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.
All "evidence" should be evaluated to see whether it is persuasive. We know the parameters for evaluating that. Tinkering with dictionary definitions is not evidence of anything but a lack of any valid evidence. We are still waiting for some. I/D has failed. In a court of law, too. What more have you got to show that nature is intelligent and deserves the God -label?
Mystic did suggest the idea that cosmc consciousness (Aka "God") became coalesced rather like a swarm of gnats in certain places where whodathunkit, humans were hanging about. Thus we have reasoning. That as I recall had a problem in that the whole of the Cosmic consciousness should be as reasoning as us, or more so, or it is hardly "God". If not, it is better explained by "emergence" of intelligence (as did Life) through animal reactions and in fact back to chemical reactions. In other words it is evidence for nature, not a Cosmic - mind "God".
Just getting that one out the way.
YOU are the one tinkering with the definition.
I fully acknowledge and accept that one of the ways GOD is defined is as Religious Deities.
It is now up to those that perceive those Deities as GOD to them to prove they actually exist.
Are you prepared to do the same for the meaning that is "Something of Supreme Value"? It is YOU that must "ignore" that definition to make your illogical Atheist concept work!
I accept the FULL definition.
It is YOU that must "tinker" with it and redact it to just Religious Deities.
You falsely accuse others of doing what YOU do.
Com'on...consider the FULL definition. Don't let your Godophobia scare you away from some of the meanings. Accept them all...then honestly consider if anything objectively exists that comports with any of those meanings.
Then, get back to us and let us know what you figured out.
We have done this over on the other thread. The one thing you need to demonstrate in order to have anything that can be called "God" other than through semantic fiddling and cherry picking of inappropriate metaphorical sub definitions as a trick to wangle the 'God' label into acceptance, is Intelligence comparable with ours but outside of ours.
Animal intelligence or consciousness or just instinctive reaction will not do, nor will the workings of physics. That is 'Nature'. "God" is merely misleading and I suspect deliberately so. Look,you can play these games till your hair falls out, but if you cannot substantiate the one thing without which the 'God' -label is merely misleading, then you end up merely believing it yourself (which is what you do now) and have persuaded nobody, so it is a waste of all our time.
I am sure they will be over joyed to have your permission/endorsement. But I have to admit that in all my experiences with atheists.... which is larger than most given my work with Atheist Ireland, Atheist Alliance International, and now the Atheist organisations here in Germany where I now live........... I have yet to meet a single one who "chose" not to believe.
The issue, since this is a thread about Evidence, is that there is none. Evidence that is. There simply is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer by anyone, certainly not by you, that there is a god. Therefore the atheists lack of belief is not a "choice". They are simply UNABLE to believe the unsubstantiated.
And when evidence IS provided for a proposition, they do not CHOOSE to believe the proposition.... they are compelled to by the evidence.
So if YOU go around "choosing" to believe things then so be it. But do not assume other people are. You simply have an ability people like me lack. I am not ABLE to choose what to believe or not. I am either compelled to believe by the substantiation, or I am not. And I am certainly not by a lack of any and all substantiation, such as in the case of the claim there is an intentional intelligent agency you might call a god.
So I have an ability that they do not...perhaps that is why some of the most vocal anti-theists are so bitter sounding? Envy perhaps?
And please define "evidence". I have yet to see any "evidence" that an "evidence" based existence will lead me closer to existential authenticity, which is, to me, the meaning of life. Being the authentic "me" trumps everything else, so long as my being authentic does not inhibit anyone else's ability to be authentic (by hurting them or inhibiting their freedom, as long as their freedom does not inhibit anyone else)
By being my authentic-self I follow my religion and wear it leads me personally. I never impose it on anyone, of course, but I follow it and it guides me and makes me whole. Even if it does not meet the "scientific rigor" who cares? I don't. It works for me, and that is enough.
Quote:
One wonders just how labile your credulity is with this ability you have to simply choose what to believe. Can you, for example, when presented with a patently empty box..... simply choose to believe it full of money? It is a remarkable skill, though given the nonsense it has the religious espousing at times I am not sure I envy you it.
That is a strawman. God cannot be proven or disproven while a box can be opened and see. All science has done is made it clear that the literal understanding of creation Myths are false, and neither I, nor the ancient Christians, Gnostic or Proto-orthodox, believed them to be literal (I can site sources, but would rather not as that would lead to a tangent)
I once heard an atheist accidentally destroy his own argument. He said "when you die and you don't get to heaven, and instead nothing happens but the end of your consciousness, you're gonna feel so stupid."
Yes, I believe in an afterlife. And I will ever be rewarded for that belief, or I will never know anyway because my mind will stop working. Hope for an afterlife is the most rational thing to hope for. Why? Because it is the only hope that you can never be disappointed by.
OP Here. I have to say lots of words have gone under the bridge, and all sorts of esoteric arguments presented, but not one word of evidence as I see it. None.
If you are looking for "evidence" of God you are asking the wrong question, just as my looking for "evidence" of the value or intimate relationships was asking the wrong question.
I turned MGTOW and stopped dating and having sex, realizing that it wasn't worth it and I found no value in it. I never looked for "evidence" that living a life without whining, awful, nagging gold digging females who are impossible to please and don't know how to buzz off and...sorry, I was going off on a tirade. If "girlfriends" were "religion," I would be Christopher Hitchens.
Anyway, I never looked for third party "evidence" that a life without women would be better because I said "it's my life. If I am not hurting anyone by saying 'no' to relationship BS, than why not?"
Don't ask "is it true or not," ask "does this make my life better without hurting anyone else?" Ask that question for everything. If faith does make your heart soar, if it feels you up with joy and gives you strength and understanding, than it is true. If it doesn't, then walk away.
That's it. It is not about "facts" or "figures". The truth of God, Christ and all cannot be proven or disproven...and that whole "Noah's ark thing"...*sigh* it was never meant to be taken literally. That I can prove:
The Bible doesn't even take itself literally. In the Letter to the Galatians Paul makes it clear he believed that Ishmael and Isaac were allegorical characters. Hosea in the Old Testament interpreted Jacob's wrestling an angel to mean a spiritual struggle in prayer, not literally wrestling a divine being. Even the church father Origen said the Bible can ONLY be interpreted metaphorically, not literally.
At no point does the Bible say "take this literally." But if you read it in context, you can get a sense of what is expected to be taken on faith and what is meant to just be a tale meant to tell a lesson.
The bottom line is this: go in a quiet place and read the Gospel of ,(my favorite) or Pslams and see if it speaks to you. Follow your heart and God, no church, no science, nothing but what is inside you and see where it takes you. If you feel the spirit in you, follow it. If you don't...go study the periodic table instead.
Sometimes it is best to not listen to "evidence" but instead, to listen to your heart.
"Follow your bliss, and it will open doors for you where before there were only walls"-Joseph Campbell, "The Power of Myth"
We have done this over on the other thread. The one thing you need to demonstrate in order to have anything that can be called "God" other than through semantic fiddling and cherry picking of inappropriate metaphorical sub definitions as a trick to wangle the 'God' label into acceptance, is Intelligence comparable with ours but outside of ours.
Animal intelligence or consciousness or just instinctive reaction will not do, nor will the workings of physics. That is 'Nature'. "God" is merely misleading and I suspect deliberately so. Look,you can play these games till your hair falls out, but if you cannot substantiate the one thing without which the 'God' -label is merely misleading, then you end up merely believing it yourself (which is what you do now) and have persuaded nobody, so it is a waste of all our time.
And yet so many Dawkin's Witnesses continue to waste people's times going on about "facts" this and "data" this and "double-blind study" this and "my fedora" that, and it never works. I get it. No basis in scientific theory.
WE. Don't. Care.
If you can show me evidence that an evidence based existence will lead me closer to existential authenticity, I will listen. Until then, I am not going to let a little thing like "scientific vigor" get between me and the joy of touching the eternal. All your talk of "reason" is simply boring.
"The heart has its reasons of which REASON knows nothing"-Blaise Pascal
I would be happy to entertain your evidence that everything that exists is NOT intelligent, conscious and therefore NOT God. Otherwise, your proclamation that it doesn't belong here is void. How do you KNOW it is none of those things or is that merely your belief?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Reversing the burden of proof? It is for you to present evidence of this intelligent nature that we can legitimately label God and no need for quotes. And I clobbered your efforts to overturn the materialist default a long time ago AND explained the evidence for a gradual emergence or "evolution" if you like of consciousness along with life. To which you could only make the footling objection that this was just what was observed. So is everything we examine and scientifically prove.
So you see, the burden of proof of this intelligent cosmos is on you and I have discharged a fair burden of proof on my part that I didn't need to.
You have NOT explained or in any way controverted the obvious absurdity that a non-conscious reality can miraculously "emerge" consciousness that is so completely alien to the non-conscious dead material from which it somehow emerges. I know you THINK it makes perfect sense to your concrete mind, but it is preposterous. There is NOTHING in the materialist make-up of reality that in any way presages the unique and completely alien phenomenon of consciousness. Consciousness has the ability to imagine and therefore manifest within it things that completely VIOLATE the laws that constrain the reality within which it somehow "emerged."
So I have an ability that they do not...perhaps that is why some of the most vocal anti-theists are so bitter sounding? Envy perhaps?
If you like, but that would appear to have as much substantiation as your god claims. None. Nor do I see what any of them write as being "bitter". That merely sounds like you are inventing a tone for them in order to be dismissive of them. A common theist MO alas. The point you merely dismiss however bears repeating..... that while you pretend atheists are "choosing" not to believe, the reality is that for many it is not a choice. They are simply not able to believe something that you are unwilling or unable to substantiate in even the smallest way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
And please define "evidence".
I see "evidence" as a process, not a thing. And it is a simple process as follows:
1) State clearly what it is you are claiming.
2) State clearly the things you think support what you are claiming.
3) State clearly how the things listed in 2 support the claim made in 1.
Simples.
Alas what nearly every conversation I have had with theists on the matter of god or the after life ends up like is more akin to them:
1) Stating vaguely not much at all.
2) List some stuff.
3) Run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
That is a strawman.
Read it again. The quote started with the words "one wonders". I was wondering about something. How can wondering about something be a strawman? It is not clear you even know what the phrase means now to be honest. I was merely ruminating as to what length your ability, an ability I do not share, to merely "decide" to believe something goes to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
All science has done is made it clear that the literal understanding of creation Myths are false
Well no science does more than that. For example take the claim that there is an after life..... that human consciousness, subjectivity or awareness survives the death of the brain. While our understanding of consciousness is clearly incomplete..... it is not non-existent. Our science has given us a lot of understanding of it.
And 100% of that understanding so far links consciousness to the brain. 0% of it suggests any disconnect or possible disconnect between the two.
So while science does not tell us 100% that there is no after life, it strongly informs a substantiated position on the matter. And 100% of that substantiation thus far points to there being no such thing.
Does that 100% that there is no such thing? No, of course not. But it does show us that the claim there is an after life is not just unsubstantiated, but substantiated against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Yes, I believe in an afterlife.
Clearly. But I am less interested in what you believe or what anyone believes as I am interested in WHY they believe it. And thus far the answer to that question is tumbleweed and crickets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Hope for an afterlife is the most rational thing to hope for. Why? Because it is the only hope that you can never be disappointed by.
If you like, but that would appear to have as much substantiation as your god claims. None. Nor do I see what any of them write as being "bitter". That merely sounds like you are inventing a tone for them in order to be dismissive of them. A common theist MO alas. The point you merely dismiss however bears repeating..... that while you pretend atheists are "choosing" not to believe, the reality is that for many it is not a choice. They are simply not able to believe something that you are unwilling or unable to substantiate in even the smallest way.
And yet you seem to have a problem with the notion that for a theist, there may be really no "choice" to believe. Religion is a part of the make-up of humans. Always was, always will be. It may change, but we will always have faith. But I have a feeling it is a choice and I did make mine.
Quote:
I see "evidence" as a process, not a thing. And it is a simple process as follows:
1) State clearly what it is you are claiming.
2) State clearly the things you think support what you are claiming.
3) State clearly how the things listed in 2 support the claim made in 1.
Simples.
Alas what nearly every conversation I have had with theists on the matter of god or the after life ends up like is more akin to them:
1) Stating vaguely not much at all.
2) List some stuff.
3) Run.
"Clearly" is a relative term. I don't find calculus to be "clearly stated" at all, but I suck at math and leave it at that. Many clearly state what God is but some just suck at theology.
Quote:
Read it again. The quote started with the words "one wonders". I was wondering about something. How can wondering about something be a strawman? It is not clear you even know what the phrase means now to be honest. I was merely ruminating as to what length your ability, an ability I do not share, to merely "decide" to believe something goes to.
I believe what cannot be proven, but not what cannot be disproven. I can clearly disprove the notion that a dinosaur lives in my bathroom by going and and checking. I cannot disprove the notion that God is real so easily, and no one can.
Quote:
Well no science does more than that. For example take the claim that there is an after life..... that human consciousness, subjectivity or awareness survives the death of the brain. While our understanding of consciousness is clearly incomplete..... it is not non-existent. Our science has given us a lot of understanding of it.
And 100% of that understanding so far links consciousness to the brain. 0% of it suggests any disconnect or possible disconnect between the two.
So while science does not tell us 100% that there is no after life, it strongly informs a substantiated position on the matter. And 100% of that substantiation thus far points to there being no such thing.
Does that 100% that there is no such thing? No, of course not. But it does show us that the claim there is an after life is not just unsubstantiated, but substantiated against.
Can science prove that the brain is the only vessel capable of containing consciousness? No. In fact, work on artificial intelligence proves otherwise.
Quote:
Clearly. But I am less interested in what you believe or what anyone believes as I am interested in WHY they believe it. And thus far the answer to that question is tumbleweed and crickets.
I have answered that: I believe it because I make the decision, through my very being, to believe. It is a part of me. Always was, always will be. You cannot understand because that part of you seems to be missing.
You are a color-blind man in a meadow surrounded by people in awe of a rainbow.
Quote:
That does not make it rational. Just safe.
Your point? I am not a rationalist. "Rational" is not always synonymous with "good" or "right."
And yet you seem to have a problem with the notion that for a theist, there may be really no "choice" to believe.
"Seem" being the important word here given you have not shown I actually have any such "problem" at all, so much as you have merely invented it. Because all my comments so far have been about me, not about theists. I am merely describing how A) theists are not substantiating their claims in any way and B) that I am unable to believe the unsubstantiated.
So given my comments are mostly about me.... any "problem" you imagine I have with theists is just that.... imagined. But do not let reality get in the way of straw manning me and my positions whatever you do. (Note: Correct use of the term straw man).
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Religion is a part of the make-up of humans.
Speak for yourself. You certainly are not describing me.
To me it is more like saying "The common cold is part of the make-up of humans". When in fact it is not that the common cold is part of our make up, but things that leave us prone to infection with the common cold are part of our make up.
Things like "hyper active agency detection" "fear of death" "need for narrative" and "The intentional stance" are part of the human make up. And those attributes do leave us prone to infection from unsubstantiated memes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
"Clearly" is a relative term.
To a degree. But when you are not offering any substantiation AT ALL, the relevance of any relativity is moot. Even someone who sucks at math can be led to an understanding of calculus eventually through patient exploration of the data and evidence and arguments and reasoning by someone who understands them. The same appears not to be true of theistic discourse however as none of them, least of all you, is offering ANY arguments, evidence data or reasoning in the first place. So the analogy you offer is not sound because in one case there is a failure to understand the substantiation..... but in the other case there is a failure to even OFFER any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
I cannot disprove the notion that God is real so easily, and no one can.
But no one is asking you to prove a negative. You are being asked if there is any substantiation on offer that there is a god. The answer seemingly being that no, there is not.
Does that mean there is no god? Clearly not. It simply means there is no reason on offer by you to suggest there IS one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Can science prove that the brain is the only vessel capable of containing consciousness? No.
Did I suggest that it does or needs to? No. All I am stating, without any rebuttal from you it seems, is that while our understanding of consciousness is limited..... 100% of what we understand so far points one way..... and 0% of what we understand so far points the other.
I have said no more, or less, than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
You cannot understand because that part of you seems to be missing.
"missing" suggests a default that you have no way established is a default.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
You are a color-blind man in a meadow surrounded by people in awe of a rainbow.
And yet the existence of color can be substantiated even to the color blind. Even to the blind. So again the analogy you resort to is not a sound one at all. Quite the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Your point?
I thought the point was blatantly obvious. You described it as rational and my point was that that description is not sound.
I just don't see how people want to spend ETERNITY in a world built by the same creep who supposedly built this one.
Low expectations?
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.
It is for you to present evidence of this intelligent nature that we can legitimately label God and no need for quotes. And I clobbered your efforts to overturn the materialist default a long time ago AND explained the evidence for a gradual emergence or "evolution" if you like of consciousness along with life. To which you could only make the footling objection that this was just what was observed. So is everything we examine and scientifically prove.
