Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

H3aler · 14-03-2014 4:04pm

smacl wrote: »

Yes indeed, the weekend approaches. Don't take too many of those blue pills, all that love, religion, strange songs and freaky dancing may leave you with a dry mouth on Monday morning. That aside, enjoy!

lol,

smacl · 14-03-2014 4:08pm

Geomy wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqK6u0kCS9Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Meh, shamanism trumps Christianity in my house

Turtwig · 14-03-2014 6:19pm

H3aler wrote: »

Dear smacl, In a love house, the echo of music never stops, the wall sing stange songs and everything dance-- do you see dance in the centre of universe-- Love has no religion but in every religion there is love

We ARE the centre of the universe.

H3aler · 14-03-2014 6:59pm

Jernal wrote: »

We ARE the centre of the universe.

hi jernal, you even with all of your wisdom can't eat me but ban me-- where are your thinker

Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'
Notion of an 'event horizon', from which nothing can escape, is incompatible with quantum theory, physicist claims

Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.

http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583

Mod edit: Don't post full articles, a paragraph and a link will do. Or I'll send Jernal around to eat you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-03-2014 10:52am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Sorry, we seem to be talking across each other here. I'm not offering evidence for the existence of God because their isn't any.

Then we are not talking across each other because this is pretty much exactly what I have been saying to you too. Except I do not go so far as to declare there is no such evidence. I simply say that no one has even begun to ever show ME any if there is. Much less on this thread.

There might be such evidence, I simply have not been presented with it yet. I am not close minded enough to declare there is none. I will only declare that I have been shown none, and do not hold out any high expectation that I shall be.

tommy2bad wrote: »

That's not to say that belief in God, Gods and supernatural beings is irrational or unjustified.

But it is. YOU limited it to "emperical evidence". I did not. My slogan is that I have not been shown "any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the suggestion there might be a god". Of any type. And if there is nothing whatsoever to ground a belief, then I do think that belief irrational and unjustified.

tommy2bad wrote: »

As I said in my explanation, the test for me is the effect belief has on me

Which is, as I said before, entirely irrelevant. That a belief has an effect on you says quite literally nothing about the truth value of that belief. What. So. Ever. Not even a tiny bit. Believing I can fly will have an effect on me.... an effect measurable in Seconds (the length of the drop) and Newtons (the impact on the ground)..... but the effect that belief on me simply says absolutely ZERO about the truth value of that belief.

H3aler wrote: »

humanity is my religion

Since it is NOT a religion, you are just engaging in yet more of what I already called you on. That is: taking things we already have words for and simply relabeling them to suit yourself.

What your religion actually appears to be from where I am sitting therefore, is the religion of linguistic juggling and relabeling. You are, as I said, saying precisely nothing at all..... but attempting to use as many words as possible while saying it.

tommy2bad · 21-03-2014 1:33pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then we are not talking across each other because this is pretty much exactly what I have been saying to you too. Except I do not go so far as to declare there is no such evidence. I simply say that no one has even begun to ever show ME any if there is. Much less on this thread.

There might be such evidence, I simply have not been presented with it yet. I am not close minded enough to declare there is none. I will only declare that I have been shown none, and do not hold out any high expectation that I shall be.

Theirs a long explanation as to why their cant be evidence but this is beside the point. I am convinced that their can not be empirical evidence for the existence of God as this would be a contridiction of my understanding of the nature of God.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But it is. YOU limited it to "emperical evidence". I did not. My slogan is that I have not been shown "any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the suggestion there might be a god". Of any type. And if there is nothing whatsoever to ground a belief, then I do think that belief irrational and unjustified.

Yes I did, it would be silly of me to extend my point to other evidence. The mistake your making is that you are using yourself as the measure of rational. Faith is a subjective thing, your feelings only count as rational for you. To project your emotional response onto others is pointless.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is, as I said before, entirely irrelevant. That a belief has an effect on you says quite literally nothing about the truth value of that belief. What. So. Ever. Not even a tiny bit. Believing I can fly will have an effect on me.... an effect measurable in Seconds (the length of the drop) and Newtons (the impact on the ground)..... but the effect that belief on me simply says absolutely ZERO about the truth value of that belief.

And just after saying that you will accept non empirical evidence, you dismiss it as irrelevant. Way to go.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Since it is NOT a religion, you are just engaging in yet more of what I already called you on. That is: taking things we already have words for and simply relabeling them to suit yourself.

What your religion actually appears to be from where I am sitting therefore, is the religion of linguistic juggling and relabeling. You are, as I said, saying precisely nothing at all..... but attempting to use as many words as possible while saying it.

I'm not sure if you understand what a rational decision is, the problem is what seems rational to one person can seem inexplicable to another for the simple reason that we are complicated creatures. We differ and digress from each other enough to come to differing conclusions when personal beliefs are concerned. I eat meat, it seems irrational to a vegan that I would come to this conclusion when to them all the evidence is that I should not eat meat. See what I getting at ?

antiskeptic · 21-03-2014 3:29pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There might be such evidence, I simply have not been presented with it yet. I am not close minded enough to declare there is none. I will only declare that I have been shown none, and do not hold out any high expectation that I shall be.

My slogan is that I have not been shown "any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the suggestion there might be a god". Of any type. And if there is nothing whatsoever to ground a belief, then I do think that belief irrational and unjustified.

Would you accept that God is in a position to demonstrate his existence to you personally in such a way as to leave you in no doubt as to his existence, but without that personal demonstration being something that could be shared with equal effect with another person?

smacl · 21-03-2014 4:07pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Faith is a subjective thing, your feelings only count as rational for you. To project your emotional response onto others is pointless.

The only problem there is that rational (i.e. based on or in accordance with reason or logic) and emotional (i.e. pertaining to a strong feeling such as love, anger, joy, hate, or fear) amount to largely the same thing in the above statement. At a subjective level, when denied evidence as has already been agreed, how do you discern between what is rational and what is emotional?

I would argue that to distinguish a thing as rational, we try to substantiate it. I'm not convinced that consensus of a significantly large group is enough in this regard. For example, lots of people have faith in homoeopathy, but science has proven beyond doubt that the pills involved have no effect whatsoever beyond that of a placebo.

Don't get me wrong, I think many people get value from their faith, but that does nothing to suggest to me that it is rational, or suggests the existence of a god.

tommy2bad · 21-03-2014 5:12pm

Don't get me wrong, I think many people get value from their faith, but that does nothing to suggest to me that it is rational, or suggests the existence of a god.

And that's where we differ, I would say if you benefit from something then it's rational to continue with that thing. It's doesn't provide evidence of a God but it is rational.
It all depends on the benefit you expect to get, if I try homoeopathic medicine expecting it to cure or treat some disease or ailment then it's irrational to continue to believe in it if it doesn't work. If otoh it provides me with the best result I could expect then it completely rational to continue to believe in it. Lets face it Homeopathy is only good for comforting the hopeless. Expecting anything more is irrational. (Religion may be the same).
I think some people expect God to be the answer to every question and problem, sort of a superman character, when he doesn't answer prayers or deliver miracles they become disillusioned and reject the superman, never supposing that it was their expectations that were at fault.
A lot of the people here seem to be saying not that their isn't a god but that their isn't a god that fits the description of god they hold to.

smacl · 21-03-2014 7:19pm

I guess the difference here is the basis for your faith. For example,homoeopathy works well for very many minor ailments, just as any placebo does. Similarly faith healing, reiki, or whatever else floats your boat. Basically, once you believe that you are on the road to recovery, your body does the rest. Similarly, if you go to a doctor you trust, and she/he tells you that you are seriously unwell, you'll start to feel physically ill almost immediately. Benson's the relaxation response covers this quite well.

The problem is that in this instance, the faith is misplaced. The homoeopathic remedy in and of itself isn't helping you in the least, it is simply the placebo. At the same time, not taking the remedy that you believe in, means you don't benefit from the placebo effect and hence might stay ill longer. However, believing that the substance listed on the jar of homoeopathic treatment is helping you is irrational, because it is simply not true.

As an atheist, I think the faith people place in their gods is similarly irrational, as I don't believe the gods exist any more than the item listed as the principal active ingredient in the homoeopathic remedy are present in the pills. That doesn't mean people don't benefit from their faith, but it does make their faith irrational to an atheist.

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-03-2014 8:10am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Theirs a long explanation as to why their cant be evidence but this is beside the point.

Given this is a thread about the existence of god that is hardly beside the point. It would very much BE the point. By all means present your explanations if you can, but I find myself expecting them to be based on presumptions about god in a circular argument fashion. Perfectly happy to have my expectations dashed however.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I am convinced that their can not be empirical evidence for the existence of God as this would be a contridiction of my understanding of the nature of God.

That would fit the expectations I just mentioned. You are assuming the nature of god based on nothing (or at least nothing you have presented or even attempted to present) and you are simply assuming that the possibility of any supporting evidence for this god is precluded. It is assumption heaped onto assumption in a house of cards.

tommy2bad wrote: »

The mistake your making is that you are using yourself as the measure of rational.

False. But do not let that stop you going off on an ad hominem tangent to change the subject. Once again: There either is a god or there is not. There either is evidence, argument, data or reasoning to support the contention that there is, or there is not. You will either present some or you will not.

tommy2bad wrote: »

And just after saying that you will accept non empirical evidence, you dismiss it as irrelevant. Way to go.

Desperate attempt from you here. I said I would accept CATEGORY X. I dismissed one example from the entire category, and you act like I have gone back on my word to accept the entire category. If I said I eat food, and then I refused Heinz baked beans, you would look no less ridiculous if you acted like this was me going back on my claim I eat food.

Again.... and this is quite simple so I am not sure what part you are disagreeing with or taking exception to..... the fact believing X has an effect on you says _absolutely nothing whatsoever in even the smallest way_ about whether X is true or even likely to be true or not.

IF you think it does then I am agog to hear how.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would you accept that God is in a position to

Given I do not accept there even is a god.... the answer to "Do you accept <insert some attribute of god here>" is clearly going to be "No".

antiskeptic · 04-04-2014 4:04pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Given I do not accept there even is a god.... the answer to "Do you accept <insert some attribute of god here>" is clearly going to be "No".

My apologies for the sloppy wording. Let me try again:

Would you accept that God (if he were to exist and was the Creator-of-all kind of God described in the Bible) is in a position to demonstrate his existence to you personally in such a way as to leave you in no doubt as to his existence, but without that personal demonstration being something that could be shared with equal effect with another person?

nozzferrahhtoo · 05-04-2014 10:07pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

My apologies for the sloppy wording. Let me try again:

Would you accept that God (if he were to exist and was the Creator-of-all kind of God described in the Bible) is in a position to demonstrate his existence to you personally in such a way as to leave you in no doubt as to his existence, but without that personal demonstration being something that could be shared with equal effect with another person?

We are getting into "If god... then all things are possible" territory.

In other words if you ask me a question that is based on the premise of gods existence..... and the question is about said gods capabilities..... then the answer is going to be "yes".

But you are clearly erecting a house of cards where the foundation supports the peak. "If you accept premise X then is not premise Y possible by default".

If we are going to play such what iffery then yes you are right.... it is possible that god could display itself to one human being or a collection of them.... in such a way as to be convincing to them but not to me. It could be possible that there are some humans privvy to a source of data that has simply been precluded my good self. It is an option the likes of me have to be aware of.... but have no reason to take seriously in any way thus far.

If only whatiffery were impressive to anyone but my 3 year old daughter.

antiskeptic · 06-04-2014 12:50pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We are getting into "If god... then all things are possible" territory.

In other words if you ask me a question that is based on the premise of gods existence..... and the question is about said gods capabilities..... then the answer is going to be "yes".

Good. It's a reasonable position to take.

If we are going to play such what iffery then yes you are right.... it is possible that god could display itself to one human being or a collection of them.... in such a way as to be convincing to them but not to me. It could be possible that there are some humans privvy to a source of data that has simply been precluded my good self. It is an option the likes of me have to be aware of.... but have no reason to take seriously in any way thus far.

Assuming your "no reason to take it seriously" comment contains a degree of dismissive-ness then I would ask you on what that is grounded. I mean, you can hardly point to "a lack of data" when the very possibility you accept but are being dismissive about centers around a lack of data for some and not others.

You'd be reasoning in a circle, in other words.

-

In any case, my reason for enquiring of you was to respond to the position in your 'slogan'

My slogan is that I have not been shown "any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the suggestion there might be a god". Of any type. And if there is nothing whatsoever to ground a belief, then I do think that belief irrational and unjustified

Given acceptance of the possibility of individual encounter with God via the medium of spirit and not, primarily, empiricism (a possibility which happens to be the drumbeat Christian position), can you maintain the view that belief is necessarily irrational and unjustified?

If yes, then how?

nozzferrahhtoo · 07-04-2014 8:27am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Good. It's a reasonable position to take.

Only, as I already said, in so far as if you are going to make up a being with unlimited capabilities then you have to accept just about anything else no matter what. I only accept your premise in so far as I would accept ANY premise no matter how ludicrous.... given the parameters you have invented.

But given how baseless and nonsense the parameters of which we speak are, it is not _in that sense_ a reasonable position to take at all. It is just a fun but ultimately nonsense thought experiment.

There is no reason on offer here, much less so from yourself, to think there is a god. So this "If there was a god surely you have to accept....." line of "reasoning" is, again, a fun but ultimately nonsense thought experiment.

antiskeptic · 07-04-2014 11:51am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Only, as I already said, in so far as if you are going to make up a being with unlimited capabilities

Unlimited capabilities isn't the God proposed here. God cannot make square circles or leave sin unpunished or act counter to his own nature, for example.

then you have to accept just about anything else no matter what. I only accept your premise in so far as I would accept ANY premise no matter how ludicrous.... given the parameters you have invented.

The premise is a creator God, which isn't itself ludicrous.

There is no reason on offer here, much less so from yourself, to think there is a god. So this "If there was a god surely you have to accept....." line of "reasoning" is, again, a fun but ultimately nonsense thought experiment.

The reason for my thinking there is a God revolves around God having demonstrated himself to me. This is something you agree can have occurred - which is unsurprising since it only requires:

- God to exist
- God to decide to communicate to me personally

..neither of which are ludicrous propositions. That you have, with good reason, no reason to suppose he exists says not one thing about his existing or not. The issue isn't that you be given reasons for God's existence - such as to satisfy you as to his existence. The issue is your:

a) maintaining my belief "irrational and unjustified" yet at the same time accepting

b) the possibility of God communicating individually - along with the possibility of his existing.

It seems to me that agnosticism is the only rational position for you to hold.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-04-2014 8:17am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Unlimited capabilities isn't the God proposed here.

It does not need to be for the point I am making to carry. I am simply saying that if X is an issue in proving there is a god, then you can not simply invent a god with characteristics that simply bypass X. Which is essentially what you are attempting to do with your questions about a god revealing itself to believers like yourself but not to unbelievers like me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The premise is a creator God, which isn't itself ludicrous.

But it is entirely unsubstantiated in any way. Especially by yourself and everyone on this thread. So while the premise itself may not be "ludicrous" per se.... subscribing to it certainly is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

which is unsurprising since it only requires:

- God to exist
- God to decide to communicate to me personally

Which is also ludicrous. The discussion is about whether god exists. In order to make the argument it does.... one of your premises is that it does.

A lot of people on this forum have had discussions on how to define "faith". In the religious context I have often used a definition of "Faith" that applies 100% exactly to you here. Faith is the willingness to assume your conclusion entirely true while arguing your conclusion is entirely true.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That you have, with good reason, no reason to suppose he exists says not one thing about his existing or not.

Nor did I once claim it did. Quite the opposite a few times actually. Not sure what utility you find in repeating my own points back to me therefore. I have never said anything on this thread except that the idea there is a god is not just slightly, but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated. Certainly not by you.

And yes I do find subscribing to entirely unsubstantiated claims to be entirely irrational.

antiskeptic · 08-04-2014 11:54am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It does not need to be for the point I am making to carry. I am simply saying that if X is an issue in proving there is a god,

That issue being the lack of data of in the categories familiar to yourself

then you can not simply invent a god with characteristics that simply bypass X. Which is essentially what you are attempting to do with your questions about a god revealing itself to believers like yourself but not to unbelievers like me.

You're assuming that characteristic is invented. It need not be. And because it need not be, you are left with agnosticism if claiming to remain strictly rational.

You can (and do) of course lay your own particular worldview over strict rationality so as to tip the balance.

But it is entirely unsubstantiated in any way. Especially by yourself and everyone on this thread. So while the premise itself may not be "ludicrous" per se.... subscribing to it certainly is.

How would one substantiate something if the person looking for the substantiation hasn't the means by which to receive it? If the person was 'blind' to the data...

(was blind / now see)

The discussion is about whether god exists.

It's actually not about whether God exists. It's an IF/THEN discussion. And so..

A lot of people on this forum have had discussions on how to define "faith". In the religious context I have often used a definition of "Faith" that applies 100% exactly to you here. Faith is the willingness to assume your conclusion entirely true while arguing your conclusion is entirely true.

I'm not arguing any conclusion true. I'm asking you how you hold your own conclusion true without first having resolved the IF/THEN which stands in your way.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-04-2014 9:08am

antiskeptic wrote: »

That issue being the lack of data of in the categories familiar to yourself

I am unable to parse this sentence. What do you mean here? If you feel you have some data that I lack, by all means present it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're assuming that characteristic is invented.

Not an assumption, it is a fact. WE have no substantiation that this entity even exists, let alone what its characteristics are or are not. If you present a characteristic of this entity therefore, you are merely making it up from your imagination.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How would one substantiate something if the person looking for the substantiation hasn't the means by which to receive it?

Start by actually getting some substantiation first. Worry about how to deliver it later. You are jumping to step 2 without even getting off the ground with step 1.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's actually not about whether God exists.

Except yes it is. The Thread Title is there for all to see. "Existence of God debate". Therefore the thread is a discussion about whether god exists.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm asking you how you hold your own conclusion true

To which conclusion do you refer specifically? I am not sure I recall presenting you one. Rather, I am discussing the conclusions of others that a god exists. Discussing and evaluating their conclusions is not the same as presenting my own.

antiskeptic · 09-04-2014 11:09am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am unable to parse this sentence. What do you mean here? If you feel you have some data that I lack, by all means present it.

You said: "I am simply saying that if X is an issue in proving there is a god"

I was inserting what I understood X to be. The lack of data in the categories (of evidence) familiar (better said: acceptable to) yourself.

Not an assumption, it is a fact. WE have no substantiation that this entity even exists, let alone what its characteristics are or are not. If you present a characteristic of this entity therefore, you are merely making it up from your imagination.

I would remind you that we are in the mode of IF/THEN rather than me claiming there is or trying to prove there is, a God. IF God exists and IF he communicates with people personally in non-empirically demonstrable fashion THEN ...

It is the consequences of THEN we are looking at. Some of those consequences would be:

I could know God exists whilst you couldn't
I could know God exists without being able to demonstrate that to you
My faith would be rational and justified
An IF/THEN approach would be an appropriate way to deal with what would be an incorrect slogan of yours regarding the rationality and justification for my faith.

Since you have no way to assess the possibility of the IF's being true, the THEN's remain eminently possible. And your slogan has feet of clay.

antiskeptic wrote:

How would one substantiate something if the person looking for the substantiation hasn't the means by which to receive it?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Start by actually getting some substantiation first. Worry about how to deliver it later.

The one I was referring to was God - given his evidencing himself to people personally. How can God evidence himself to someone if the someone hasn't got the "eyes to see"? Clearly the problem is in the person and their lack of "eyes to see" for once they had those eyes then see they would.

The reason why might one have eyes to see and another not is a separate issue (clearly God can equip all with eyes to see but doesn't/hasn't yet in the case of some for reasons not pertinent to this discussion). The point is to highlight a flaw in your slogan's thinking:

- it supposes the categories of evidences you find convincing being the only categories of evidence available

- it supposes you being able to detect all categories of evidence.

Except yes it is. The Thread Title is there for all to see. "Existence of God debate". Therefore the thread is a discussion about whether god exists.

My apologies, I meant our discussion and my framing of the problem with your slogan.

I you want I open a new thread...?

To which conclusion do you refer specifically

The one at the end of your slogan. About faith being irrational and unjustified.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-04-2014 12:08pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was inserting what I understood X to be. The lack of data in the categories (of evidence) familiar (better said: acceptable to) yourself.

You have not given any evidence at all, so you do know know what is familiar to me. You appear to be avoiding the simple fact you have no evidence to give, by changing the subject to the topic of evidence itself.

There is either a god, or there is not. You either have arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the claim there is a god. Or you do not. It really is that simple.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would remind you that we are in the mode of IF/THEN

I am in the mode of IF you claim X... THEN I am willing to hear your substantiation for X. You have offered none. Your whatiffery games do not substitute and the only one playing with clay here is you. If your clay ever takes form, do come back and show it to me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How can God evidence himself to someone if the someone hasn't got the "eyes to see"?

This is charlatan 101 stuff you are attempting here. Rather than substantiate your claims, you are attempting to explain away your lack of any substantiation by suggesting some kind of failure in the "mark". It is not that you have no evidence in your mind, it is that anyone who simply does not buy what you are shoveling has some lack of fault.

It is not just in religion that such linguistic charlatan trickery is tried. I see it all the time in many realms of discourse.

At the end all your "whatiffery" is doing is attempting to bolster unsubstantiated claims... with other unsubstantiated claims. At some point you will need to terminate the infinite regress of ifs and maybes.

antiskeptic wrote: »

My apologies, I meant our discussion

I have no idea what discussion you are having with yourself, or imagine what WE are having. I am here discussing the thread title-topic. IF you wish to go off topic that's fine with me. But I will not be following you.

Again the thread is about whether a god exists or not. And I am merely pointing out, once again, that no one (much less you) has even started, let alone actually, offered me a shred of even an iota of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim that there is one.

All I have been offered so far ever is

A) Re definitions of the word "god" in order to define it into existence or

discussions of what effect thinking there is a god has had on people or
C) Total changes of subject such as nagarrics totally off topic tangential failed attempt to claim reincarnation exists.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The one at the end of your slogan. About faith being irrational and unjustified.

All I am saying there is that I do not find it rational to believe X if one has quite literally no reason to believe X or base a belief in X. Not clear what is wrong with that statement. Though I can imagine you view that differently given you have a username that indicates being against skepticism at all which sort of slaps your bias here right on your sleeve.

antiskeptic · 10-04-2014 2:57pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You have not given any evidence at all, so you do know know what is familiar to me. You appear to be avoiding the simple fact you have no evidence to give, by changing the subject to the topic of evidence itself.

There is either a god, or there is not. You either have arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the claim there is a god. Or you do not. It really is that simple.

Since no attempt is being made by me to evidence God in this discussion, for the sake of brevity I'll move on

I am in the mode of IF you claim X... THEN I am willing to hear your substantiation for X. Your whatiffery games do not substitute and the only one playing with clay here is you. If your clay ever takes form, do come back and show it to me.

IF/THEN is dismantled by argument - not by attempting to belittle it.

No attempt is being made to substitute - the aim is to conclude your slogan erroneous. Concluding so isn't evidence for God's existence, rather, it's a removal of an objection (namely: faith is necessarily irrational and groundless)

I am not concerned with your agenda in this particular discussion since the discussion topic has been set between us by me.

Argue the case against your slogan or terminate the discussion.

This is charlatan 101 stuff you are attempting here. Rather than substantiate your claims, you are attempting to explain away your lack of any substantiation by suggesting some kind of failure in the "mark". It is not that you have no evidence in your mind, it is that anyone who simply does not buy what you are shoveling has some lack of fault.

It is not just in religion that such linguistic charlatan trickery is tried. I see it all the time in many realms of discourse.

At the end all your "whatiffery" is doing is attempting to bolster unsubstantiated claims... with other unsubstantiated claims. At some point you will need to terminate the infinite regress of ifs and maybes.

Other than reword a neutral, logical problem in terms favorable to your own position you've argued nothing here.

IF you wish to go off topic that's fine with me. But I will not be following you.

Hmm..

You made a statement, my challenging that statement isn't restricted only to providing evidence of God. I can challenge it in any legitimate way I like - which I have done with IF/THEN.

You can refuse that challenge, either by ducking behind this thread's title or refusing to engage in a new thread.

All I am saying there is that I do not find it rational to believe X if one has quite literally no reason to believe X or base a belief in X.

And if one does have reason (for example God turning up, albeit personally)?

Not clear what is wrong with that statement.

Your likely objection to what I've just said above will probably help reveal this..

Though I can imagine you view that differently given you have a username that indicates being against skepticism at all which sort of slaps your bias here right on your sleeve.

It's antiskeptic

Skeptic 3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially Christianity, or of important elements of it.

And I am anti-such-skeptics in that I oppose and challenge and counter their views and, when they are ardently and actively skeptic, their influence on the direction of society.

Our discussion is a case in point.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-04-2014 8:40am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since no attempt is being made by me to evidence God in this discussion, for the sake of brevity I'll move on

Well then you will have to move on without me because that to my mind is the subject of the thread, and my reason for being on it. If you want to open a new thread with a new topic I will certainly read it and reply if I find anything worthy of note.

antiskeptic wrote: »

discussion topic has been set between us by me.

Not your prerogative. This thread for me is about the claims that there is a god. If you have anything to substantiate that claim I am all ears. If you want to derail into another discussion, then you will not be doing so with me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

you've argued nothing here.

Nor have I intended to. I am here to evaluate the arguments of others that there is a god. So far no one has.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can refuse that challenge, either by ducking

The one ducking here is you. You are ducking the thread topic. The question here is whether there is any evidence to suggest there is a god or not. You are dodging that subject by derailing into another one.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And if one does have reason (for example God turning up, albeit personally)?

Then I am here to hear their arguments, evidence, data and reasoning to substantiate the claim that such an event did take place. Do you have any? or will you be dodging that again? I am not going to take their word for it, and certainly not going to take yours.

antiskeptic · 11-04-2014 2:23pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well then you will have to move on without me because that to my mind is the subject of the thread, and my reason for being on it. If you want to open a new thread with a new topic I will certainly read it and reply if I find anything worthy of note.

Thank you. I've opened a thread in the A&A forum for your attention.

robp · 13-04-2014 12:03am

smacl wrote: »

As an atheist, I think the faith people place in their gods is similarly irrational, as I don't believe the gods exist any more than the item listed as the principal active ingredient in the homoeopathic remedy are present in the pills. That doesn't mean people don't benefit from their faith, but it does make their faith irrational to an atheist.

As a theist I find the trust that atheists put in dismissing theism is irrational. That does not mean I don't understand the typical arguments of new atheism popular these days. Don't get me wrong I think its pretty plausible that some people benefit from atheism. The escape from arduous religious moral rules and the responsibility of being called to an often impractical higher purpose but it is a unsustainable irrational position to a theist.

Matter just does not pop out of nothing

Canis Lupus · 13-04-2014 3:49am

robp wrote: »

Matter just does not pop out of nothing

But gods do?

robp · 13-04-2014 8:26am

Canis Lupus wrote: »

But gods do?

No as God is not matter within space-time. God is not a being or a thing. God is the unconditioned reality that all of reality depends.

_Redzer_ · 13-04-2014 9:23am

robp wrote: »

No as God is not matter within space-time. God is not a being or a thing. God is the unconditioned reality that all of reality depends.

So you can confidently say that matter cannot arise from nothing, yet you can say equality as confidently that god is the "unconditioned reality that all of reality depends".

The correct answer is we don't know enough to make a statement either way.

MrPudding · 13-04-2014 10:01am

robp wrote: »

The escape from arduous religious moral rules and the responsibility of being called to an often impractical higher purpose but it is a unsustainable irrational position to a theist.

I take issue with a couple of your words. Arduous, for example. I would not say that religious moral rules are arduous. Silly, pointless, controlling? Perhaps, arduous? No. Clearly I can't speak for all atheists, but I don't reject gods and religion to escape the associated strictures, I reject them because they don't make any sense and there is no plausible evidence to suggest that i should follow them.

I assume you are trying to run the old line that without a belief in god one cannot be a moral being? I am fine with that, to be perfectly honest. I am happy to be immoral, by your standards. I engage in sex before marriage, I use contraception, I have children, but I am not married, I think the RCC is a despicable organisation, I support gay rights and gay marriage. Does that make me immoral? Good, I am happy with that.

How I live my life is, as far as I am concerned, ethical. I don't harm people, I do charitable works, I treat people with respect. I am raising my children to know right from wrong. Not because they will be punished or rewarded for eternity, but because it is the right thing to do, right here, right now.

And what is the impractical higher purpose? To die and become a sycophantic worshipper of some childish monster of a god? Meh, no thanks. I don't need a higher purpose. I have purpose. My purpose is to better myself as a human being, to try to leave things a little better than i found then and to instil a similar outlook in my children, and to do all this without resorting to a bogeyman or his opposite number.

robp wrote: »

Matter just does not pop out of nothing

Says renowned physicist robp.

MrP

MrPudding · 13-04-2014 10:03am

_Redzer_ wrote: »

So you can confidently say that matter cannot arise from nothing, yet you can say equality as confidently that god is the "unconditioned reality that all of reality depends".

In his defence, he has to say that otherwise none of it makes any sense. Where would that leave him?

MrP

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments