Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[KWED]

and I have given my reply which boils down to I worship a God that provided evidence of His existence.
I

And yet you cannot show what this "evidence" is, other than "some people have claimed to be messengers of god" afaics.

 

[Koldo]

Right. So what do you think is a "creator being"? It was I think you who first spoke these words "creator being". So what did you mean by that?

It wasn't me.
I interpret 'creator being' as someone that can create things out of thin air. Do you interpret it differently?

 

[F1fan]

The effective difference is the desire for honesty, and accuracy. Sadly, a difference to which many in the cult of scientism are oblivious.

Is there actually a "cult of scientism"? I am not aware of any such thing existing. Provide details of an actual cult existing and what they stand for.

And are you suggesting I'm part of this cult because I use reason?

Like I said, those who have succumbed to the cult of scientific atheism are oblivious of the significance of honesty and clarity in the pursuit of truth.

So you're claiming there is also a "cult of scientific atheism" which I've never heard of. Can you provide details of this cult existing as well?

I'd hate to think you are just inventing these imaginary cults as a way to disparage your debate opponents. So provide facts so I can respond to the rest of your post.

They are only interested in shoring up their materialist bias.

Since science and reason has to deal with facts, how it is a bias when we are looking to understand what is true about reality?

"Objectivity" is a bias.

So is it fair to say you are biased against objectivity, and that is the case because it threatens your subjective beliefs?

 

[Koldo]

Alhumdulillah, he does not wear a crown of thorns.

There it is!

 

[Aupmanyav]

More circular.
You cannot seek god until you believe he exists, you can only look for evidence of his existence. If evidence for his existence is only apparent to those who already believe he exists, then that evidence is meaningless.

Emperor's new clothes. Have your nose cut and you will see them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There it is!

The only things that now remain are crucifixion and resurrection.
One never knows, some of these people may get themselves crucified. Moharram processions are an example in Kolkata, kavadi vows in Tamilnadu, perhaps elsewhere also.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A proposes as true that "God exists, and in turn effects our existence", but then cannot offer any proof of it (this is already a very subjective and inherently biased requirement) then the logical result is not to assume that the proposal is false, but that it is unproven.

Yes, that has already been acknowledged. It was also acknowledged that you misunderstood that poster's intent. You took his comment out of context. Here is the full sentence: "the logical default for any given claim is that X is false. X has to be demonstrated true, or in debate or law, likely true. This requires physical evidence. If there is no compelling evidence the most rational/logical conclusion is X isn't true or not likely true."

It's apparent when one restores the removed context what his meaning was, which is essentially the same thing I said when discussing "innocent until proven guilty." It doesn't mean that the defendant is considered innocent, but that the defendant will be treated the same as an innocent man if he is not convicted, understanding that he may in fact be guilty of the crime he was acquitted of.

Likewise with logical propositions. Those that can be proven are treated as true. Those that can be disproven are treated as false. And those that can neither be ruled in or out are treated as false. That's what the poster you challenged meant.

And I already explained that once. But here we are again having made no progress since the last time I explained that. There was no acknowledgement from you that you read those words, understood them, which if any you agreed with, and which you disagreed with as well as your reason for disagreeing. That's what dialectic is. That's how two people discussing a subject and trying to make progress understanding one another behave. It's what I have done here in answering the quoted words above. Clearly I read and understood your comment. I told you where I agreed with you, and where and why I didn't. Why can't I get that from you?

It happened a few days ago as well. I commented that I still didn't think you knew what an atheist is, that the definition you were using, essentially what atheists call a strong or gnostic atheist (somebody who asserts that gods can't or don't exist), was flawed, since it would exclude the vast majority atheists, who don't make that claim. They simply don't believe in gods. I mentioned that you had failed to acknowledge that comment in the past in the way I jusy outlined - showing no evidence that you read or understood the comment, and returned making the same error as if it were never addressed. You never commented about that, either, and will no doubt be using your flawed definition again in the future and need to be corrected again. That's what happens when one doesn't engage his collocutor, but just ignores assorted comments for who-knows-what reason.

The 'sun' is a physical phenomenon. 'God' is an ideological phenomenon. There is no logical reason to presume that the characteristics of the one should be required as evidence for the other.

And you're making the same mistake here that you did when rejecting the comparison of pixies to gods. You're focusing on irrelevant differences to try to upend an apt analogy. It doesn't matter if one is physical and one isn't, just as it wouldn't matter if one were red and one blue, or one liquid and one solid. Suns and gods are each entities, one that can be known clearly, and one that can't. It doesn't matter why. Your comment was that clearly God exists. I disagreed by illustrating something that does clearly exist, and comparing it to gods, which, if they exist, are not as apparent as the sun. Now you want to negate that by pointing out that they would be different kinds of things if both exist. Irrelevant. Of course they're different if I'm claiming that one is clearly apparent and the other not.

Do you realize how arrogant this sounds: "Some people become adept at recognizing what evidence is relevant and what it implies using valid reasoning to arrive at sound conclusions."

Really? That sounds arrogant to you? I say again - there are people who are very skilled at critical thinking. And they recognize one another by their comments.

I also mentioned that there are people a little less knowing who can't do that well, but recognize that some others can. And then there is the group that is unaware that such a thing can be done, and actually don't know what it is that these other people claim to be doing. This is the group that calls science faith, or atheism a faith--based position. They are the ones who never seem to understand what evidence is evidence of, and who feel that any line of thinking leading to any conclusion is as valid as any other - it's all subjective, it's all opinion. They are unaware that it isn't.

I gave you the analogy of adding a column of numbers. Imagine five skilled adders and five dreamers who don't understand that there are rigorous methods required to arrive at a correct sum. The five skilled adders all come up with the same answer, and none of the five dreamers get that answer or the same answer as any other dreamer. The skilled adders tell the others that they are incorrect. Two are smart enough to realize that these other people know something they don't, but three don't even recognize that, and insist that their method of adding is just as valid as any other, and their sums are as meaningful as any others. And then when told as much, they call the skilled adders arrogant.

Who is the judge of flawed thinking? How do you know somebody's thinking is flawed?

We each make that judgment for ourselves. I'm telling you that it is possible to look at somebodies train of thought and determine if and where it was derailed. How does the math teacher know that little Johnny's thinking was flawed?

One insight I have come to in the last several months is how many people are simply unaware that others can process information in a reliable way and arrive at sound conclusions as judged by their ability to predict outcomes. I see it when I explain to people who consider all belief faith-based as in just choose what you prefer to be true and assume it is, that it is possible to train oneself to not think like that ever, that there is another way to decide what is true about the world, one that uses evidence and properly applies reason to it. I've discovered that most of the faith-based thinkers I discuss that with don't merely disbelieve that one can do that - think without accepting any unsupported beliefs as true - but that they don't actually understand what it is that I am claiming can be done. They don't have a concept of faith-based thinking the way a fish has no concept of water, because they have nothing to contrast it with.

If I may digress a moment, I'd like to share a concept I recently saw named - false consensus. It's the cognitive bias ("a systematic error in thinking that occurs when people are processing and interpreting information in the world around them and affects the decisions and judgments that they make") that presumes that despite obvious differences, people are essentially the same and like oneself. We see it a lot when people seem stunned that another person could commit a callous crime that indicates that the person has no conscience, as if that were very rare rather than commonplace. They project how they see the world onto others and assume that see more or less the same thing when they don't at all. We also see this in American politics, when decent people seem shocked at the behavior of large numbers of politicians, seeing them as extreme outliers on the human spectrum despite there being so many of them and so many people voting for them. Such people as are "normal" as the ones who see them as mistakes.

I say this here because I've noticed that many people are unaware of what can be known and how it can be known. Again, these people are notch below those that are unknowing but are also aware that others can know what they do not. Those that don't know this simply project their predicament onto everybody, and assume that nobody can really know more than anybody else, that there is really only one way to know things which is to guess who to believe, and that those who claim to have a different and better way of thinking are being unjustifiably boastful and claiming to have knowledge that they cannot have.

 

[PureX]

Can you expand on this, what do you mean about the materialist paradigm?

Philosophical materialism proposes that physicality contains and defines reality (i.e., the truth of what is). That which has no physicality does not exist, and therefor is not real. The failure of this paradigm is that has renders itself non-existent and therefor unreal (untrue), because a conceptual paradigm has no physicality. The materialist then tries to assert that the physical interactions within the brain are the physicality of the paradigm, but if that is to be accepted as a legitimate argument, then EVERY conceptual paradigm, no matter how absurd or contradicting any other aspect of reality must also be accepted as real and true. Which is, of course, absurd.

This materialist philosophical paradigm was rejected pretty much as soon as it was proposed, several hundred years ago, but those who hold onto it, today, have rejected philosophy as a viable method of investigating the truth of reality. Partly because philosophers have rejected their proposition, and partly because their bizarre proposition excludes ideological pursuits as occurring in a kind of unreal fantasy-land apart from physical reality. And as such it's not surprising, then, that they have come to regard science as the only valid means of investigating or establishing the truth of reality: the emerging cult of "scientism".

 

[Subduction Zone]

It popped up on my notifications.

Post 563. Me and pegged trailblazer as well.

Correct. That was the post where @firedragon first explained that "TB" was "Trailblazer". He was explaining post 534 to you

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

That is a link to post 534 where the abbreviation TB is first used.

You could have found it by using the back arrows in the quoted posts.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I interpret 'creator being' as someone that can create things out of thin air. Do you interpret it differently?

I think many things can be prepared out of thin air. Thin air also will have water vapor, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon-di-oxide and many other gases. That is enough for chemists.

 

[ratiocinator]

Philosophical materialism proposes that physicality contains and defines reality (i.e., the truth of what is). That which has no physicality does not exist, and therefor is not real. The failure of this paradigm is that has renders itself non-existent and therefor unreal (untrue), because a conceptual paradigm has no physicality. The materialist then tries to assert that the physical interactions within the brain are the physicality of the paradigm, but if that is to be accepted as a legitimate argument, then EVERY conceptual paradigm, no matter how absurd or contradicting any other aspect of reality must also be accepted as real and true. Which is, of course, absurd.

This materialist philosophical paradigm was rejected pretty much as soon as it was proposed, several hundred years ago, but those who hold onto it, today, have rejected philosophy as a viable method of investigating the truth of reality. Partly because philosophers have rejected their proposition, and partly because their bizarre proposition excludes ideological pursuits as occurring in a kind of unreal fantasy-land apart from physical reality. And as such it's not surprising, then, that they have come to regard science as the only valid means of investigating or establishing the truth of reality: the emerging cult of "scientism".

None of which (regardless of its accuracy) has anything to do with the purely logical problems with your position, such as the burden of proof.

 

[firedragon]

It wasn't me.
I interpret 'creator being' as someone that can create things out of thin air. Do you interpret it differently?

Not at all. Thin air? That means air already exists. Do you understand? Where did that air come from? What is the reasoning behind it?

Sorry, I thought you brought in the word creator being because you used it earlier. Apologies. Maybe someone else brought that word up.

 

[firedragon]

Correct. That was the post where @firedragon first explained that "TB" was "Trailblazer". He was explaining post 534 to you

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

That is a link to post 534 where the abbreviation TB is first used.

You could have found it by using the back arrows in the quoted posts.

Thanks for your patience SZ. Appreciated a lot.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Correct. That was the post where @firedragon first explained that "TB" was "Trailblazer". He was explaining post 534 to you

Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

That is a link to post 534 where the abbreviation TB is first used.

You could have found it by using the back arrows in the quoted posts.

I did. That's how I knew you were incorrect.

All he had to say was he was talking to trailblazer but didn't clarify why he quoted me. Was very simple question for clarification not a debate.

Not sure how you play into this. I found out he meant trailblazer and said that in my edit to him.

You guys make a mountain out of a molehill. Sheesh.

 

[firedragon]

I did. That's how I knew you were incorrect.

All he had to say was he was talking to trailblazer but didn't clarify why he quoted me. Was very simple question for clarification not a debate.

Not sure how you play into this. I found out he meant trailblazer and said that in my edit to him.

You guys make a mountain out of a molehill. Sheesh.

SZ was only clarifying UA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did. That's how I knew you were incorrect.

All he had to say was he was talking to trailblazer but didn't clarify why he quoted me. Was very simple question for clarification not a debate.

Not sure how you play into this. I found out he meant trailblazer and said that in my edit to him.

You guys make a mountain out of a molehill. Sheesh.

How was I incorrect? Yes, he quoted you which would cause you to be notified. And he politely included the name of the person that he was referring to.

You asked "TB?" in a prior post. It was clear that you did not understand what TB referred to. So he answered in this manner:

"Not Tuberculosis. @Trailblazer"

The explanation was clear to me. He was saying that TB was not referring to tuberculosis but to Trailblazer, a member of the forum here. Where was I incorrect?

 

[Subduction Zone]

SZ was only clarifying UA.

And she still did not get it. It is like pulling teeth sometimes.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@firedragon Fire.

I just asked why you quoted me. I thought it was an accident or so have you since you were talking to Trailblazer. Nothing more than that.

 

[Nimos]

Philosophical materialism proposes that physicality contains and defines reality (i.e., the truth of what is). That which has no physicality does not exist, and therefor is not real. The failure of this paradigm is that has renders itself non-existent and therefor unreal (untrue), because a conceptual paradigm has no physicality. The materialist then tries to assert that the physical interactions within the brain are the physicality of the paradigm, but if that is to be accepted as a legitimate argument, then EVERY conceptual paradigm, no matter how absurd or contradicting any other aspect of reality must also be accepted as real and true. Which is, of course, absurd.

Not really into all this to be honest but thanks for it.

This materialist philosophical paradigm was rejected pretty much as soon as it was proposed, several hundred years ago, but those who hold onto it, today, have rejected philosophy as a viable method of investigating the truth of reality.
Partly because philosophers have rejected their proposition, and partly because their bizarre proposition excludes ideological pursuits as occurring in a kind of unreal fantasy-land apart from physical reality. And as such it's not surprising, then, that they have come to regard science as the only valid means of investigating or establishing the truth of reality: the emerging cult of "scientism".

So which alternative means or methods do these philosophers propose we should use to investigate the truth of reality? And how do they define reality?

Just trying to figure out what the difference is.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@firedragon

Fire. I just asked why you quoted me. I thought it was an accident or so have you since you were talking to Trailblazer. Nothing more than that.