There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Kenny]

Goodness! An anecdote about,
about, yes, an argument from incredulity
causing instant Comversion!

There is btw, no such nerve as you describe.

So,yeah, I do deny the reality of yout story.

Of course it is a very short synopsis. Chad had been sharing about Jesus with him for some time. For the chiro-atheist, it was his kairos time.

But you don’t have to believe me if you don’t want to.

 

[ppp]

Of course it is a very short synopsis. Chad had been sharing about Jesus with him for some time. For the chiro-atheist, it was his kairos time.

But you don’t have to believe me if you don’t want to.

Does she have to believe you if she wants to?

 

[PureX]

Setting aside the fact that you are incorrect about need and desert, you are not responding to what I said. I indicted the demonstration, not the question.

You were trying to erase the human from the logic. And that is a failed proposition.

 

[Kenny]

Does she have to believe you if she wants to?

LOL… good question… this might be a great discussion.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is so lazy. There is no world where someone's mere existence is evidence of the things that they claim are true. At best, actions are evidence of their sincerity. It is not evidence that they had the least clue.

You quoted only part of what @loverofhumanity said.

Their own Persons.

The evidence which proves God exists are the Suns of Truth. Their own Persons. Their Lives. Their Revelations. Their Words.

So, it is not ONLY Their own Persons. It is ALSO Their Lives. Their Revelations. Their Words.
Their Revelations and Their Words is how we know they had a clue about God.

 

[ppp]

You were trying to erase the human from the logic. And that is a failed proposition.

Rather that addressing what I actually said, you keep flinging your random imaginary poo at me in hopes that it sticks. All that you are saying is that you disagree with my words, but are not equipped to refute them.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Are you actually claiming that there is falsification criteria for the existence of your god?

I’m saying that you can search for God consciousness within yourself; but to do so you will need honesty, humility, and open-mindedness. And no one else can do it for you.

 

[ppp]

So, it is not ONLY Their own Persons. It is ALSO Their Lives. Their Revelations. Their Words.
Their Revelations and Their Words is how we know they had a clue about God.

This is silly. None of the things that you have bolded are separate things from "their own persons." You are just enumerating things that are a component of someone's existence as a person.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is silly. None of the things that you have bolded are separate things from "their own persons." You are just enumerating things that are a component of someone's existence as a person.

Yes, Their Lives. Their Revelations. Their Words. are associated with their existence as a person.
How else could we evaluate them if not by looking at all of these?

 

[ppp]

I’m saying that you can search for God consciousness within yourself; but to do so you will need honesty, humility, and open-mindedness. And no one else can do it for you.

I reject that claim. Does that, by default, make me close-minded?

 

[metis]

As they were dissecting and following the nerve, the atheist said, “There is no way evolution could have done this” and became a believer.

I tend to think millions of years of change might well do it. Plus, such change might have been hypothetically guided, right?

 

[ppp]

Yes, Their Lives. Their Revelations. Their Words. are associated with their existence as a person.
How else could we evaluate them if not by looking at all of these?

Your complaint, @Trailblazer, was that I did not fully quote

You quoted only part of what @loverofhumanity said.

And you gave this as a basis for your complaint.

So, it is not ONLY Their own Persons. It is ALSO Their Lives. Their Revelations. Their Words.

My response is that I did not need to add "Their Lives. Their Revelations. Their Words." because those things are already an implicit in Their own Persons.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your complaint, @Trailblazer, was that I did not fully quote

My response is that I did not need to add "Their Lives. Their Revelations. Their Words." because those things are already an implicit in Their own Persons.

I disagree. "Their Lives. Their Revelations. Their Words." are not already an implicit in Their own Persons.

Do you know what is meant by Their own Persons? It means Their character.
We cannot know Their Lives, Their Revelation, or Their Words by looking at Their character. That is why those are separate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think you missed my point completely if all you have as the answer is “incredulity fallacy”. My point was that it is subjective - it isn’t just “show me the proof” because “proof” is different for different people.

I got your point. Did you get mine? We have academic standards for evaluating evidence. They're the ones used in scientific peer review and in courtrooms. They are not arbitrary or subjective, although there is a degree of individual subjectivity in judging the soundness of an argument that drops to near zero when there is consensus among qualified opinions (interobserver agreement).

Those who want to bring their own rules to the table can claim that any evidence they offer points to any conclusion they choose, and the religious do this continually telling us that their scriptural prophecies imply divine prescience, or that the words of a messenger or the world itself all point to a god for them, and when their fallacies are pointed out, they say, "That's not how I see it. The evidence convinces me." OK, but I don't actually believe that they got to that conclusion using that or any other evidence. They got there by faith and grabbed something to call evidence because some people don't want to say that they have no or insufficient evidence for their beliefs.

Forgive my “not being exact” on the nerves.

No problem. I thought you might be interested. The basic architecture of the motor system comprises upper and lower motor neurons. The uppers exit the brain, cross in the cord in what's called the pyramidal tract, and descend to enervate lower motor neurons, which synapse on muscle and glands.

When upper motor neurons are damaged, the affected muscles become spastic (abnormally contracted, spastic paralysis) and the patellar reflex becomes amplified (hyperreflexia, big kick). In lower motor neuron disease, the muscle atrophies (shrinks), is weak (flaccid paralysis), and the patellar reflex is dampened or absent. Polio is a lower motor neuron disease. Weakness following a cortical stroke is upper. Lou Gehrig's disease is both.

 

[ppp]

I disagree. "Their Lives. Their Revelations. Their Words." are not already an implicit in Their own Persons.

Do you know what is meant by Their own Persons? It means Their character.
We cannot know Their Lives, Their Revelation, or Their Words by looking at Their character. That is why those are separate.

I suspect that you are just arguing merely for the sake of arguing at this point.

The only access we have to someone's character in through their words and their deeds, or (less reliably) through a third party report (words) of their words and deeds. Even if "their own persons" were to mean character, you are still just talking about the components of their character to which we have access. Their words. Their deeds.

 

[Trailblazer]

The only access we have to someone's character in through their words and their deeds,

That's right, and that is why we need to look at their words and deeds. Their character is only part of the picture.

Even if "their own persons" were to mean character, you are still just talking about the components of their character to which we have access. Their words. Their deeds.

Their words and deeds are not components of their character. They are how we can know their character.

 

[ppp]

That's right, and that is why we need to look at their words and deeds. Their character is only part of the picture.

Their words and deeds are not components of their character. They are how we can know their character.

Nope. You are still trying to separate character from words and deeds .
Their own person == character == words + deeds.

That is all there is.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I reject that claim. Does that, by default, make me close-minded?

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
- Herbert Spencer

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope. You are still trying to separate character from words and deeds .
Their own person == character == words + deeds.

That is all there is.

Character is the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.

Their words and deeds are separate from their character. Their words and deeds are how we can know their character.

 

[ppp]

Since you you are unwilling to own your own position, speaking directly with your own words, I will do so with mine. Disagreeing with you, @RestlessSoul, is not what closed-minded means. You are eschewing candor and ownership of your own thoughts in favor of passive-aggressive innuendo about others.