Why I am a good proof that there is a God

[Sheldon]

I believe I have a tendency to accept things as presented until there is proof they are not true.

That's is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is irrational.

 

[KWED]

Please let us appreciate my post's reiterating how the scientific minded duo of Vladimir sCherbak and Maxim Makykov diesel the notion of their discovered mathematical patterns in genetic coding as having occured by natural selection or by any natural biological process.

As I have already mentioned, the "discovery" of "mathematical patterns" in all sorts of places by people looking for them is a common thing. It doesn't mean that those patterns were put there deliberately.

 

[KWED]

So if God should be clearly seen then why don't you? It must be because you're blind. That's the only conclusion I can come to.

It is only claimed by religionists that god should be clearly seen. It is not a verifiable fact.
So, if god is so obviously not clearly seen - even by people looking for him - then it is reasonable to conclude that said god does not exist.

If I tell you I have a dragon that can be clearly seen and you can't see it, it the reasonable conclusion that you are blind or that there is no dragon?

 

[74x12]

That's a not true Scotsman fallacy, it seems a very popular type of argument among apologists on this site when atheist point out they don't experience any deity, but it is irrational.

No, it isn't a no true Scotsman's fallacy. Not at all. Since you insist that it is; I have to conclude you don't understand what I am talking about when I say people are blind. You don't get it.

Also using Occam's razor, there is a much simpler explanation for why someone doesn't experience something, than them being blind to its existence.

Occam's razor is how I conclude to myself that people are blind. Because if I see God and you don't then there is no simpler explanation from my perspective. Yet you from your perspective claim that the only answer is that there is no God; because you don't see him. What if you are blind though; how would you know one way or the other? You wouldn't and that's part of being blind in this capacity.

I'm inclined to agree, but then why do it?

I didn't. As you previously pointed out; this being understood as a public debate forum. You do have the right to address posts not made directly to yourself. I agree with that. However; logically speaking you do not have the right to claim that the post was addressed to you when it wasn't. Therefore I conclude that you are misrepresenting what I said and you even go so far as to take it out of context. You are therefore; wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I have already mentioned, the "discovery" of "mathematical patterns" in all sorts of places by people looking for them is a common thing. It doesn't mean that those patterns were put there deliberately.

Or that they even exist. You might want to look up the concept of a "Bible code". They have almost exactly the same reasoning as his failed DNA argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it isn't a no true Scotsman's fallacy. Not at all. Since you insist that it is; I have to conclude you don't understand what I am talking about when I say people are blind. You don't get it.

Occam's razor is how I conclude to myself that people are blind. Because if I see God and you don't then there is no simpler explanation from my perspective. Yet you from your perspective claim that the only answer is that there is no God; because you don't see him. What if you are blind though; how would you know one way or the other? You wouldn't and that's part of being blind in this capacity.

I didn't. As you previously pointed out; this being understood as a public debate forum. You do have the right to address posts not made directly to yourself. I agree with that. However; logically speaking you do not have the right to claim that the post was addressed to you when it wasn't. Therefore I conclude that you are misrepresenting what I said and you even go so far as to take it out of context. You are therefore; wrong.

There is a much simpler reason explaining why you see God when other people do not. You are just seeing what you want to see. In other words it is an unconscious self inflicted delusion on your part.

If what you think you observe is true you should be able to support it with objective evidence. If you cannot then you are probably mistaken.

 

[74x12]

There is a much simpler reason explaining why you see God when other people do not. You are just seeing what you want to see. In other words it is an unconscious self inflicted delusion on your part.

If what you think you observe is true you should be able to support it with objective evidence. If you cannot then you are probably mistaken.

There is a much simpler reason explaining why you don't see God when other people do. You are just seeing only what you want to see. In other words it is an unconscious self inflicted delusion on your part.

 

[rational experiences]

In reality human men the theist of human science to practice tries to con everyone that he speaks on behalf of any natural form preceding his own.

His body human. His consciousness human

Yet somehow he thinks he is everything by owning what he said as a mans dominion.

As he says God. He says I will have God. And he says I then will change God to have all energy ever created.

Which in circular thinking says big bang.

 

[Sheldon]

No, it isn't a no true Scotsman's fallacy. Not at all.

Yes it clearly was.

Since you insist that it is; I have to conclude you don't understand what I am talking about when I say people are blind. You don't get it.

You created an unevidenced subcategory of "blind people" from your group of all people, in order to preserve your claim all people should clearly see god, against the testimony of others that they do not. That could not be a clearer example of a no true Scotsman fallacy. I don't know whether you really can't see that, or are being deliberately obtuse.

Occam's razor is how I conclude to myself that people are blind. Because if I see God and you don't then there is no simpler explanation from my perspective.

The unevidenced assumptions you are adding, that a vastly complex and unknowable deity using inexplicable magic, is a less complicated scenario using less unevidenced assumptions, than acknowledging that we don't know something, is risible. You're on the wrong side of Occam's razor, whether you realise it or not, though it's hard to believe anyone can not grasp something that obvious.

Yet you from your perspective claim that the only answer is that there is no God;

I have never made any such claim. Atheism is not a claim, it is the lack or absence of belief in one claim.

What if you are blind though; how would you know one way or the other?

You have demonstrated no objective evidence for your no true Scotsman assumption that I am blind. Posing it as a question is therefore meaningless, as it gets the same epistemological response, what objective evidence, beyond pure irrational assumption, can you demonstrate for the claim?

 

[Sheldon]

There is a much simpler reason explaining why you see God when other people do not. You are just seeing what you want to see. In other words it is an unconscious self inflicted delusion on your part.

If what you think you observe is true you should be able to support it with objective evidence. If you cannot then you are probably mistaken.

He also cannot offer any tangible or objective difference between his claim, and other theists who make near identical claims for different deities.

 

[Sheldon]

There is a much simpler reason explaining why you don't see God when other people do. You are just seeing only what you want to see. In other words it is an unconscious self inflicted delusion on your part.

So is everything you can't see a delusion, or is it just the diety you want to believe you see, but can demsonrate no objective evidence for? What about mermaids. dragons and unicorns, one assumes you don't see these? Are you deluded about that?

Hilarious...

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a much simpler reason explaining why you don't see God when other people do. You are just seeing only what you want to see. In other words it is an unconscious self inflicted delusion on your part.

Nope. There is such a thing as "evidence". You may not understand the concept, others can. When a person is totally unable to support is claims with reliable evidence, claims that show have left evidence behind if true, then it is a good indication that that person is wrong.

What is your objective evidence for God? Please be precise. Handwaving is a fail.

 

[KWED]

Or that they even exist. You might want to look up the concept of a "Bible code". They have almost exactly the same reasoning as his failed DNA argument.

That was my point. A "pattern" is merely something that an individual recognises as something meaningful to them. Much of the time that pattern exists only in their imagination. The Quran also contains such patterns that, like the Bible, DNA, and every other example, are supposed to verify the extraordinary claims of the person holding them. But at the same time, those people reject similar "patterns" in others' source material as nonsense.
Coincidence?

 

[KWED]

There is a much simpler reason explaining why you don't see God when other people do. You are just seeing only what you want to see. In other words it is an unconscious self inflicted delusion on your part.

Seeing something that isn't there is not the same as not seeing something that isn't there.

To use the Black Cat Analogy...
Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.
Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.
Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there, and claiming you found it.
Science is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat by turning the light on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was my point. A "pattern" is merely something that an individual recognises as something meaningful to them. Much of the time that pattern exists only in their imagination. The Quran also contains such patterns that, like the Bible, DNA, and every other example, are supposed to verify the extraordinary claims of the person holding them. But at the same time, those people reject similar "patterns" in others' source material as nonsense.
Coincidence?

Yes, if someone imposes some rules on a random series of letters one can find words and other "evidence" in them. The thing is that any large book will return the same sort of "evidence". In other words it is the loose rules and the incredibly lax interpretation of the finds that convinces those that already want to believe.

 

[Jainarayan]

So when I called upon God I believe I got God because He would not allow a demon to misrepresent Him.

So God controls the actions of demons. That is, he doesn’t let them do what they allegedly have free will to do? Doesn’t he permit people to commit atrocities in his name, speaking for him?

 

[Jainarayan]

How do you know what your God says is true? You can point to the Bible, but I can point to my scriptures. What makes mine less real than yours?

I’ve been asking this question for years. I have yet to get a sensible answer.

 

[Jainarayan]

So, until there is proof that I am not, you need to call me dad.

I’ll be your son. I need a Dad.

 

[74x12]

Nope. There is such a thing as "evidence". You may not understand the concept, others can. When a person is totally unable to support is claims with reliable evidence, claims that show have left evidence behind if true, then it is a good indication that that person is wrong.

What is your objective evidence for God? Please be precise. Handwaving is a fail.

I do understand the concept of evidence. I'm waiting for atheists to present their evidence that what I see is just delusion and doesn't exist. That's what has been claimed so far.

I feel like that one guy who ended up in the land of the blind and they thought his eyes needed to be removed. Weird bulbous protrusions on his face that made him delusional; he talked about things like sunlight and other bizarre things. Maybe it's just cancer or something. Get rid of them!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do understand the concept of evidence. I'm waiting for atheists to present their evidence that what I see is just delusion and doesn't exist. That's what has been claimed so far.

I feel like that one guy who ended up in the land of the blind and they thought his eyes needed to be removed. Weird bulbous protrusions on his face that made him delusional; he talked about things like sunlight and other bizarre things. Maybe it's just cancer or something. Get rid of them!

I seriously doubt if you do. In fact you do not even appear to understand who the burden of proof is upon. The burden of proof is upon those claiming that God exists.