Now, let's talk evidence for God.

[PixyMisa]

I said Brahman does not exist. If it existed it would not be Brahman because Brahman is the conceptual source of existence.

Fine. That's also vacuous.

eta: I mean, the concept of Brahman must have arisen as a result of meditation being widely practiced among Eastern religious groups. At some point on the meditative journey it becomes apparent that all phenomena are simply happening and the belief in self arises solely because of identification with thought and feeling.

Or not.

Brahman is thus a concept for something that does not exist

You can stop there, you know.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The title of this thread is:

Now, let's talk evidence for God.

All of your posts have been off topic then.

I am at this point trying to get atheists to come up with their ideas of God, in simple most plain language.

And at that you are spectacularly succeeding, you just don't admit it. The consensus seems to be that your god is a figment of your imagination. Next question.

If you atheists have any, please put them in your messages, in very brief statements.

Everyone here will thank you to do the same. So far, you haven't been brief or clear and you haven't described your god in any sensible terms.

Otherwise please just read but don't post here because you are distracting people from the topic.

Thanks for the offer, I decline.

For people who have produced ideas of God, thanks a lot, but please also repeat them in the most brief statements expressed in simple most plain language.

Note above, you don't fit in that category on either count.

I will collect all these ideas of God, then work on one idea of God that everyone can concur on.

You mean you don't have any idea of what your god is and yet you believe in it? You're only now getting around to defining it?

From that point we can next work on what kinds of evidence is relevant to employ in talking about the evidence for God.

What kind led you to believe in your god in the first place? Just show us that. If you already have, I missed it.

Again, if you have nothing to say about your ideas of God, please just read and don't send posts to this thread.

Again, you aren't listening to anyone's ideas that don't already agree with the ones you're fishing for. I'll make you a similar offer: just understand

For the present write if you have ideas on God and later we will go into the kinds of evidence relevant to any talk at all about evidence for God.

For the past, present, and future, why do you ask atheists to define your god?

Yrreg

RoboTimbo

 

[Mark6]

For background of the present thread please go to here.


Atheists love to demand evidence for God's existence; but when they are asked to give some ideas of what they understand by God, they will insist they don't have to give any ideas of God because they deny His existence.

That goes to show how lacking in understanding they are, even though they are so self-complacent that they are so clever with that kind of a reaction to the demand that they give some ideas of what they intend to convey by God.

Anyway on the rare chance that there be atheists here possessed of understanding, who can appreciate that they cannot deny the existence of Cinderella if they don't have any ideas of what is Cinderella, and for that matter Santa Claus...

Let me then just address this question to such atheists here in this forum -- the other atheists who are so clever in eschewing any intelligent use of their brain to think what is God, they can dispense themselves from participating in this thread.

What is God?​

To me "God" means some intelligent, goal-oriented entity that created the Universe. I provisionally accept that such entity MIGHT exist, but had seen no evidence of it. I had seen what to me is conclusive evidence that such entity (if it exists) DOES NOT answer prayers, take direct action in human affairs, or display the slightest interest in what humans do or do not do.

I am willing to change my mind on either account if shown adequate evidence.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Dear Cainkane.

OK, I did just this and found some; last weekend i stayed in a supposedly "haunted" hotel, and at one am heard loud clumping about of about three people moving around in the room above me. In the morning I discovered the whole hotel was empty but for me and my companion. Unless we encountered burglars who burgle empty hotel rooms for fun -- possible I guess - or someone other than the wonders and us had keys and decided to sneak in and stay the night, well spooks is an option.

Now I have a problem however. Having accepted the supernatural in to my life, should I worship Yahweh, Allah, or Thor? Can you advise???

Yours
Confused Religious Ghosthunter, UK.

Unicorns?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

It's posts like this that remind me why I love the JREF forums. Randfan, I know we've come across one another (and had a few arguments in politics, if I recall) but I've always thought you were a smart guy (despite being politically wrong, of course) and this sort of thing is why.

Now, whether to nominate THIS post or your previous one on the subject....

Mark. I've just got to spend more time here -- no matter what my wife says -- as I read Rand's post exactly the same thoughts went through my head but you beat me posting. Synchronisity for sure.

 

[RandFan]

Thanks Mark and Gord, you guys flatter me.

BTW: I was affraid that the point of pragmatism as it relates to reality would be lost. While it is true that my view is a pragmatic one pragmatism won't change the consequences of my actions and it won't change what we view of as reality.

The "well even atheists have beliefs" meme is such a dumb canard. It really doesn't warrant debate.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Thanks Mark and Gord, you guys flatter me.

BTW: I was affraid that the point of pragmatism as it relates to reality would be lost. While it is true that my view is a pragmatic one pragmatism won't change the consequences of my actions and it won't change what we view of as reality.

The "well even atheists have beliefs" meme is such a dumb canard. It really doesn't warrant debate.

I heard this put best when someone I know stated:

"Saying that atheism is a belief is like stating that not collecting stamps is a hobby."

'Nuff said.

 

[OneShotKi11]

Although i dont believe there is a GOD, when i hear the term i think of a being who is all knowing and all powerful. He is located in some unreachable realm by man, and is watching over us hoping we all do the right thing and live by his laws. He hears our prayers and does his best to answer what he see's fit.

So since this is what you asked for please feel fit to start trying to prove any of it so that i may re-consider my ideas. I patiently await your deductions and presented evidence for any of it....

 

[yrreg]

To me "God" means some intelligent, goal-oriented entity that created the Universe. I provisionally accept that such entity MIGHT exist, but had seen no evidence of it. I had seen what to me is conclusive evidence that such entity (if it exists) DOES NOT answer prayers, take direct action in human affairs, or display the slightest interest in what humans do or do not do.

I am willing to change my mind on either account if shown adequate evidence.

Thanks, Mark6, for your contribution.



The title of this thread is:

Now, let's talk evidence for God.​

Atheists here are having difficulties in coming up with any ideas about the God they deny, I fear they will also have difficulties with kinds of evidence that are relevant for God.

Yet they keep harping about their demand for theists to come up with evidence for God.

I fear they are pursuing the cult of unreason and dis-intelligence.



But not you, Mark6, because you have if you be an atheist at least pursued reason and intelligence by attending to what is the most crucially critical component of the concept of God in 2008 c.e., namely (the words in bold):

To me "God" means some intelligent, goal-oriented entity that created the Universe.​

I said God is the maker of the moon, of course not excluding other things about God, but you have gone all the way to admit that the idea of God today in 2008 c.e. is that He created the universe.



The more I examined the oppositions of atheists to God, the more I have arrived at the certainty that they don't really have any reason to deny God's existence.

What they have are so many complaints and difficulties with God who created the universe.

What atheists should do is to put themselves in the shoes of God and see how well they can and should answer their own complaints and difficulties with God.




Yrreg

 

[RandFan]

The more I examined the oppositions of atheists to God, the more I have arrived at the certainty that they don't really have any reason to deny God's existence.

You didn't do much examining. Lack of evidence is the chief reason I don't believe in god's existence and contrary to your silly assertion it's a damn good reason. It's the same reason I don't believe in leprechauns or fairies.

What they have are so many complaints and difficulties with God who created the universe.

I don't think there are any. How do you complain about something that doesn't exist? I complain about idiotic notions like attributes that are contradictory (see omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence) and I complain about the immorality of religion. The Crusades, Inquisitions, witch burnings, flying planes into buildings, trying to teach creationism as if it were science.

What atheists should do is to put themselves in the shoes of God and see how well they can and should answer their own complaints and difficulties with God.

You have created a strawman but I'll play. If I were god I wouldn't torture and kill people in a flood. I would tell people that slavery is a bad idea. I wouldn't act petty and vindictive and kill people who worshiped false gods. I wouldn't make a big deal of sex or tell people who they can and can't sleep with. I wouldn't call a woman filthy just because she is going through something natural like a menstruation cycle. I wouldn't tell people to kill their children. I wouldn't have a hard on for the murder of children. I wouldn't allow children to suffer and die from horrible diseases. I wouldn't put the free will of pedophiles, rapists and murderers above the free will of their victims. I wouldn't propagate and perpetuate wars and genocide. I wouldn't arbitrarily pick one group of people above another thus causing racial animosity and division. I wouldn't act as a land broker parceling out sacred patches of sand.

I've a laundry list of idiotic attributes that bronze age humans ascribed to mythical creatures like god that don't stand the test of time. If you want more feel free to ask.

 

[PixyMisa]

The title of this thread is:

Now, let's talk evidence for God.​

Which, I will note, you haven't done.

Atheists here are having difficulties in coming up with any ideas about the God they deny

Not our job.

I fear they will also have difficulties with kinds of evidence that are relevant for God.

Well, if you ever present any, we'll find out.

Yet they keep harping about their demand for theists to come up with evidence for God.

You're the ones claiming this God exists, so it's up to you to provide the evidence.

I fear they are pursuing the cult of unreason and dis-intelligence.

Your fears are misplaced, to say the least.

You believe in something?

Well, then, you have to tell us what that something is, and then you have to present evidence supporting your belief.

Not our job.

The more I examined the oppositions of atheists to God, the more I have arrived at the certainty that they don't really have any reason to deny God's existence.

You've yet to come up with a meaningful definition that distinguishes your God from gravity.

What they have are so many complaints and difficulties with God who created the universe.

What God is that?

And what is your evidence?

What atheists should do is to put themselves in the shoes of God and see how well they can and should answer their own complaints and difficulties with God.

We don't have "complaints and difficulties". We ask for just two things:

1. A coherent definition of whatever it is you believe in.
2. Evidence supporting this belief.

So far all we have is a big bucket of fail.

 

[Twiler]

Thanks, Mark6, for your contribution.



The title of this thread is:

Now, let's talk evidence for God.​

Atheists here are having difficulties in coming up with any ideas about the God they deny, I fear they will also have difficulties with kinds of evidence that are relevant for God.

Yet they keep harping about their demand for theists to come up with evidence for God.

I fear they are pursuing the cult of unreason and dis-intelligence.



But not you, Mark6, because you have if you be an atheist at least pursued reason and intelligence by attending to what is the most crucially critical component of the concept of God in 2008 c.e., namely (the words in bold):

To me "God" means some intelligent, goal-oriented entity that created the Universe.​

I said God is the maker of the moon, of course not excluding other things about God, but you have gone all the way to admit that the idea of God today in 2008 c.e. is that He created the universe.



The more I examined the oppositions of atheists to God, the more I have arrived at the certainty that they don't really have any reason to deny God's existence.

What they have are so many complaints and difficulties with God who created the universe.

What atheists should do is to put themselves in the shoes of God and see how well they can and should answer their own complaints and difficulties with God.




Yrreg

What colour is the unicorn that doesn't live in your garden?

I don't attribute a single set of characteristics to a being I DON'T BELIEVE IN. If an entity is a god, I don't believe it exists.

And what do I consider a god? Any being stated to be immensely powerful yet outside normal human perception.

 

[cj.23]

The "well even atheists have beliefs" meme is such a dumb canard. It really doesn't warrant debate.

Well meme is a pretty meaningless term, based on my reading of Dawkins and Blackmore on the concept (I note Dawkins has revised his usage of it substantially thoiugh to a more sensible position in his later books.) -- but we will let that pass.

However the Statement "even atheists have beliefs" is not really a canard. It is a truism. Atheist have all kinds of beliefs, millions of them - some evidentially supported, some not. So do all humans!

cj x

 

[RandFan]

Well meme is a pretty meaningless term...

All terms are meaningless if you want them to be.

However the Statement "even atheists have beliefs" is not really a canard. It is a truism. Atheist have all kinds of beliefs, millions of them - some evidentially supported, some not.

It's a canard because it doesn't prove what the person who states it wants it to prove. Not all beliefs are equal. Believing that *you are god doesn't make you god. That I believe the sun will rise tomorrow doesn't make your belief that *you are god true. THAT'S why it is a silly and stupid canard.

*figure of speech.

 

[yrreg]

Although i dont believe there is a GOD, when i hear the term i think of a being who is all knowing and all powerful. He is located in some unreachable realm by man, and is watching over us hoping we all do the right thing and live by his laws. He hears our prayers and does his best to answer what he see's fit.

So since this is what you asked for please feel fit to start trying to prove any of it so that i may re-consider my ideas. I patiently await your deductions and presented evidence for any of it....

You say, unlike atheists who pursue the cult of unreason and dis-intelligence, that you have the idea of God as -- though you don't believe in God -- "a being who is all knowing and all powerful."


For the present let's not say that God is all knowing and all powerful, just that He is much more knowing and much more powerful than any men, even the atheist scientists (if indeed there be genuine scientists who are atheists and thereby pursuing the cult of unreason and dis-intelligence -- wherefore not genuine scientists).

You seek evidence of God being at least at this point of our exchange more knowing and more powerful than any men.

What about the moon as a piece of evidence for God existing and being more knowing and more powerful than any men?

You see, men have made artificial satellites to go around the earth in imitation of the moon, an extant satellite of the earth long long ago before the appearance of man on earth.

As artificial satellites are evidence of man's knowledge and power, then the moon is evidence of the maker of the moon which I describe for the present to be God, Who is also described by me to be at this point of our exchange much more knowing and much more powerful than any men.


Let's wait for men to produce a moon like the one that has existed long long ago before men's appearance and will continue to exist after men's departure, then tell them you are behind God and if not for the moon made by God you would not have any idea much less knowledge to fashion a moon after.




Yrreg

 

[RandFan]

For the present let's not say that God is all knowing and all powerful, just that He is much more knowing and much more powerful than any men...

And the evidence for this invisible superman?

 

[Twiler]

Answer me this: Who made the unicorn that doesn't live in your garden?

 

[Dunstan]

The more I have studied militant anOdinist message board trolls, the more I realize that they don't have any rational basis for their disbelief in Odin. I can only conclude that they hate and fear Odin because they are too cowardly to honor him with their deaths in battle.

 

[RandFan]

Let's wait for men to produce a moon like the one that has existed long long ago before men's appearance and will continue to exist after men's departure, then tell them you are behind God and if not for the moon made by God you would not have any idea much less knowledge to fashion a moon after.

Your logic is circular. First you need to establish A.) That there is a god and B.) that it created the moon.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Please to support your premise before you use the premise to prove the conclusion that supports the premise.

Got it?

See, I could say that the moon is proof that I'm god because I created it and it proves that I'm god.

Disprove that?

 

[PixyMisa]

You say, unlike atheists who pursue the cult of unreason and dis-intelligence, that you have the idea of God as -- though you don't believe in God -- "a being who is all knowing and all powerful."

It's not our job to define God. If you believe in such a thing, it's your job to tell us what it is.

For the present let's not say that God is all knowing and all powerful, just that He is much more knowing and much more powerful than any men, even the atheist scientists (if indeed there be genuine scientists who are atheists and thereby pursuing the cult of unreason and dis-intelligence -- wherefore not genuine scientists).

Okay, so you say your God is a thing that knows a lot and has a lot of power. That's not necessarily supernatural at all; an advanced alien race could easily fit the bill.

You seek evidence of God being at least at this point of our exchange more knowing and more powerful than any men.

Yep.

Evidence, please.

What about the moon as a piece of evidence for God existing and being more knowing and more powerful than any men?

It's entirely useless as evidence, unless you can show that your putative God made the moon.

You see, men have made artificial satellites to go around the earth

Certainly.

in imitation of the moon

Not really, no.

We've also made satellites orbit the Moon itself, other planets, and the Sun.

an extant satellite of the earth long long ago before the appearance of man on earth.

Yes, that's the moon. Big ball of rock in the sky.

As artificial satellites are evidence of man's knowledge and power, then the moon is evidence of the maker of the moon which I describe for the present to be God, Who is also described by me to be at this point of our exchange much more knowing and much more powerful than any men.

Worthless.

We know humans made artificial satellites, because not only do we have immense amounts of documentary evidence, but they keep on doing it.

The Moon is a ball of rock in the sky. It's approximately spherical due to its size and the relative strengths of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces.

But it evidences no maker beyond simple physics.

Let's wait for men to produce a moon like the one that has existed long long ago before men's appearance and will continue to exist after men's departure, then tell them you are behind God and if not for the moon made by God you would not have any idea much less knowledge to fashion a moon after.

The Moon is but a ball of rock, Yrreg. Those little manmade artificial satellites, right back to Sputnik, are vastly more sophisticated.

So much for the knowledge of this God of yours.