Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

[muhammad_isa]

The existence of God is not a truth, it's an unsupported assertion, hence, invalid..

Of course it's not invalid.
OK .. so you've decided that the Bible and Qur'an are fraudulent or deluded. That's only your opinion .. and would be an unsupported assertion

Personal incredulity is not reason..

Yes it is .. it doesn't prove the existence of God, but along with other factors, one can be satisfied that Abrahamic religion is highly likely to be true.
Obviously, not everybody comes to that conclusion.
We all have reasons for our beliefs.

The burden of proof is entirely on you..

It's not you know .. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone.
You are entitled to believe whatever you like, as are we all.

"No God" is reasonable, "God" is not.

That is only your opinion..

It's a product of faith..

..so are all our beliefs.
We have faith in scientific facts to be true, as we assume that "scientists" have made correct conclusions
In a similar way, we trust that scripture is truthful and not fraudulent .. the fact that we cannot "see" God is irrelevant.
We don't expect to see God.

..We're just waiting for someone to establish His existence. It's hard to have a substantive discussion of something imaginary.

You will be waiting and waiting .. you are looking in the wrong direction.

 

[Valjean]

Good grief .. why do you feel the need for continually repeating the obvious??

Because its implications and logical conclusions are repeatedly ignored?

rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

It is not irrational to believe in God. It is not irrational to believe in a non-physical concept, just because it cannot be detected by physical means.

You're saying it's rational to believe in the undetectable.

Wouldn't this put God in the same epistemic category as an invisible, pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster?

..so you say, but many people see that as highly unlikely .. why would that be?

Another ad pop?

How can a universe which contains intelligent beings have no particular reason for its existence?

Why would it need a "reason?" This is your personal argument from incredulity. There is neither evidence of intention nor reason to believe "a reason" is necessary. Moreover, Goddidit explains nothing.
And what's with the "intelligent beings?" Do they make God more likely than unintelligent beings?

There is an explanation for everything, in my experience.

But almost the entirety of reality is outside your experience, and what reality we know of is often counter-intuitive, if not incomprehensible.
And again: "explanation" = explanation of mechanism, not an assertion of agency. Goddidit, again, explains nothing.

I disagree. There is no obligation in a religious debate forum for another to empirically prove anything.

But it's pretty hard to debate about the imaginary.

We are here to learn .. there is not much to learn in atheism .. except that "gods don't exist" .. wow

Atheism teaches nothing, nor does it claim that gods don't exist.
Apparently you're working from a different, unorthodox, understanding of atheism.

Fair enough, so why do some people keep asking for empirical proof, when they know that God is not a physical concept?

Because other people keep bringing up the concept as fact, and basing whole worldviews, political positions, and moral systems on it.

Any other "evidence" is dismissed as inadmissable, or irrational by.the likes of you .. so why bother discussing at all when, by your "rules" .. you can't lose?

The 'other evidence' is imaginary, unfounded and insubstantial. No truth claims -- or even validity claims -- can logically be based on it.

Most things taken to extreme are destructive.

One man's extreme is another man's commonsense and propriety.

 

[Valjean]

Of course it's not invalid.
OK .. so you've decided that the Bible and Qur'an are fraudulent or deluded. That's only your opinion .. and would be an unsupported assertion

It would be valid inasmuch as it's the epistemic default; the blank slate both parties start with. The claim is yours; the burden is yours. My assertion is supported by the fact that you have not met your burden.
If you cannot support or validate what you've written on the slate, it's erased and we start over with a blank slate again.
I make no assertion. I just point out your lack of evidence and understanding of epistemology.

Yes it is .. it doesn't prove the existence of God, but along with other factors, one can be satisfied that Abrahamic religion is highly likely to be true.
Obviously, not everybody comes to that conclusion.
We all have reasons for our beliefs.

Some evidenced, some not.

It's not you know .. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone.
You are entitled to believe whatever you like, as are we all.

But as the party making the positive assertion, you do assume the burden, no?
You have not met your burden. Your belief is, therefore, invalid.

That is only your opinion..

No. That's objective logic.

..so are all our beliefs.

In a way, that's true, but there is well supported, reasonable faith, ie: knowledge, and there is unevidenced faith -- fantasy.

We have faith in scientific facts to be true, as we assume that "scientists" have made correct conclusions
In a similar way, we trust that scripture is truthful and not fraudulent .. the fact that we cannot "see" God is irrelevant.

Scientists are their own harshest critics. The whole discipline is based on attempting to disprove the conclusions of science. Science is the most robust and dependable investigative modality man has ever devised. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have; it's the ontologic Gold Standard.
Scripture is an entirely different thing. It's not an investigative modality. Its supporters actively resist testing. It's full of outright historical and factual falsehoods, and, in the case of the Bible, full of contradictions, cherry-picking, and editing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Wouldn't this put God in the same epistemic category as an invisible, pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster?

No. You only say this because you consider the Bible and Qur'an are fraudulent or deluded.
Billions of people do not think so.

Another ad pop?

Is that all you have to say?
That billions of people are irrational?

And what's with the "intelligent beings?" Do they make God more likely than unintelligent beings?

Well, you tell me. If we were unintelligent, and unable to make conclusions, how could we deduce anything at all about anything??

But almost the entirety of reality is outside your experience..

Relatively speaking, that is true .. but that would go for us all.
What more have we got, than our own and other people's experiences?

..Because other people keep bringing up the concept as fact..

Yeah .. this word "fact" keeps popping up, doesn't it?
We all have faith in something. Some people have faith in human scientists, and some people have faith in "men of God", and some have faith in their own senses etc.

When any one of us communicates to others, it is a given that we are discussing what we believe, or have faith in, to be the truth. It could be wrong, but it could be right.
The same goes for all "facts", but some are clearly more likely or provable than others.

It is wrong to say that "faith" is automatically irrational .. it could be unfounded, but it is not automatically unfounded just because it is not empirically provable.
i.e. because God Almighty cannot be physically detected

Most atheists argue that "faith" in a religious sense is completely different to "faith" in a scientific fact. It doesn't have to be.
It all depends on why somebody has faith in God, or somebody has faith in the power of a vitamin or what have you.

The 'other evidence' is imaginary, unfounded and insubstantial..

..and that is your imagination running away with you .. assuming believers are less rational than you are.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I make no assertion. I just point out your lack of evidence..

..and then put your fingers in your ears, and say "that's not evidence, show me God"?
Oh, please !

In a way, that's true, but there is well supported, reasonable faith, ie: knowledge, and there is unevidenced faith -- fantasy..

It is not fantasy.
You are asserting that the Bible and Qur'an are fantasy .. that is your opinion. Why can't you grasp that simple fact??

It's full of outright historical and factual falsehoods..

Again, that is your assertion.

 

[Valjean]

No. You only say this because you consider the Bible and Qur'an are fraudulent or deluded.
Billions of people do not think so.


Is that all you have to say?
That billions of people are irrational?

Yes, billions are irrational.
People used to think the world was flat, that Earth was the center of the universe, that Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, and Osiris existed, and that plagues were a divine curse. People have always believed irrational things. It's in our nature. The general usage of logic, critical analysis, and the scientific method are new phenomena.

Well, you tell me. If we were unintelligent, and unable to make conclusions, how could we deduce anything at all about anything??

You missed my point. You specified the existence of intelligent beings as evidence for an intentional God. I asked why this was so, and why other, unintelligent creatures, or the universe itself, were not proposed as evidence.
What, specifically, is there about intelligent beings that makes them, uniquely, evidence?

Relatively speaking, that is true .. but that would go for us all.
What more have we got, than our own and other people's experiences?

Repeatable, generalized, testable, predictive, and productive, observations.

Individual, non-repeatable, non-testable observations and revelations can commonly be found in mental hospitals, and often among the religious faithful, as well.

Yeah .. this word "fact" keeps popping up, doesn't it?
We all have faith in something. Some people have faith in human scientists, and some people have faith in "men of God", and some have faith in their own senses etc.

Facts don't ordinarily require faith. They're knowledge, ie: evidence based, not faith based.
The path to knowledge and truth lies in the elimination of faith, to the extent possible. This is why scientists and critical thinkers are so hostile to faith.

When any one of us communicates to others, it is a given that we are discussing what we believe, or have faith in, to be the truth. It could be wrong, but it could be right.

"Belief" ≠ "what we have faith in." Belief encompasses a wide spectrum of confidence. Faith -- unwarranted belief -- is at the bottom. A reasonable person prefers the "knowledge" end of the spectrum.
The same goes for all "facts", but some are clearly more likely or provable than others.

It is wrong to say that "faith" is automatically irrational .. it could be unfounded, but it is not automatically unfounded just because it is not empirically provable.

True. It's irrational because it is believed despite insufficient evidence. Whether it's empirically provable or not is irrelevant.

Most atheists argue that "faith" in a religious sense is completely different to "faith" in a scientific fact. It doesn't have to be.

A scientific fact is either a repeatable, testable observation, or a theory. Faith, in a religious sense, is not based on repeatable, testable, observations; or any deduction therefrom. So yes, it's not the same as scientific faith.

It all depends on why somebody has faith in God, or somebody has faith in the power of a vitamin or what have you.

Exactly. Faith based on incredulity, ignorance, popular consensus, or familiarity is insubstantial and epistemically useless. Only fact-based, testable, measurable, repeatable beliefs provide a firm enough foundation to base a rational belief on.

..and that is your imagination running away with you .. assuming believers are less rational than you are.

But they are -- by the very definition of "rational."

 

[Valjean]

..and then put your fingers in your ears, and say "that's not evidence, show me God"?
Oh, please !

I don't understand your objection. What did I say that was not reasonable or factual? What am I refusing to hear?
I'm not asking to be shown God, I'd be satisfied with objective evidence.

It is not fantasy.
You are asserting that the Bible and Qur'an are fantasy .. that is your opinion. Why can't you grasp that simple fact??

How are you defining "fantasy" that doesn't involve imagination and lack of evidence? My opinion is an evidenced fact.
The Qur'an and Bible are not evidence based or tested. They are not scientific works. What does that leave?

Again, that is your assertion.

Yes, and a demonstrable fact, also asserted by historians, archæologists, linguists, geologists, &al.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, billions are irrational..

I don't think so highly of myself .. I think that I am no more rational than most people.

People used to think the world was flat, that Earth was the center of the universe, that Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, and Osiris existed..

Yes, they did .. but that was a long time ago .. fast-forward to now..

The general usage of logic, critical analysis, and the scientific method are new phenomena..

No, they're not. It is just that education and communications are vastly improved, so we are now better informed, overall.

You missed my point. You specified the existence of intelligent beings as evidence for an intentional God..

Yes, OK.
I know that you claim that that human intelligence has evolved without any specific reason, but what is intelligence?
What is its purpose? Why haven't other creatures evolved in a like manner to our own?
There are far too many questions that remain unanswered, without a source .. consciousness .. order .. chaos .. number .. time .. history .. future ...
All explained, if there is an underlying cosmic awareness of some description.

Individual, non-repeatable, non-testable observations and revelations can commonly be found in mental hospitals, and often among the religious faithful, as well..

Oh well, that proves it then .. all believers are mad.

Facts don't ordinarily require faith. They're knowledge, ie: evidence based, not faith based..

Total rubbish.
"facts" require faith. Faith in the institution that declared them.
..or are you suggesting that you have checked out all scientific "facts" for yourself?
More likely, you have left that to the scientists, and update their accuracy as and when they declare any new findings and corrections.

The path to knowledge and truth lies in the elimination of faith, to the extent possible..

Absolutely. Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave.

This is why scientists and critical thinkers are so hostile to faith..

No, that is not the reason. Not all scientists are atheists, although many are .. particularly the wealthy ones

True. It's irrational because it is believed despite insufficient evidence..

That is untrue.
What is "sufficient evidence" to believe in God?
..His appearance on TV?
I wouldn't expect that, particularly as God is not a person, and is a non-physical concept.

Faith, in a religious sense, is not based on repeatable, testable, observations; or any deduction therefrom..

It relies on the evidence of the Bible and Qur'an .. and our own conscience.

Our own intentions and deeds are real .. it is just that we can't see them .. but that does not mean that they can't be realised.

So yes, it's not the same as scientific faith..

It is, in as much as either might be true or false.

Only fact-based, testable, measurable, repeatable beliefs provide a firm enough foundation to base a rational belief on.

I agree .. but that does not require me to "see God".
You can argue that if you can't "see God", then you won't accept it.
You refuse all testimony, suggesting that God must show you, or speak to you?
Hmmm .. I wonder why that would be .. others don't insist on that .. it is our own choice .. we are all intelligent adults.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Qur'an and Bible are not evidence based or tested. They are not scientific works..

No, they are not scientific works..
Is that the only academic subject of worth?
Why is it that Universities offer so many different courses?
Maths .. languages .. humanities .. all sorts.

The Bible and Qur'an come under the heading of Divinity.
They can be studied to a high level.
To you it might all be worthless, but we all have something to offer, whether any particuar individual can see that or not.

Correct .. they are not science books .. neither are they fictional fantasy books .. The Bible is a collection of texts of varying age and author, as I assume you know. The Qur'an is ~1500 years old, and is claimed to be the literal "word of God" dictated to Muhammad.

Naturally many people will reject them for a variety of reasons. It is to be expected. Many people, particularly those with status and wealth, have always rejected God's Messengers.

However, in the case of Christianity and Islam, we see that many people are believers.
I do not see that atheists or believers are rational or irrational..
..they simply believe or disbelieve.
It's not rocket-science.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, they did .. but that was a long time ago .. fast-forward to now..

Have we changed, neurologically? Psychologically?
We believe or disbelieve for the same reasons today as the Egyptians did three or four millennia ago. Same faith, same evidence; just different gods.

No, they're not. It is just that education and communications are vastly improved, so we are now better informed, overall.

Mankind's technology, understanding of the universe, and of how things worked slogged along at a snail's pace for millennia -- till we abandoned faith, tradition, and authority, in favor of the scientific method of skepticism, research, testing, and peer review. Human knowledge exploded when we replaced faith with evidence and testing.

I know that you claim that that human intelligence has evolved without any specific reason, but what is intelligence?
What is its purpose? Why haven't other creatures evolved in a like manner to our own?

Creatures adapt, and evolve unique features, each species different.
Human intelligence has no purpose. It wasn't planned or designed. It was likely just a genetic fluke, perhaps a gene duplication or frameshift mutation, altering neural pathways or causing mirror neuron proliferation. Like any mutation that confers an adaptive advantage, it's persisted.

There are far too many questions that remain unanswered, without a source .. consciousness .. order .. chaos .. number .. time .. history .. future ...
All explained, if there is an underlying cosmic awareness of some description.

NO! An explanation communicates understanding of mechanism. God does not explain anything, it's just an assertion of agency. How many times has this been pointed out to you?

Oh well, that proves it then .. all believers are mad.

You haven't countered my point, have you?
Maybe not mad; maybe just deluded. If you hold and maintain a belief despite contradictory evidence, you are deluded, by definition.

Total rubbish.
"facts" require faith. Faith in the institution that declared them.

A fact is a belief so well evidenced that disbelief would be silly. Faith is individual, it's in your head, not in an institution.
Scientific facts are evidenced-based and tested. If anyone's skeptical of a scientific fact, s/he can examine the observations and testing that established it.

..or are you suggesting that you have checked out all scientific "facts" for yourself?

No, today's sum of knowledge is too great, but I have 'faith' that the experts have correctly reported the research findings. If I'm skeptical or want to examine the establishing evidence myself, the research has been published, for examination by anyone interested.

More likely, you have left that to the scientists, and update their accuracy as and when they declare any new findings and corrections.

Yes. The accuracy of their reports is based on freely examinable, objective evidence. They encourage skeptics to examine and critique the evidence for themselves.

No, that is not the reason. Not all scientists are atheists, although many are .. particularly the wealthy ones

Particularly the ones whose disciplines involve questions of ontology.

That is untrue.
What is "sufficient evidence" to believe in God?
..His appearance on TV?
I wouldn't expect that, particularly as God is not a person, and is a non-physical concept.

Nor would I, but it would be nice to find some small tidbit of objective evidence, for a start.

It relies on the evidence of the Bible and Qur'an .. and our own conscience.

Agreed. It rests on hearsay testimony, folklore and individual credulity; no objective evidence needed.

It is, in as much as either might be true or false.

A trivial similarity, in the face of significant differences, don't you think?

I agree .. but that does not require me to "see God".
You can argue that if you can't "see God", then you won't accept it.
You refuse all testimony, suggesting that God must show you, or speak to you?
Hmmm .. I wonder why that would be .. others don't insist on that .. it is our own choice .. we are all intelligent adults.

I can't "see" lots of things I have objective evidence of, but as far as I am aware, there's no objective evidence for God at all. The evidence for God is equivalent to the evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Yet you believe in one, but not the other.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We believe or disbelieve for the same reasons today as the Egyptians did three or four millennia ago. Same faith, same evidence; just different gods..

That is your assertion .. you cannot know why people believe in particular gods, or religion. You just assume you do.

Mankind's technology, understanding of the universe, and of how things worked slogged along at a snail's pace for millennia -- till we abandoned faith, tradition, and authority, in favor of the scientific method of skepticism, research, testing, and peer review..

..more assumptions, but is probably partly true.

Human intelligence has no purpose. It wasn't planned or designed. It was likely just a genetic fluke..

For me, that is laughable .. we all exist due to "a fluke" ..

God does not explain anything..

As far as I'm concerned, He does .. and it makes a lot of sense.

Maybe not mad; maybe just deluded..

We will all find out [or not] who is deluded, eventually..
..if not in this life, a possible life after death.

No, today's sum of knowledge is too great, but I have 'faith' that the experts have correctly reported the research findings.

Exactly, and you have more faith in humans than I do .. such as drug companies finding their "miracle drugs" are statistically significant.
The same could be said for Popes, Rabbis and Imams .. intention is important.
Jesus and his disciples were poor .. they did not expect an income from what they taught.

If I'm skeptical or want to examine the establishing evidence myself, the research has been published, for examination by anyone interested..

That's right .. and we are able to study Divinity ourselves, and make informed conclusions.
To what level have you studied, yourself?
..or do you just dismiss with little knowledge.

The evidence for God is equivalent to the evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster..

..ignorant nonsense. Come back when you have a degree in Divinity, and we can talk again.

 

[Valjean]

That is your assertion .. you cannot know why people believe in particular gods, or religion. You just assume you do.

True, but why would I expect a different paradigm to obtain just because of a temporal remove? The ancients, by all evidence, had comparable societies, social systems, and had bodies and brains identical to ours.
I believe my assumption is warranted.

Do you have reason to believe there was some substantive difference, in the ancient world? Did God(s) walk among them? Multi-century lifespans? Talking animals? Bicameral minds?
Bicameral mentality - Wikipedia

For me, that is laughable .. we all exist due to "a fluke" ..

For you, yes. But can you point to a flaw in my reasoning? Where am I wrong?

As far as I'm concerned, He does .. and it makes a lot of sense.

To you -- who hve a problem with ratiocination.
When has God ever "explained" anything, ie: outlined the mechanics and forces involved? Can you give an example?
I read a lot of claims, declarations and descriptions, but no explanations of physical mechanisms in play.
"Goddidit" is an assertion of agency, not an explanation of mechanism.

That's right .. and we are able to study Divinity ourselves, and make informed conclusions.

How can one study that which cannot be measured, tested, or even detected?
Scriptures are no help. Anyone can write a scripture; many have, but they're all contradictory -- and unevidenced.

To what level have you studied, yourself?

Studied what? Religion? Check. Psychology? Check. Anthropology? Check. God? Huh?

..or do you just dismiss with little knowledge.

I dismiss the existence of that which is undetected, undetectable, and unnecessary. I dismiss that of which knowledge is non existent.

..ignorant nonsense. Come back when you have a degree in Divinity, and we can talk again.

The study of "divinity" presupposes a Divine. It proceeds from an axiomatic major premise that's entirely unevidenced.
How would studying divinity be any different from studying the ecology of pink unicorns, or Ra's journeys in his sun-boat?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know who invented the wheel even if the wheel lives on. That is no help for the person who invented the wheel however, even if we did know his/her name.
As for Jesus, He rose from the dead and is alive.



Fame eventually dies and if there is no after life then what's the point of fame or wealth or anything else, it all ends up meaningless for you the moment you die.
If you have a family you no doubt leave a legacy for them and you may have left a legacy for your community or even for the whole world for a period of time BUT we and they all die and it all is meaningless in the long run unless there is an afterlife.

Some people find meaning in leaving the world a better place than they found it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not irrational to believe in God. It is not irrational to believe in a non-physical concept, just because it cannot be detected by physical means.

How so? Jumping to conclusions - e.g. "even though I have no indication that God exists, I'll believe that this is true anyhow" - is very much irrational.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..The ancients, by all evidence, had comparable societies, social systems, and had bodies and brains identical to ours..

Absolutely not .. the vast majority of people in the world had no formal education.

..can you point to a flaw in my reasoning?

I can't point to anything .. "it's a fluke" cannot explain anything, it's more or less a non-statement.

"Goddidit" is an assertion of agency, not an explanation of mechanism..

Of course it is .. "mechanism" is an observation of how material things behave in the cosmos. It is easy for God.
..unless it is all one big fluke?

Scriptures are no help. Anyone can write a scripture; many have, but they're all contradictory..

They might appear so to you, but on the whole, I don't have a major problem in grasping the basics.

I dismiss the existence of that which is undetected, undetectable, and unnecessary..

Unnecessary, hmm, you think so?
Each to their own.

The study of "divinity" presupposes a Divine. It proceeds from an axiomatic major premise that's entirely unevidenced.

Yes, one may approach the subject with skeptisism or belief.
What happens due to it, is known by God. He alone knows the contents of our "hearts" [ intention ]

How would studying divinity be any different from studying the ecology of pink unicorns..

Haven't you learned anything yet?

 

[Valjean]

Absolutely not .. the vast majority of people in the world had no formal education.

So? What difference did that make? Same body, same brain, same sensorium. Much of the world's population has no formal education even today. That doesn't seem to have diminished the persistence of religiosity much. It seems to be in our nature; an artifact of millions of years of hunting-gathering.

I can't point to anything .. "it's a fluke" cannot explain anything, it's more or less a non-statement.

Mutation is a common, familiar mechanism, well known for producing somatic and neural changes. Inasmuch as the intellectual change we're talking about is a heritable, genetic trait, a chance mutation -- a fluke -- is the most likely explanation.
Did you have an alternative proposal?

Of course it is .. "mechanism" is an observation of how material things behave in the cosmos. It is easy for God.
..unless it is all one big fluke?

"It's easy for God" explains nothing. It proposes no mechanism. It's just an assertion of potency.

They might appear so to you, but on the whole, I don't have a major problem in grasping the basics.

But "the basics" vary with different scriptures, and none are objectively evidenced. Hence, they're not reliable, testable, objective evidence. They're just stories.
You may claim yours is the definitive scripture, but how would one determine that without resorting to the critical analysis and testing of empirical evidence -- that religious scriptures just don't have?

Unnecessary, hmm, you think so?

Yes. When ordinary, unguided physics and chemistry are sufficient to account for a phenomenon, further, outside meddling is unnecessary.

Yes, one may approach the subject with skeptisism or belief.
What happens due to it, is known by God. He alone knows the contents of our "hearts" [ intention ]

OK, but you're just preaching, here. Anyone can make claims about anything, but without evidentiary support, they're just unfounded claims.

Haven't you learned anything yet?

Apparently not. Care to educate me?

 

[muhammad_isa]

"It's easy for God" explains nothing. It proposes no mechanism..

What mechanism?
Reality consists of our senses, and interpreting them .. we don't actually see atoms with spinning particles, although they are very real. It is an observation of how this physical universe behaves..
Gravity, and nuclear forces and what have you, are all being maintained by "something" .. you prefer "don't know", or it is self-sustaining but don't know how.

Bla bla .. Yabadabadoo!

You may claim yours is the definitive scripture, but how would one determine that without resorting to the critical analysis and testing of empirical evidence -- that religious scriptures just don't have?

We have intelligence .. we are able to come to our own conclusions about scriptures.
Our underlying intentions and personal experiences affects the outcome too .. human beings are complex creatures .. our minds are far from simple.

Apparently not. Care to educate me?

I try .. nobody knows all.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Jumping to conclusions - e.g. "even though I have no indication that God exists, I'll believe that this is true anyhow".

That is not how it is.
It is a given that God cannot be emperically proved.
How can one see such a being as God, who is not a physical being?

We can see God's manifestations, such as how the universe sustains itself, and planets orbit a sun, and God is behind these forces such as gravity and nuclear forces?
You prefer the explanation "don't know", and assert scripture is
not trustworthy, and fraudulent or deluded.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not how it is.
It is a given that God cannot be emperically proved.

Many other theists don't take this as a given; they assert that their faith is rational and based on evidence.

I think they're wrong, but I can still note that they disagree with you.

Also, I think you give yourself too much credit. The bar isn't set at "can God be proved?" The bar is at "is there any scrap of evidence that God could be real?:

How can one see such a being as God, who is not a physical being?

If God were to exist, God would be a physical being.

We can see God's manifestations, such as how the universe sustains itself, and planets orbit a sun, and God is behind these forces such as gravity and nuclear forces?

I'd say that what you "see" is question-begging... and still irrational.

You prefer the explanation "don't know", and assert scripture is
not trustworthy, and fraudulent or deluded.

That does seem like the most reasonable conclusion.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Then you need to address your comments to believers who DO believe prophesy is about the future. Many of them do, and they are not shy in claiming their beliefs.


The arts tend to be symbolic and not literal. Atheists assert this about holy books quite often. It is believers who interpret holy books literally.



I agree the texts are symbolic and not literal. WHAT the symbolisms means is a debate that can be had. That would take a great deal of study of the societies that produced the prose, and examine the literature in the original languages.


I'm a big fan of Malbec and strudel.

Perhaps its like trying to discuss alchemy regarding the reality of the philosophers stone and the turning of lead into gold.

Could the believers of alchemy and the unbelievers of alchemy reach a scientific conclusion?
Are the words true? Can lead be turned into gold or not? Is it just a myth?

Im wondering if I've seen some possible scientific evidence of turning lead into gold. I've noticed there is a law in the bible about metals which has a range from gold through to lead.


This is the law I'm talking about. Says the lord commanded it to moses.

And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses;

Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,
Numbers 31:21-22


So therefore "turning lead into gold" could mean the turning of lowest into highest according to the law.

And the philosophers stone could be the heart of a philosopher listening to the law.


Consider a philosopher having a heart of stone:
"Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the Lord of hosts". Zechariah 7:12




The different metal symbols are as the earth and the heavens.

The bible says the earth is iron and above the earth is the heaven of brass.

"And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron". Deuteronomy 28:23



The law has six metals as being the earth and the heavens.

Lead - Tin - Iron - Brass - Silver - Gold

(The bible says God made the earth and the heavens in 6 days and rested on the seventh, perhaps the seventh day should be considered carefully).

It is also interesting to note that there are two metals lower than the Earth.


Can you comprehend what I'm trying to talk about?

Iron - Brass - Silver - Gold
Earth - Bread - Oil - Wine