From my personal, no doubt subjective vantage-point, all I require is that you set aside your own metaphysical assumption that since you believe there is no God, I will absolutely fail at proving something you know, beyond knowledge, to be true.
I think you need to read this over a couple of times. The way this reads, you seem to be informing me that I "know, beyond knowledge" that it is "true" that God exists.
Ok. Sorry. What I said can be read the way you read it. But that's not what I meant. What I meant to say is that for me to have any shot at proving, using just science, that God exists, you would have to set aside your own strongly held belief that God doesn't exist, long enough to give me a fair, purely scientific, hearing.
. . .There basically HAS TO BE concrete evidence brought to bear at this point. Something completely undeniable.
We're on the same sheet of music.
You theists have absolutely poisoned the well here.
Amen brother. <s> I've implied as much throughout this thread.
I am not, in any way, prepared to take anyone's word for it, nor accept some "thought exercise" or "philosophical" proof. Not even close. You're screwed if your aim is to prove to me that I "already know" that God exists. What a load of crap.
Right. We're on the same sheet of music.
Doubtful. And again, to someone like me, you are going to HAVE TO produce in a straightforward and uncompromised way for me to accept it.
Ok. This is where what I originally said got mixed up a bit. What I was trying to imply is that in the same sense that we agree that theists have poisoned the well with their anti-scientific, metaphysical mumbo jumbo, unfortunately, atheists, or non-theists, have tended to shut off so completely (after tasting the tainted Kool Aid) that it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get them to take another look at anything a theist has to offer.
I get that. Which is why I'm offering so little so far.
But so far, all I have seen are the same worn out statements meant to back up your position. Like claiming that since so many people along the lines of human development have believed in or crafted gods for their various uses, that that means that God is somehow more plausible, even lacking cogent evidence. That one's as old as dirt. Why would I ever believe you have something more when you trod a dead horse before me as your opening bid??!
I don't believe that's a dead horse argument. I believe that if evolution is about the survival of the fittest, and I believe it is, then almost every single solitary piece of baggage found in the suitcase of today's survivors, nay every piece, is still there for a reason.
That said, perhaps we're finally at the point, ala Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (and other atheist thinkers) that we can finally, happily, let everyone know that they can discard with the God theory in their suitcase: that it's served its purpose, and can now be disposed of to allow us to move faster and further toward our ultimate, or at least continuing, destiny?
That's what I see as at stake in using purely scientific thinking to examine why so many survivors still carry around an admittedly heavy to transport, and store, God?
In my opinion we will see either that he is a "real," physical niche that must be accepted and dealt with in order to evolve properly and survive, or else, he has at least been some kind of fruitful, profitable, facade god, whose usefulness, though at one time undeniable, has, finally, come to an end.
John
