Let's Decide Once And For All

MayCaesar

Many people seem to come to believe in god purely because many others do: "If the majority of the population believes that there is god, then there is probably something substantial in this belief". It is a typical case of what I like to call a "perpetual deception machine": people believe that god exists because other people believe that god exists, and the cycle perpetuates forever, despite the whole belief possibly resting on fantasies of one or a small group of folks from millennia ago.

Fashion is a good illustration of the same principle: what determines what is fashionable right now is what a lot of people wear, and there is no any rational ground in the current people's preferences.

I realised the dangers of such thinking at a very young age, possibly before I hit 5. My parents taught me to question everything, and once I started doing that, I quickly learned just how many beliefs that people hold are not grounded in anything but mob mentality. Such conformism has many negative effects: not only does it suppress individual expression and search for truth, but it also makes masses into a powerful weapon in the hands of those knowing how to use it to their advantage. There are entire nations controlled by small groups of powerful theocrats, Iran being the most obvious example - and those theocrats, of course, have the luxury not to abide by the strict religious rules they force others to follow. The Saudi prince may behead people for drinking alcohol, yet he himself has drinking parties all the time.

In order to be able to think freely, the very first condition that must be met is that you judge every statement on its own merit, irregardless of how popular it is. Even if everyone in the world but you believes in something, but that belief logically is unfounded, then you should discard it. You may need to pretend that you hold it in especially oppressive societies in order to avoid persecution, but you must always be a master of your own mind. And we tend to underestimate just how much of our mind is owned by the society. Think about the most basic things... Ask yourself, "What is wrong with dancing in public for no reason?" You will not find an answer, yet your brain is likely hardwired to see it as wrong and unacceptable. That is the degree of conditioning we all have: we do not even think about what we have been conditioned into.

It is easy for me, a life-long atheist raised by atheist parents, to talk about how all religious people are conditioned by the society to believe what they believe... Had I grown in a deeply religious family in a deeply religious society, chances are the idea to question my beliefs would not even cross my mind. Before criticising others for their short-sightedness, we should put ourselves in their place and ask ourselves genuinely, "Would I think differently in their place?" And more often than not the real answer is "No".

Plaffelvohfen

A court of law would not answer the question because courts don't answer such questions... Courts hear accusations and answer by guilty or not guilty.

So there needs to be a charge, an accusation, here it would have to be that god exists, right? You can't accuse someone of not commiting a crime... So the prosecution would accuse God of the crime of existing, and I assume the case would be judged under the presumption of innocence principle, correct? That everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, since that is pretty much the standard. 

So here, the prosecution would be the religious position and the defense would be the atheistic position...

Considering the evidence brought forth by the prosecution to this date, and on the basis of reasonable doubt, the court would very probably have no choice but to find the defendant not guilty of existing...

This is what would need to be done to actually have a real hearing in court on the matter, make "existing" a crime... Which we're all guilty of obviously so maybe just make it a minor infraction? I guess we could say that taxes are the fines we already pay for and move on?  

Normal_1

Yeah, that was a good analogy with fashion. Once you're hooked, it's hard to shed and it can become more like a craving.

What I find bewildering is the penchant for theists (as a substitute for lack of any proof whatsoever) to shift the onus of proof onto atheists by saying: "you can't disprove God" and of course, how the heck is anyone expected to disprove something that isn't even proven.
When are theists going to finally accept the folly of their beliefs without trying to pass the buck?

@MayCaesar

Normal_1

"Considering the evidence brought forth by the prosecution to this date, and on the basis of reasonable doubt, the court would very probably have no choice but to find the defendant not guilty of existing..."

Excuse me for pointing out the obvious but haven't you done no more than just paraphrasing what I have already said?

In other words, what is your point? Or what do you have to add?

Mind you I don't exactly understand the bit about  "I guess we could say that taxes are the fines we already pay for and move on?" 
So, could that be the crux of your argument?
@Plaffelvohfen

Plaffelvohfen

@Normal_1

I just reformatted the question to fit an actual legal setting... Atheists do not have "evidence", they have "reasonable doubt" as their best argument, and that's all they need for a favorable judgement...

The last bit you struggled with, is humor... Eventual death and taxes, is the mandatory sentence for those found guilty of existing... 

rosends

The question is one of legal process and standing. If a court, for example) were to put God on trial, then wouldn't that presuppose the court's admission that God exists? Such a thing supposedly happened ( https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/wiesel-yes-we-really-did-put-god-on-trial-1.5056 ). Now you might say that that wasn't a "real" court and it doesn't count. That's fine, but it points to a larger problem with this challenge.

There is no standard of proof that is acceptable to both sides. If I look at the birth of a baby and say "that's a miracle and it shows that God exists" a non-believer would say "that's science and it shows nothing." If I point to ANY event, concept or people and say "there's your proof" the other side simply needs to say "that isn't acceptable proof." Even in an American court of law, there is argument over whether, in any given case, certain things can be considered conclusive proof. That's why we have juries -- to decide matters of fact and see which collection of claims is more believable. Does circumstantial evidence work in some cases? Was the DNA match persuasive? Do we trust the eye witnesses? Rarely does everyone agree. Are we looking for reasonable doubt? Preponderance of evidence? Who is the "reasonable person" against whose ideas things are measured?

As such, it seems fruitless to try and make a legal demand and, in the absence of satisfactory proof to one person's standard, draw a definitive legal conclusion. I'm not sure what more could be asked for. God's existence is a function of belief, sometimes supported by proof which rises to the standard of persuasiveness set by one person, but not another.

RickeyD

@Normal_1 ; There is irrefutable, overwhelming, extant, empirical, evidence that our Creator exists and that He has power, dominion, authority over you and that He will judge you in Eternity.

1) Our Creator has set before you the supernatural Universe that the atheist will NEVER explain and the Holy Spirit has told the atheist that they lie when they deny and that the atheist is a "fool" and "without excuse" (Romans 1:18-32).

2) Our Creator left the Spiritual Ream some 2019-yrs ago and walked among mankind for 33.5-yrs defining God, demonstrating God and He fulfilled over 300-Messianic Prophecy's concerning His first Advent (Philippians 2:8), then He walked to the horrors of a Roman Crucifixion and suffered and died to pay the sin-debt for mankind (John 3:16)...a debt we could not pay and via His resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ offers a pardon from death in sin and death in Hell to everyone who will believe in their heart, confess with their mouth, that Jesus is God who died to pay for their sin-debt (Romans 10:9-10).

3) Then the Holy Spirit meticulously chronicled God's Plan for Time and Eternity in the Holy Scriptures spanning 1400-1600-yrs, 3-Continents, 3-Languages, 40-writers inspired by the Spirit of God to pen on parchment the mind of God explaining who, what, where, when, why, how concerning origin, meaning of life, morality-the law, destiny.

All the atheist has to under gird their foolishness is Darwin's idiocy consisting of inferences, guesses, lies, deceit, obfuscation, death and Hell.

Sorry atheist, but being the fool of Eternity and Time does not buy you a pass for promoting an untenable psychosis, it's just not "Normal."

Normal_1

"There is irrefutable, overwhelming, extant, empirical, evidence that our Creator exists" @RickeyD

There is not.
If you think there is, then state one piece of irrefutable, overwhelming, extant, empirical evidence.

Dee

@rosends

*****  If a court, for example) were to put God on trial, then wouldn't that presuppose the court's admission that God exists?

No it wouldn’t , it would demonstrate that someone claiming to be god existed nothing else 


****There is no standard of proof that is acceptable to both sides

Believers do not require such and if so they are not believers. Regards non believers do you not think an all powerful supernatural entity could not prove itself instantly to the satisfaction of all ? If not why regard such as a “god”?

rosends

@Dee

--> "No it wouldn’t , it would demonstrate that someone claiming to be god existed nothing else "
I understand your assertion, but in the case I cited, there was no one making the claim. The court was accepting the concept as fact without a person there making a claim. It was the court which established God's existence. But you would not see that court as a valid one, so it doesn't matter.

--> "Believers do not require such and if so they are not believers."
I'm not sure what you mean. On one hand, not requiring proof at all would specifically define someone as a believer. On another hand, the claim that a believer doesn't have a standard of proof is false, as many believers DO have exactly that. For example, I have a standard of proof which dictates the religious text to which I cede authority. My belief system, predicated on that standard, excludes other texts or claims. That standard is not the same as what you have, but that doesn't mean that I don't have one.

--> "Regards non believers do you not think an all powerful supernatural entity could not prove itself instantly to the satisfaction of all ? If not why regard such as a “god”?"
If God wanted to, he could, yes. But I also think that if he did something that SHOULD prove to all, some would still refuse to believe simply because they want to be oppositional, or can't shift schemas. Could God change people's nature so that they would have no choice BUT to believe? Sure, but then there would be no free will. 

Dee

@rosends ;

***** But you would not see that court as a valid one, so it doesn't matter.

Agreed a court like that is certainly not valid 

*****I'm not sure what you mean.

You stated .... There is no standard of proof that is acceptable to both sides

What I’m saying is by claiming one is a believer they need no further proof , why would they?

 ****On one hand, not requiring proof at all would specifically define someone as a believer.

Yes as they already have what to them is proof 


****On another hand, the claim that a believer doesn't have a standard of proof is false, as many believers DO have exactly that. 

I never said that 

****For example, I have a standard of proof which dictates the religious text to which I cede authority. My belief system, predicated on that standard, excludes other texts or claims. That standard is not the same as what you have, but that doesn't mean that I don't have one.

Yes , you have what you claim is proof to convince others of such your claim has to hold up to scrutiny 

****If God wanted to, he could, yes. 

Yes 

****But I also think that if he did something that SHOULD prove to all, some would still refuse to believe simply because they want to be oppositional, or can't shift schemas.

That means god is not all powerful , you honestly think he could not convince everyone immmedistely of his claims?

 ****Could God change people's nature so that they would have no choice BUT to believe?

Why would he have to change my nature to convince me? If a god appeared in front of me now I would accept him for who he was 

 ****Sure, but then there would be no free will. 

That’s simply not true , what has a god appearing in front of me got to do with free will and excercise of such ? Also why do you assume you have free will?

RickeyD

@Normal_1 ; I disagree and you're unable to see our Creator because you've opted to live a life of naturalism, narcissism, rejection of truth and a servitude to Satan...that is your option, atheist. Atheism is NOT "normal"...it's an untenable psychosis.

RickeyD

@Plaffelvohfen ; The evidence for our Lord is overwhelming; unfortunately, the atheist as a juror is biased, blind, ignorant of truth and serves darkness...they are not true arbiters of reality.

rosends

@Dee

--> "Yes as they already have what to them is proof "
or they do not require anything called proof because belief exists regardless (then you get into the Hitchhiker's babel fish argument)

--> "I never said that "
Then I misunderstood when you wrote "Believers do not require such"

--> "Yes , you have what you claim is proof to convince others of such your claim has to hold up to scrutiny "
I don't think it has to hold up to scrutiny until the threshold of proof is agreed upon. If the scrutiny comes from a context which is alien to mine, then there is a foregone conclusion regarding the persuasiveness. Also, this presupposes that a goal of my claim is to be convincing. It isn't.

-->"That means god is not all powerful , you honestly think he could not convince everyone immmedistely of his claims?"
It doesn't mean God is not all powerful. It means that some people can ignore what they are convinced of and take a contrary position. If God changes my mind without my agreement then it is no longer my mind and I have not been convinced. 

--> "Why would he have to change my nature to convince me? If a god appeared in front of me now I would accept him for who he was "
But if he did, you might say "that isn't God" because you have started with the opinion that God doesn't exist. Some people experience miracles and change their underlying convictions, and then are convinced by things that otherwise would have had no effect on them. If God changed your nature with a snap of metaphysical fingers then you would believe.

--> That’s simply not true , what has a god appearing in front of me got to do with free will and excercise of such ? Also why do you assume you have free will?

A. Belief is a choice (at some point, and on some level)
B. We actually have "freedom of choice" not "free will." But that's a subtle distinction that not everyone understands.

Dee

@rosends

****or they do not require anything called proof because belief exists regardless

Anyone who accepts things without requiring a proof is victim to every and any claim

****I don't think it has to hold up to scrutiny until the threshold of proof is agreed upon. 

Well it does if you want to convince others , I gave the example that would suffice to convince everyone regards a god 

****If the scrutiny comes from a context which is alien to mine, then there is a foregone conclusion regarding the persuasiveness. Also, this presupposes that a goal of my claim is to be convincing. It isn't.

That’s fine if you don’t want to convince others 

*****It doesn't mean God is not all powerful. 

It certainly does 

****It means that some people can ignore what they are convinced of and take a contrary position.

You honestly think that’s a position one would hold giving the example I gave?

 *****If God changes my mind without my agreement then it is no longer my mind and I have not been convinced. 

Why do you need “ agreement “ to change a mind? Surely a demonstration I cited is sufficient 


****But if he did, you might say "that isn't God" because you have started with the opinion that God doesn't exist. 

I never said god didn’t exist , I cannot say so for certain . If he demonstrated what I asked I would believe 

****Some people experience miracles and change their underlying convictions, and then are convinced by things that otherwise would have had no effect on them. 

Some people actually don’t they experience what I think is a miracle there is zero evidence for miracles 

***If God changed your nature with a snap of metaphysical fingers then you would believe.

Yes and?

*****A. Belief is a choice (at some point, and on some level)

Belief is based on evidence for me anyway 


***B. We actually have "freedom of choice" not "free will." 

I would like to hear your explanation of the difference 

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

So says the internet enabled artificial court of opinion:

"I just reformatted the question to fit an actual legal setting... Atheists do not have "evidence", they have "reasonable doubt" as their best argument, and that's all they need for a favorable judgement."

rosends

@Dee

--> Anyone who accepts things without requiring a proof is victim to every and any claim

so call me a victim. I have done fine so far.

--> It certainly does 

That is a claim. It lacks proof. This is fine, as long as you aren’t trying to convince anyone.

 

--> You honestly think that’s a position one would hold giving the example I gave?

 According to many, it is precisely the position many people took in the face of God’s appearance, and according to many, it is the position many still take. They can’t accept the idea of believing or changing, or accepting that they were wrong, so they refuse.

--> Why do you need “ agreement “ to change a mind? Surely a demonstration I cited is sufficient 

 

If I don’t agree that the demonstration is sufficient, then it won’t be, no matter what you think of the demonstration. A person with a closed mind won’t be persuaded by anything.


--> I never said god didn’t exist , I cannot say so for certain . If he demonstrated what I asked I would believe 

 

OK, fair enough. But what appearance would satisfy you? Had you been around in Jesus’ day, would that have been persuasive? According to many, that was the demonstration. An “appearance by God” presupposes that you have an idea of what God will look like or be or do, or else how will you know that the appearance is by God?

  

--> Some people actually don’t they experience what I think is a miracle there is zero evidence for miracles 

 

Or maybe, the miracle is the demonstration that you said would be sufficient. Can you have it both ways? You would be convinced if God showed his hand, but when he does, you decide that that isn’t convincing. This is exactly what I anticipated you would say.

 

--> Belief is based on evidence for me anyway 

I understand that. I think some is and some isn’t.

--> I would like to hear your explanation of the difference 

 If I believe that God knows what I will choose then I don’t have any ultimate freedom of that will – my will is predetermined. Therefore, no free “will.” But because I don’t know what I will choose, at the moment I make the choice I have the freedom to choose whatever I want (practical or not, realistic or not etc). My will isn’t free, but the choice, as far as I can perceive it, is free.

Plaffelvohfen

@rosends

If god appeared in the sky, millions of km tall, juggling with the sun and planets, I would not believe he exists, I would know he did... There is such a thing as undeniable evidence...

I still would not worship him/her/it in any way mind you, but I wouldn't be justified in denying its existence, which I am at the moment...  Beliefs are justified or not, they cannot be "proven" because then it becomes knowledge...

rosends

@Plaffelvohfen

"If god appeared in the sky, millions of km tall, juggling with the sun and planets, I would not believe he exists, I would know he did... There is such a thing as undeniable evidence..."

So you trust your senses implicitly? Instead of thinking that you had ingested some hallucinogen, or alilens were invading, you would presume that you are incorporating reality accurately and coming to the inevitable proof of God? I saw David Copperfield make the statue of Liberty disappear.

MayCaesar

@rosends

In natural sciences we do not search for hard "proofs"; we instead search for evidence supporting or refuting our testable hypotheses.

For existence of god to be considered seriously, there needs to be some evidence warranting its existence. Not some "miracles" that can be explained in a myriad ways and are never properly documented by science... Not "god talked to me during my prayer" claims by random people... Not some ancient book prone to countless different interpretations... No, something more solid.

Notice how nobody asks, for example, "What evidence would we need to conclude that the Sun is a star?" Everybody knows the answer: we need to know what a star is, and we need to observe the Sun through optical devices and conclude that its properties fit those of a star, and do not fit those of other reasonable alternatives. You are not going to determine whether the Sun is a star by reading some book written by cavemen and performing sleight of hand tricks in front of strangers; you have to get your hands dirty to do that.

So, for the god then, there could be similarly irrefutable evidence. Such as god appearing in the sky, as @Plaffelvohfen suggested. Such as god appearing in multiple people's dreams, properly recorded and analysed by modern neuroscientific methods, and making tangible short-term predictions that turn out to always be true. Such as getting some observational data from "heaven" or wherever the god allegedly resides, confirming the claims made by religious people and getting to communicate with a being that exhibits all traits of a god.

What else do you expect? The claim that there is a creator of our Universe is a big one; you are not going to be able to verify it without very-very direct evidence. Simple guessing and believing based on scarce data open to a variety of interpretations is not going to cut it.
Nobody prohibits you from believing whatever you want, but what you can believe and what you can support logically are two different things.

rosends

@MayCaesar

“Nobody prohibits you from believing whatever you want, but what you can believe and what you can support logically are two different things.”

 

But I’m not claiming that I can support anything logically. All I’m claiming is that someone can constantly elevate the standard proof he requires in order to deny something that to someone else might be satisfactory, or that a person can, in the face of what should be persuasive proof, still deny it because the choice to be oppositional, or refuse to have a personal schema disrupted is strong.

MayCaesar

@rosends

People can do whatever they want, but there is an established scientific method based on rigorous logic for these matters. A person can reject the results of application of this method if they want to, and that is fine - but if they want to maintain their stance in the face of these results, then contradictions with the results will arise, forcing them to either acknowledge that they are wrong, or to employ logical fallacies that are quite easy to spot. You can see that clearly in case of the "flat Earth" folks, who get into logical dead-ends every time they try to debate the Earth shape topic.

If the god's existence is supported by a serious amount of evidence, then people claiming that god does not exist will run into some trouble trying to reconcile their position with the evidence. Right now this is not the case, and I can make an argument that god does not exist without any issues.

rosends

@MayCaesar
--> "If the god's existence is supported by a serious amount of evidence, then people claiming that god does not exist will run into some trouble trying to reconcile their position with the evidence. "

I don't disagree, but I think that some will, anyway.

--> "Right now this is not the case, and I can make an argument that god does not exist without any issues."

So can I. That just isn't what my point here is.

Plaffelvohfen

@rosends

All I’m claiming is that someone can constantly elevate the standard proof he requires in order to deny something.

Sure, but that is when the notion of "reasonable" comes into play... Constantly elevating the standard defeats the purpose of what is a standard....

rosends

@Plaffelvohfen

"Sure, but that is when the notion of "reasonable" comes into play... Constantly elevating the standard defeats the purpose of what is a standard...."

I'm not sure that 10 people will necessarily agree on what is reasonable, and the problem of elevating the standard in order to avoid facing a "truth" (bad word, I know) is precisely what I'm getting at.

Plaffelvohfen

@rosends

I disagree... Reasonable people always find common ground because they're reasonable, that's what it means... If you're unable to find common ground, you're unreasonable...

rosends

@Plaffelvohfen

I disagree and feel that you are being unreasonable in your assertion. Untangle that.

Plaffelvohfen

@rosends

One of us is for sure, since we cannot agree... We need a 3rd point of view, who'll help us to the common ground, if we're actually reasonable...

John_C_87

Let’s decide once and for all.

Left Twix is better.

Okay, We have three characters in this line-up can that may be fingered as God. Who wants to go first?
(#1) GOD   (#2)GOD  (#3)GOD
One, two, and three turn to your left, please? 

It is not a good sign when the star witness cannot tell Jesus, an axiom consisting of numbers, or the final choice GOD out of a line-up. 

John_C_87

Apology.
Okay, We have three characters in this line-up that may be fingered as God. Who wants to go first?

Dee

@rosends

*****so call me a victim. I have done fine so far.

I didn’t call you a victim I said you would prey to such if your burden of proof is as you stated, your claim is faith based nothing else 

****That is a claim. It lacks proof. This is fine, as long as you aren’t trying to convince anyone.

I said “it  certainly does “ in response to your “ *It doesn't mean God is not all powerful. ” , I’m trying to convince no one the burden of proof is still with you 

 

***According to many, it is precisely the position many people took in the face of God’s appearance, and according to many, it is the position many still take.

That’s simply not true what do you base this opinion on? If a god appeared in front of the average man / woman they would accept such 

****They can’t accept the idea of believing or changing, or accepting that they were wrong, so they refuse.

Again a typical believers claim you’re only short of saying an atheist knows god exists but denies it . People admit they are wrong all the time in face of convincing evidence 

*****If I don’t agree that the demonstration is sufficient, then it won’t be, no matter what you think of the demonstration. 

Well again you’re stubbornly saying people would refuse to accept that a god appearing and conversing with them as insufficient proof which is nonsense 

****A person with a closed mind won’t be persuaded by anything.

That’s some switch in tactics you’re accusing Atheists of close mindedness on the denial of a god when the opposite is true , the close mindedness is on the believers side as they believe in a god on faith which is belief based on spiritual conviction and nothing else

***OK, fair enough. But what appearance would satisfy you?

I’ve told you 3 times now what would satisfy me 

 ***Had you been around in Jesus’ day, would that have been persuasive? 

I don’t know , there were many the majority in fact who saw Jesus as nothing special , people of his time believed many things we think nonsense now you seem to be making the case that without our modern know and knowledge would I accept Jesus 

***According to many, that was the demonstration. 

According to many Joeseph  Smith was presented with golden tablets by an Angel called Moroni do you accept this also as fact if not why not?

***An “appearance by God” presupposes that you have an idea of what God will look like or be or do, or else how will you know that the appearance is by God?

I don’t know what a god or god looks like . How would I know ? A god or gods have never appeared to me or anyone I know if such happened that’s how I’d know , unless you’re making the case that on that very day some other god or entity decided to show up just for the Hell of it , is that what you’re inferring?

  

****Or maybe, the miracle is the demonstration that you said would be sufficient. 

Sufficient for them yes , which leaves them in a position of accepting something based on faulty reasoning 

***Can you have it both ways?

I don’t want it both ways , people believe Evolution is nonsense people believe in a young Earth a water walking messiah etc , etc , this is where faith based claims lead 

 ***You would be convinced if God showed his hand, but when he does, you decide that that isn’t convincing. 

Showed his hand? No I didn’t say that , I said if he appeared that would do. Why are you twisting your whole argument now ? Stick to your original points 

****This is exactly what I anticipated you would say.

Incorrect , you reinterpreted my words to give your position more credibility I’ve just demonstrated that fact 

 

****I understand that. I think some is and some isn’t.

What beliefs do you hold without evidence ?

****If I believe that God knows what I will choose then I don’t have any ultimate freedom of that will my will is predetermined. 

So you don’t believe an all powerful god knows what you will choose? 

***Therefore, no free “will.” 

So it seems using your above criteria 

***But because I don’t know what I will choose, at the moment I make the choice I have the freedom to choose whatever I want (practical or not, realistic or not etc). My will isn’t free, but the choice, as far as I can perceive it, is free.

That makes no sense at all , if your will isn’t free your choices are under constraint and not free in the sense of what that term means 

Dee

@rosends ***** I'm not sure that 10 people will necessarily agree on what is reasonable

Right , ask ten people would the practice of using leeches in hospitals be a better alternative to traditional medicines how many would agree do you think? 

In times past leeches were commonly used and what persuaded people otherwise do you think? 

, ****and the problem of elevating the standard in order to avoid facing a "truth" (bad word, I know) is precisely what I'm getting at

No one is talking about “elevating the standard” what’s being asked is that those making claims of gods back their claims up and present the evidence, I like others are still waiting 

Dee

@rosends

***** I don't disagree, but I think that some will, anyway.

Why are you concerned about what some think? A man / woman sitting in their own home would be convinced immediately if a god appeared in front of their eyes no matter how stubborn or against the idea they were , an all powerful being would know what is most convincing to each of his creations 

Normal_1

There is no standard of proof that is acceptable to both sides. If I look at the birth of a baby and say "that's a miracle and it shows that God exists" a non-believer would say "that's science and it shows nothing."@rosends

Surely, if there is such a thing as God, the evidence is going to come from highly skilled scientists, not from biased, speculative theologians.
Anybody who says,  "that's a miracle and it shows that God exists" is committing a fatal error of logic in that a non-proven is used to confirm another non-proven.
Anyone who says, "that's science and it shows nothing (to do with creation)" is only being matter of fact.

Nevertheless, we could argue the machinations of what constitutes evidence for ever and a day and get nowhere.

The thread was specifically asking to decide on making a decision here and now.

And since it is obvious that you have oddly chosen to skirt around the issue without actually submitting any evidence (of any standard) one can reasonably deduce that you have nothing to submit and the default position remains: there is no God owing to the complete lack of evidence to support such a notion of there being a God.

rosends

@Dee

à I didn’t call you a victim I said you would prey to such if your burden of proof is as you stated, your claim is faith based nothing else 

 

You wrote “Anyone who accepts things without requiring a proof is victim to every and any claim” which would make me that victim. And yet I don’t accept every and any claim.

à I said “it  certainly does “ in response to your “ *It doesn't mean God is not all powerful. ” , I’m trying to convince no one the burden of proof is still with you 

 I’m not sure what burden of proof there is on me. You said “That means god is not all powerful “ which would be your claim. I simply took the opposing position and you have yet to prove your assertion.

à  If a god appeared in front of the average man / woman they would accept such 

You still have two problems here: the first is how you would decide that any appearance is of a God and the second is the historical claim that God DID appear and yet many still chose not to accept that appearance as proof.

à Again a typical believers claim you’re only short of saying an atheist knows god exists but denies it . People admit they are wrong all the time in face of convincing evidence 

And many people don’t admit they are wrong. Are you denying the existence of people who refuse to admit they are wrong? Just FTR, though, I am not claiming that any atheist knows God exists. In fact, I would posit the opposite. Very few atheists, if any, know God exists.

 

à Well again you’re stubbornly saying people would refuse to accept that a god appearing and conversing with them as insufficient proof which is nonsense 

But according to the religious historical record, that’s exactly what has happened. And according to a believer’s standard of proof, it continues to happen.

à That’s some switch in tactics you’re accusing Atheists of close mindedness on the denial of a god when the opposite is true , the close mindedness is on the believers side as they believe in a god on faith which is belief based on spiritual conviction and nothing else

I never accused an atheist of anything. I believe that it is human nature to hold tight to a position and for many people, to hold tight even in the face of what others would be persuaded by. You seem insistent on refusing to accept that such a drive exists.

 

à I’ve told you 3 times now what would satisfy me 

You mentioned a generic appearance or a “demonstration” IIRC. But you haven’t explained the parameters or what exactly would be persuasive. I don’t know if it was on this thread or elsewhere, but someone rejected all notions of “miracle” which is an appearance of God. So clearly, there must be more to it than that.

à I don’t know , there were many the majority in fact who saw Jesus as nothing special , people of his time believed many things we think nonsense now you seem to be making the case that without our modern know and knowledge would I accept Jesus 

I’m not making any case. I’m asking. Many people at Jesus time accepted him as demonstrable appearance of God which is your standard of acceptable proof. There have been many others over the centuries who have made the same claim about other people/appearances.

 

à According to many Joeseph  Smith was presented with golden tablets by an Angel called Moroni do you accept this also as fact if not why not?

Exactly my point. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that an appearance is not enough without some other proof to substantiate the claim.

 

à I don’t know what a god or god looks like . How would I know ? A god or gods have never appeared to me or anyone I know if such happened that’s how I’d know , unless you’re making the case that on that very day some other god or entity decided to show up just for the Hell of it , is that what you’re inferring?

So if you don’t know, how do you know it hasn’t happened? How can you have a standard of proof without having, well, a standard of proof?

à I don’t want it both ways , people believe Evolution is nonsense people believe in a young Earth a water walking messiah etc , etc , this is where faith based claims lead 

You mean “where SOME faith based claims lead” I hope.

à Showed his hand? No I didn’t say that , I said if he appeared that would do. Why are you twisting your whole argument now ? Stick to your original points 

Yes, his appearance signaled by showing his presence. That’s what an appearance is. Since you don’t know what he looks like, I expect that you would need something more than just a face.

 

à What beliefs do you hold without evidence ?

That you exist as a human and aren’t just some form of AI

That you are arguing in good faith and not just taking contradictory positions because you want to be oppositional

That the car next to me, which I have ever seen before, is being driven by a licensed driver who won’t suddenly ram my car.

 

à So you don’t believe an all powerful god knows what you will choose? 

I believe I said the exact opposite in creating my fact pattern “I believe that God knows what I will choose”

 

à That makes no sense at all , if your will isn’t free your choices are under constraint and not free in the sense of what that term means 

I am free to choose what I want, but because God knows what that will be I do not have free will. It makes perfect sense.

-------------

late edit -- I am reminded of this scene from The Frisco Kid (I'm not sure if the video works or just the audio)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpGrcK62ObQ

rosends

@Dee
--> Right , ask ten people would the practice of using leeches in hospitals be a better alternative to traditional medicines how many would agree do you think? 

I guess it depends if you think that they are only reasonable if they are doctors in the Western tradition or not (by the way, some Western practitioners do use leeches as part of traditional medicine, so what was once the chided alternative has, by some reasonable people, become acceptable).

--> No one is talking about “elevating the standard” what’s being asked is that those making claims of gods back their claims up and present the evidence, I like others are still waiting 

I don't recall that being the request, at least not one that I have been interested in responding to. My apologies if that was the intent of your posting. As (I think) I have said that my faith is not about proof, I'm not sure why anyone would expect me to present proof.

late edit:
I have been thinking about the question of "reasonable people will agree" and it seems to break down as follows (though i might be wrong and I'm not saying that this is precisely what I see here -- just what I was thinking about on my drive to work)

reasonable people will agree
on the issue of the standard to prove God's existence, people disagree
therefore, some people must be unreasonable

but if each side makes the same claim, and each assumes "reasonable people will agree with my position" then each side starts by saying "anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable" and that seems like a problem.

rosends

@Dee
--> Why are you concerned about what some think? A man / woman sitting in their own home would be convinced immediately if a god appeared in front of their eyes no matter how stubborn or against the idea they were , an all powerful being would know what is most convincing to each of his creations 

I'm not concerned, but I am also not willing to disregard the existence of such thoughts. A man/woman sitting at home would not necessarily know what to look for to see if God has appeared, and might not be convinced no matter what happened. Side question -- do you watch "Family Guy"? I am reminded of this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYKScQ3gn2I

rosends

@Normal_1
--> And since it is obvious that you have oddly chosen to skirt around the issue without actually submitting any evidence (of any standard) one can reasonably deduce that you have nothing to submit and the default position remains: there is no God owing to the complete lack of evidence to support such a notion of there being a God.

I have posited that a miracle is evidence to some standard. Others have said that a miracle is not, but that's because there is no shared standard. However, within the structure which sees evidence via a miracle, proof has been presented and supports the view that God exists.  I could posit all sorts of things that are considered as meeting a standard of proof according to some people. I'm just willing to concede that different people have different standards and never the twain shall meet, so the task in some objective and transcendent/persuasive way is a fool's errand. That seems to bother some people who expect that anyone who believes sees it as his job to convince others by crossing to another standard and providing evidence that meets someone ELSE's criteria.

Dee

@rosends

 

****You wrote “Anyone who accepts things without requiring a proof is victim to every and any claim” which would make me that victim. And yet I don’t accept every and any claim.

No you don’t,  but if you use faith as a basis for a claim you’re on shaky ground 

 ****I’m not sure what burden of proof there is on me. You said “That means god is not all powerful “ which would be your claim. 

Really? My god is not all powerful was a response to a question you posed which you’re still skirting around 

****You still have two problems here: the first is how you would decide that any appearance is of a God 

I’ve been through this several times do I need to explain yet again that if a god appeared in front of me I would have difficulty accepting such 

****and the second is the historical claim that God DID appear and yet many still chose not to accept that appearance as proof.

That’s not a “Historical claim” credible Historians do not place any validity on such claims 

Appear to how many ? How many of those that he appeared to denied him?

There were 8th appearances and each individual accepted such 

****And many people don’t admit they are wrong. Are you denying the existence of people who refuse to admit they are wrong? 

No I never stated that .You also stated you believed some things without evidence you still won’t say what , why’s that?

***Just FTR, though, I am not claiming that any atheist knows God exists. In fact, I would posit the opposite. Very few atheists, if any, know God exists.

Good 

 

****But according to the religious historical record, that’s exactly what has happened. 

Religious records say a lot I place very little credence on them 

****And according to a believer’s standard of proof, it continues to happen.

Why would I care about a believers standard of proof as it’s faith based nothing  else?

****I never accused an atheist of anything. I believe that it is human nature to hold tight to a position and for many people, to hold tight even in the face of what others would be persuaded by. You seem insistent on refusing to accept that such a drive exists.

No I accept such a drive exists you and believers are proof of such 

 

***You mentioned a generic appearance or a “demonstration” IIRC. 

What does “generic “ mean in this context?

***But you haven’t explained the parameters or what exactly would be persuasive. 

I told you repeatedly what would be persuasive for me 

***I don’t know if it was on this thread or elsewhere, but someone rejected all notions of “miracle” which is an appearance of God. 

Yes I rejected such as their is no evidence for such , for a miracle to take place that means the laws of Universe are temporarily suspended for such to take place all such claims are nonsense 

***So clearly, there must be more to it than that.

Explain please?

****I’m not making any case. I’m asking. Many people at Jesus time accepted him as demonstrable appearance of God which is your standard of acceptable proof. 

No it’s not my standard as a man claiming to be god is different than a god appearing to man , you keep trying to reinterpret what I said to fit your narrative 

****There have been many others over the centuries who have made the same claim about other people/appearances.

Yes and?

 

****Exactly my point. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that an appearance is not enough without some other proof to substantiate the claim.

But the appearance was to Smith he was convinced as would I be in his shoes , why can you not see the difference between actually seeing an appearance as solid proof as opposed to hearing about one?

 

***So if you don’t know, how do you know it hasn’t happened? 

Because a god or gods have not appeared to me , I think I would know if one had 

****How can you have a standard of proof without having, well, a standard of proof?

I still have a standard of proof for a god claim I’ve told you this repeatedly but you keep ignoring 

*****You mean “where SOME faith based claims lead” I hope.

No , all faith based claims can lead to other such claims as the process is the same 

****Yes, his appearance signaled by showing his presence. That’s what an appearance is. Since you don’t know what he looks like, I expect that you would need something more than just a face.

Oh dear , do you not think a supernatural entity appearing in front of me would be enough I know it would you keep telling me it wouldn’t , why’s that?

 

****That you exist as a human and aren’t just some form of AI

The evidence for you not being AI is quiet strong so I don’t count that as one 

****That you are arguing in good faith and not just taking contradictory positions because you want to be oppositional

The evidence for that so far you find convincing as we are on a debate site to debate 

****That the car next to me, which I have ever seen before, is being driven by a licensed driver who won’t suddenly ram my car.

That is based on the evidence so far that it has not happened you and is a rare occurrence if someone rammed you every day your opinion would change based on the evidence 

 

***I believe I said the exact opposite in creating my fact pattern “I believe that God knows what I will choose”

Right 

 

****I am free to choose what I want, but because God knows what that will be I do not have free will. It makes perfect sense.

To me it doesn’t , the whole idea of free choice is to me illusory , free will is an illusion  every event and action has a cause, that includes choice 

Dee

@rosends

***** I'm not concerned, but I am also not willing to disregard the existence of such thoughts.

I know , why you stick to that point eludes me as you seem to make a case against believers by using it you and others believe I a god on faith when I tell you what would convince me you keep saying it would’nt the why is beyond me.

**** A man/woman sitting at home would not necessarily know what to look for to see if God has appeared, and might not be convinced no matter what happened.

Not this again? Really an all  powerful entity appears and they wouldn’t be convinced I keep telling you I would and such an entity cannot be all powerful if his appearance does not convince others 

 ****Side question -- do you watch "Family Guy"? I am reminded of this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYKScQ3gn2I

It’s funny but unrelated and I know it’s a jab but no matter , I keep telling you what would convince me but you’re not listening 

Dee

@rosends

--> Right , ask ten people would the practice of using leeches in hospitals be a better alternative to traditional medicines how many would agree do you think? 

****I guess it depends if you think that they are only reasonable if they are doctors in the Western tradition or not (by the way, some Western practitioners do use leeches as part of traditional medicine, so what was once the chided alternative has, by some reasonable people, become acceptable).

You haven’t answered the question 

****I don't recall that being the request, at least not one that I have been interested in responding to. My apologies if that was the intent of your posting. As (I think) I have said that my faith is not about proof, I'm not sure why anyone would expect me to present proof.

Right , what I’m addressing is your term regards elevating the standard 

****late edit:

I have been thinking about the question of "reasonable people will agree" and it seems to break down as follows (though i might be wrong and I'm not saying that this is precisely what I see here -- just what I was thinking about on my drive to work)

reasonable people will agree

on the issue of the standard to prove God's existence, people disagree

therefore, some people must be unreasonable

The standard believers have is faith based which is not an acceptable standard for getting at truths 

***but if each side makes the same claim, and each assumes "reasonable people will agree with my position" then each side starts by saying "anyone who disagrees with me is unreasonable" and that seems like a problem.

One cannot claim a faith based position is reasonable it’s the exact opposite in fact 

rosends

@Dee

à Really? My god is not all powerful was a response to a question you posed which you’re still skirting around 

If I’m reading correctly, you asked two questions, my answer to which led you to the claim that, therefore, God is not all powerful. The conclusion you drew and its claim doesn’t follow from my answer. This doesn’t mean I didn’t answer.

 

à I’ve been through this several times do I need to explain yet again that if a god appeared in front of me I would have difficulty accepting such 

So an appearance would not be convincing to you. OK. Does this correlate to your other statement “ If a god appeared in front of me now I would accept him for who he was “

 

àThat’s not a “Historical claim” credible Historians do not place any validity on such claims 

It is a claim that was made in history. Are you saying that such a claim was never made? Is there an historian who says that the claim was never made? This is no comment on the validity of such a claim, just that the claim exists in the historical record.

à Appear to how many ? How many of those that he appeared to denied him?

Why, exactly, would that matter? Is there a numerical threshold for proof? Must it be by consensus? Do we have to vet each person to know if each is “reasonable”?

 

 

à No I never stated that .

So you can accept that there are people who will never say they are wrong. Perfect. Therefore, no matter what the supposed standard of proof, not all will be convinced.

à You also stated you believed some things without evidence you still won’t say what , why’s that?

When you asked, I gave a list of three items. Claiming something contrary to evidence doesn't seem right.

 

à Religious records say a lot I place very little credence on them 

Exactly – you don’t feel that they rise a level of evidentiary credence that you have established. And you are sure that you are a reasonable person in establishing that level. Others, though, use a different level. So therefore, they must be unreasonable.

 

à No I accept such a drive exists you and believers are proof of such 

 And a believer would say the exact same thing about a non-believer. Each sees the other as not accepting what one group sees as enough reason to accept. [note please, I am not claiming to represent any/all theists. The fact that I accept something theological without proof doesn’t mean that any other theist’s argument wouldn’t be predicated on some vision of what a “fact” is in this case. That is the situation I am postiting. Mixing this with what anyone supposes my position is will lead to confusion]

 

àWhat does “generic “ mean in this context?

That there was no specific guideline that would separate simple “appearance” from any other expectation. That any “appearance” would represent the entire category.

 

àI told you repeatedly what would be persuasive for me 

You also said (above) that any appearance would not be persuasive: “if a god appeared in front of me I would have difficulty accepting such “

 

àYes I rejected such as their is no evidence for such , for a miracle to take place that means the laws of Universe are temporarily suspended for such to take place all such claims are nonsense 

So for God to appear would not be persuasive. For there to be miracles is impossible. So God cannot prove his existence by existing unless he subscribes to the rules of the universe that you understand, and therefore he wouldn’t be God. Do I have your position at all correct? Just making sure.

 

àNo it’s not my standard as a man claiming to be god is different than a god appearing to man , you keep trying to reinterpret what I said to fit your narrative 

But as you have admitted “I don’t know what a god or god looks like . How would I know ?” So God appearing as a man might very well be God appearing to a man. You wouldn’t be able to discern according to your own statement. In fact, this might serve as a theist's proof that you wouldn't know -- the claim that it has happened.

 

àBut the appearance was to Smith he was convinced as would I be in his shoes ,

So a simple appearance WOULD be enough? And if it would be enough to convince you, then wouldn’t anyone who doesn’t listen to your report of a newfound truth be being unreasonable?

 

à I think I would know if one had 

How? Why do you think that?

à I still have a standard of proof for a god claim I’ve told you this repeatedly but you keep ignoring 

Please excuse my opacity then and lay out that standard again so I can think about it within the light of other statements you have made. Appreciated.

 

à No , all faith based claims can lead to other such claims as the process is the same 

Ah, so other faith claims can lead to other claims. I thought that you were stating the inevitability of the specific claims you laid out in your statement. Sure, other faith claims can lead to other claims.

 

à Oh dear , do you not think a supernatural entity appearing in front of me would be enough I know it would you keep telling me it wouldn’t , why’s that?

 Because you said that you don’t know what God will look like so how do you know that he hasn’t already appeared. You keep insisting you will know without explaining how. Why is that?

 

à The evidence for you not being AI is quiet strong so I don’t count that as one 

You don’t have to count it if you don’t want to. That’s exactly what an AI would say.

 

à The evidence for that so far you find convincing as we are on a debate site to debate 

You see presence here as evidence of good faith debating? I don’t. With all the years I have been observing this and other sites, I see presence as proving nothing about the purpose of users.

 

 

à That is based on the evidence so far that it has not happened you and is a rare occurrence if someone rammed you every day your opinion would change based on the evidence 

But I hear that people get rammed when I listen to the news, all the time. I don’t know if any driver is licensed or insured or anything. I take it on faith so that I can feel good about leaving the house.

 

àTo me it doesn’t , the whole idea of free choice is to me illusory , free will is an illusion  every event and action has a cause, that includes choice 

Though it is a discussion for a different time, do you feel that determinism undermines personal responsibility?

---------------------

àI know , why you stick to that point eludes me as you seem to make a case against believers by using it you and others believe I a god on faith when I tell you what would convince me you keep saying it would’nt the why is beyond me.

I stick to that point because it makes the case that any insistence that all people would accept something definitively is wrong.

à Not this again? Really an all  powerful entity appears and they wouldn’t be convinced I keep telling you I would and such an entity cannot be all powerful if his appearance does not convince others 
That is your claim. A theist would say that the historical claim proves the exact opposite. The all-powerful entity appeared and yet not everyone was convinced. Where one starts determines what conclusion what

àIt’s funny but unrelated and I know it’s a jab but no matter , I keep telling you what would convince me but you’re not listening 

It isn’t a jab at you at all (it is unrelated to you). I am reminded of a student I worked with many, many years ago who insisted on pronouncing a word incorrectly. He argued with me for 40 minutes and insisted that no matter what dictionary, or other authority I cited, his pronunciation was correct. In the face of overwhelming and undeniable evidence, he held to his position. People like this exist (like the donkey in the clip) so, as I said in an earlier post, unless God changed the nature of man to erase that level of stubbornness, I feel that there would always be someone who denies what seems undeniable.

rosends

@Dee

àYou haven’t answered the question 

My answer is that you would not have a consensus either way. I can’t guess at a number. "Reasonable people can disagree reasonably..."

 

à Right , what I’m addressing is your term regards elevating the standard 

That a person can continue to insist that his threshold of proof continues not to be met no matter what sensory input is provided? I have seen it happen. Someone says “seeing is believing” and then you show him and he says “but that doesn’t count because…” He has shifted his threshold to avoid having been convinced.

 

àThe standard believers have is faith based which is not an acceptable standard for getting at truths 

By you. Yes.

àOne cannot claim a faith based position is reasonable it’s the exact opposite in fact 

You have just confirmed my hypothesis.

Dee

@rosends

****If I’m reading correctly, you asked two questions, my answer to which led you to the claim that, therefore, God is not all powerful. The conclusion you drew and its claim doesn’t follow from my answer. This doesn’t mean I didn’t answer.

I’m afraid you’ve lost me 

 

*****So an appearance would not be convincing to you. OK. Does this correlate to your other statement “ If a god appeared in front of me now I would accept him for who he was “

I left out the “no “ as in I would have no difficulty accepting him 

 

****It is a claim that was made in history. 

Wow ! That’s some neat re - phrasing a Historical claim is different to a claim made in History as well you know 

***Are you saying that such a claim was never made? Is there an historian who says that the claim was never made? This is no comment on the validity of such a claim, just that the claim exists in the historical record.

Read above , you keep rephrasing your arguments to suit your narrative 

****Why, exactly, would that matter? 

Right , so the woman next door claims Zeus appeared to her would you accept that as proof?

***Is there a numerical threshold for proof? 

Solid evidence would do not secondhand testimony 

****Must it be by consensus? Do we have to vet each person to know if each is “reasonable”?

 

Again yet another argument I’m not making 

 

 

***So you can accept that there are people who will never say they are wrong. Perfect. Therefore, no matter what the supposed standard of proof, not all will be convinced.

Why do you need all convinced? Again I’m talking about a god claim and I’ve no doubt everyone could name what would be proof for them 

*****When you asked, I gave a list of three items. Claiming something contrary to evidence doesn't seem right.

But your claims as I proved are not taken without evidence 

 

****Exactly – you don’t feel that they rise a level of evidentiary credence that you have established. 

No I have not established the level 

****And you are sure that you are a reasonable person in establishing that level. 

Yes regards my level as my claims are not faith based which is illogical 

****Others, though, use a different level. So therefore, they must be unreasonable.

Well yes agreed faith based claims are unreasonable 

 

 ***And a believer would say the exact same thing about a non-believer. Each sees the other as not accepting what one group sees as enough reason to accept. [note please, I am not claiming to represent any/all theists. The fact that I accept something theological without proof doesn’t mean that any other theist’s argument wouldn’t be predicated on some vision of what a “fact” is in this case. That is the situation I am postiting. Mixing this with what anyone supposes my position is will lead to confusion]

Yes but a believer is still basing his arguments on faith nothing else 

 

****That there was no specific guideline that would separate simple “appearance” from any other expectation. That any “appearance” would represent the entire category.

Any appearance will do for me 

 

***told you repeatedly what would be persuasive for me 

You also said (above) that any appearance would not be persuasive: “if a god appeared in front of me I would have difficulty accepting such “

Yes as explained I never put the “no “ in ..... I left out the “no “ as in I would have no difficulty accepting him

 

****bSo for God to appear would not be persuasive. For there to be miracles is impossible. So God cannot prove his existence by existing unless he subscribes to the rules of the universe that you understand, and therefore he wouldn’t be God. Do I have your position at all correct? Just making sure.

Read above 

 

****But as you have admitted “I don’t know what a god or god looks like . How would I know ?” So God appearing as a man might very well be God appearing to a man. 

All these extra pieces you keep talking onto your argument are for what purpose. What does that even mean? .....  So God appearing as a man might very well be God appearing to a man. 

****You wouldn’t be able to discern according to your own statement. In fact, this might serve as a theist's proof that you wouldn't know -- the claim that it has happened.

You’ve lost me again , 12 times now I told you if god appeared in front of me I would accept him do you want me to say I wouldn’t just so you can say you proved a point?

 

****So a simple appearance WOULD be enough? And if it would be enough to convince you, then wouldn’t anyone who doesn’t listen to your report of a newfound truth be being unreasonable?

No they wouldn’t , as they have not received evidence of such 

 

****How? Why do you think that?

How would I know if a god appeared in front of me really?

**((Please excuse my opacity then and lay out that standard again so I can think about it within the light of other statements you have made. Appreciated.

13 times now .....An appearance in front of me 

 

****Ah, so other faith claims can lead to other claims. I thought that you were stating the inevitability of the specific claims you laid out in your statement. Sure, other faith claims can lead to other claims.

Again you left out what I actually said regarding the process 

 

 ****Because you said that you don’t know what God will look like so how do you know that he hasn’t already appeared. You keep insisting you will know without explaining how. Why is that?

Here’s a shot in the dark because supernatural entities do not exist , does that need further explanation?

 ****You don’t have to count it if you don’t want to. That’s exactly what an AI would say.

How do you know? Have you interacted with advanced AI ?

 

****You see presence here as evidence of good faith debating? I don’t. With all the years I have been observing this and other sites, I see presence as proving nothing about the purpose of users.

Really? Interesting , yet faith does not come into it 

 

 

****But I hear that people get rammed when I listen to the news, all the time. I don’t know if any driver is licensed or insured or anything. I take it on faith so that I can feel good about leaving the house.

You take it on an expectation that other drivers like you are legal and licensed faith had nothing to do with it 

 

****Though it is a discussion for a different time, do you feel that determinism undermines personal responsibility?

It’s a whole new debate 

****I stick to that point because it makes the case that any insistence that all people would accept something definitively is wrong.

It’s not regarding a god claim and the examples me and others have given 

****That is your claim. A theist would say that the historical claim proves the exact opposite. The all-powerful entity appeared and yet not everyone was convinced. Where one starts determines what conclusion what

Yes we know a theist makes a faith based claim , if god appeared to me my claim is not  faith based and it’s still not a historical claim it’s a claim made from religious History 

****It isn’t a jab at you at all (it is unrelated to you). I am reminded of a student I worked with many, many years ago who insisted on pronouncing a word incorrectly. He argued with me for 40 minutes and insisted that no matter what dictionary, or other authority I cited, his pronunciation was correct. In the face of overwhelming and undeniable evidence, he held to his position. People like this exist (like the donkey in the clip) so, as I said in an earlier post, unless God changed the nature of man to erase that level of stubbornness, I feel that there would always be someone who denies what seems undeniable.

Right this is going nowhere , I don’t know why you stick to someone denying the evidence .....the question asked ...... How long are we going to wait for the theist side of the argument to come up with evidence? Another 1700 years?

Or, can we make a judgement now on the available evidence that we do have?

Why do you refuse to address this and instead keep talking about a someone who might deny evidence? 

rosends

@Dee

 

àWow ! That’s some neat re - phrasing a Historical claim is different to a claim made in History as well you know 

No, I don’t well know. If you would prefer I use a different term, then provide one. Does this change the content of my statement? You could try addressing the content.

 

àRight , so the woman next door claims Zeus appeared to her would you accept that as proof?

Me? No. Her kids might. Her other neighbors might. Jesus had followers who believed the account of his resurrection and appearance. That was enough for them. Was that OK because there was a particular number of people. You introduced this idea of number, so I’m just asking what your threshold is.

 

àSolid evidence would do not secondhand testimony 

Please rephrase in an intelligible sentence. Thanks.

àWhy do you need all convinced? Again I’m talking about a god claim and I’ve no doubt everyone could name what would be proof for them 

I don’t think everyone could, but that’s an irrelevant branch of the argument. The fact that you can accept that not all would be convinced by the same thing is enough for me.

 

àBut your claims as I proved are not taken without evidence 

 Not only doesn’t that invalidate that I provided a list, but your statements that they are not taken without evidence is wrong, and only based on your personal sense of things. So they stand. You asked what I do, not what you think I would be doing.

àNo I have not established the level 

So we’re back to your not providing and level. Ok.

 

àYes regards my level as my claims are not faith based which is illogical 

Well, this has been rendered useless as you say you haven’t established any level.

àWell yes agreed faith based claims are unreasonable 

 Good, now we are getting somewhere. You have confirmed the logical chain I thought of. By definition, you have decided that all who disagree are unreasonable. That makes it easy to wrap this up because it means that unless someone changes to accept your way of thinking, there is nothing that can change your position. Then there is no meeting of the minds.

àAny appearance will do for me 

 And a theist says that that has already happened (and you didn’t know what to look for so you don’t know that it happened, and since miracles can’t happen, any claim to miracles must be wrong). But because it is a theist stating that, it can’t be a reasonable judgment since it disagrees with your separate demand for “facts.”

 

 

àAll these extra pieces you keep talking onto your argument are for what purpose. What does that even mean? .....  So God appearing as a man might very well be God appearing to a man. 

I am using your words and your logic. No extra pieces. Since you don’t know what God looks like then he could appear like a man. Or are you saying that you know definitively what God DOESN’T look like? If so, can you provide that list?

 

àYou’ve lost me again , 12 times now I told you if god appeared in front of me I would accept him do you want me to say I wouldn’t just so you can say you proved a point?

 You’ve already proven a variety of my points. You seem to be forgetting that you said you don’t know what God looks like so you can’t know if you have seen him.

 

àNo they wouldn’t , as they have not received evidence of such 

 A quick question. If you are home and see the mailman walk by (but he delivered no mail to you or your neighbors) and later, your mother asks “was the mailman here?” If you say “Yes he was, but he left no mail” should she believe your claim even though she has no evidence?

 

àHow would I know if a god appeared in front of me really?

 

Yup.

 

à13 times now .....An appearance in front of me 

 By something that you don’t know what it should look like. OK.

 

àAgain you left out what I actually said regarding the process 

 Actually, no. I was just restating what you, after the fact, added in to your initial statement. You went from “people believe Evolution is nonsense people believe in a young Earth a water walking messiah etc , etc , this is where faith based claims lead “ to “all faith based claims can lead to other such claims as the process is the same” . You added in “other such claims” and “can”. These change the meaning of your position.

 

àHere’s a shot in the dark because supernatural entities do not exist , does that need further explanation?

That’s circular.

You will accept that supernatural entities exist if a supernatural entity appears to you

Supernatural entities don’t exist

Therefore supernatural entities have not appeared

 

If you think that that logic flows, then so be it. It doesn’t work for me.

 

àHow do you know? Have you interacted with advanced AI ?

 Ever since Eliza was around, yes. Sometimes they call my cell and I ask if they are a recording and they say they aren’t. It takes more questions to decide if they are or are not real people. But I’m not asking those questions. Without any evidence I was willing to believe that you aren’t an AI. Of course, with your denial, I know have evidence that might point to the contrary.

 

àReally? Interesting , yet faith does not come into it 

 For me, it clearly does. Even though my experience has taught me not to rely on presence as proof, I am willing to believe that your presence is proof. That’s belief DESPITE experiential facts to the contrary.

 

àYou take it on an expectation that other drivers like you are legal and licensed faith had nothing to do with it 

 Yes, that expectation is the faith I have. I have no proof of it.

 

à It’s not regarding a god claim and the examples me and others have given 

you haven’t given any proofs and since your argument is that it has never happened, you can’t convince me of what WOULD happen in a hypothetical situation.

 

à Yes we know a theist makes a faith based claim , if god appeared to me my claim is not  faith based and it’s still not a historical claim it’s a claim made from religious History 

Now you are muddying the waters with the slippery slope position – that since you don’t value the judgment of people in the case of religious claims, you wouldn’t trust claims made about history. This is also a separate topic for discussion – do we extrapolate our sense of reasonableness and believability from one context to another.

 

 

à Right this is going nowhere , I don’t know why you stick to someone denying the evidence .....the question asked ...... How long are we going to wait for the theist side of the argument to come up with evidence? Another 1700 years?

Who is waiting? Many have made up their mind because they see as evidence what you deny as evidence. That’s precisely my point. If you start by denying what they call evidence, and they start by denying what you say is the proper threshold for evidence then you won’t get anywhere. I’m glad you are starting to see this.

 

 

Dee

@rosends

****My answer is that you would not have a consensus either way. I can’t guess at a number. "Reasonable people can disagree reasonably..."

Oh dear 

 

****That a person can continue to insist that his threshold of proof continues not to be met no matter what sensory input is provided? 

Right back to this , I and two other Atheists all provided what would be proof to us and we all had more or less the same criteria regards evidence of god claims 

****have seen it happen. Someone says “seeing is believing” and then you show him and he says “but that doesn’t count because…” He has shifted his threshold to avoid having been convinced.

Right , but they never had a god appear in front of them did they?

 

*****By you. Yes.

I know I don’t accept as fact things that have zero evidence to support them you got me there 

*****You have just confirmed my hypothesis.

Yes that faith based claims are not based on reason 

Dee

@rosends

***No, I don’t well know. 

You’ve found something out 

****If you would prefer I use a different term, then provide one. Does this change the content of my statement? You could try addressing the content.

I corrected your statement which I addressed you don’t seem to comprehend 

 

****Me? No. Her kids might. Her other neighbors might. Jesus had followers who believed the account of his resurrection and appearance. That was enough for them. Was that OK because there was a particular number of people. You introduced this idea of number, so I’m just asking what your threshold is.

Stop being disingenuous I introduced the concept in response to a question you posed  

 

****Please rephrase in an intelligible sentence. Thanks.

A typo ......you’re welcome 

****I don’t think everyone could, but that’s an irrelevant branch of the argument. The fact that you can accept that not all would be convinced by the same thing is enough for me.

You’re making no sense at all 

 

 ***/Not only doesn’t that invalidate that I provided a list, but your statements that they are not taken without evidence is wrong, and only based on your personal sense of things. So they stand. You asked what I do, not what you think I would be doing.

You provide a list of claims that are not faith based try again 

****So we’re back to your not providing and level. Ok.

16 times now god appearing in front of me I keep saying but you’re not listening 

 

****Well, this has been rendered useless as you say you haven’t established any level.

17 times 

 ****Good, now we are getting somewhere. You have confirmed the logical chain I thought of. By definition, you have decided that all who disagree are unreasonable. 

Incorrect yet again I’ve stated faith based claims are not reasonable you admitted your belief is faith based therefore it’s not reasonable 

****That makes it easy to wrap this up because it means that unless someone changes to accept your way of thinking, there is nothing that can change your position. Then there is no meeting of the minds.

My way of thinking is not based on faith nor is yours except on the god claim right?

 ****And a theist says that that has already happened 

Yes and all from a book that claims animals talk , a virgin births of a child and angels appear to humans 

If they seen such it’s true for them but what’s that got to do with me? You want me to accept the word of others without proof?

**/and you didn’t know what to look for so you don’t know that it happened, and since miracles can’t happen, any claim to miracles must be wrong). 

Can you re write that it makes no sense ......thanks 

But because it is a theist stating that, it can’t be a reasonable judgment since it disagrees with your separate demand for “facts.”

 

 

****I am using your words and your logic. 

No you’re not you’re doing your usual re phrasing and it’s certainly not my logic 

***No extra pieces. 

No just your usual total re phrasing 

***Since you don’t know what God looks like then he could appear like a man. 

He could yes but why would he do so if he was doing it to prove himself to me?

I don’t even know what you’re on about anymore 

****Or are you saying that you know definitively what God DOESN’T look like? If so, can you provide that list?

What you’re on about is beyond me 

 

 ****You’ve already proven a variety of my points. 

You mean your constant re phrasing and red herrings to one simple statement I made ? 

****You seem to be forgetting that you said you don’t know what God looks like so you can’t know if you have seen him.

Right so using this much loved scenario by you I’ve probably seen god several times but I’m in denial .......Hey I know I should have faith I’ve seen him 

 

 ****A quick question. If you are home and see the mailman walk by (but he delivered no mail to you or your neighbors) and later, your mother asks “was the mailman here?” If you say “Yes he was, but he left no mail” should she believe your claim even though she has no evidence?

Yes I would believe the claim as mailmen do unbelievably do deliver mail,if my mother said god walked by the house I would seek medical attention for her do you see a subtle difference here 

 

 

***Yup.

Fabulous reply 

 

 ****By something that you don’t know what it should look like. OK.

Yeah strange that you’re  the theist so tell us all what does the god you haven’t seen look like?

 

 ***(Actually, no. I was just restating what you, after the fact, added in to your initial statement. You went from “people believe Evolution is nonsense people believe in a young Earth a water walking messiah etc , etc , this is where faith based claims lead “ to “all faith based claims can lead to other such claims as the process is the same” . You added in “other such claims” and “can”. These change the meaning of your position.

That again makes no sense to me 

 

****That’s circular.

It’s not 

***You will accept that supernatural entities exist if a supernatural entity appears to you

Yes 

****Supernatural entities don’t exist

I’ve no evidence to believe in such 

****Therefore supernatural entities have not appeared

To me they haven’t which is why I don’t believe in , you’re   free to do so 

 

***If you think that that logic flows, then so be it. It doesn’t work for me.

It’s fine and perfectly logical and yes of course it does not work for you as believe in the unproven 

 

 ****Ever since Eliza was around, yes. Sometimes they call my cell and I ask if they are a recording and they say they aren’t. It takes more questions to decide if they are or are not real people. But I’m not asking those questions. Without any evidence I was willing to believe that you aren’t an AI. Of course, with your denial, I know have evidence that might point to the contrary.

Right you’re starting to sound unbalanced now 

 

 ***(For me, it clearly does. Even though my experience has taught me not to rely on presence as proof, I am willing to believe that your presence is proof. That’s belief DESPITE experiential facts to the contrary.

I’m lost again 

 

 ****Yes, that expectation is the faith I have. I have no proof of it.

Incorrect the expectation is based on the FACT that most people drive legally 

 

****It’s not regarding a god claim and the examples me and others have given 

you haven’t given any proofs and since your argument is that it has never happened, you can’t convince me of what WOULD happen in a hypothetical situation.

You’ve lost me again 

 

*****Now you are muddying the waters with the slippery slope position 

No that’s totally u true 

– ***that since you don’t value the judgment of people in the case of religious claims, 

That’s true 

****you wouldn’t trust claims made about history. 

That’s untrue and again another example of you shifting the goal posts , claims about History are one thing claims about a god totally different 

****This is also a separate topic for discussion – do we extrapolate our sense of reasonableness and believability from one context to another.

I don’t do you?

 

 

***

Who is waiting? Many have made up their mind because they see as evidence what you deny as evidence. 

Yes they take it on faith 

****That’s precisely my point. 

I’m still waiting on you to make it 

****If you start by denying what they call evidence, 

Yes I do it’s faith based 

****and they start by denying what you say is the proper threshold for evidence then you won’t get anywhere. 

But you asked me and others what would convince us what does their position on such matter to me regarding my proof?

****I’m glad you are starting to see this.

I’m sad to see you keep telling me what you think regards the matter and then claiming I agree with you 

 

 

xlJ_dolphin_473

RickeyD said:

There is irrefutable, overwhelming, extant, empirical, evidence that our Creator exists and that He has power, dominion, authority over you and that He will judge you in Eternity.

@RickeyD
Exactly what 'irrefutable, overwhelming, extant, empirical evidence' is that? I am not sure that there is any, but maybe you can think of some.

Normal_1

Exactly what 'irrefutable, overwhelming, extant, empirical evidence' is that? I am not sure that there is any, but maybe you can think of some. @xlJ_dolphin_473

I can't think of any, nor can anybody else think of any.

Because quite simply, there is no "irrefutable, overwhelming, extant, empirical evidence" nor any other kind of evidence whatsoever as to the existence of God.

xlJ_dolphin_473

Normal_1 said:

Exactly what 'irrefutable, overwhelming, extant, empirical evidence' is that? I am not sure that there is any, but maybe you can think of some. @xlJ_dolphin_473

I can't think of any, nor can anybody else think of any.

Because quite simply, there is no "irrefutable, overwhelming, extant, empirical evidence" nor any other kind of evidence whatsoever as to the existence of God.

That's my point. @RickeyD is making false claims.