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

[Pachomius]

Dear everyone, thanks for your participation in this thread.


I can’t react to all of you, so I choose to react to those who take up my posts; and also when I find someone with a most intriguing idea like that of Spidergoat with his statement of an example of a thing with a beginning but no cause, namely, virtual particles popping in and out from nothing without cause, then I love to exchange ideas with him, for I am of the opposite view, namely, there is nothing with a beginning that is without a cause.

But Spidergoat has not taken up his idea again on virtual particles, at least he has not attended to that idea anymore; and my post to him last time is an invitation for him and me to resume the matter of virtual particles popping in and out from nothing without cause.

Then there is Motor Daddy who wants to talk about distance which to him is distinct from space, and also infinity; but when I asked him to produce his concepts of distance and of infinity, he chose to keep mum in his recent post to me on that matter; instead he complained that I do not observe the 'right' way to reproduce a quote -- end result with him is that he said he would not interact with me anymore. So be it.


Today I see three posters who take to react to my ideas.

From StrangerInAStrangeLa, Yesterday at 6:26 PM Post #372

Pachomius said:

I have this idea that man can start with a statement like the following:

There has always existed something.


And think on facts and logic to come to the existence of God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

What facts? Facts like the nose in our face, it has a beginning.

And what logic? Logic like this thought, everything with a beginning has a cause.

And that is why I want to ask how Spidergoat explains his example of something with a beginning but no cause, namely, virtual particles which pop in and out from nothing without cause. […]​

If something always existed, there is no need for gods to explain it.​

In the status of things in which there is only one thing or entity in it, then the something always existing is God.

Now in the status of things in which status the universe exists, studied by scientists and concluded on by scientists to have a beginning in space and in time; then the status of things houses two parts: the part that always exists, God in concept the creator and operator of the universe, and the universe the creation of God.

Seattle, Yesterday at 7:02 PM Post #373

Pachomius, the problem is that you are trying to prove that there is a God and that this God is as you define God and you insist on basing it on whether our concept of cause and effect applies.

Who knows? Maybe everything needs a cause (but it doesn't need to be a god) and maybe it doesn't. We don't know and neither do you.

[...]
​

In sum, you deny that there is causation or causality; suppose you tell readers here who brought you to this world?

Sarkus, Yesterday at 8:02 PM Post #374

Pachomius said:

And what logic? Logic like this thought, everything with a beginning has a cause.​

That is not logic; that is (as currently worded) merely a claim. It may act as premise for a logical argument, however. But in isolation it is not an example of logic.
​

Okay, you give me an example of logic, if everything with a beginning has need of a cause is not an example of logic.



I hope to read your posts reacting to my present posts to you three.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Today I see three posters who take to react to my ideas.


From StrangerInAStrangeLa, Yesterday at 6:26 PM Post #372

Pachomius said:

I have this idea that man can start with a statement like the following:

There has always existed something.


And think on facts and logic to come to the existence of God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

What facts? Facts like the nose in our face, it has a beginning.

And what logic? Logic like this thought, everything with a beginning has a cause.

And that is why I want to ask how Spidergoat explains his example of something with a beginning but no cause, namely, virtual particles which pop in and out from nothing without cause. […]
If something always existed, there is no need for gods to explain it.

In the status of things in which there is only one thing or entity in it, then the something always existing is God.

Now in the status of things in which status the universe exists, studied by scientists and concluded on by scientists to have a beginning in space and in time; then the status of things houses two parts: the part that always exists, God in concept the creator and operator of the universe, and the universe the creation of God.

Scientists have not concluded the universe has a beginning. The currently accepted theory is the current condition & form of our universe had a beginning.
Either way, you are trying to insert gods where they do not fit.
Either everything has a cause or not everything has a cause. IF the universe requires a cause, gods require a cause.
Gods do not explain anything. At best, they simply bring up more unanswered questions without answering anything.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Maybe God exists because he doesn't? Or maybe he doesn't exist because he does???

Yes. Or maybe it exists 1 day yet not the next. Maybe god is a solid liquid gas square triangle. Maybe rape, murder & child abuse are good yet we are too evil to understand.
Maybe god will reward atheists & punish theists.
Maybe Pi is 9.9 & 3 - 3 = 11. Maybe we should all throw in the towel & play Follow The Lemming.
IF god is illogical, no 1 can know any damn thing about it.

 

[Seattle]

This is just a general statement but it's generally applicable to these arguments. Logic doesn't prove anything and is often misused in these arguments. An argument can be logical without being true.

Since the facts (God's existence) hasn't been shown then any logical statements are just that...logic of the argument but no evidence of truth of the argument.

Example. If pigs can fly and if everything with a curly tail is a pig then a dog with a curly tail should be able to fly.

It's logical to say that dogs (with a curly tail) can fly based on the above argument but that says nothing about the truth of the underlying argument.

Any logical argument regarding cause and effect is not going to prove the existence of God. In this case before worrying about logic one needs to establish that God does exist and the cause and effect is applicable to this scenario...neither of which have been done.

 

[Seattle]

Pachomius, what brought me into this world has no baring on the origin of our universe. I've explained the QM version of how something can come from "nothing". There is also the possibility that the universe has always existed or that whatever lead to the Big Bang always existed.

As was already pointed out by others, inserting God into the chain of events does nothing. Saying "I don't know" or saying "God did it" is the same thing essentially because "God" can be defined to mean anything (or nothing).

 

[Jan Ardena]

Baldee,

True: if there is no evidence of God then there can logically be no evidence that claims attributed to him do actually come from God.

What if there's a ''claim of no evidence'' of God, which is what I actually said, does the rest of you sentence still stand?

First, let me clarify: by saying that there is "no evidence" I mean that I am not aware of evidence that only supports one notion rather than competing and mutually exclusive notions.
So if the evidence I am aware of supports the notion of God existing as well as the notion of God not existing, I do not consider it as evidence for either notion.
I hope that is clear enough for you.

But what exactly are you aware of?

You have stated that you have to use logic differently when discussing God.
This is special pleading.

I explained what I was trying to put across. I don't claim to be a great writer, or thinker, and am not as astute as some in those areas. So to hold
me to that, after I clarified what I meant, is just plain... not very nice.

If you claim category error then the onus is on you to show how it is INDEED a category error.

The scientific method, is based on logic and observations of the material universe and its properties, and as such does not include properties such as transcendance, or anything that is considered outside of this universe. God is necessarily transcendant, and therefore not within the scope of the scientific method. So to ask me to provide unambiguous evidence of God's existence, using methods that are purely concerned with what occurs only within the universe is a category error.

Since you can not prove that it is a category error but merely repeat your claim that it is, the fallacy you would accuse others of is as likely to be yours.

Nice try, but no cigar.

If two people think a door opens different ways, until the door is actually opened (i.e. proven) it is difficult to say who is right and who is wrong.
So rather than being a category error, as you claim, it merely seems to be a fundamental difference between what you would class as evidence and what others do.

You are slick, I'll give you that.
There is nothing contradictory about opening doors. Doors are there to be opened and closed. You're merely describing a difference of opinion based on experience. .

Being aware of what may seem to be illogical is not the same as using logic differently.
Using logic differently is still special pleading.

Yes, but I've since explained what I meant by what I said. So now you know that I mean one must be aware of the seemingly illogic nature of God.
Can't you just work with that?

Being aware of what might seem illogical, unless it can be shown to actually be logical, will be understood as illogical.

Initially yes, untill further understanding. If such understanding arises, then what was understood to be illogical, can now be understood to be logic that one was unawares of before. This is how we naturally obtain knowledge.
IOW, you're acknowledging me when I say that one has to be prepared to come into contact with what seems illogical.
So you being aware of no evidence, is not a case of no actual evidence, but a case of not understanding what evidence should entail.

At some point you do have to show how what was considered illogical is in fact logical.

One doesn't have to show another, how being in love exists, because they fail to understand, how it could...
If one serious, and honest, then one has show that to oneself, because there are different levels of understanding.

You can try to argue ad hominem if you so wish, but the fallacies identified of you have mostly, it seems, been explained.

No they haven't explained them. I don't even think they have bothered to try and comprehend where I'm coming from.

For the first: it can do.
You just need to set up premises that allow that to be a logical conclusion.
The issue will undoubtedly be when you try and demonstrate the soundness of those premises.

It is the soundness of the premise that is of particular interest. How would that be possible to demonstrate, using the scientific method?
Why would a scientist even attempt to demonstrate that? My point is, if the limitation you put on understanding, does not accept the notion of the proposal, one cannot honestly claim that there is no evidence, unless one accepts the notion to be non existent. You're the one making the claim.

For the second: I personally don't come to that conclusion.
As clarified above: I am merely not aware of anything I would consider evidence for God that does not equally support the scenario of there being no God.

What would you consider evidence for God, and what consideration(s) lead you to not be aware of evidence for God?

He does?

Yes. He is transcendental (by all accounts).

You have?

Yes. My reasonable assumption, all accounts, including the primary dictionary definitions, wikipedia, etc.. and God's claim.

So you are special pleading?

No I'm not. I'm defining God, through various sources. All of them define Him as transcendental, they all define Him as the creator of the material world, and all it's inhabitants, and they all define Him as omniscient.

You want us to accept that God defies logic but nothing else can: special pleading.

I said God seems to defy logic, and I gave you at least a couple of examples.

What you should be doing, if coming across an interpretation of an observation that can only be reached illogically from the premises given is to reassess the premises such that valid logic can give rise to the conclusion sought.

I do not know that it can only be reached illogically, and neither do you.

What we should not do is build "illogical nature" into the premise.

There is nothing illogical about preparing oneself for what may seem illogical based on our understanding of logic. e.

In summary, however, all I can see here, Jan Ardena, is a convoluted mess of an argument on your part, criticising people for calling you out on logical fallacies and then admitting that you have to use them because of "the illogical nature of God".

Do you think your limited sight stems from seeing only what you want to see?

Not because I want to discuss my own position on the matter, which is where I think you wish to draw it.

No worries.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

It's a claim attributed to Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. We can assume for the sake of argument that Krishna is the same being that's referred to as 'God' in some of the other monotheistic traditions, but we don't really know that.

At this stage claiming to know anything is premature.
What we can do is look at all the definitions of God, and see if Krishna fits them. At least we can determine if He is God by definition.

That question is ambiguous.

There's obviously evidence that a literary character said to be God says something like that in a particular Hindu book.

What we don't have is evidence that Krishna exists as more than a literary character and that what the book has him saying is true.

Why would you assume that there is no evidence, and what would you regard as credible evidence?

Explain what? That the book has its Krishna character saying that?

Explain how you conclude that there is no evidence of God.

The ancient Indians were doubtless aware of the fundamental metaphysical question: why is there something rather than nothing? And apparently somebody along the way associated whatever the answer is to that question with the protagonist in the Krishna myths. Identifying Krishna with the universe's ultimate principle was probably seen as the ultimate exultation of him, placing him above and before everything else.

That's one way of looking at it.
Try looking at it in a way that could be seen as Krishna is for real, and see what you come up with.

jan.

 

[Seattle]

Jan, you say that God is transcendent and that therefore the methods of science don't apply and that any evidence of God has to be other than that of the material world.

As far as we know the material world is all that there is. However, since we are of the material world, any evidence of a God would have to come through us (although some claim evidence of God is simply what we see as we look out the window).

So, there are plenty of occasions in the material world for science to be able to examine any evidence for God. It has to be more than "I feel God" however for it to be considered evidence for anyone other than yourself.

The real reason that many of us don't have any acceptible evidence for a God is that God is defined in such a nebulous way as to not be amenable to any testing.

You may take "answered" personal prayers as evidence for you. God is defined in such a way as to not require all prayers to be answered. That is the reason that scientific testing can't provide evidence for the existence of God.

If God was defined as a "spirit" that did consistently answer prayers then that's a falsifiable claim and it can be (and has been) tested.

So, there are plenty of chances to use science to test for God. It isn't done simply because no falsifiable claims are being made.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Seattle,

Jan, you say... and that any evidence of God has to be other than that of the material world.

I said that one has to take in who and what God i,s to determine what is and isn't evidence of God.

As far as we know the material world is all that there is.

You mean as far as you know. You can't just apply that to every human being without explaining how and why that is so.

However, since we are of the material world, any evidence of a God would have to come through us (although some claim evidence of God is simply what we see as we look out the window).

That's a really good point, but that equally applies with the notion of the claim of ''no evidence.

So, there are plenty of occasions in the material world for science to be able to examine any evidence for God.
It has to be more than "I feel God" however for it to be considered evidence for anyone other than yourself.

Science can examine the evidence, but it cannot assign the evidence to a transcendental agent.

The real reason that many of us don't have any acceptible evidence for a God is that God is defined in such a nebulous way as to not be amenable to any testing.

What is nebulous about the reasonable assumption, or Krishna's quote?

You may take "answered" personal prayers as evidence for you. God is defined in such a way as to not require all prayers to be answered. That is the reason that scientific testing can't provide evidence for the existence of God.

Then your position is one of non acceptance, not lack of evidence,

If God was defined as a "spirit" that did consistently answer prayers then that's a falsifiable claim and it can be (and has been) tested.

Is that evidence of no God? I don't think so.
How can you test to see if a prayer has been answered?
If someone prays for a car for tomorrow, and lo and behold they get a car tomorrow. Would you regard that as evidence for God's existence?
If that did occur, would you believe God exist, or would you require something more convincing?
In the same breath, if someone prayed for a car for tomorrow, but didn't get one. Would you regard that as no evidence for God's existence?

So, there are plenty of chances to use science to test for God. It isn't done simply because no falsifiable claims are being made.

There's nothing stopping it from testing, but it can conclude God, or no God.

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Seattle,


jan.

You may as well be farting into the wind. None of that crap matters as per your claim that some god(s) exists.
Show me a god or stand down. Any actual god will do.

 

[Seattle]

Jan, the standard falsifiable test for prayers being answered is a double blind test (where the test givers and subjects aren't aware of the parameters, control group,etc).

You take a group of medical patients that are terminally ill and when as a group you have a statistical idea of how long they should survive.

You pray for half of them and don't pray for the other half of them. The patients and the test organizers don't know which patients are being prayed for and which aren't.

Otherwise, there is a placebo effect just from that attention and knowledge. You also know, statistically, the degree to which random chance should be involved. You know the standard deviation of how long this group would survive.

If, after all of the praying, that group survives longer (to a statistically significant degree) than the control group then you have rejected the null hypothesis and provided some support for the alternative hypothesis (that prayers are answered).

This doesn't "prove' that their is a God. It leads support to that hypothesis and then this result needs to be reproducible by other independent researchers.

The process goes on and on until it reach a critical mass. If more trials testing other possible aspects of a God support the alternative hypothesis over the years this starts to lend support to a theory of God.

You could test "miracles". If miracles aren't happening to any statistical degree above what random chance would provide then that's not an indication of anything supernatural.

None of these types of studies ever meet the standard but if they were real they could and would be able to do that.

If I'm thinking about changing jobs, getting married, having a child and I pray to God for guidance all day and ask for a sign that what I'm thinking about doing is the right choice I'll find a sign if I'm a believer. If I'm not, I won't.

If I see a firefly, when it's generally too early in the season for them to be out, I'll take that as a sign.

If I'm not a believer I'll just take it for the firefly that it is.

You make a distinction that is nothing more than semantic (IMO) when you say that I see evidence but just don't accept it. I don't accept that your warm, fuzzy feeling is evidence for God. If you want to say I just don't accept it as evidence to me that's a distinction without meaning.

 

[Seattle]

By the way, I prayed to God for guidance as to the sex of Jan and for what country Jan comes from.

God answered my prayers by telling me that Jan is male and comes from Australia.

Shall I take this as evidence of God?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

By the way, I prayed to God for guidance as to the sex of Jan and for what country Jan comes from.

God answered my prayers by telling me that Jan is male and comes from Australia.

Shall I take this as evidence of God?

Which god(s)?
Cthulhu?

 

[Baldeee]

Okay, you give me an example of logic, if everything with a beginning has need of a cause is not an example of logic.

Logic would follow some notion of there being premises followed by a conclusion that validly follows from those premises.
In your example, what you might be looking for is:
P1: Everything has a beginning.
P2: If something has a beginning it has need of a cause.
C1: Therefore Everything has need of a cause.

I do not want to put words into your mouth, but the above might be an example of the logic you are taking.
If so then there will be issues with your desire to keep God out of "everything".
Hence the need to formulate your premises carefully if you are looking for a certain conclusion to be logical.
And then there will be the need to show how the premises are sound / true before the logical argument can be accepted as being sound rather than merely valid.

But to merely claim the conclusion is just that, a claim.
You may think you have arrived at it logically, and perhaps you have.
If so then you need to show us the logic behind the claim.

 

[Baldeee]

What if there's a ''claim of no evidence'' of God, which is what I actually said, does the rest of you sentence still stand?

Yes.
If they claim there is no evidence of God then they can not claim there is evidence of God's claims, as the latter would be evidence of the former.
So if they claim there is no evidence of God then they are also claiming that there is no evidence that God's claims actually came from God.

But what exactly are you aware of?

I am not here to be drawn into the issue as it pertains to me.

I explained what I was trying to put across. I don't claim to be a great writer, or thinker, and am not as astute as some in those areas. So to hold
me to that, after I clarified what I meant, is just plain... not very nice.

Then simply have the balls to say "Okay, I got that wrong, what I meant was...".
Rather than try to hide it under a clarification without actually retracting whatever it is that you didn't mean.
That way confusion lies.

The scientific method, is based on logic and observations of the material universe and its properties, and as such does not include properties such as transcendance, or anything that is considered outside of this universe. God is necessarily transcendant, and therefore not within the scope of the scientific method. So to ask me to provide unambiguous evidence of God's existence, using methods that are purely concerned with what occurs only within the universe is a category error.

As said, you need to show that it is a category error.
You have merely elaborated your claim that it is a difference of opinion of what constitutes acceptable evidence.
All this is, as you dismissed below, is two people arguing over which way a door opens.
"Evidence needs to be scientific!" (This is the claim that the door pushes open)
"No, evidence can be unscientific!" (This is the claim that the door pulls open)
Until the door is opened, how can one be sure which way the door opens?
There is thus no proof to the claim of category error.

Nice try, but no cigar.
You are slick, I'll give you that.
There is nothing contradictory about opening doors. Doors are there to be opened and closed. You're merely describing a difference of opinion based on experience.

Indeed we are talking about that.
As seemingly are you with what you claim as a category difference.
Unless you can demonstrate the soundness/truth of the claim?
But that won't happen until you can provide evidence of the transcendental.
Which is caught up in the same issues surrounding this whole debate.

Yes, but I've since explained what I meant by what I said. So now you know that I mean one must be aware of the seemingly illogic nature of God.
Can't you just work with that?

I can.
Being aware of any seemingly illogic nature of God does not excuse arguing with logical fallacies.

Initially yes, untill further understanding. If such understanding arises, then what was understood to be illogical, can now be understood to be logic that one was unawares of before. This is how we naturally obtain knowledge.

No.
Understanding comes through following valid logic from premises to conclusion.
If the only way to reach a given conclusion from a given set of premises is the use of illogic (or using an "appeal to an illogic nature") then either the conclusion is wrong or the the logic is invalid.
Understanding can not come from illogic.
Introducing an illogic nature as a premise is effectively to claim that you don't know.
If you do claim to know then it must be logical from the premises you provide.

IOW, you're acknowledging me when I say that one has to be prepared to come into contact with what seems illogical.
So you being aware of no evidence, is not a case of no actual evidence, but a case of not understanding what evidence should entail.

To have no understanding of what evidence of God would entail is consistent with them claiming not to be aware of having evidence.
And while something may seem illogical to me I will not comprehend it.
The onus is on you to explain why it is in fact logical, why it only seems illogical, given the premises you put forward.

One doesn't have to show another, how being in love exists, because they fail to understand, how it could...
If one serious, and honest, then one has show that to oneself, because there are different levels of understanding.

If you can not show then you abdicate any discussion until such time as the person experiences what you have experienced.
Yet you don't follow through on that.
You try to explain what you admit is not yet part of their experience.
You get drawn into lengthy discussions about it.
You get irritated by their inability to comprehend you.
Yet in your sentence above you have adequately explained, at least to yourself, why they don't and why it is pointless for you to try to explain.
Yet here you are.

No they haven't explained them. I don't even think they have bothered to try and comprehend where I'm coming from.

To the first: do you really want me to go through the thread and point out their explanations?
To the second: unfortunately they don't need to comprehend where you are coming from to identify fallacies in what you have said.

It is the soundness of the premise that is of particular interest. How would that be possible to demonstrate, using the scientific method?
Why would a scientist even attempt to demonstrate that? My point is, if the limitation you put on understanding, does not accept the notion of the proposal, one cannot honestly claim that there is no evidence, unless one accepts the notion to be non existent. You're the one making the claim.

If the scientific method can not demonstrate the soundness of the premise, and that is their primary tool for such, then you need to show them logically what will show it.
You haven't.
Until then it must surely be a case of "I don't know".
And if one does not know, how can one be aware of that which you are asking them?
Maybe there is confusion between what you understand as them saying "there is no evidence" and what they understand.
I can only tell you that when I say "there is no evidence..." it is meant as "I am not aware of any evidence..."

What would you consider evidence for God, and what consideration(s) lead you to not be aware of evidence for God?

I am not here to be drawn into the discussion about myself.
I do not hold particularly different views to others here, and I think you have covered this ground with them adequately.

Yes. He is transcendental (by all accounts).

How does this necessarily defy logic?

Yes. My reasonable assumption, all accounts, including the primary dictionary definitions, wikipedia, etc.. and God's claim.

How are definitions examples of defying logic?
These would be the premises on which you subsequently base arguments and reach conclusions.
It is those arguments, those conclusions that should remain logical.
You then need to show how those premises are sound, thus making the conclusions sound.
Otherwise you are left with at best a valid argument based on unproven premises.
So where have you shown how God defies logic?

No I'm not. I'm defining God, through various sources. All of them define Him as transcendental, they all define Him as the creator of the material world, and all it's inhabitants, and they all define Him as omniscient.

How are any of theses, in and of themselves, a matter of logic rather than just setting up a premise?
Show how God defies logic.
Also note, if the definitions of God include an illogic nature then you are special pleading, whether the cause of the fallacy is you or the premises you are using.

I said God seems to defy logic, and I gave you at least a couple of examples.

I can't see any.
You have provided premises / definitions.
You have not shown anywhere how God seems to defy logic.
I'm not saying he doesn't, only that you have not shown any examples.

I do not know that it can only be reached illogically, and neither do you.

As soon as you say that God seems to defy logic then you are opening that path.
Either God does defy logic (such that conclusions can only be reached illogically) or he does not.
If you are saying that you don't know then you open the possibility that God defies logic.
Which is practically the same, as at any time you can claim "the illogic nature of God" by way of explanation.

There is nothing illogical about preparing oneself for what may seem illogical based on our understanding of logic.

Our understanding of logic is reasonably good.
What is not so good is understanding the premises upon which that logic operates.
If the conclusion can not arise logically from the given premises then either the conclusion is wrong or the premises are wrong.

Do you think your limited sight stems from seeing only what you want to see?

My sight in such regards does not stem from any bias other than the desire to see arguments flow logically.
And is limited to broadly that direction.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Seatle,

This doesn't "prove' that their is a God. It leads support to that hypothesis and then this result needs to be reproducible by other independent researchers.

What was being prayed for?

ld test "miracles". If miracles aren't happening to any statistical degree above what random chance would provide then that's not an indication of anything supernatural.

If you wake up tomorrow an entirely different person, with a history that is as known to you as your current one is. And what ever you prayed for, as you are now, is present within this person. How would you be able to test the validity of the prayer being answered?

I saw a magician on TV turn orange squash into coca cola. How do you know that wasn’t real?

If I’m thinking about changing jobs, getting married, having a child and I pray to God for guidance all day and ask for a sign that what I'm thinking about doing is the right choice I'll find a sign if I'm a believer. If I'm not, I won't.

So what?

If I see a firefly, when it's generally too early in the season for them to be out, I'll take that as a sign.

And if you see an apparition of the virgin Mary, as an atheist you will not take it as a sign. Swings and roundabouts.

Your best off just understand who and what God is, and see what happens.

If I'm not a believer I'll just take it for the firefly that it is.

If I take my car to be fixed by a mechanic, all I care about at the end is having a working car. I don’t expect it to be turned into a Ferrari, or Rolls Royce. If I want to change my job, and start a family, then these I can do for myself.

You make a distinction that is nothing more than semantic (IMO) when you say that I see evidence but just don't accept it. I don't accept that your warm, fuzzy feeling is evidence for God. If you want to say I just don't accept it as evidence to me that's a distinction without meaning.

You don’t accept it. Fair enough. But you cannot claim there is no evidence for God, because you don’t accept the reasonable assumption, or any claim that God makes. But you cannot honestly claim that there is no evidence for God’s existence on the strength of mere non acceptance.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Baldee,

Yes.
If they claim there is no evidence of God then they can not claim there is evidence of God's claims, as the latter would be evidence of the former.

Claiming no evidence of God, and using that to claim there is no evidence of God's claim, implies that there can be no evidence of the latter because of the former, is nonsensical. It would make more sense if the claim for no evidence of God, was due to no evidence of His claims. But then you'd have to explain how that could be so.

Then simply have the balls to say "Okay, I got that wrong, what I meant was...".
Rather than try to hide it under a clarification without actually retracting whatever it is that you didn't mean.
That way confusion lies.

I didn't get it wrong, I merely worded it in such an ambiguous way, and I told you a number of time what I meant.
I've no need to hide my points.

As said, you need to show that it is a category error.
You have merely elaborated your claim that it is a difference of opinion of what constitutes acceptable evidence

God is necessarily transcendental. That is not an opinion.

Unless you can demonstrate the soundness/truth of the claim?
But that won't happen until you can provide evidence of the transcendental.

Oh! I get you. I must provide evidence transcendence, so that I can prove to you that atheist are completely illogical?
What evidence do atheists have that there is no transcendance? Or are they above needing to provide a logical basis for their illogic.

I can.
Being aware of any seemingly illogic nature of God does not excuse arguing with logical fallacies.

What logical fallacies am I arguing with?

No.
Understanding comes through following valid logic from premises to conclusion.

No It doesn't it comes through experience.
One can logically infer something based on ones experience.

Understanding can not come from illogic.
Introducing an illogic nature as a premise is effectively to claim that you don't know.
If you do claim to know then it must be logical from the premises you provide.

You're going to have to explain why you believe I am using illogic as a premise, argument, and as the basis to my understanding.
Because you're becoming tiresome with these baseless accusations.

To have no understanding of what evidence of God would entail is consistent with them claiming not to be aware of having evidence.
And while something may seem illogical to me I will not comprehend it.
The onus is on you to explain why it is in fact logical, why it only seems illogical, given the premises you put forward.

Why? I've made no claims, and given a reasonable assumption. The onus is on you to explain how it is you are not aware of any evidence of God, in light of the reasonalble assumption. I understand if you haven't got a logical basis to your claim, because I'm pretty sure it is an illogical claim which relies on category error.

If you can not show then you abdicate any discussion until such time as the person experiences what you have experienced.

Obviously. But you have to show them through reasonable assumptions, and examples of your own experience, and that of others, whom you can account for as being relatively truthfull, based on your own experience.

You try to explain what you admit is not yet part of their experience.

That's one scenario, but another scenario, and one that's relates to these discussions, is that they are arguing that there is no evidence that being in love exists. Then use anything they can to sheild themselves from reasonable assumptions, and testimonies from people with experience.

You get drawn into lengthy discussions about it.

I don't get drawn into it. I enjoy it.

You get irritated by their inability to comprehend you.

I haven't been irritated once in this thread. I think Strangers ignorance is an honest apraisal of the atheist position that maintain that God does not exist, or there is no evidence of God, or the new kid on the block, there is no awareness of evidence. I'm beginining to realise it's all the same thing with different titles.

Yet in your sentence above you have adequately explained, at least to yourself, why they don't and why it is pointless for you to try to explain.
Yet here you are.

Like a hot knife, on the butter of your special pleading, and category errors. Fun isn't it?

To the first: do you really want me to go through the thread and point out their explanations?

I've no doubt you will pull stuff out and claim fallacy, but like your claims here, they would be nothing but untruthfull accusations.

To the second: unfortunately they don't need to comprehend where you are coming from to identify fallacies in what you have said.

Oohfff! That was below the belt.
Excuse me while I look for my testicals, I'm sure one rolled under the table.

If the scientific method can not demonstrate the soundness of the premise, and that is their primary tool for such, then you need to show them logically what will show it.
You haven't.

How do you know I can't? You keep interupting the process with baseless accusation, plus you are scared shitless to explain the logical basis to your position.

Until then it must surely be a case of "I don't know".

Then how is it you are not aware of evidence of God?
Oops! Sorry You refuse to indulge.
Can somebody pick that up for him. Thanks.

How does this necessarily defy logic?

I didn't say God defies logic?
Next you'll be requesting me to stop beating my wife.

You have not shown anywhere how God seems to defy logic.

All beings are one with God, and God is simultaneosly different from all beings.
God is basically what He is not.

jan.

 

[Yazata]

First, let me clarify: by saying that there is "no evidence" I mean that I am not aware of evidence that only supports one notion rather than competing and mutually exclusive notions.

My view is essentially the same.

In a law court, if testimony is equally consistent with guilt and with innocence, we can't just summarily announce that it's evidence of guilt.

So if the evidence I am aware of supports the notion of God existing as well as the notion of God not existing, I do not consider it as evidence for either notion.

I agree. Something isn't really evidence of A at all, unless it's much more consistent with A than with alternative conclusions B, C and D.

I'm inclined to follow the line of argument attributed to David Hume in these matters. (I don't think that it was original with him.) He was considering miracles, in the sense of divine interference with the natural order. Miracles in this sense are going to be extremely unusual just by definition, since the natural order is defined as what normally occurs. And Hume also pointed out that reports of miracles are also going to be consistent with more mundane explanations such as error, lies and wishful thinking, things that are much more common in human experience. This isn't an argument that miracles can't happen and can't have a divine author. It is an argument that reports of miracles aren't typically going to be good evidence that violations of the natural order really occurred and that they had a divine author.

Actually, it's even more problematic than that. Human beings are finite creatures by our nature. Our perceptual and cognitive abilities are limited. I'm not sure what finite human experience would justify the conclusion that we had encountered, or had evidence of, an infinite being. All we would seem to be justified in saying is that something is mysterious, that it exceeds our current understanding.

And that leads to what might be the ultimate question of theism - What does it mean to be divine and how can human beings recognize such a thing? The grand metaphysical ideas like first-cause or whatever explains why reality exists in the first place don't seem to qualify, since it isn't clear why these things should be objects of religious passion and devotion. Nobody worships the laws of physics, because they don't seem to be the proper sorts of religious objects. And if a blustering superbeing surrounded by clouds and lightening bolts appears on a mountaintop, how would we determine whether it's a super-powered space alien or an actual deity?

So I guess that the bottom line for me is that I can't be absolutely certain that good solid evidence of the existence of God can't exist out there somewhere. It's a possibility that's seemingly impossible to totally dismiss.

But I can say that I'm not aware of any credible unambiguous evidence that's been produced here on Earth so far. What's more, I'm not even convinced that human beings could recognize evidence of divinity if it did exist.

 

[Baldeee]

Claiming no evidence of God, and using that to claim there is no evidence of God's claim, implies that there can be no evidence of the latter because of the former, is nonsensical. It would make more sense if the claim for no evidence of God, was due to no evidence of His claims.

It is not "using that to claim..." - it is a logical part of the same.
It is also wholly logical: if one claims one has no evidence of God then one is also claiming, within this, that they have no evidence that claims attributed to God are from God.
If they had evidence of God's claim (i.e. that God made the claim) then that would in itself constitute evidence that God existed.

I didn't get it wrong, I merely worded it in such an ambiguous way, and I told you a number of time what I meant.

What you meant is completely different to what you first said. There was no ambiguity as there was no reasonable way to interpret what you initially wrote to mean what you subsequently clarified it to mean.

I did show it. There is no opinion of what God ultimately is, I also explained that to you.
God is necessarily transcendtal. That is no an opinion.

I don't think you mean necessarily, as that is a logical term that mean it cannot possibly be no other.
And since that is the issue being debated, to claim that God is necessarily transcendental is to beg the question.
An alternative is that God simply does not exist.
Thus there is no necessity for a transcendental existence.

Oh! I get you. I must provide evidence transcendence, so that I can prove to you that atheist are completely illogical?
What evidence do atheists have that there is no transcendance? Or are they above needing to provide a logical basis for there illogic.

They have no evidence of the transcendental.
That is why at best they should claim to not know.
You are claiming that they should not state that they have no evidence as they are not aware of what the evidence would be.
So clearly you do know what the evidence would be for a transcendental being.
So please provide it.

What logical fallacies am I with?

I didn't say you are with them.
I said you are arguing with them.
You have so far used a range of strawmen, non sequiturs, arguments from personal incredulity, special pleading, affirming the consequent...
To name a few.

No It doesn't it come through experience.
One can logically infer something based on ones experience.

Whether it comes through experience or logically inferred from experience, the ultimate source is that experience, so I fail to understand your objection.
Further, the inference is only sound if the interpretation is sound.
And the premises on which the inference are sound.
So you would still be no closer to arriving at the truth, only at a valid conclusion.

You're going to have to explain why you believe I am using illogic as a premise, argument, and as the basis to my understanding.
Because you're become tiresome with the accusations.

I think you use illogic as a premise because you have stated as much:
"If you have logically concluded that there is no evidence for God, then did that logic include the illogical nature of God, or was that part omitted. If it did, then please provide the logical explanation. If it was omitted, then please give an explanation of why it was omitted, then proceed to explain why you chose a particular definition of God, why you conclude there is no evidence."
The implication here is quite clear: you consider the only acceptable definition of God - as opposed to "a particular definition of God" - to include "the illogical nature of God".
If you can't stand by your own words, then what hope do we have of understanding what it is you actually mean?
If you find the accusations tiresome, simply stop committing the fallacies and inconsistencies.

Why? I've made no claims, and given a reasonable assumption. The onus is on you to explain how it is you are not aware of any evidence of God, in light of the reasonalble assumption. I understand if you haven't got a logical basis to your claim, because I'm pretty sure it is an illogical claim which relies on category error.

I think Sarkus et al have adequately explained this to you.
Your reasonable assumption is that if God exists then everything is evidence of God.
As Sarkus pointed out, you are a theist and you believe in God, and thus if you are a reasonable person you also believe that everything is evidence of God.
This is a logical deduction from your "reasonable assumption" and your known theistic stance.
So you have claimed it.
As for me not being aware of any evidence of God, I think others have explained adequately: any evidence that fits two or more competing and mutually exclusive notions (such as God existing and God not existing) can not be considered evidence for any of them.
How do you wish me to explain my lack of awareness of anything that fits outside of this?
Can you explain why you are not aware of what you are not aware of?

Obviously. But you have to show them through reasonable assumptions, and examples of your own experience, and that of others, whom you can account for as being relatively truthfull, based on your own experience.

And to be honest you have to allow them an understanding of how the evidence might fit other competing and mutually exclusive notions.
If you omit that part then you can at best reach valid conclusions, and to believe those conclusions as true is then not due to the evidence or the argument presented but to the psyche of the individual and how that valid argument appeals to them.
But don't confuse that with being evidence of soundness of that argument.
Or legitimacy for it in any way other than as something to appease whatever that psyche needs.

That's one scenario, but another scenario, and one that's relates to these discussions, is that they are arguing that there is no evidence that being in love exists. Then use anything they can to sheild themselves from reasonable assumptions, and testimonies from people with experience.

Define love, please.

I don't get drawn into it. I enjoy it.

Which part in particular: arguing fallaciously, or perhaps the effect it has on others?

I haven't been irritated once in this thread. I think Strangers ignorance is an honest apraisal of the atheist position that maintain that God does not exist, or there is no evidence of God, or the new kid on the block, there is no awareness of evidence. I'm beginining to realise it's all the same thing with different titles.

If that is what you take from this thread then I struggle to see why you are really here at all...

Like a hot knife, on the butter of your special pleading, and category errors. Fun isn't it?

Ah.
You are here to troll.
I see.

I've no doubt you will pull stuff out and claim fallacy, but like your claims here, they would be nothing but untruthfull accusations.

I am not sure which is more disturbing: your continued use of fallacies, or your apparent blindness to them.

How do you know I can't? You keep interupting the process with baseless accusation, plus you are scared shitless to explain the logical basis to your position.

If you can, do so.
It would cut the entire debate on this point quite short indeed.
As for the accusations, they are based on logic and your incorrect usage, and have usually been explained to you.
You can brush them off as untruthful, but that does not make them so.

Then how is it you are not aware of evidence of God?

The same way that I am not aware of everything else I am unaware of.

I didn't say God defies logic?

You did claim that God has an illogic nature.
How do you expect me to read that?
Are you going to clarify by saying you meant something completely different?
And not only that, but when I ask for an example of how God defies logic, you attempt to provide an example.
So am I to take the example as not being you claiming that God defies logic?
All you seem to be doing is just trying to confuse people with contradictory statements, with denials of what you have previously said, and with fallacious logic.

Next you'll be requesting me to stop beating my wife.

I would request anyone that is doing so to stop.
Are you one such person I should request that of?

All beings are one with God, and God is simultaneosly different from all beings.
God is basically what He is not.

So God exists.
But being what He is not, He therefore does not exist.
Thank you for clarifying that God does not exist.
Furthermore, what you have provided is not a defiance of logic but a premise / proposition / claim that would then have logic applied to it.
There is no argument in what you have stated.
Just a claim.

 

[Baldeee]

I'm inclined to follow the line of argument attributed to David Hume in these matters.

A quote I like of his concerning miracles:
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."