Guide on the Theistic argument

[BrokeProphet]

Alot of people on here attempt to use logic or science to justify or argue for the existence of God, for the existence of a soul or for the existence of an afterlife.

Science and logic deal in knowledge. You cannot have knowledge about something that is unmeasurable, undetectable, untestable, and you cannot have knowledge and have faith.

You have to have faith without knowledge.

There is no way to have faith in these things AND have knowledge of these things.

Been awhile since I read it, but it seems the bible, for example, talks a great deal about having faith.

---------

When confronted on here, or your ideas are challenged, you should say: "I don't have any evidence or proof for what I believe in, but I do have faith that the things I believe in are true."

Your argument pretty much has to consist of this:

I have faith.

--------

Please stop attempting to use science and logic to justify your BELIEF.

[L'Explorateur]

I can't say that I believe in God, but I think you should read the book The Language of God and then come back to this thread and edit some of the things you said.

[Yggdrasil]

BP, right now, half my family has poured in for the holidays. In total, they are 13 people; 12 Catholics and one Atheist. Can you spot my dilemma? I received 5 books on faith, God, and religion. As fun as it is to debunk every single tidbit of type, they won't let up. Let me read you an excerpt from one of the books:

"There is an expression that helps much to understand this word (faith). "Faith is an acceptance of a truth that cannot be seen nor felt. One only believes in the veracity of He who has taught it (whatever you're believing in; in this case, Christianity) It would therefore be contradicting (to belief) to first see (proof) and then accept (the truth).

It (belief) is to accept without evidence only because He who has professed it deserves merit"

The words in parentheses are of my own construct; to aid you through the esoteric text.

I don't know what to make of that excerpt. Personally, I think it is just one gigantic "self-pwn". Your thoughts?

[kurdt318]

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

"There is an expression that helps much to understand this word (faith). "Faith is an acceptance of a truth that cannot be seen nor felt. One only believes in the veracity of He who has taught it (whatever you're believing in; in this case, Christianity) It would therefore be contradicting (to belief) to first see (proof) and then accept (the truth).

Man, if I ever needed an example to demonstrate the logical fallacy of an "argument from authority", this would be it.

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

Science and logic deal in knowledge. You cannot have knowledge about something that is unmeasurable, undetectable, untestable, and you cannot have knowledge and have faith.

So, the true atheist would declare no position at all, on any such matter, until evidence is produced in favor of it. Then would this not make any claims of death being nothingness, God not existing, and the soul imaginary, unatheistic?

[HatterMaxwell]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

Alot of people on here attempt to use logic or science to justify or argue for the existence of God, for the existence of a soul or for the existence of an afterlife.

Science and logic deal in knowledge.

Everything you said is completely true, however, you lied by omission.
Science and logic do not deal exclusively in knowledge.
Much in science is based on knowledge or on other science that is also based on knowledge.
Scientific theories and most of what we think of as "science" is nothing but conjecture.
For example: Plate Tectonics is a theory based upon the theory of Continental drift, which is based upon the knowledge that there are similar plant and animal life on distant continents. Plate Tectonics assumes that heat always rises (not true), the earth's inner layers are high-pressure centers (a good idea, but not proven), and that the "mantle" of the earth is made of magma (again, just a good idea).
Most science isn't based upon knowledge, but lack of knowledge, we assume that everything anyone says is true until we replace that lack of knowledge.

I agree with you. Faith is not believing after it's proven. Faith is believing without knowing.

[killallthewhiteman]

***semantics***

[redzed]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

Please stop attempting to use science and logic to justify your BELIEF.

BP your argument hinges on a duality, a supernatural God. It only works if one sees oneself as seperate from all else. If you consider, that which some call God, others call intuition, instinct, higher power, higher consciousness, the greater self - science and logic do support and justify belief. Witness for science: the Aspect experiment, which shows all things are connected on an apparently transcendent level; for logic: the philosophy of Parmenides and his successors who have shown the impossibility of nothingness guarantees something must exist and that something is logically one-thing.

Who am I? How come I exist?


Come now and I will tell you – and you must spread my account when you have heard it – the only roads of enquiry to be thought of: the one of ‘is’, and that it is impossible for it not to be, is the path of Conviction (for Truth is her companion); the other of ‘is not’, and that it needs not be – that, I tell you, is a path that is altogether indiscernible. For you could not know or utter what is not (for that is impossible).


It is necessarily the case that saying and thinking are the reality. For being is and nothing is not. I bid you keep this in mind.


For surely this shall never be proved, that things which are not are. Restrain your thought from this way of enquiry.


Thinking and the thought of that which is are the same thing. For you cannot find thought without something that is, in respect of which it is uttered.


It [i.e. the path] never was, nor will be, for it is now whole, one and continuous. For what kind of origin will you seek for it? How and from what source could it have grown? I shall not let you say or think from what is not. For what is not can be neither uttered nor thought. And what need could have made it arise later rather than sooner if it began from nothing? Therefore it must either be completely or not at all. Nor will the force of argument allow anything else to come to be ever from what is not. Therefore Justice has never loosened her fetters to allow anything to come to be or pass away, but holds it fast. Our judgement concerning these things lies in this: it is or it is not. And it has been judged, as is necessary, to set aside the one [path] as unthought and unnamed (for it is no true path), and to take the other which is real and true. And how could what is be in the future? And how might it have come into being? For if it came into being, it is not, nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and passing away unheard of.

************************************************** ********
"....... sublime in its simplicity: only being is, since nonbeing cannot be. Being is therefore one: the collateral existence of nonbeing would have meant two, from which an infinitude of divisions would then have arisen. Now, since it is the same thing that can be thought and can be, any thought of that which is not will be impossible. For a thought of that which is not will be a thought of nothing, and hence not a thought at all. It follows, moreover, that sameness and difference can have no meaning, since it requires at least two for this to be possible, and that both time and change are illusory, since only ‘is’ is."

In addition, personal faith sometimes comes from personal experiences, those things may be valid - to that individual. This does not mean you need to accept it, but it could help develop tolerance if you recognised it.

[HatterMaxwell]

Thx redzed,
I totally agree.
The argument here is valid exclusively when it's posed to a Judeo-Christian theist.
Judaism and Christianity are the only religions that ask for blind faith.

[redzed]

Originally Posted by HatterMaxwell

Thx redzed,
I totally agree.
The argument here is valid exclusively when it's posed to a Judeo-Christian theist.
Judaism and Christianity are the only religions that ask for blind faith.

Islam also?

HM, You wrote:"Faith is not believing after it's proven. Faith is believing without knowing." The Gospel of John includes the story of doubting Thomas. To my mind he is representative of those who require proof to have faith, your defintion seems to exclude those like him. My question: Are those, like BP and Thomas, who need proof to have faith, somehow lesser than those who 'believe without knowing'?

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by redzed

My question: Are those, like BP and Thomas, who need proof to have faith, somehow lesser than those who 'believe without knowing'?

One day the Lord was walking with his disciples when He came to a used car lot. The owner of the lot cameth up to him and said, "Lourde, buyeth from me this Prius, it will cost you only 200 cisterci." The followers of the Lourd saideth unto him, "Let us go forth and look upon this Prius, that we may gauge if it is worth 200 cisterci". But the Luourde saideth unto them, "Is the man who needs proof to have faith, somewhat lesser than those who 'believe without knowing'? I will take your Prius, good man. Here is the money." "Excellent, said the owner of the lot. I will go fetcheth the paperwork from my office. The car you seek is in yonder garage."

But when the Luorude wenteth to the garage, it was empty, because they "owner" was actually just some guy looking for money.

Atredies 25:17.

[JesuitArtiste]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

When confronted on here, or your ideas are challenged, you should say: "I don't have any evidence or proof for what I believe in, but I do have faith that the things I believe in are true."

I largely agree with you. But I think that the above should be re-phrased ,'I believe in this, this is the evidence that leads me to believe/supports what I believe, I have faith that what I believe is true.'

Personally I don't believe that you can say that there is no evidence or proof only that you do not accept that as evidence of proof for a certain idea. To say that person has no evidence of what they believe when they clearly believe that they have evidence of what they believe is absurd.

I agree though, it all comes down to faith.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by JesuitArtiste

To say that person has no evidence of what they believe when they clearly believe that they have evidence of what they believe is absurd.

Well, all modern forms of jurisprudence are utterly absurd then because judges don't hear cases because they lack of evidence all the time.

In reality, these people merely claim or believe they have evidence. Until they manage to show how it's evidence, however... If we have to accept their word for it, then we might as well just throw the concept of evidence out the window.

[JesuitArtiste]

Originally Posted by Rust

Well, all modern forms of jurisprudence are utterly absurd then because judges don't hear cases because they lack of evidence all the time.

In reality, these people merely claim or believe they have evidence. Until they manage to show how it's evidence, however... If we have to accept their word for it, then we might as well just throw the concept of evidence out the window.

Maybe I'm using the word evidence wrongly, but I'd always assumed that evidence was something that supported a conclusion. That's right isn't it? So, if someone concludes that God designed us, and tell us that evidence of this is the way a banana is perfectly shaped for the hand and eating, then that is evidence isn't it? The conclusion that God created things is supported by the 'design' of the banana. Regardless of whether they are right, they still believe that they have evidence.

In your court of law example there are two sides, both sides, if honest, will believe that they have the evidence that supports the conclusion that they are aiming for. What I was saying was absurd is that the two sides while believing that they have the correct conclusion and evidence to support their position don't believe they have evidence to support there postion.

To be fair, reading back that might not be so clear.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, how do we beyond a doubt show that our evidence is evidence? Maybe I'm thinking this wrong, but it seems to me that you need to know the 'True conclusion' before you can truly judge whether the evidence is true evidence or not.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by JesuitArtiste

So, if someone concludes that God designed us, and tell us that evidence of this is the way a banana is perfectly shaped for the hand and eating, then that is evidence isn't it?

He would need to show:

1. That the banana is perfectly shaped for the hand and eating.

2. That the banana being perfectly shaped for the hand and eating supports the conclusion of a god existing.

----

Given the following function, f(x) = 3x + 5, is the fact that the y-intercept is odd evidence that f(x) is a linear function?

Regardless of whether they are right, they still believe that they have evidence.

Yes. Believe. Claim. Have faith in. Neither of which show evidence, but merely belief.

What I was saying was absurd is that the two sides while believing that they have the correct conclusion and evidence to support their position don't believe they have evidence to support there postion.

"They believe X. They believe they have evidence supporting X. They don't believe they have evidence for X." Am getting what you were trying to say correctly?

If so, I don't see anyone in this thread suggesting that wasn't absurd. BP said that people should say "I don't have evidence for X, but I have faith X is true". That doesn't mean the other people can't believe they have evidence.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, how do we beyond a doubt show that our evidence is evidence? Maybe I'm thinking this wrong, but it seems to me that you need to know the 'True conclusion' before you can truly judge whether the evidence is true evidence or not.

Well operating under your definition of evidence (i.e. "evidence [is] something that support[s] a conclusion") then not necessarily.

If, to continue the mathematical example I'm using above, you can show that "having an odd y-intercept" is a necessary component of a linear function, you would arguably be supporting the conclusion that f(x) (as defined above) is a linear function. However, "having an odd y-intercept" is not a necessary component of a linear function.

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by kurdt318

So, the true atheist would declare no position at all, on any such matter, until evidence is produced in favor of it. Then would this not make any claims of death being nothingness, God not existing, and the soul imaginary, unatheistic?

The only way a person can be unatheistic, it to be a theist.

Death could be any number of things, but until I see evidence of ANYTHING beyond death, I will have to assume death to be exactly what it appears to be:

Cessation.

It appears that when you die, the electrical impulses in your brain, stop. These impulses are what your brain uses to determine everything about you and everything around you. When this is gone, there appears to be nothing left of what makes you you, except a non-functioning sack of meat with eyes.

Saying death is nothingness, is then just a simplified concept based on the evidence we do have.

--------------------

As far as a God and a Soul go............

I don't flinch when walking down the road, thinking I might hit an invisible wall at any moment. I don't fear spontantous human combustion, and douse myself with water hourly. I don't fear a monster under my bed that might eat my feet when I get out of bed.

I don't see any reason to believe that any of these things exist, until I am presented with evidence to suggest otherwise. You don't either with the exception of God and Soul.

Which you believe in without any evidence.

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by redzed

BP your argument hinges on a duality, a supernatural God.

There is no valid evidence for God, soul, or afterlife.

This is stone cold fact, and hinges on nothing except science, logic, reason, rationality, and fact.

----------

What you presented was not valid evidence for any of these three.

Showing we are all interconected on some level, is not evidence for a soul, god or afterlife. It is evidence we are all connected on some level, nothing more.

I am not sure why you present Parmenides. He presents no evidence for these things. If nothingness cannot exist, that doesnt mean a god, soul, or afterlife has to.

If every bit of matter changes forms, that does not mean the big three are real.

You read into evidence for something else, what you want to see, when you suggest otherwise. It simply is not there.

[redzed]

BP you've missed my point. I've already conceded on the whole proving god/soul etc, if that's not enough for you well ... whatever. Thing is you are dissing others on this basis even though you do not know what they have experienced, nor could you know. It's intensely personal and often applicable only to the one having the experience. This is where tolerance comes in.
This from The Secular Web:

Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically verifiable, physical way. I might potentially receive some revelation, some direct experience of God. An experience like that would be incommunicable, and not subject to scientific verification--but it would nevertheless be as compelling as any evidence can be.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/intro.html

[Rust]

Yes. Compelling to that person who supposedly experience it. Not compelling to anyone else, thus not real evidence.

BP's point is that it's not evidence. If he could not possibly know what they experience, as you say, then that's an amazing argument for why it shouldn't be considered as evidence in the first place!

[redzed]

Stating the obvious or what Rust? The apparent intent behind the thread is to belittle believers faith? What do you and BP get out of this? Two possible reasons: It's an ego trip to win an argument, or; are you here trying to help and believe in the tough love approach? Other?

Edit: Thought of another. Insecurity or dissatisfaction with your own state of mind driving a search for meaning?

Edit 2: This from BP in AM's thread "Be Still"

It is a natural part of being a human, to want to be heard, to listen to others, to debate, make propostitions, toss an idea someones way and get some feedback, etc.

Is as good a reason as any! What I do not understand is the scorn, where's that coming from?

Edit 3: After reflection, it's like ..... you blokes are trying to add it all up until it makes sense. Some of your efforts are truly impressive, but how do you add up to infinity?

[Rust]

What scorn? You're reading to much to into my statement. You said BP missed the point and I merely showed you how he did not. The point wasn't missed simply because he cannot know what others have experience; that merely means that the experience of others isn't actual evidence, which was precisely his point!


I don't analyze your reasons for posting, so please spare me the third-rate internet psychology. You should be interested in the truth or falsehood of what I say, not why I say.

[redzed]

Originally Posted by Rust

What scorn?
.....

Here:

please spare me the third-rate internet psychology.

This is not confined to this thread, you blokes commonly pour scorn upon those you deem worthy of contempt, for what is this: "third-rate internet psychology", if not contempt? My intent was not analysis, as you judged through your apparent filter of contempt, but understanding. What makes you tick? Why bother? What do you get out of it? Is it an ego-trip or what? Should I believe the things you people say? What weight should I lend to your thoughts, assertions, logic and opinions? Can I trust them or, are you just using me in some sick pathetic attempt to bolster your egos?

You should be interested in the truth or falsehood of what I say, not why I say.

"What is truth?" "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care"

[Rust]

Originally Posted by redzed

Here:

That comment was made after you had made your accusation. Could you please show me "scorn" in this thread, before you accused me? I imagine you're not psychic, and therefore your accusation was based on something that had happened in the thread, not something that hadn't happened yet...

for what is this: "third-rate internet psychology", if not contempt?

You are right. That statement, which I uttered after your accusation, is in fact contempt. I have nothing but contempt for your baseless attempts to psychoanalyze why I post on the internet.

My intent was not analysis, as you judged through your apparent filter of contempt, but understanding.

Sorry, but attemts at "understanding" stop at "Why do you do X?". You making guesses afterwards is just rampant speculation/attacks in convenient question form.

By your logic, if I had said:

"Redzed why did you post such a false statement? Is it because you're dumb? A moron? Utterly fucking stupid? Is it because you were dropped as a child?" et cetera, that would be a legitimate attempt at "understanding".

You and I both know that's not the case. They pass the realm of "legitimate attempt to understand" when you start speculating. That they were in question form is inconsequential.

"What is truth?" "Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care"

This has nothing to do with how much I know. I never once mentioned quantity, nor did I suggest people should care how much, or what, I know. I said you should care about the truth or falsehood of what I said.

2+2=4 is true regardless of whether I care a lot or I care a little. It is true regardless of whether I'm stating it in a "sick pathetic attempt to bolster my ego" or if I'm stating it in a healthy attempt to eduate you.

So, like I said, you should be interested in the truth or falsehood of what I say, not why I say.

Though if you want to discuss the "why" of things, why not start with why you only get this convenient curiousity when it's against people you disagree with? Why don't you ask these very same questions to Obbe, for example, who has called me a dick multiple times in multiple threads?

[redzed]

Originally Posted by Rust

This has nothing to do with how much I know.

That rings true! IMHO the only thing you know is how to argue, I can't recall any post of yours that shows care or concern for the others feelings, quite the opposite! If I was going for analysis BPD would be right up there, sure Obbe has reacted to your provocation, that's his problem; and don't come the raw prawn about no scorn in this thread. We've been on this site for a fair while and your MO is only too apparent!

Yeah sure, fair enough, it's a public forum but how you say things impacts how you are heard. To be fair I often enjoy your posts and the insights your POV allows, but as for trusting you enough to believe you speak the truth? Hard to do when being treated with contempt! And even if it is truth, what is your motivation? Even the devil quotes scripture!

[Rust]

Originally Posted by redzed

I can't recall any post of yours that shows care or concern for the others feelings, quite the opposite!

You are right. They are few and far between. I like it that way. I'm not on Totse to care about people's feelings.

If you personally believe that's important then fine, that's up to you. You are free to do so. I'm not stopping you.

If you don't like that most of my posts "don't show care or concern for others feelings" I suggest you use the ignore button. Its there for a reason.

and don't come the raw prawn about no scorn in this thread.

Before your accusation, there was no scorn on my part in this thread. Sorry but that's just true, and it explains why you didn't give an example right now.

but as for trusting you enough to believe you speak the truth? Hard to do when being treated with contempt! And even if it is truth, what is your motivation? Even the devil quotes scripture!

Who said anything about trusting me? This has nothing to do with trusting me; I didn't even use the word "trust" much less ask you to trust me. In fact I would love it if you wouldn't trust me, and actually researched the things I said for yourself. That would be great.

Again, my motivation does not change the truth or falsehood of my statements. 2+2 = 4 regardless of whether I have benign or "evil" motivations/intentions.

You should first be concerned about the truth first and foremost; definitely not about things you know nothing about, like my intentions, motivations, feelings, or amount of "care".

[redzed]

Originally Posted by Rust

You should first be concerned about the truth first and foremost; definitely not about things you know nothing about, like my intentions, motivations, feelings, or amount of "care".

Don't know what planet you're on Rust, but those are exactly the things I've learned to be concerned about! There's many a clever wordsmith with ulterior motives.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by redzed

Don't know what planet you're on Rust, but those are exactly the things I've learned to be concerned about! There's many a clever wordsmith with ulterior motives.

It's precisely because there are many a clever wordsmith out there with ulterior motives that you shouldn't care about those things. Any clever wordsmith can fake care, good intentions, benign motivations, et cetera.

Getting away with 2+2=5 on the other hand...

[redzed]

Originally Posted by Rust

It's precisely because there are many a clever wordsmith out there with ulterior motives that you shouldn't care about those things. Any clever wordsmith can fake care, good intentions, benign motivations, et cetera.

Getting away with 2+2=5 on the other hand...

You make a valid point, whilst still avoiding answering as to your true intent? That could be clever wordsmithing, and ego-tripping, get in the last word, then you throw the onus onto a hypothetical accusation. Man I really don't know about you! Are you fair dinkum or what? I have to ask myself, why would anyone treat me with contempt if they have a good intent?

[Rust]

So I make a valid point... and then just ignore it and continue to focus on my irrelevant and easily faked "care" or "intent"?

[Prometheum]

Originally Posted by Rust

So I make a valid point... and then just ignore it and continue to focus on my irrelevant and easily faked "care" or "intent"?

Welcome to theistic argument!

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by Rust

So I make a valid point... and then just ignore it and continue to focus on my irrelevant and easily faked "care" or "intent"?

It could not be pure ad hominem if he did not, now could it?

What else is he going to do, argue your points and assertions?

I think not.

[MarsCoban]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

Alot of people on here attempt to use logic or science to justify or argue for the existence of God, for the existence of a soul or for the existence of an afterlife.


When confronted on here, or your ideas are challenged, you should say: "I don't have any evidence or proof for what I believe in, but I do have faith that the things I believe in are true."


Please stop attempting to use science and logic to justify your BELIEF.

A lot of people on here attempt to use logic or science to justify or argue against the existence of God, against the existence of a soul or for the existence of an afterlife.


When confronted on here, or your ideas are challenged, you should say: "I don't have any evidence or proof for what I don't believe in, but I do have faith that the things I believe in are true."


Please stop attempting to use science and logic to justify your DISBELIEF.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wonder why believers try to use science to justify their beliefs, and it's because you force them to. It's an "ok fine, you wont fight me on my terms, so we'll fight on your terms, you ass!" kind of thing.

Where's your proof, your evidence?

Evolution?
Evolution doesn't disprove a God damn thing, BP. If anything, it could strengthen ones belief in God.


(I am not saying this is your evidence or proof, it's just an example.)



Science isn't the only brand of knowledge, BP.

It seems that what you're trying to do is measure the depth of a painting with a ruler.

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by MarsCoban

A lot of people on here attempt to use logic or science to justify or argue against the existence of God, against the existence of a soul or for the existence of an afterlife.

They don't attempt, they correctly use the principles of logic and science even 3rd graders understand and use.

"Nuh uh, prove it"

Evolve intellectually to that of an average 3rd grader please.

Originally Posted by MarsCoban

Please stop attempting to use science and logic to justify your DISBELIEF.

My disbelief is every bit as justified as disbelief in anything that has absolutely no evidence for existing.

Originally Posted by MarsCoban

You wonder why believers try to use science to justify their beliefs, and it's because you force them to.

I am not wondering why.

I don't force anyone with freewill to do anything.

Originally Posted by MarsCoban

It seems that what you're trying to do is measure the depth of a painting with a ruler.

Only when people claim a painting (religion) is not a work of imagination.

[MarsCoban]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

They don't attempt, they correctly use the principles of logic and science even 3rd graders understand and use.

"Nuh uh, prove it"

Evolve intellectually to that of an average 3rd grader please.



My disbelief is every bit as justified as disbelief in anything that has absolutely no evidence for existing.



I am not wondering why.

I don't force anyone with freewill to do anything.



Only when people claim a painting (religion) is not a work of imagination.

Which is exactly what I am using when I see that your evidence to the contrary doesn't exist. I'm using the same principles of logic as you are, so hey, I guess we both need to evolve, right? Also, please don't try and say "the burden of proof is on you, not me"...I'm not claiming anything.



I didn't mean to imply that you were physically forcing someone to do what I said.
If a teacher says, "Johnny, take and pass this test, or else you fail"...the teacher isn't forcing Johnny to do anything, but what do you think Johnny's gonna do if he wants to pass the class?

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by MarsCoban

Which is exactly what I am using when I see that your evidence to the contrary doesn't exist. I'm using the same principles of logic as you are, so hey, I guess we both need to evolve, right?

No you are not.

[MarsCoban]

Originally Posted by BrokeProphet

No you are not.

Your proof?

Saying something in an authoritative manner doesn't make you right, BrokeProphet.


Isn't it ironic that the thing upon which your arguement seems to be founded, "being unable to perceive" ultimately, in a human, amounts to a "personal experience"?


Being unable to perceive a thing does not equal a things inexistence.
(Yes, I am aware that this applies to everyone including myself.)

[Rust]

Originally Posted by MarsCoban

1. But what if you are wearing a top hat, and I'm only unable to perceive it? You can "show" it to me all you want, but I will probably be unable to perceive it unless I can physically handle it. If God existed, could one physically handle him? Doubtfully. If a man is blind and denies that light exists, that colors exist, do the light & colors cease to exist? I would say no, because I perceive them, but can it ever be proven to this man otherwise? For him they do not exist because he is unable to perceive them, from my point of view. Or is it that I am unable to see what he isn't seeing?
Like the old question: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Yes, there could exist the possibility that the top hat exists and I cannot show it to you. Who said otherwise? You are arguing things that I didn't deny; in fact I already told you that that would be the case.

If you follow the discussion, the point was:

You said: "Both of those words [evidence being one of them] can be interpreted in a million different ways, Rust."

Me: "You're right. It just happens that theists apparently interpret it to mean something that cannot be shown to anyone else, making the word "evidence" lost it's meaning. Or do you have evidence that you can shown me that proves or supports a god?"

In other words, theists haven't provided any demonstrable evidence of god. Claiming the top hat exists but cannot be shown doesn't help them. You can claim that of any lunatic belief. Thus the point of the thread: They should either demonstrate their beliefs or admit that they cannot and that they merely have them on faith.

2. I'd say I agree but I think that statement is a little condescending. If they were so easy to convince, we might all be atheists by now, right? Now, I understand that they don't just *poof*, believe, but many educated people choose to believe in a God without the help of it being driven into them like a nail.

It was supposed to be condescending. How else should I treat such a ridiculous action on their part?

But whether it was condescending or not is not important, what is important is that I never argued what they would believe. I said they hadn't shown god to anyone else. You responded that religious people did believe in god. I pointed out I wasn't talking about things they believed without it being shown....

3. The definition of "atheist" that dictionary.com offers is this: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Now, I don't know how accurate this is, but it seems fairly accurate to me. I shouldn't have added "deny the possible existence of"...as this may be my "personal" interpretation. And some atheists are as I described, but you're right, a large number of them have weaker beliefs. Perhaps they need to invent a new word for those whose beliefs are more solid, or I need to discover it.

Well I'm glad we agree that the definition of atheist you provided does not necessitate that they "deny the possible existence" of a god, and thus you were wrong to claim that "most" atheists hold that position.

As for a new word, the term already exists: Strong (or positive) atheism describes those who claim gods do not exist.

Has man 2 not provided solid enough evidence to prove to man 1 that some form of God exists? I'm not saying the evidence would be solid enough for "anyone" but it was solid enough for that one man, therefore your use of the word "anyone" in the context in which you are using it is unjustified.

He has shown that the numbers of stars exist. However that gets us no closer to the existence of god. You achieve that only by making man 1 have a ridiculous burden of proof: he is satisfied with something that doesn't really get us closer to anything. In other words, we could make the same argument of the oppossite and still be reasonable: Show me X number of stars and you've shown me god doesn't exist.

They evidence has to get us closer to the conclusion. X number of stars, don't really get us closer.

An example I used in another thread:

Given the following function f(x) = 3x+5. Is f(x) having an odd y-intercept evidence that this is a linear function?

If tonight you looked out and saw that in letters constructed of stars it was spelled out, very clearly to you, "There is no God", what would you think?
(I know some of these questions don't necessarily pertain to what we're currently discussing, but I'm curious to know your answers.)

I would be tempted to believe a very powerful being existed. Whether that's a god or some sort of advance civilization (and how important that distinction is) would be another thing.

6. An exact quote from you: I claim "god isn't there" in that I point out natural explantions for the phenomenon we observe. I do not claim a god doesn't exist.
"In that I point out natural explanations for the phenomenom we observe"...can you give me a solid, unequivocal definition of "natural"? And can you prove that God is not responsible for these natural explanations?

Yes, I went on to specify how exactly that "claim" was: It wasn't in the sense that I assert positively there is no god. It is in the sense that I have explanations that don't require god (i.e. "God isn't there" in that god isn't in the explanations), however, just as my quote says, I do not claim that god doesn't exist.

Natural here means not-supernatural. Another way of thinking it is "that which can be described through the use of Physics".

I cannot prove god is not responsible for those natural explanations (I guess you mean "responsible for what the natural explanations are trying to explain"). I don't have to. I don't claim that I can, nor does my position require that I have to.

That's been my point throughout this thread.

Great. My point: I'm not either of those people in that hypothetical trial. I do not claim there absolutely is not a God. I don't believe BP does either.

[WritingANovel]

Originally Posted by MarsCoban

Isn't it ironic that the thing upon which your arguement seems to be founded, "being unable to perceive" ultimately, in a human, amounts to a "personal experience"?

It's just as well you used the word 'seems" here, because you were absolutely correct in that you were interpreting what he said (as opposed to taking it to literally mean what it exactly said). Brokeprophet's argument is grounded entirely in facts, which are: there exists no evidence that God exists. Therefore, for theists to claim that God exists, they arrive at such a conclusion through faith, not through science and/or logic. These are 1. factually correct; and 2. more importantly, actually do not deal with whether God exists or not. In other words, just because someone points out that the existence of God is grounded in faith but not science, it doesn't mean he's claiming the non-existence of God.

Also I don't think he said anything about personal experience, the ability to perceive and what not.

Being unable to perceive a thing does not equal a things inexistence.

1. But brokephet never claimed that God doesn't exist in this thread (as far as I know)
2. You are right in that just because a person cannot perceive God through the senses it doesn't necessarily mean God does not exist, however, you must admit that evidence (as it is commonly understood to mean, none of that "LAWL we Christians have our own interpretation of this pre-existing English word such that it will mean whatever the hell we want it to, as to lend credence to whatever the hell we are claiming" shit, please), and the gathering of it, depend entirely on the senses. Given this, it is reasonable to say that there can exist no evidence in support of God. Given that there is no evidence (again, in the sense most people have understood it to mean, not in the special little way you theists have twisted it to mean) in support of God, and that people still believe in him, it can be said that they do so through having faith, and not through science/logic.

[MarsCoban]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yes, there could exist the possibility that the top hat exists and I cannot show it to you. Who said otherwise? You are arguing things that I didn't deny; in fact I already told you that that would be the case.

If you follow the discussion, the point was:

You said: "Both of those words [evidence being one of them] can be interpreted in a million different ways, Rust."

Me: "You're right. It just happens that theists apparently interpret it to mean something that cannot be shown to anyone else, making the word "evidence" lost it's meaning. Or do you have evidence that you can shown me that proves or supports a god?"

In other words, theists haven't provided any demonstrable evidence of god. Claiming the top hat exists but cannot be shown doesn't help them. You can claim that of any lunatic belief. Thus the point of the thread: They should either demonstrate their beliefs or admit that they cannot and that they merely have them on faith.



It was supposed to be condescending. How else should I treat such a ridiculous action on their part?

But whether it was condescending or not is not important, what is important is that I never argued what they would believe. I said they hadn't shown god to anyone else. You responded that religious people did believe in god. I pointed out I wasn't talking about things they believed without it being shown....



Well I'm glad we agree that the definition of atheist you provided does not necessitate that they "deny the possible existence" of a god, and thus you were wrong to claim that "most" atheists hold that position.

As for a new word, the term already exists: Strong (or positive) atheism describes those who claim gods do not exist.



He has shown that the numbers of stars exist. However that gets us no closer to the existence of god. You achieve that only by making man 1 have a ridiculous burden of proof: he is satisfied with something that doesn't really get us closer to anything. In other words, we could make the same argument of the oppossite and still be reasonable: Show me X number of stars and you've shown me god doesn't exist.

They evidence has to get us closer to the conclusion. X number of stars, don't really get us closer.

An example I used in another thread:

Given the following function f(x) = 3x+5. Is f(x) having an odd y-intercept evidence that this is a linear function?



I would be tempted to believe a very powerful being existed. Whether that's a god or some sort of advance civilization (and how important that distinction is) would be another thing.



Yes, I went on to specify how exactly that "claim" was: It wasn't in the sense that I assert positively there is no god. It is in the sense that I have explanations that don't require god (i.e. "God isn't there" in that god isn't in the explanations), however, just as my quote says, I do not claim that god doesn't exist.

Natural here means not-supernatural. Another way of thinking it is "that which can be described through the use of Physics".

I cannot prove god is not responsible for those natural explanations (I guess you mean "responsible for what the natural explanations are trying to explain"). I don't have to. I don't claim that I can, nor does my position require that I have to.



Great. My point: I'm not either of those people in that hypothetical trial. I do not claim there absolutely is not a God. I don't believe BP does either.

I never said anyone said otherwise.

Exactly what form of God are you looking for, Rust? It might be easier for someone to show you evidence if either of you knew what the evidence was supposed to support.


I'm pretty sure they think you're just as ignorant as you think they are. Not saying that's good or bad or right or wrong. Just saying.

I'm still wondering who you're referring to by "anyone else"...

Uhhh, ok, I'm pretty sure I already admitted that I was wrong.

You: Yeeeeah, I'm not so sure about that.

Me: You're right. I've made a mistake.

You: YOU'RE WRONG

Me: I just admitted that...

Seems like an ego thing to me, but hey, who am I to question your motives?

I'm already aware of that term. I just think there needs to be a stronger word for it, seperate and more severe than "atheist."

I suck at math.

Interesting. I agree. Since God is, by most accounts, supposed to be a superior being, isn't it possible that what we think of as God is simply a more advanced life form? And wouldn't it be logical to think that in our vast Universe that there are other life forms, probably at least one of them more advanced than us? Would I need to show you evidence of other life forms existing before you believed they did? Personally, I pretty much take it for granted that they do exist, somewhere. If you wanna call that faith, that's fine, but to me it seems like a reasonable thing to believe.

[MarsCoban]

Originally Posted by WritingANovel

It's just as well you used the word 'seems" here, because you were absolutely correct in that you were interpreting what he said (as opposed to taking it to literally mean what it exactly said). Brokeprophet's argument is grounded entirely in facts, which are: there exists no evidence that God exists. Therefore, for theists to claim that God exists, they arrive at such a conclusion through faith, not through science and/or logic. These are 1. factually correct; and 2. more importantly, actually do not deal with whether God exists or not. In other words, just because someone points out that the existence of God is grounded in faith but not science, it doesn't mean he's claiming the non-existence of God.

Also I don't think he said anything about personal experience, the ability to perceive and what not.



1. But brokephet never claimed that God doesn't exist in this thread (as far as I know)
2. You are right in that just because a person cannot perceive God through the senses it doesn't necessarily mean God does not exist, however, you must admit that evidence (as it is commonly understood to mean, none of that "LAWL we Christians have our own interpretation of this pre-existing English word such that it will mean whatever the hell we want it to, as to lend credence to whatever the hell we are claiming" shit, please), and the gathering of it, depend entirely on the senses. Given this, it is reasonable to say that there can exist no evidence in support of God. Given that there is no evidence (again, in the sense most people have understood it to mean, not in the special little way you theists have twisted it to mean) in support of God, and that people still believe in him, it can be said that they do so through having faith, and not through science/logic.

What "exactly" did he say?

"Brokeprophet's argument is grounded entirely in facts, which are: there exists no evidence that God exists"

Fact number 2: there exists no evidence to the contrary.

I agree that they do not arrive at their conclusions by means of science. I completely agree.
But logic? Reason? Not so much.

Most of us accept the notion that if something exists, something or someone must've made it so. Can you show me an example where this doesn't apply, or is false? So it isn't necessarily illogical to think that someone or something created all of what we think we know so much about.



I'm pretty sure you're right when you assert that he never explicitly claimed that God doesn't exist.
It's just the overwhelming impression I get when I read... uhh...any post of his having to do with God.


Fact number 3: I'm not a theist.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by MarsCoban

Exactly what form of God are you looking for, Rust? It might be easier for someone to show you evidence if either of you knew what the evidence was supposed to support.

I'm looking for evidence of any god that theists claim exists. Why would I limit the evidence I am willing to listen to, to one particular definition of a god?

This is my stance: You (anyone) have evidence of a god? Show it to me.

I'm pretty sure they think you're just as ignorant as you think they are. Not saying that's good or bad or right or wrong. Just saying.

... Okay? Who cares?

I'm still wondering who you're referring to by "anyone else"...

Isn't it obvious? Anyone else means "anyone who isn't them". I said that as far as I was aware they hadn't shown any evidence to anyone else. I then asked you if you knew of a case where they had, to show me.

Uhhh, ok, I'm pretty sure I already admitted that I was wrong.

I'm pretty sure you said this:

"k, just because you never said there absolutely is no God doesn't mean that you and BP don't seem to take every opportunity to claim a God isnt there. If you weren't claiming, by implacation, that God doesn't exist, what would the purpose of this thread be?"

Which, like I said earlier, is a nice ego-saving way of saying you were wrong. It's not a "I was wrong". It's you putting words in my mouth in return (i.e. "doesn't mean that you and BP don't seem to take every opportunity to claim a God isnt there").

I suck at math.

1. You don't really need to know much math to notice the point. Just, maybe, the definition of a linear function, which you can find in Google easily.

2. I said a lot more than just that example...

Interesting. I agree. Since God is, by most accounts, supposed to be a superior being, isn't it possible that what we think of as God is simply a more advanced life form? And wouldn't it be logical to think that in our vast Universe that there are other life forms, probably at least one of them more advanced than us? Would I need to show you evidence of other life forms existing before you believed they did? Personally, I pretty much take it for granted that they do exist, somewhere. If you wanna call that faith, that's fine, but to me it seems like a reasonable thing to believe.

Something being "more advanced" to us is a vague and unconvincing standard. You could claim a simple human that had a favorable genetic mutation or invented some new technology (if you mean advanced in the technological achievement context) would be "more advanced" than the rest. You would be hard pressed to find people calling that guy a "god".

Not only is the standard very fuzzy, it it has little to do with what theists most often refer to, and what atheists object to, the claims of supernatural powers! I don't know of any atheists that has any problem with the concept of an alien civilization being more advanced than us technologically.

They have a problems with things that have no meaningful evidence.