Atheists are not nearly as rationional as some think.

[blü 2]

Garbage. That is ginned up. Pulled out of your backside have nothing to do with investigation.

Really? Then I ask you again ─ please enlighten me.

If God is real then God exists independently of anyone's imagination, out there in the world external to the self, in reality, in nature.

And the existence of God can be established by a satisfactory demonstration, just as the existence of the Higgs boson was established by several satisfactory demonstrations.

So to find God out there, the essential starting point is a clear idea of what we're looking for, as we did with the Higgs boson.

Tell me, what exactly is a real god?

What objective test will tell us it's God, or a god, when we find it?

Since it's real, you say, it must be present in nature, so where do we start looking?

Of course, if it's not present in nature, then it's not real, and the only way it can exist is as a thing imagined. But you assure me it's real, so the questions above will not present you with any problems.

 

[blü 2]

Where is the evidence for everything, including life from nothing?

According to the evidence, some 4.5 bn ya, the sun and the earth and the solar system formed. By at least 3.6 bn ya (some say more like 4.2 bn ya) protolife (archaea) had arisen on earth. There are two possibilities: that the archaea came from outside earth, that archaea formed on earth. You want to add a third, that the archaea were deliberately formed by magic; but in my view magic exists only in the imagination of individuals.

While you are at it perhaps you can provide all that mountains of evidence for the ape/human common ancestor mystery creature.

Why don't you go to Wikipedia and look up 'Evolution'? Indeed, why haven't you ever done so?

 

[JoshuaTree]

Really? Then I ask you again ─ please enlighten me.

If God is real then God exists independently of anyone's imagination, out there in the world external to the self, in reality, in nature.

And the existence of God can be established by a satisfactory demonstration, just as the existence of the Higgs boson was established by several satisfactory demonstrations.

So to find God out there, the essential starting point is a clear idea of what we're looking for, as we did with the Higgs boson.

Tell me, what exactly is a real god?

What objective test will tell us it's God, or a god, when we find it?

Since it's real, you say, it must be present in nature, so where do we start looking?

Of course, if it's not present in nature, then it's not real, and the only way it can exist is as a thing imagined. But you assure me it's real, so the questions above will not present you with any problems.

So man has the free will ability to prove God exists? Scientifically?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I choose to be agnostic about the existence of the Blue Fairy and her creative act leading to the whole Universe.
Looks less ridiculous than being agnostic about Gods spawning themselves to get in a pseudo-suicide mission involving a weekend off for our sins.

Don't you think so?

Ciao

- viole

No

 

[shunyadragon]

Because there is no objective verifiable evidence that God(s) do [ ] exist, it's not much of an assumption that they don't.

No.

 

[atanu]

Really? Then I ask you again ─ please enlighten me.

If God is real then God exists independently of anyone's imagination, out there in the world external to the self, in reality, in nature.

And the existence of God can be established by a satisfactory demonstration, just as the existence of the Higgs boson was established by several satisfactory demonstrations.

So to find God out there, the essential starting point is a clear idea of what we're looking for, as we did with the Higgs boson.

Tell me, what exactly is a real god?

What objective test will tell us it's God, or a god, when we find it?

Since it's real, you say, it must be present in nature, so where do we start looking?

Of course, if it's not present in nature, then it's not real, and the only way it can exist is as a thing imagined. But you assure me it's real, so the questions above will not present you with any problems.

These are ego questions, naive at best. How can a part prove the whole? How can a car deny or prove reality of an engineer? Do you think that we as temporary insignificant part of nature, know the whole of nature? Or that a created intelligence can unravel the ruth of its source?

Only, if your intelligence is true, uncreated, you can expect to possess a reason that can determine truth or falsity of propositions. Being the subject, you think that objects create the subject's intelligence. That is called mAyA in Hinduism.

Billions of people are aware of “I”. Do billions have different awareness or do billions have same awareness on which all forms-names subsist? The awareness only drives the scientific endeavour of us all. It is foolish to ascribe that awareness to inert material-process. If you still insist that inert material-process gives rise to consciousness, then either actually demonstrate it or at least explain the mechanism.

What you call ‘nature did it’, is god with many names to others. There is evidence meditation on the whole reveals the non dual truth to many. It is the subject of timeless scripture. And it is the means of removal of misery too.

 

[joelr]

Did Einstein begin with evidence or a belief?

It was more of a creative process, like when someone writes one of the great pieces of music.
Light was known to be a wave and he demonstrated it was a particle. There was a problem with the speed of light (c) to which he came up with a brilliant solution for - that c is always the same no matter how fast you go because when you speed up your time slows down!

He also realized that energy and mass were equivalent and interchangeable. So he had several strokes of genius and then wrote out the equations to support his ideas.

Then later he realized that gravity and acceleration produced the same effects. Like if you were is a spaceship accelerating in space you could stand on the opposite end floor and would feel like you were on Earth (if you accelerated exactly to 1G).
So he figured gravity was falling and decided mass must curve spacetime so that objects fall through the space toward the object. Then began a theory to describe how mass curves spacetime.
This mainly was creativity at it's highest point.

 

[atanu]

I do not consider atheism irrational humans as a generalization, not all atheists are irrational. .....

Ontological naturalism is irrational. To consciously decide to adhere to 'empiricism only' for scientific purposes is one matter. It is altogether another matter to believe that there is nothing beyond the empirical. This assumption itself has no empirical basis. The assumption that life-intelligence originated from inert chemicals has no empirical and scientific basis. But it is used as an axiom by the naturalist-atheist. So, the arrogant stance of naturalist-atheist: 'Nature did it', is irrational since nature itself is not known. Furthermore, the belief of ego, which does not know itself and its own source, that it knows for certain that there is no higher controller of the ego, is irrational. ..... I can go on.

 

[dimmesdale]

Really? Then I ask you again ─ please enlighten me.

If God is real then God exists independently of anyone's imagination, out there in the world external to the self, in reality, in nature.

Something does otherwise it is everything from nothing including life. That simply will no do.

And the existence of God

Atheists have a problem with God. They keep dragging God up. They have no problem with ape/human common ancestors mystery creatures. Betcha you believe in the mystery creature and all the boatloads of evidence which conclusively points to some extinct creature from the past. After all, evolution is loaded with evidence then so is the mystery creature. Is that it? Because from where i am sitting it sounds like double standards.

So to find God out there, the essential starting point is a clear idea of what we're looking for, as we did with the Higgs boson.

Why are you dredging up higgs boson? You do know most of life decisions are not based on scientific evidence. Most court rulings are not based on scientific evidence in the form of forensics. There are other types of evidence used all the time including the courts in which juries arrive at the truth. They do not limit the search to one type and ignore all the rest. They do not say we will only accept scientific evidence and all others including testimony will be ignored. What scientific evidence will convict that supreme court fellow of raising hell with that female 36 yrs ago at the drunk party? Will higgs boson? The virtue signaling is nauseating. If you don't know about God then everything else you do know is incidental.

Tell me, what exactly is a real god?

These are rhetorical but by the same standards you tell me, what exactly is the human/ape common ancestor mystery creature? How did all sexual reproduction derive from asexual reproduction via laws of physic and chemistry absent intelligent intervention of some sort?

What objective test will tell us it's God, or a god, when we find it?

What objective test for the common ancestor?

Since it's real, you say, it must be present in nature, so where do we start looking?

It would be outside of nature.

Of course, if it's not present in nature,

See here is the problem you don't even underestand the first verse in the Bible. besides these are all rhetorical. Got to go.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ontological naturalism is irrational. To consciously decide to adhere to 'empiricism only' for scientific purposes is one matter. It is altogether another matter to believe that there is nothing beyond the empirical. This assumption itself has no empirical basis. The assumption that life-intelligence originated from inert chemicals has no empirical and scientific basis. But it is used as an axiom by the naturalist-atheist. So, the arrogant stance of naturalist-atheist: 'Nature did it', is irrational since nature itself is not known. Furthermore, the belief of ego, which does not know itself and its own source, that it knows for certain that there is no higher controller of the ego, is irrational. ..... I can go on.

You may go on and on, but I disagree with you and the extreme view of some atheists and take the Middle Road as a scientist and a theist. I do not consider Ontological Naturalism irrational, but it does take philosophical/theological assertion that God(s) and in some circumstances other worlds do not exist. I do not consider it not logical to conclude that there is 100% certainty that God(s) do not exist based on the lack of objective verifiable evidence as determined by empirical methods.

 

[blü 2]

So man has the free will ability to prove God exists? Scientifically?

I'm not exactly clear on what your question means, but I don't think science gives humans either truly free will ─ all decisions of the brain are the result of chains of cause+effect, quite possibly disrupted in unforeseeable ways by random quantum events, though I don't think such a thing has been demonstrated yet.

Nonetheless the processes, at least by our standards, are so complex that I don't see them as susceptible to a perfect description of a starting position, let alone an anticipation of the environment they may be required to respond to, so I don't foresee any useful predictability based on deterministic methods, let alone if those chains of cause+effect are indeed randomly disrupted by QM phenomena.

Meanwhile, yes, we learn, we interact, we hear stories about gods and we're able to look into them and form reasoned conclusions.

 

[blü 2]

These are ego questions, naive at best.

But, old friend, you then go on not to answer my questions, 'ego' and 'naive' though you deem them. Surely if you know what a real god, a non-imaginary god, is, you can pause long enough to give me a useful definition?

How can a part prove the whole?

How can a part of what prove the whole of what?

How can a car deny or prove reality of an engineer?

Depends how smart the car is. If it has a Watson computer running it, it can beat humans at Jeopardy, and that was back in 2011. Do you know any reason why in principle a computer could never derive such a question and set out to explore it in order to find an answer?

Do you think that we as temporary insignificant part of nature, know the whole of nature?

No, but that's no reason not to try.

Or that a created intelligence can unravel the ruth of its source?

Do you think humans are a 'created intelligence' in any other sense than that we evolved from protolife across three or four billion years? If so, what exactly?

And while I'm there, do you think God, or gods, exist outside of imagination? That is, are real, are found in nature? If so, what are they, how do they exist, and what exactly makes them gods and not simply our fellow-critters?

 

[blü 2]

Something does otherwise it is everything from nothing including life. That simply will no do.

What something, exactly?

Atheists have a problem with God. They keep dragging God up.

I don't even know what a real God is. Why do you think I keep asking? Don't you know either?

They have no problem with ape/human common ancestors mystery creatures.

We're talking about real creatures and real evidence here. There are no fossils of gods, no cemeteries of their remains, only endless and contradictory stories, exactly what you'd expect from products of individual and cultural imaginings.

If you say they're real, show me.

Betcha you believe in the mystery creature and all the boatloads of evidence which conclusively points to some extinct creature from the past. After all, evolution is loaded with evidence then so is the mystery creature.

What mystery creature?

Why are you dredging up higgs boson?

Because if God is real then the question of God's existence is no different to the question of the existence of the Higgs boson. If God is not real, is only imaginary, then that's not a problem.

You do know most of life decisions are not based on scientific evidence. Most court rulings are not based on scientific evidence in the form of forensics. There are other types of evidence used all the time including the courts in which juries arrive at the truth. They do not limit the search to one type and ignore all the rest. They do not say we will only accept scientific evidence and all others including testimony will be ignored.

If the question before the court is whether object X exists or person X exists, then scientific evidence, lab reports, photos and videos, birth certificates, and so on are all relevant. God has none, only stories that contradict each other and make impossible claims of magic, infinitude, omnipotence, and other imaginary qualities.

If you don't know about God then everything else you do know is incidental.

But you don't know enough about God ─ a real God, that is ─ even to tell me what God is, how we could tell whether any suspect were God or not if we found one. And since you can't do that, I'm not sure what your admonition is supposed to mean.

what exactly is the human/ape common ancestor mystery creature?

What 'mystery creature'?

How did all sexual reproduction derive from asexual reproduction via laws of physic and chemistry absent intelligent intervention of some sort?

I mentioned before that if a being existed prior to our universe, that would necessarily imply an earlier universe in which that being evolved to the necessary degree of intelligence. You didn't reply, though.

you don't even underestand the first verse in the Bible

It mentions God. If God is supposed to be a real being, I've told you that I don't know what real being that's supposed to be. And from your evasion of the straightforward questions in my previous posts, it certainly looks like you have no more clue than I do.

But I say again, I'd be delighted if you proved me wrong, by giving non-evasive answers to those questions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Refute the point then.

That's not how it works. You need to support your conclusion on its own merits.

An honest approach to the issue would ask questions like these instead of your loaded ones:

- how does consciousness arise in our development?

- what is the seat of consciousness?

- how did human beings come to have consciousness?

It is very much relevant. Let me reproduce what I wrote elsewhere.

Seems like a wonky view of science. Here's a competing - and more correct - view:

"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?"

- Dr. Steven Novella

That's where I'm coming from: the scope of science is defined by what can be investigated reliably and rigorously. Not everything can be investigated scientifically, but when we're talking about objective factual matters, when you say that you're investigating something outside of the scope of science, you're necessarily talking about things that either:

- aren't objective factual matters (e.g. values or aesthetics),
- haven't been investigated rigorously, or
- haven't been investigated by reliable methods.

... or some combination of these three.

 

[dimmesdale]

What something, exactly?
I don't even know what a real God is. Why do you think I keep asking? Don't you know either?
We're talking about real creatures and real evidence here.

Real creatures is the issue here. An extinct ape/human unknown mystery creature is the description (because you don't know what it was) of the alleged ape/human common ancestor. It just sounds like an all hat and no cattle claim and the reason i point this out is to show double standards. Going on and on about evidence and description of God and at the same time have no evidence or description of the common ancestor. It really means evidence is not your standard in the first place. So why pretend it is?

There are no fossils of gods,

Even if you had a fossil of the common ancestor there would be no way you could tell since bones do not come with lineage attached and are really only physical evidence of remains. Everything else is spun up after the fact.

If you say they're real, show me.

Show me the ape/human common ancestor. After that can you please demonstrate how all sexual reproduction is from asexual reproduction which means change in compatable body parts both males and females across a wide variety of creatures at about the same time. All via the laws of physics and chemistry alone? Sounds like blind faith to me, so tell me where am i wrong?

What mystery creature?

The ape/human common ancestor. Are you feigning ignorance?

But I say again, I'd be delighted if you proved me wrong, by giving non-evasive answers to those questions.

Who is being evasive here? Anyways got to go. Even if you don't get it, hopefully others will.

 

[blü 2]

Real creatures is the issue here.

Can you tell me what real creature God is, so that if we find God in reality we can tell it's God?

If you can't, please stop ducking the question and just say you can't.

 

[dimmesdale]

Can you tell me what real creature God is, so that if we find God in reality we can tell it's God?

If you can't, please stop ducking the question and just say you can't.

Who is ducking here? Where is all the mountains of conclusive evidence for the ape/human common ancestor?

 

[atanu]

You may go on and on, but I disagree with you and the extreme view of some atheists and take the Middle Road as a scientist and a theist. I do not consider Ontological Naturalism irrational, but it does take philosophical/theological assertion that God(s) and in some circumstances other worlds do not exist. I do not consider it not logical to conclude that there is 100% certainty that God(s) do not exist based on the lack of objective verifiable evidence as determined by empirical methods.

You disagreed, then you said nothing on points enumerated in my post, and eventually you said the same thing that I had said that ontological naturalism was not logical.

 

[atanu]

That's not how it works. You need to support your conclusion on its own merits.
An honest approach to the issue would ask questions like these instead of your loaded ones:
- how does consciousness arise in our development?
- what is the seat of consciousness?
- how did human beings come to have consciousness?

Please do not get confused. My argument was "If everything is caused by material causation, then there is no room left for a ‘reason’ to cause something. The event is already fully explained in terms of the laws of nature."

Only that much. A materially/mechanically caused consciousness has no room left for reasoning.

Seems like a wonky view of science. Here's a competing - and more correct - view:

"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?"

- Dr. Steven Novella

.

Not at all. I do not contradict any of that when I say that science studies 'objects'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please do not get confused. My argument was "If everything is caused by material causation, then there is no room left for a ‘reason’ to cause something. The event is already fully explained in terms of the laws of nature."

Only that much. A materially/mechanically caused consciousness has no room left for reasoning.

I realize what you're saying. I think it's unsupported nonsense.

Not at all. I do not contradict any of that when I say that science studies 'objects'.

Science studies that which is verifiable. I have no doubt that there are plenty of things about the universe that can't be verified, but I certainly don't think that you've verified any of your pronouncements about the unverifiable.