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.
The EXISTENCE of God does NOT depend on ANY of the myriad descriptions or religions ABOUT God. It is an entirely empirical issue that has nothing to do with human speculation. Our Reality is the closest to a God that is empirically established, so we start there as our default God. Its attributes certainly seem to meet the minimum criteria for God relative to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
It was YOUR argument I took to it's logical conclusion. Do not blame me if you make contradictory arguments.
Agreed, although Vic and the religious (including yourself) argue otherwise. Apparently contradictory experiences that suffer from cognitive bias are also credible evidence.
I made no contradictory arguments and did NOT argue otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You want to demand that the goal post be one or more of the human speculations about God. But for the question of the EXISTENCE of God I have rejected all human speculations and descriptions of God and consider ONLY what we have discovered and validated about our Reality as the attributes of God. They are considerable and extensive and not in dispute. Your preference to reject them as evidence for God is untenable and capricious.
Quote:
So you keep asserting, yet never provide any evidence for this. The god of the gaps argument, yes, but never any evidence.
The evidence is NOT in any gap. Everything we know about our Reality that has been established by science IS the evidence for God. You think it is not enough and you want more. But for the EXISTENCE issue no more is needed. For the human speculations ABOUT God, however, more is needed and the Gaps provide a locus for those speculations. But the gaps are NOT needed to support the EXISTENCE of God despite semantic diddling and obfuscations
The EXISTENCE of God does NOT depend on ANY of the myriad descriptions or religions ABOUT God. It is an entirely empirical issue that has nothing to do with human speculation. Our Reality is the closest to a God that is empirically established, so we start there as our default God. Its attributes certainly seem to meet the minimum criteria for God relative to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
what don't they understand about this mystic?
I have encountered their resistance often enough that I am confident they understand it but they do not want to accept it because their agenda is to instantiate a "No God" default for their definitional games.
Quote:
it's like the word "GOD" is a trigger for them. They overreact to the letters "GOD" and completely ignore what is being said.
I agree.
Quote:
and no-god forbid we reply with the same tone they answer us. we become the devil incarnate.
I made no contradictory arguments and did NOT argue otherwise.
The evidence is NOT in any gap. Everything we know about our Reality that has been established by science IS the evidence for God. You think it is not enough and you want more. But for the EXISTENCE issue no more is needed. For the human speculations ABOUT God, however, more is needed and the Gaps provide a locus for those speculations. But the gaps are NOT needed to support the EXISTENCE of God despite semantic diddling and obfuscations
Mystic, you know what the issue is (or ought to). Nature (matter/energy and physical laws), has all the charactyeristic needed for 'Our creator'. God also has those. The difference is whether the process was intelligently directed or not. You know that this is the nub of the matter, and an intelligent creator is what you have consistently not addressed. Because you know that it is a Faith -claim without any decent evidence.
Mystic, you know what the issue is (or ought to). Nature (matter/energy and physical laws), has all the characteristics needed for 'Our creator'. God also has those. The difference is whether the process was intelligently directed or not. You know that this is the nub of the matter, and an intelligent creator is what you have consistently not addressed. Because you know that it is a Faith -claim without any decent evidence.
The bold is all the evidence that is needed to answer the EXISTENCE of God issue! Your "intelligently directed" speculation is unnecessary to the mere existence issue and will be resolved on other grounds. I see the ubiquity of human intelligence within an otherwise material reality as evidence supporting intelligence as a basic element of Reality. You do not and prefer to use the euphemism of "emergence" and some amorphous "evolution" to explain it without a clue how mere unintelligent chemical processes developed intelligence.
The Torah is exclusively for us Jews, the Seven Noachide Laws are for us AND the Gentile...
Yes, I know Richard. 'Jesus released us from the laws that didn't apply to us anyway.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I have encountered their resistance often enough that I am confident they understand it but they do not want to accept it because their agenda is to instantiate a "No God" default for their definitional games. I agree. It is sad but oh so true.
No God is the default position. The laughable thing Mystic ol' chap is that when you look under your bed and see no elephant or any sign that an elephant is there you immediately conclude that there is no elephant under your bed. Now I'm sure that you will come back with the tired old argument about nature being 'evidence' for your god but you see old spoon, the wonderful thing about evidence, real verifiable evidence that is, is that it is the same for everyone. A bloody knife sticking out of someone's back is verifiable evidence to EVERYONE that knives exist, not just to people that believe in knives.
Mystic, you know what the issue is (or ought to). Nature (matter/energy and physical laws), has all the charactyeristic needed for 'Our creator'. God also has those. The difference is whether the process was intelligently directed or not. You know that this is the nub of the matter, and an intelligent creator is what you have consistently not addressed. Because you know that it is a Faith -claim without any decent evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The bold is all the evidence that is needed to answer the EXISTENCE of God issue! Your "intelligently directed" speculation is unnecessary to the mere existence issue and will be resolved on other grounds. I see the ubiquity of human intelligence within an otherwise material reality as evidence supporting intelligence as a basic element of Reality. You do not and prefer to use the euphemism of "emergence" and some amorphous "evolution" to explain it without a clue how mere unintelligent chemical processes developed intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
No God is the default position. The laughable thing Mystic ol' chap is that when you look under your bed and see no elephant or any sign that an elephant is there you immediately conclude that there is no elephant under your bed. Now I'm sure that you will come back with the tired old argument about nature being 'evidence' for your god but you see old spoon, the wonderful thing about evidence, real verifiable evidence that is, is that it is the same for everyone. A bloody knife sticking out of someone's back is verifiable evidence to EVERYONE that knives exist, not just to people that believe in knives.
I have repeatedly made the Nature/God comparison and Arq just agreed that they have the attributes of God. There is no way to assign the evidence to just one, so they are both equally evidenced. It seems it might be true that Rockers have done so much "substance" that their minds don't work properly anymore.
I made no contradictory arguments and did NOT argue otherwise.
The evidence is NOT in any gap. Everything we know about our Reality that has been established by science IS the evidence for God. You think it is not enough and you want more. But for the EXISTENCE issue no more is needed. For the human speculations ABOUT God, however, more is needed and the Gaps provide a locus for those speculations. But the gaps are NOT needed to support the EXISTENCE of God despite semantic diddling and obfuscations
Wrong. Everything we know about our Reality that has been established by science is NOT evidence for God; it is evidence for material/nature/reality without any real evidence for an Intelligence behind it. Slapping the 'God' label on it through the trick of finding a common characteristic in 'our creation' is a hoary old ploy that you have been peddling for a decade or more, and it is an insult to us that you still think that we are going to buy it.
Please, please, old mater, if you don't take anything else on board, learn that this semaric trick is a dead duck in the water, and appeals to unknowns doesn't help in the least.
I made no contradictory arguments and did NOT argue otherwise.
OK, so now your experiences are NOT evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The evidence is NOT in any gap. Everything we know about our Reality that has been established by science IS the evidence for God.
For several possible definitions of a god, yes. Gods that would leave no evidence. Which logically would mean not your god. The evidence is much better for no gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You think it is not enough and you want more. But for the EXISTENCE issue no more is needed. For the human speculations ABOUT God, however, more is needed and the Gaps provide a locus for those speculations. But the gaps are NOT needed to support the EXISTENCE of God despite semantic diddling and obfuscations
I have repeatedly made the Nature/God comparison and Arq just agreed that they have the attributes of God. There is no way to assign the evidence to just one, so they are both equally evidenced.
Except intelligent, complex entities do not simply exist for no reason, which makes a complex god most improbable. Whereas we have evidence for nature, a whole universe full of it. So that means not only are they not equally evidenced, the default should start from no improbable god.
I have explained this several times now, but you just moved the goal posts.
So eh, I was wrong in my previous post, you have moved the goal posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It seems it might be true that Rockers have done so much "substance" that their minds don't work properly anymore.
Oh maker of arrogant straw men, we are not the ones ignorant of probability.
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.
