Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why NOT??? You and your cohort are the ones adding all sorts of things to the concept that have no basis in science . . . and then rejecting it. BUT I have simply defined it as the SAME as what you call "Nature" . . . you just reject my definition without anything more than antipathy for the God label. You despise that it then allows people to add BELIEFS about this God and you would be prevented from saying there is "not one shred of evidence" for God. You would be rightly limited to refuting ONLY the specific BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . and NOT God's existence.
Gldn elaborates the essentials for you in his post . . . but they have been elaborated numerous times by both of us. Your desire to keep making the absurd claim that "there is not one shred of evidence" is the reason you resist it so vigorously.
Non-sequitur! You prefer not to consider it so, period. The minimum requirements for a Supreme Being relative to us is definitively met. You can reject and deny ANY attributes you like . . . since those that are NOT established by science are only BELIEFS ABOUT God . . . NOT essential attributes to establish the mere existence of God. The scientifically established attributes are more than sufficient to corroborate the EXISTENCE of God. The attributes beyond those are and will remain in the BELIEFS ABOUT God category until verified by science (or for some of us by personal experience).
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Mystic, if "god" is strictly equivalent to "nature", then by that very definition it cannot be the source of "nature", it is "nature".
Why NOT??? You have not established this . . . just asserted it. How does the existence of "Nature" preclude it being the Source of "Nature?" When we talk of "Nature" we refer to what exists. Why does what exists have to have something else be its Source??? That is like a cell of your body saying you cannot be the Source of you.
Quote:
If you define god as nature, it is dishonest to then try to add to the definition and assume that all previous conclusions apply. It is like saying 2+2=4, and after we can agree to that in principle, complain that we have no right to object if you redefine 2 as 3. We already agreed that 2+2 = 4, so you try to paint us as intransigent when we try to point out that we did not agree that 3+3 =4!
Wrong. The EXISTENCE of God is a factual issue involving what we can know from science about God. What we know has to meet certain minimum requirements to constitute God relative to us, period. Once that minimum is reached . . . God's existence is no longer disputable. It is ALL the other things in the myriad BELIEFS ABOUT God that have to be evaluated separately for feasibility and plausibility . . . But whether or not they are true . . . they have NOTHING to do with God's existence.
Quote:
The argument that we can examine the existence of something with no definition
Get this through your head, NoCapo . . . THERE IS a definition for the EXISTENCE of God and Gldn and I have proffered it too many times for you to pretend there is no definition. You just don't agree with it or don't like it or think it is inadequate. That is your preference, period.
Quote:
or that the original evaluation is not altered by changing definitions is simply ridiculous! When you add a "belief about god" to the original definition, you have to start at the very beginning and examine the evidence for that new definition.
So if we say god == nature, then I can agree although I will point out that labeling it god adds nothing to the discussion, we could as easily label it satan, or bob. We have simply agreed that observable reality exists. I'm ok with that, but when you want to add things like create, source, will, mind, love and such you have to start at the beginning, because that isn't what we were discussing.
This is where you go awry. Human beliefs about phenomena do NOT determine the status of their existence. That is entirely a scientific question. People have all manner of weird beliefs about phenomena that DO exist. Their unbelievable or weird beliefs about the phenomena do NOT negate the existence of them!!! They simply place the beliefs about them in question. What about this do you NOT understand???
Quote:
List the minimum requirements for a Supreme Being. No really, what are they? You asserted this, evidence it.
Are you trolling or just not paying any attention? Gldn and I have repeatedly enumerated the minimum requirements for a God relative to us puny creatures and everything we know about your "Nature" exceeds the minimums. Your issue with the additional beliefs about God in the myriad religions have no bearing on those minimums. They are separate issue that stand or fall on their own merits . . . but the existence of God is not affected by them. It is merely YOUR preference that it do so because you do not agree with the minimums.
Quote:
Because, the way I see it, "Being" implies at least some sort of rudimentary mind or will, which is not in evidence! We need to agree on what the minimum requirements for being a god are, before you can claim they have been met. Even if we can't agree on them, simply having you list the criteria you are using would be a start!
"Nature" is everything that exists taken as a totality. That includes EVERYTHING! Since we exist as part of nature and our consciousness exists as part of nature and our intelligence, Will, love and hate, etc. exist as part and parcel of nature . . . how can you even question their existence???
Quote:
Existence, or more specifically a basic equivalence with reality itself, is a "BELIEF ABOUT God". You have given no reason other than your desire to dishonestly extend the definitions through implication and inference. The idea of what constitutes a god is belief, but it is vital to answer the question. You can't demonstrate the existence of god without defining "god".
i suspect a troll. I have defined what are the minimum requirements to establish the EXISTENCE of a God relative to us and your "Nature" qualifies. You disagree and want to add all the beliefs about God so you can deny them. Existence either is or is not and has nothing to do with beliefs about it.
Quote:
I will grant you that you have a firm grasp of your Lewis Carroll!
-NoCapo
I will grant you that you do NOT have a firm grasp on the difference between a scientific question of existence of a God relative to us and the many spiritual beliefs about the attributes of God that exist that cannot be scientifically verified.
I can buy the argument that the Universe is God, a strict pantheism, but logically you can't get there through the idea of agency, of creation, control, and responsibility. Like I pointed out, energy didn't create energy, nor did it create the laws it is governed by. That definition of a "god" is a really poor one to try to use for reality or the universe as "god", because the language used implies things far beyond what you are claiming. It implies an ontic seperation between the creator and the created, the controlled and the controller, which you appear to be explicitly disclaiming in the very next sentence. Not saying that you can't construct a good argument for the universe as god, but that isn't it...
Ultimately there is no conflict between metaphysical naturalism and a strict pantheism, it is when we try to imply agency, will, desire, and the like that it goes off the rails. My point to both you an Mystic is that if you define God in a metaphysically naturalistic pantheistic way, then we can agree on it, but to define it that way and then try to sneak in other attributes after the fact is more than a bit disingenuous.
As I said...it doesn't matter if it was "random", and wasn't "planned" or "by agency"...the creation, control, maintaining, and sustaining, HAS and DOES happen. And thus sufficient to be titled "GOD"...by me.
Matter of fact...ANYTHING one sees fit to title "GOD" because they perceive it as such is sufficient...it doesn't need to have the strict and lofty attributes that I chose to demand before I see fit to assign the title.
If that doesn't "cut it" as "GOD" for you (or anyone else)...that is inconsequential. Unless you can show some authority that gives you (or someone else) the exclusive right to define "GOD"...and only your/their definition is valid.
I'm writing in English. I actually understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'. You clearly do not.
No, people who think they have seen sasquatch do not have 'evidence' that sasquatches exist.
No, people who think they've been kidnapped by aliens do not have 'evidence' that abductive aliens exist.
No, Andrea Yates - who thinks God told her to drown her five children - does not have 'evidence' that God exists.
I'm sure you'll agree with that last one, of course, because that's how it is with people such as yourself - you selective dismiss only those personal revelations which do not comport with what you want to believe.
I have no idea what your babbling about a white rose entails, or why you think someone singing with a guitar is compelling evidence of a deity. But that sort of completely nonsensical disconnect is a perfect example of how evidence plays absolutely no role whatsoever in the thought processes of people such as yourself.
Babbling? That is rude and insulting. I have no reason to believe that Mr. Doyle Dykes did not experience the story that he tells in the video. Funny how the more evidence I present, the atheist replies become more angry and venomous. Anyways, I'm bowing out here. Not worth my time.
Except no, it does not. And you simply asserting it does will not magically make it so. Again what you describe is not a faith claim but an evaluation based on evidence. The evidence of experience with chairs. Of this chair in particular. Of past experiences good and bad.
This evaluation of evidence is the exact OPPOSTE of "faith" and your fetid but palpable desperation to assign faith to those who do not display it simply belies.... as I already said.... your desperate need to dilute the meaning of "faith" to make it look like everyone has it, so you no longer need to defend it.
Then you might as well give up now. Because I accept nothing "without question". I critically and openly EVALUATE evidence presented to me. There is no evidence on ANY subject.... let alone the subject of religion and god.... I accept "Without question".
I am happy... and more than capable.... to openly and honestly evaluate any evidence you care to present. The problem I have is that you are NOT PRESENTING ANY. And I simply can not accept or reject something that has not even once been offered.
Not so. Archaeology can corroborate and support other evidence. Archaeology is fine if you can use it correctly. I have NO objection to that. I was simply pointing out how it was used INCORRECTLY here on this thread. The simple fact is.... now read this carefully because it is an important point...... using Archaeology to show that the PLACES in a given book exist in NO WAY supports the idea that the EVENTS in that book exist.
Now as I said read that carefully, then read it again and again until it sinks in. It is not a subtle point. It is a blatant and important one. A huge and significant body of fiction is set against real world people, places, events and backgrounds. If one wants to establish the contents of a book are fact therefore.... merely showing that the locations mentioned within it existed is only the first tiniest step you can make. There is so so so so much more to do. And you simply are not doing it. Or even trying.
No. It is not. It is being open and receptive. What is disingenuous is how you theists try to stack the deck. If we remain open and ready to evaluate any evidence you present, you are not happy. If we too critically and narrowly define the evidence we will accept, you are not happy. You simply stack the deck.... calling us either too open minded or too close minded. But all the while what you are ACTUALLY doing is simply deflecting the conversation so you do not have to present ANY evidence at all. You just have to moan and whine and whinge about how you imagine the evidence will be received.
Get this: and learn it: The onus of presenting evidence lies ENTIRELY on the person making the positive claim. (Such as the claim there is a god). The onus to define what that evidence is lies ONLY with that person. Not me.
You want to know what evidence I will consider openly and honestly? I will consider and discuss ANYTHING that fits the following format:
1) State clearly what your claim actually is.
2) List clearly what things you think support that claim.
3) Explain clearly how you think the things listed in 2 support the claim made in 1.
Simple huh? Yet you can not do it. But do not feel bad, most theists can not do it. In my experience they do "2" a lot. A hell of a lot. They do "1" only in the vaguest and underhanded way without tying themselves down to actually making a real claim. And generally when I inquire about "3" they either run away instantly or.... like you.... dodge, deflect, or get irate.
Not so. See above. Already explained this. No point repeating.
Corroboration from various sources of information and evidence. Simply showing using archaeology that the places in a book exist alone is not enough to evidence the events described in that book ever happened or the people existed. You need much more than that.
Read any thread about abortion that I have posted on and you will find many examples. And that is just one SET of many examples.
Then keep trying because so far you have failed utterly. And until you actually present some evidence, your declarations and assertions on how atheists will respond to it are simple fantasy.
I disagree. Keeping people like the guy above talking is NEVER a waste of time. Their position is so weak, full of so many dodges and deflections and vitriol and bile, and so poorly presented, that merely keeping them talking does more damage to their position than anything I could write about them. He thinks he is serving his own purposes by debating against me. So far he has done little but fall into the trap of supporting mine.
As I said, give them a rope and they will hang themselves. Keeping people like that talking is NEVER a waste of time. In fact my core mantra in life is that DISCOURSE is never a waste of time. Ever.
All your rhetoric boils down to "nope you're wrong because well you're wrong, and you never ever ever present evidence!!!" Oh and I can't just be wrong. I have to "failed utterly" lol.
Still waiting on ONE example where you show that you are capable of AGREEING with a Christian. Otherwise, it is tiring as you seem to purpose want to argue with anything I say.
Babbling? That is rude and insulting. I have no reason to believe that Mr. Doyle Dykes did not experience the story that he tells in the video. Funny how the more evidence I present, the atheist replies become more angry and venomous.
I can only laugh at your child-like notion that a man playing the guitar is evidence of a deity.
By the way, I noticed you conveniently ignored my other points, which completely and utterly destroy your idea that personal revelation suggests anything other than individual delusions.
Quote:
Anyways, I'm bowing out here. Not worth my time.
Good plan. Run away, but first announce that you're running away so no one is surprised after you've running away.
I guess this means you won't even try explaining why personal revelations that jibe with what you want to believe are sacrosanct to you, but personal revelations that don't (you know, the ones I listed that you ignored, since you have no answer for them) can just be blithely dismissed. That's OK - it's clear that your methodology for deciding which personal revelations matter is entirely narcissistic - those you like are real, those you don't are not real.
I can only laugh at your child-like notion that a man playing the guitar is evidence of a deity.
By the way, I noticed you conveniently ignored my other points, which completely and utterly destroy your idea that personal revelation suggests anything other than individual delusions.
I didn't ignore anything. I'm on vacation, and certainly not going to sit here for hours to appease your taunting. It's obvious that you have no desire for evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Good plan. Run away, but first announce that you're running away so no one is surprised after you've running away.
I guess this means you won't even try explaining why personal revelations that jibe with what you want to believe are sacrosanct to you, but personal revelations that don't (you know, the ones I listed that you ignored, since you have no answer for them) can just be blithely dismissed. That's OK - it's clear that your methodology for deciding which personal revelations matter is entirely narcissistic - those you like are real, those you don't are not real.
Run away from what? Did you actually make a point?
I didn't ignore anything. I'm on vacation, and certainly not going to sit here for hours to appease your taunting. It's obvious that you have no desire for evidence.
Well, probably not one that you want to explain your way out of. Since I'm feeling charitible, even in face of your intentional obtuseness, I'll repeat myself in regards to your absurd assertion that personal revelation is evidence. And just so you can' easily run away from that claim you made it right here: http://www.city-data.com/forum/34900938-post280.html
You:
Quote:
If you have personal experiences then there is quite a good bedrock of evidence available to you personally.
Me:
Quote:
No, people who think they have seen sasquatch do not have 'evidence' that sasquatches exist.
No, people who think they've been kidnapped by aliens do not have 'evidence' that abductive aliens exist.
No, Andrea Yates - who thinks God told her to drown her five children - does not have 'evidence' that God exists.
I'm sure you'll agree with that last one, of course, because that's how it is with people such as yourself - you selective dismiss only those personal revelations which do not comport with what you want to believe.
In response (quoted above), I pointed out the following example of 'personal experiences' just to show you how shallow your reasoning is - I doubt you believe in sasquatches, massive occurrences of alien abductions, or that your deity told a woman in Texas to kill her five kids. See, that's the problem - you love claims of personal experiences, but only if you like the story. If you don't, it just doesn't count. Which makes the whole notion just a transparent exercise in narcissism.
Quote:
Run away from what? Did you actually make a point?
Hey, you're the one who claimed you wouldn't be back. And I made my point (which, since you have no answer to it, you ignored the first time).
Well? Are you going to ignore it again? I thought you were bowing out?
In response (quoted above), I pointed out the following example of 'personal experiences' just to show you how shallow your reasoning is - I doubt you believe in sasquatches, massive occurrences of alien abductions, or that your deity told a woman in Texas to kill her five kids. See, that's the problem - you love claims of personal experiences, but only if you like the story. If you don't, it just doesn't count. Which makes the whole notion just a transparent exercise in narcissism.
You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between evidence and proof. They are not the same. Otherwise, in a court of law, the prosecution would only have to present a single piece of evidence to close the case.
Evidence is nothing more than an indicator that X may be true. A single piece of evidence moves the needle away from your rock solid assertion that there is no God. While I don't really consider one person's wild testimony to be evidence, if numerous ppl are claiming to have encountered Big Foot or UFOS then yes, I consider that evidence. I believe it is possible. Likewise, if many people are claiming to have a supernatural experience with God then I believe that serves as evidence just like personal testimony serves as evidence in a trial. Evidence merely points the way to the truth.
Do you see how many times you have repeated yourself? And, you'll continue to repeat yourself because some people just "don't get it"
I see it indeed. And as I said I see utility in it. An error would be to assume that I reply to such people in order to make THEM "get it". I do not. The person I am replying to is entirely and wholly incidental. I reply to them so that OTHERS can read those replies and OTHERS can see the nonsense I get in response. I have no aim or agenda with the user in question. My aim and agenda is with others. And the complete nonsense posted by that user in response to my posts serves that agenda more than he appears to even suspect.
As I said, have said often, and likely will continue to say in the future: Sometimes the best attack you can do on peoples positions is merely to keep them talking. What they espouse, and how, damages their cause more than anything I myself could write.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
All your rhetoric boils down to "nope you're wrong because well you're wrong
So you have chosen to ignore the entire content of my post and misrepresent it entirely in a one liner. This says a lot about you, it really does.
I am not saying you are "wrong". I am saying that the claims you are making are ENTIRELY unsubstantiated. Especially by you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Still waiting on ONE example where you show that you are capable of AGREEING with a Christian. Otherwise, it is tiring as you seem to purpose want to argue with anything I say.
I gave you a whole sample set of them. You simply choose to ignore that too. Head in the sand much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It's obvious that you have no desire for evidence.
Total lie from you there. We do have that desire. Which is why we keep asking you for some. You just keep failing to provide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Run away from what?
The entire content of my last post for a start.
Substantiating a single one of your claims for two.
Examples abound, but those two would be the stand out ones for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between evidence and proof.
The difference is entirely clear thanks. The simple fact is you have offered NEITHER.
That's not right. He's told us that the reason he believes is because he had a vision while meditating once.
I am not seeing a distinction really - but I know what you mean. He basically dozed off and had a dream one day and found that dream particularly convincing. That appears to be the sum total of his reasoning that a god exists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
