Why There is Probably No God

[Trailblazer]

Please respond to what people say and not what you think they said.
Try again.

I have no idea what you are talking about nor do I have the time to figure it out.

 

[Trailblazer]

We have been over this before and why that is not reliable evidence.

It is perfectly reliable to me. YMMV.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm assuming you have the the self-validating evidence of religious ecstasy or the mystical experience in mind.

I can relate to that. Mysticism informs my own metaphysical outlook, as well, but it is only evidence if it can be examined and evaluated by others; if it can be perceived by others and violates no known physical laws or rules of logic.

I do not have mystical experiences and I do not consider those evidence of anything. It is only evidence to the person who had the experience.

Evidence must be examinable, and, preferably, testable. Ergo: it must be tangible.

The evidence for my religious beliefs are examinable and tangible.

Who sets the standards? Logicians, mathematicians, scientists, epistemologists &al.
Evidence is determined to be flawed if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny; if testing doesn't support it or if it's not reproducible.

These disciplines cannot set the standards for religious evidence. None of them would not even make such a claim. Religious evidence is not testable or reproducible.

Geocentrism, phlogiston and phrenology were widespread beliefs at one time, but they were never facts. They failed the evidence tests.

I do not claim that my religion is a fact; no religion is a fact, because God is not a fact. However, there are facts associated with my religion that can be considered part of the evidence that supports its claims.

Truth and falsehood are universals. There is no personal truth; no "true and valid for you."
A thing is either existentially true or it isn't.

God's Reality as represented by religious truth simply exists and it is not personal. We either discover Reality or fail to do so. God's Reality cannot be proven like a science experiment.

"All dogs have six legs" is unsupported and unevidenced for everyone, no matter how fervently you believe it.

That is because it can be proven to be a fact since we know no dogs who have six legs and we know most dogs have four legs, unless they lost one or two legs. Religious truths cannot be evidenced by everyone because they cannot be proven. We can only prove them to ourselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will consider your reply consequential of all of the replies from other people you were getting there because you've missed all of my point there.

Think about it again:

Try again. See if you can answer phrase it properly. If that is all you have then your response is laughable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is perfectly reliable to me. YMMV.

That is because many theists only use circular reasoning. If it is only reliable to you then by definition it is not reliable. To be reliable it has to be observable by far more than the few in your religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no idea what you are talking about nor do I have the time to figure it out.

You continued to use your false dichotomy even after it was pointed out to you.

 

[Firemorphic]

Try again. See if you can answer phrase it properly. If that is all you have then your response is laughable.

I can't help but think you're deliberately avoiding giving any thought to your position in this thread.
My posts towards you here are in question of your own position, which you yourself don't seem to fully understand.
You pose incarnationism as the answer to the question of "God", yet fail to acknowledge that many theists of many varieties disagree with or completely oppose this position. This is a debate thread but I'm not debating you on anything, I'm just asking questions to get a better idea of your perspective. If that doesn't interest you, then fine, but your quoted response here shows a level of disrespect out of nowhere which I find quite unprecedented in my conversations with you so far.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't help but think you're deliberately avoiding giving any thought to your position in this thread.
My posts towards you here are in question of your own position, which you yourself don't seem to fully understand.
You pose incarnationism as the answer to the question of "God", yet fail to acknowledge that many theists of many varieties disagree with or completely oppose this position. This is a debate thread but I'm not debating you on anything, I'm just asking questions to get a better idea of your perspective. If that doesn't interest you, then fine, but your quoted response here shows a level of disrespect out of nowhere which I find quite unprecedented in my conversations with you so far.

No, you made the claim of incarnationism. Why should I give much thought when you misstate the position of others? Your response was disrespecitve and now you are hypocritically complaining about it.

Just saying, you might put a little more thought into your own posts first.

 

[Firemorphic]

No, you made the claim of incarnationism. Why should I give much thought when you misstate the position of others? Your response was disrespecitve and now you are hypocritically complaining about it.

Just saying, you might put a little more thought into your own posts first.

I said numerous times I deny (personally and religiously) incarnationism, it's an absurd notion to me.

I'm just trying to understand why you, as an atheist, would constitute a form of incarnation as evidence of "God" over other world-views surrounding the topic.
In part, this lends itself to the epistemological notion of what one would (if accepting the incarnationist perspective for the evidence of "God", as you describe) consider to be an a appearance of "God" (in your world-view) vs what wouldn't.
These are things that are necessary to be asked, I'm just interested in your position here.

Nothing more, nothing less. Best wishes

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said numerous times I deny (personally and religiously) incarnationism, it's an absurd notion to me.

I'm just trying to understand why you, as an atheist, would constitute a form of incarnation as evidence of "God" over other world-views surrounding the topic.
In part, this lends itself to the epistemological notion of what one would (if accepting the incarnationist perspective for the evidence of "God", as you describe) consider to be an a appearance of "God" (in your world-view) vs what wouldn't.
These are things that are necessary to be asked, I'm just interested in your position here.

Nothing more, nothing less. Best wishes

I never limited it to your poorly defined "incarnationism". That was an improper assumption on your part. And why would it be absurd? Your personal prejudice is not good enough on its own.

 

[Firemorphic]

I never limited it to your poorly defined "incarnationism".

Well, unless you are able to define further what you truly intend to say by "physical manifestation", I am not going to be able to know otherwise what in particular you intend to mean by stating such an expectation.

And why would it be absurd?

Because (aside from having logical contradictions that are hard to reconcile, without you first describing more specifically what you mean in the first place) it offsets a dualist dichotomy that contradicts the Oneness and all-Pervasiveness of "God" within my religion and undermines the natural consequence of the universe being an emanation from "God".

Your personal prejudice is not good enough on its own.

What personal prejudice? I'm only asking for your perspective on your initial statement I keep quoting. As I said, there is nothing more or less than that in my intentions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, unless you are able to define further what you truly intend to say by "physical manifestation", I am not going to be able to know otherwise what in particular you intend to mean by stating such an expectation.



Because (aside from having logical contradictions that are hard to reconcile, without you first describing more specifically what you mean in the first place) it offsets a dualist dichotomy that contradicts the Oneness and all-Pervasiveness of "God" within my religion and undermines the natural consequence of the universe being an emanation from "God".



What personal prejudice? I'm only asking for your perspective on your initial statement I keep quoting. As I said, there is nothing more or less than that in my intentions.

There could be countless variations on what a physical manifestation would be, from the traditional burning bush to looking just like your neighbor Bob. The important thing to realize is that if a god wanted to be known he could easily do so in a way that any sane person would have to admit that there was a god. Instead all of the theists here seem to propose a god that plays hide and seek and quite often punishes those that do not manage to find him.

You seem to have a non-standard version of Islam. That of course does not make it any more or less correct than other versions. Can you tell us what you believe and why? What reasonable evidence is there for your version of god?

 

[Thief]

There are many arguments for the existence of god, but nearly all of them are something along the lines of "God is necessary to account for X." "X" could be any or all of a number of things or concepts, either physical or nonphysical, like the universe, or something more specific like the complexity of life, or even "transcendental" concepts like mathematics, logic, love, or beauty. Most theists believe (for whatever reason) these entities or concepts cannot exist without a cause, so they posit a "God" to account for them. But, apparently without realizing it, they have just re-created their own "problem" in an attempt to solve it since "God" is defined to be without cause, and simply taken as a given. It is much simpler to just accept the existence of the universe (along with all of its properties/laws/non-physical concepts) and leave it at that. The simpler explanation is usually correct.

so science is wrong.....

there can be an effect without a cause

 

[Firemorphic]

There could be countless variations on what a physical manifestation would be

Hypothetically, sure.

from the traditional burning bush

That is in the realm of Theophany (categorically more allusive than incarnation), which is actually quite different. In the case of the burning bush, you are describing a profound event that happened to a specific person, which is not "God" in and of itself but some form of convergence between the subjective individual and "God" that may or may not be a physical event, depending on your reference point.

looking just like your neighbor Bob.

Depending on your world-view, you could either be saying that Bob is indeed a messianic incarnation of "God" or subscribing to a similar world view of which all things in the universe are ultimately non-separate from "God" but not synonymous with. A phrase like "I am God" could mean a lot of things when not well-defined.

The important thing to realize is that if a god wanted to be known he could easily do so in a way that any sane person would have to admit that there was a god.

My contention here is that at the same time as trying to be vague, you are also making specific assumptions that appeal to specific conceptions of "God", such as the idea of personal traits like "if a god wanted to be known he could easily...". These are presumptions that I cannot really support, in the case of argument.

Instead all of the theists here seem to propose a god that plays hide and seek and quite often punishes those that do not manage to find him.

Again, this statement is based off certain presumptions I don't agree with but I can empathize with how you may have come to such a place of thought regarding this.

You seem to have a non-standard version of Islam.

What in particular is "non-standard" about what I've said? I practice quite orthodox Shi'ism, these are not generally very controversial views among our side of Islam.

That of course does not make it any more or less correct than other versions.

That is a non-sequitur based of pre-assumptions of my own position around this. As a person, I take an active interest in other conceptions of "God" as well as atheist arguments. For me, I'm just asking you stuff.

Can you tell us what you believe and why? What reasonable evidence is there for your version of god?

Flipping the tables here in this context is rather not a very repetitive move. I have described at various points on this forum what I believe, it is hardly relevant to our discussion here which has been going on several pages now. The Atheist position is were my interests are, some of these views are things I held back in my atheist years but nowadays they don't make logically-consistent sense to me. Trying to understand your use of logic here is either going to be of use or it wont. Thank you anyway for your time

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hypothetically, sure.



That is in the realm of Theophany (categorically more allusive than incarnation), which is actually quite different. In the case of the burning bush, you are describing a profound event that happened to a specific person, which is not "God" in and of itself but some form of convergence between the subjective individual and "God" that may or may not be a physical event, depending on your reference point.



Depending on your world-view, you could either be saying that Bob is indeed a messianic incarnation of "God" or subscribing to a similar world view of which all things in the universe are ultimately non-separate from "God" but not synonymous with. A phrase like "I am God" could mean a lot of things when not well-defined.



My contention here is that at the same time as trying to be vague, you are also making specific assumptions that appeal to specific conceptions of "God", such as the idea of personal traits like "if a god wanted to be known he could easily...". These are presumptions that I cannot really support, in the case of argument.



Again, this statement is based off certain presumptions I don't agree with but I can empathize with how you may have come to such a place of thought regarding this.



What in particular is "non-standard" about what I've said? I practice quite orthodox Shi'ism, these are not generally very controversial views among our side of Islam.



That is a non-sequitur based of pre-assumptions of my own position around this. As a person, I take an active interest in other conceptions of "God" as well as atheist arguments. For me, I'm just asking you stuff.



Flipping the tables here in this context is rather not a very repetitive move. I have described at various points on this forum what I believe, it is hardly relevant to our discussion here which has been going on several pages now. The Atheist position is were my interests are, some of these views are things I held back in my atheist years but nowadays they don't make logically-consistent sense to me. Trying to understand your use of logic here is either going to be of use or it wont. Thank you anyway for your time

Try again.

It is rude to break up a post excessively. It is often an attempt to quote out of context. And quote mining is almost always a form of lying.

 

[Trailblazer]

You continued to use your false dichotomy even after it was pointed out to you.

No, I did not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I did not.

Not understanding the false dichotomy does not mean that you did not use it. When someone points out that all you have is belief that is not the same as saying that your God does not exist. You need to learn the difference between the two.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is because many theists only use circular reasoning. If it is only reliable to you then by definition it is not reliable. To be reliable it has to be observable by far more than the few in your religion.

It will not be observable by those who cannot see the evidence for what it is.
It will not be observable by those who do not have eyes to see, as Jesus said.

Mark 8:18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

Very few people become Baha’is and there are reasons why.

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

As this relates to evidence, the real evidence for God is the evidence that most people fail to recognize as evidence at the narrow gate...

The religion at the narrow gate is the religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the *new religion* and the *new messenger.* If they are atheists they do not like the *idea* of messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel. That is human nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It will not be observable by those who cannot see the evidence for what it is.
It will not be observable by those who do not have eyes to see, as Jesus said.

Mark 8:18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

Very few people become Baha’is and there are reasons why.

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

As this relates to evidence, the real evidence for God is the evidence that most people fail to recognize as evidence at the narrow gate...

The religion at the narrow gate is the religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the *new religion* and the *new messenger.* If they are atheists they do not like the *idea* of messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel. That is human nature.

And once again a theist displays an ignorance of reliable evidence.

If your god plays hide and seek that is an immoral god.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not understanding the false dichotomy does not mean that you did not use it. When someone points out that all you have is belief that is not the same as saying that your God does not exist. You need to learn the difference between the two.

Okay, thanks for explaining that. The two are not always conflated but there are some atheists who tell me all I have is a belief and they also tell me my god does not exist.