept of a celestial teapot.

"I can see the teapont with my eyes, therefore the teapot exists".
"I can't see God, therefore God does not exist".

The saying is "IF the cap fits..."
But thanks for supporting your claim with such profound insights.

Actually my quote came from the Bob Marley song entitled "Who The Cap Fit".

I think we're done here.

You were done the moment you realized your claim of no evience is nothing but a defence mechanism.

You concluded the discussion when you claimed "we have to use logic differently...".
With that you demonstrated amply that you are really just a chess-playing pigeon.

And you are in denial.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

"God's claims require more than the scientific method to investigate."

How do you know?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Seattle,

Jan, you claim that children past a certain age know the characteristics of God.

I don't remember saying that. Are you referring to ''most people past a certain age have a concept of God"?

Only in the sense that they "know" the characteristics of Santa.

What sense is that?

These aren't real characteristics of anything. Whether God exists or not, we wouldn't know the characteristics of God.

What do you mean by "God"?

Maybe there is a God in a spiritual world but since we are in a material world we have no way to know if God exists, if a spiritual world exists or what characteristics God would have if God should exist.

How have you arrived at this conclusion?

You "know' the characteristics of God in the same way that we "know" the characteristics of Superman. Superman doesn't exist and any characteristics that we "know" were made up by man...just like God.

So God does not exist?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

"God's claims require more than the scientific method to investigate."

How do you know?

Based on the reasonable assumption, God is more than His effects, just as you are more than the what you write on sciforums.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

How do you know that "more" means "beyond science"?

 

[Baldeee]

Have been following this debate with interest...
But I think these comments from Jan Ardena are quite telling:

When talking about God, we have to use logic differently because of the nature of what we are discussing.

This really is the crux: the apparent inability of ardent believers to remain logical when they try to explain their position.

It would be special pleading if I couldn't justify the exception. I think the reasonable assumptiom justifies God as an exception. Don't you?

Here we see an attempt to justify special pleading by recourse to the same thing that is being pleaded for... the use of illogic.
I'm sure Sarkus would agree that to assume that talk of God requires the acceptance of fallacious logic is in itself fallacious logic.

God's claims require more than the scientific method to investigate. Period.

While the scientific method need follow logic, not everything that follows logic need be scientific.
You commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
So please do not argue for the legitimacy of illogic by arguing with illogic.

But please carry on the discussion.
I await more such gems of insight into the theist thinking.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm sure Sarkus would agree that to assume that talk of God requires the acceptance of fallacious logic is in itself fallacious logic.

Indeed I would.

 

[spidergoat]

Based on the reasonable assumption, God is more than His effects, just as you are more than the what you write on sciforums.

jan.

How do you know God has "effects"? Any effect means the phenomenon is subject to empirical investigation.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Actually my quote came from the Bob Marley song entitled "Who The Cap Fit".

No, it didn't.

You were done the moment you realized your claim of no evience is nothing but a defence mechanism.

You were done the moment you committed to believing bullshit.

And you are in denial.

That is proof, along with more than half of what you say, that you are in denial.

 

[Seattle]

Jan say's
"It's not a theory, as there is no effects to show God does not exist."

How can the lack of something have "effects"?

My, and presumably your, hypothesis of "There is no evidence for unicorns" while true, presents no "effects" for its non-existence.

Actually, the whole material world (which is all that we know to exist) presents nothing but evidence for God's non-existence since God isn't necessary for anything that we see.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

God isn't necessary for anything that we see.

I think you mean for anything we detect or perceive. Not to be too picky but I don't want her to think she has reason to babble about things we cannot see yet we know exist.

 

[Seattle]

I think you mean for anything we detect or perceive. Not to be too picky but I don't want her to think she has reason to babble about things we cannot see yet we know exist.

You are correct as to my meaning however I don't think Jan is a woman.

 

[Jan Ardena]

How do you know that "more" means "beyond science"?

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions
b. The force, effect,or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

science
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

You do the math.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

So words in a dictionary mean something is true?
leprechaun

[lep-ruh-kawn, -kon]
noun, Irish Folklore.
1.a dwarf or sprite.
2. a conventionalized literary representation of this figure as a little old man who will reveal the location of a hidden crock of gold to anyone who catches him.

You follow the rainbow.