How do you convince people god exists?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And a failed one because as I repeat, equally analagous, it is possible to evidence the existence of things a blind person can not see. So while they might not see X, they can still be shown it exists.

What happens when someone can't see and someone else is talking about red. "Evidence Red" the blind man says. But the person can't. They are unable to think of a way to evidence red. Now someone who is very clever (perhaps you even) can think of a way to evidence red. Bit this particular person can't. Does that mean the blind person is on strong ground if supposing there is no such thing as red?

You can not even do that. You can not only show me the evidence you claim I am blind to, you can not even show the thing I am blind to exists either. So the analogy fails.

The analogy was pushed beyond what it was meant to point out. I've reworked it for you above.

Your "damaging behaviour" analogy equally fails because we can make attempts to show the adult in quesiton their behaviour and how it is damaging. Once again you do not even make the attempt to do the same.

Same issue. In the case of the damaged adult it takes expertise to both understand what the issue is and to bring the person to see it. Not everyone can aid the damaged person - you and your Royal We.

God on a par with the Counselling Psychologist and me = Joe Public (who has no ability to aid the damaged adult)

You can continue to be obtuse and try to find another way to wiggle away.from all that an analogy can be.

The point is that not everyone can aid a blind person see.

You just screech "You are blind" at people and make no attempt to uncover their eyes.

I'm not sure what part of "only God can do that" you don't understand. Indeed, I think you do understand - in that you don,'t like where it leads. Stalemate.

Once again following the MO I pointed out before of how you like to talk ABOUT evidence without ever offering any of it.

The context is me having evidence, you not being able to put any debt in that claim, you being blind to the evidence and only God able to show you it. There is no need for me to produce any.

Which is a linguistic stalemate and a fetid canard, and not the loft philosophical stalemate you laud yourself of proffering.

Your supposition about what constitute evidence, which are equally void of an ability to demonstrate as mine puts you in the same boat my friend. You rely on royal we and accumulated evidence despite the fact that there is nothing at all universal about your view. It's a minority view in fact.



[Quote♧And anyone can make up pretty much any unsubstantiated nonsense on the spot and make the same claim. [/quote]

Define the scope of what constitutes evidence so. That'll be pretty much unsubstantiated 'woo'

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So all you are saying with your failed analogy is you think you have evidence, you want to pretend you have evidence, but your cop out if you can not think of a way to show that evidence.

As I said before, I simply do not buy it.

I'm not asking you to buy it, for if you bought it, it wouldn't be a stalemate, it would be checkmate.

I do not believe you have ANY evidence, and you are just hand waving cop outs around to do anything but admit that.

But that's precisely what the blind man would say if someone couldn't demonstrate red to him!

If the blind man had what he believed were good reasons to suppose there wasn't such thing as red. Like, lots of other blind people around saying the same thing

So come back to me if and when you find some evidence, or think of a way to communicate the evidence you supposedly (yeah, right) have.

Because last time I checked this thread was called "How do you convince people god exists?" not "How do you cop out from convincing people god exists?" or "How do you pretend to stalemate a conversation about whether god exists by not engaging with the conversation in good faith, while pretending the 'stalemate' is actually some coy philosophical move?"

You can continue to be obtuse and wiggle away all you want. But no one else is. You have nothing, and pretence that people around you are blind is just that. Pretence.

I'm pretty sure my stance has been the same throughout. Some asks how and I say 'I don't think you can't is fair enough.

You've been trying to wiggle away from stalemate for about that long. You might not like it but I think we're there. It's okay if you think its baloney, for that doesn't matter.

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, to arrive at a stalemate you need both players playing the same game by agreed rules. I'm not seeing this at any level here.

The game hasn't started.

Nozz demands evidence and has some or other idea about what constitutes evidence.

I don't agree with his idea. I have my own idea.

Neither of us can demonstrate that evidence is encompassed by our idea.

And so we're stuck. For want of a way to arrive at common ground. Stalemate before we begin.

A fight in which neither side can make the first move never gets going. Stalemated before it begins.

So you are correct in what you say smacl. Nevertheless, a stalemate.

storker wrote: »

It wouldn't matter what the blind man might say because we know that the existence of red as a colour has been proven through observable, testable experiment.

a) In this case, the blind man represents people who suppose that knowledge can only be obtained through empirical means. Any atheist here who includes empiricism in his world view is, for the purposes of the illustration, the blind person. "We" would be that group of people who have access to information that the blind man, by virtue of his blindness, has not. These would be theists who know God exists.

b) The issue is not what the "we's" know. The issue is what the blind man knows. And in this case, he is limited to what he can perceive with his 5 senses.

c) Combined: we can conclude that if some people know God exists (and that knowing need not be empirically derived) then the fact that empiricist atheists can't see the evidence of God is really a reflection on empiricist atheists inability to perceive, not on people who know God exists.


What we have on this forum, I propose, is blind people hopping up and down asking for evidence of something they simply can't see. And when it isn't forthcoming, they suppose the problem lies with another and not with them.


-

Overarching point: generally, empiricist atheists suppose that they occupy the higher ground. That somehow or other, their philosophy about what constitutes evidence / sight / etc. is actually objectively true. Or if not objectively true, then the biggest kid on the block

Their position is actually a faith based position though: they can't show that their belief about evidence and the primacy of their philosophy about evidence and perception of same, is true. They can only believe it to be the case.

Which is amusing: faith based empiricists looking down their nose at faith based theists!

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps you could point out any such atheist to us here, as I rather doubt you'll find one. As an illustration of this, I would imagine every atheist and theist here would accept that Pythagoras' theorem represents valid human knowledge. Yet this theorem is built on a pure abstract notion of points on a plane, neither of which exist. While the theorem can be tested to a certain degree of accuracy using physical measurement, it can only be proven using abstract mathematics. It is common knowledge not obtained through empirical means and does not demand any faith to understand.

It doesn't matter what you add to the list, the point remains the same. As soon as you set a line in the sand regarding what constitutes knowledge/evidence/truth/fact you are making a faith statement: "what I find I (or the royal we / folk with like mind) can approach is what is approachable"

Your argument combines a rather flimsy straw man with an obvious false equivalence.

I would have thought by now you have a) gotten b) begun to deal with the issue. I could list every -ism known to man and you could make that objection.

While you've repeated it ad nauseum, it has gained zero traction with anyone here while being solidly and repeatedly rebuffed by many posters.

The lack of traction here can say as much about you as me ..don't you know. What are you saying: it's a neutral jury here.

Step up to the argument as made up top. Quit hiding behind the fact that I don't list each and every -ism that anyone here might adhere to for their definition of knowledge and how one might apprehend it.... each and every time.

karlitob wrote: »

To be fair, the repetitiveness of these points is getting fairly annoying.

Stop saying that my atheist position is a faith or faith based. I’ve told you this is incorrect a number of times.

The position that evidence is limited to what you yourself can perceive is a faith based position. I'm not criticising your faith - what else could you do?

We just need to be clear it is faith based.

Unfortunately, believers like you have affected my life and many others, affected lives of people now and in the past, just because of your belief in some magical gender neutral person in the sky.

Everyone's belief has an impact on others. From belief comes shaping of society. You might believe it's okay to kill the unborn. You believe the unborn to be comparatively unimportant. That affects me, in the same way that people who are born being killed affects me.