Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[PoetPhilosopher]

I've seen a few struggling with what the "burden of proof" actually is. The burden of proof, as I understand it, lies on the person making the claim, be it positive or negative.

If a theist claims God exists and expects an atheist to agree, the burden of proof lies with the theist.
If an atheist claims there is no God and expects the theist to agree, the burden of proof lies with the atheist.

Correct.

 

[Link]

This is obviously not a proof. The "exact reality of who we are" doesn't really even mean anything - certainly not in the way you seem to be trying to use it here. To the extent is has a meaning, it doesn't require any sort of being to know what it is. The claim that it exists and the further claim that it requires some judge to see it, are both baseless assertions.

I explained as best I can. It's the opposite, we require this vision and rely on it, as I already explained in that video and in many threads. Whether you accept it or not, doesn't change reality and whether I reminded through it about God or not.

 

[leroy]

The answer is simple. I don't know what it would take to convince me. But, if god exists, he does and has so far chosen not to provide this evidence. So how can my belief be warranted.

Well perhaps a good start would be to think about this question and decide what type of evidence /observation/experiment would convince you.

 

[leroy]

I've seen many atheists answer this question. That you don't like the answer doesn't mean they can't.

The most common answer is see is providing objective evidence of God's existence.

That’s too vague.

Flatearthers use the same “tactic”

 

[ratiocinator]

It's the opposite, we require this vision and rely on it, as I already explained in that video and in many threads.

I do not require it and do not rely on it. It's an appeal to intuition fallacy at best, and not even a universal intuition, it seems to be just yours.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That’s too vague.

Flatearthers use the same “tactic”

As I said, just because you don't like an answer doesn't mean your question wasn't answered.

 

[leroy]

My left eye is dead, and also has cataract. If God will put it right, I will believe in him, even if it is an Abrahamic God. Will God take up the challenge? He is supposed to have many miracles to his credit. This should be a small thing for him.

Assuming that such a thing happens……………what would prevent you from saying “ohh it happened by an unknown natural mechanism” just because we don’t know what fixed the eye that doesn’t mean that God did it.

 

[Link]

I do not require it and do not rely on it. It's an appeal to intuition fallacy at best, and not even a universal intuition, it seems to be just yours.

Who we are is a value judgment, either your brain does it or something else, it's not physical even if there is no such thing as a soul, it would be a program generation of our brain. I say our brain can't judge us accurately to give exact reality to who we are and rather it's God the only one who can, that we exist there in his vision and no where else fully accurately.

 

[Link]

The problem you can deny the sun exists for all that matters, I'm simply describing reality and reminding you of God through it. Denial of people won't make this reality go away or it being a proof/reminder to God.

 

[leroy]

As I said, just because you don't like an answer doesn't mean your question wasn't answered.

Ok, and what do you mean with “Objective” and with “evidence?


The way I understand it

Objective means independent of ones opinion.

Evidence means: anything that makes a particular claim more likely to be true that without such thing.

Do you accept those definitions? Would you add something else? Or feel free to redefine so that I can know exactly what you mean by objective evidence.

 

[ratiocinator]

Who we are is a value judgment...

Which makes it subjective.

I say our brain can't judge us accurately...

There is no such thing as an accurate value judgement - it's a point of view.

...to give exact reality to who we are...

If it's a subjective value judgement, there is no such thing as and "exact reality to who we are". This really isn't rocket science.

 

[Moonjuice]

I have already mentioned that I have seen no proof for existence of any God, be it the Abrahamic God or the Hindu God or any other God or Goddess.
I don't want a sermon or a quote from a book, I want solid proof.

It doesn't exist.

 

[Link]

Which makes it subjective.



There is no such thing as an accurate value judgement - it's a point of view.



If it's a subjective value judgement, there is no such thing as and "exact reality to who we are". This really isn't rocket science.

Then who we are is an illusion and fantasy thinking, it has no basis. As I explained in the video, we wouldn't estimate who we are, if there was no accurate reality. If there is nothing there, it's all illusion, everything we think about ourselves. But we know we aren't an illusion and that there is an accurate reality to who we are and that our deeds/actions form part of who we are.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ok, and what do you mean with “Objective” and with “evidence?


The way I understand it

Objective means independent of ones opinion.

Evidence means: anything that makes a particular claim more likely to be true that without such thing.

Do you accept those definitions? Would you add something else? Or feel free to redefine so that I can know exactly what you mean by objective evidence.

The way the rest of us understand it:

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be supported without personal bias through systematic means such as analysis, testing, experiment, measurement, and observation.

 

[ratiocinator]

Then who we are is an illusion and fantasy thinking, it has no basis.

False dichotomy. A subjective value judgement isn't a fantasy. Fantasy and objective fact are not the only options.

As I explained in the video, we wouldn't estimate who we are, if there was no accurate reality.

Why not? You don't seem to understand what a value judgement is.

But we know we aren't an illusion and that there is an accurate reality to who we are and that our deeds/actions form part of who we are.

There is an objective really to who we are but that is just clever apes trying to get by. There is no accurate reality to us in the sense of a value judgement. Just insisting there is cannot form part of a proof and even if I accepted it, that still wouldn't mean that any being needed to know what it was.

 

[Link]

Value estimate has to have something there accurately to estimate. With no basis, the value judgment has no basis either.

 

[Link]

Noticed how you moved the goal posts, first you said who we are doesn't require an exact judge for us to have an exact reality. When that is proven, now you trying to say we don't have an exact reality to who we are.

This moving goal posts, will even happen if you are shown miracles. You will say it's aliens, technology, or sorcery or something... You won't accept anything in reality that proves God.

At the end if I convince of you of this premise, you will say, so what we are an illusion and won't accept God.

I've seen it happen countless times. Then it's really silly when I'm trying to convince who you are is not an illusion, but been at that road with atheists before.

 

[leroy]

The way the rest of us understand it:

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be supported without personal bias through systematic means such as analysis, testing, experiment, measurement, and observation.

The universe is Finely Tuned for the existence of life.

Fine tuning simply means that there are values and initial conditions in our universe that if there were slightly different, life most likelly would have fail to exist.

An analogy would be, there are many values and initial conditions that aloowed an arrow hitting the center of a bulls eye, if the wind, the initial speed, the angle, the mass of the arror, the distance, etc. would have been different, the arrow would have failed to hit the center of the bulls eye.

information based on facts

It is a fact that if the initial entropy of the universe would have been high, planets, stars, molecules, etc. (and therefore life) would have not excited.

supported without personal bias

This is supported without bias, we know that the initial entropy of the universe was low and we know that this is required for life to exists.

as analysis, testing, experiment, measurement, and observation

done
---
So there are 3 alternatives

1 you admit that I already presented objective evidence for God

2 Spot the mistake and correct it

3 change the topic, change the goal post or find an excuse for accepting this evidence

 

[SalixIncendium]

The universe is Finely Tuned for the existence of life.

Fine tuning simply means that there are values and initial conditions in our universe that if there were slightly different, life most likelly would have fail to exist.

An analogy would be, there are many values and initial conditions that aloowed an arrow hitting the center of a bulls eye, if the wind, the initial speed, the angle, the mass of the arror, the distance, etc. would have been different, the arrow would have failed to hit the center of the bulls eye.





It is a fact that if the initial entropy of the universe would have been high, planets, stars, molecules, etc. (and therefore life) would have not excited.



This is supported without bias, we know that the initial entropy of the universe was low and we know that this is required for life to exists.


done
---
So there are 3 alternatives

1 you admit that I already presented objective evidence for God

2 Spot the mistake and correct it

3 change the topic, change the goal post or find an excuse for accepting this evidence

I'll take option 2 for $300, Leroy.

 

[leroy]

Link said: ↑
I say our brain can't judge us accurately...

There is no such thing as an accurate value judgement - it's a point of view.

The same applies for everything else, by that logic you can’t judge that the earth if nearly spherical rather than flat, all you have is the subjective interpretation of evidence from your brain.