Actually, no. I don’t want to. I find your questions tedious. I find your lack of response to questions tiresome. I think your purpose for this exchange is not embedded in a desire for equipoise, rather it is rooted in a desire to trip folks up in order to stroke your own ego. Your posts thus far, IMO, demonstrate a desire to control, dismissiveness, and avoidance.
In other words, you ain’t no fun, bubba, so stick a fork in me, I’m done.
I’m sorry you see me as hostile to you guys. I’m really not… Sometimes I don’t get much of a considerate reading so I have to point it out. But I’m here for genuine discussion, and you’ve gotten me to think about a few things. I’ll admit I’ve often felt that some of the folks here were not interested in debate, but I’m still here trying. And actually it would be helpful for you to tell me specific posts you found off putting, and better yet, why.
Tedious? Yes, for sure. Intellectual rigor is. I do my best to get to what is most relevant. For example, one’s conception of “natural” and “supernatural” is embedded in a larger worldview. It matters! I was hoping you would be willing to dig a little deeper.
If I’ve omitted to answer questions up to this point that are related to the original post and not too far afield I’ll happily take a crack at each of them. Others can be tabled to later threads or discussions.
A list for me of unanswered questions would be super cool.
This is listed as an erroneous statement:
I for one have long since tired of this particularly tedious con. The one where they say that they can demonstrate the existence of god, then start making excuses and/or avoiding the question.
1 Like
Gravitational theory, whether Newtonian or general relativity, is still theory. But I challenge you to name these “mere” theories.
1 Like
It is not affirmed here to be erroneous. I merely disclosed my own view. The claim is that this is a common view both among atheists and theists. This thread is not about God’s existence…
Demanding a proof for God’s existence in a first debate is like asking for sex on a first date. First show me you can hold an intelligent and considerate conversation.
One of my favorite excuses used for not showing evidence of god is “you’re too stupid to understand it”.
You listed it as one of your five erroneous opinions which strongly implies you think you have evidence.
2 Likes
I didn’t actually claim that god exists in this thread. (I stated the claim once in passing in the context of a discussion about the meaning of words.) Much less did I attempt any sort of proof. Many of you are upset with me for this. Is there an unwritten rule that theists are only allowed to try and prove gods existence and must discuss nothing else??
What I did advance, as a conversation starter, is a kind of scatter shot set of views as being held my many folks who see themselves as atheist (but that are also common to many theists, though none showed up to the party), propositions which I have generally not attempted to show as true or false, but have revealed that I hold them as false, for reasons that can be addressed in more focused discussions later.
The evidence that these are fairly commonly held views among atheists was provided by the participants of this chat, at least for propositions 2-4. I found no clear indication that proposition 5 was held by any of you. And proposition 1seems to be held as false by at least some of you.
Prop 2: There’s a historical conflict between science and religion. Or alternatively, between scientific reasoning and religious faith. (And perhaps it’s ok to add that thankfully science has continually triumphed.)
Prop 3: God is complex. (Though it proved difficult for many to understand that this is not an existential claim, but a claim about names and meaning)
Prop 4: God’s existence can’t be rigorously demonstrated — there is only the Bible, faith or irrational belief to lead you to say “God exists.”
Well this is kinda trivial for this crowd. (And this post is already too long) Though many of you want to hear an argument for god existence!
I can’t do more edits today so this is my last post, and the previous post will have more typos than usual… Talk to y’all later. Write awesome stuff!
Quick note: I never ever said this.
It’s just not the topic of this thread, and it does require a lot of preliminary conversations to be on the same page about prior knowledge.
Without the confirmed existence of a/the god, the proposition is meaningless. Discussing the properties of an hypothetical god is like discussing the magical properties of rainbow farting unicorns. Show us there is a god, and then we can consider and discuss the complexity of the god.
3 Likes
This is plain wrong, common usage is in any dictionary. Atheism.
1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. If this popular lie among religious apologists were true, I would not be an atheist, despite lacking belief in any deity or deities.
Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Yet you are misrepresenting it as atheism, which would exclude many atheists. Note above you said “Atheism, properly speaking…” not some atheists believe…so very disingenuous.
Nonsense, since atheists don’t believe any deity exists, you are again being very disingenuous.
Irony overload.
Nonsense, we start by lacking belief (i.e. atheism) for all concepts, so this must necessarily be our default position, we cannot do otherwise than lack belief, until we know what is being claimed.
Indeed, and up to that point you would have lacked belief in it, to suggest otherwise is absurd.
What have you got? Nothing by the look of it.
Oh dear…another irony overload.
Clarify why you believe a deity exists outside of your imagination, and which deity you believe this to be, accurately define it, and offer sufficient objective evidence it exists, otherwise your claim here:
Seems like you’re contradicting your own spiel?
Since you are the one asserting a deity exists, this is for you to accurately define. Do you imagine you are the first apologists to try this smoke and mirrors argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy on here?
That one is called an ad hominem fallacy. If you don’t like your relentless use of logical fallacies pointed out, then try offering rational assertions.
Ad hominem again, do you imagine my ego will be hurt by more logical fallacies? You’re not the first apologist to try trolling on here either. Each time you post logical fallacies, while failing to offer even a shred of objective evidence, leads inexorably to an unavoidable inference.
Yes you did, unless you can quote anyone claiming they could “demonstrate the existence of instantons”, which as well as being a straw man was also a false equivalence, as it was offered in response to demands for you to evidence your claim (belief) that a deity exists.
Except you have come here with the claim in your profile, so no all I need to ask is why you believe a deity exists outside of your imagination, and as we can see, there is no amount of obfuscation you won’t indulge to avoid offering anything to support your claim.
Straw man fallacy, unless of course you’d care to quote anyone here making any such claim?
Straw man fallacy, sigh…fish in a barrel…
Now if you’re done with your straw men fallacies…
What objective evidence (if any) can you demonstrate for the deity you imagine exists outside of your imagination, or that it is even possible?
Yet you failed to respond to it in any substantive way, which again suggests “the emperor has no clothes.”
You might try Goggling the definition? I realise this is way below the pay grade of your (claimed) lofty scientific credentials, but give it go. You remind me now of Sherlock, he was a “trained scientist” as well, or so he claimed, it never became relevant to his inability to remotely evidence any deity he believed was real of course, beyond his reticence to answer any questions about his claim. Personally I don’t care if you’re a Nobel laureate, unless you can objectively evidence a deity, I remain disbelieving, and as we can see, you clearly have failed to do so, and if you could is it reasonable to imagine you’d not have done so by now.
Yes I am aware that this is outside of the comfort zone of religious apologetics, but I am also guessing you are failing to see the irony. You see I tend not to base belief on things we can’t know, but then I also know that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, for that very reason.
As opposed to accepted scientific theories of course, which you will know are established by a weight of objective evidence, and have been subjected to testing and experiment, and of course (unlike archaic superstitions) must be falsifiable.
In all your many many …minutes on here you mean…dear oh dear…
If it’s debate you want then try answering a straight question:
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is even possible?
Or we could start with common usage, sadly you have the theistic aversion to dictionaries it seems…
natural
adjective
- existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Supernatural
adjective
- (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
We could start there with you explaining what methodology you are using to claim something exists if you’re ruling out natural laws and scientific understanding?
I am waiting with an open mind, and you can finally answer the question: Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that any deity is even possible?
You just happened to fall into an atheist debate forum, and decided arbitrarily that evidencing your claim a deity exists is not relevant, truly hilarious.
Straw man fallacy, proofs are for mathematics and logic, try offering some shred of objective evidence first, or even a single rational argument for any deity. Nice false equivalence fallacy though, you arrived with a claim, we need demand nothing as that claim alone puts the ball firmly in your court. You don’t get a how are you, let alone sex, until you can understand the epistemological burden of “proof” your claim entails. INdeed that any claim entails…so far it’s the same old smoke and mirrors…
More irony, you are using a no true Scotsman fallacy, since you seem to laughably think we are too intellectually challenged for your superstitious spiel, why not present your evidence for a deity to the wider world, when they’re dancing in St Peter’s square because you have evidenced a deity objectively, you can come back to watch us eat humble pie.
Not so much Schrödinger’s deity, as an empty bag, and a raft of unevidenced assertions about what’s in it.
Yes you never did evidence this of course, but look who I’m telling…Now when you offer a raft of claims about what atheists believe to atheists who have made no such claims, what is that called??? Oh yes it is a straw man fallacy. Even your one single example of Professor Dawkins remains unevidenced, and I am dubious his original assertion and the proper context, has been honestly and accurately represented by you here.
Nope, that’s simply a lie…
Nope, I no more crave this than you long to hear people’s arguments for mermaids, if theistic belief didn’t try to tell others what to do, and their beliefs were never pernicious I doubt my atheism would ever be discussed, let alone need a name theists have decided this particular disbelief needs. Odd how theistic belief alone is so arrogant that those who don’t share it must have a unique descriptor.
3 Likes
That one is called an appeal to authority fallacy.
Look look, it’s a full bag, there’s a deity in it, but I can’t show you inside, as you don’t understand what a deity is, or how to evaluate it, and you will just see an empty bag…
If I had a penny for every apologist who’s tried to peddle this one… 
He admitted this himself, directly contrading his earlier spiel.
Dear oh dear, talk about wanting to have your (unevidenced magic) cake and eat it. He has made relentless claims about deities, and his profile is itself a claim a deity exists, did I miss where he “proved” it existed then? 
3 Likes
Ah yes. The curse of arriving late to the party.
4 Likes
Hmm… …
Well you have posted 41 times so far, and still failed in any of them to even try and demonstrate any objective evidence. I could try and feign surprise, but I have seen this particular type of duplicity too many times from too many apologists.
2 Likes
I’m no mathematician, but that is nowhere near a century?
3 Likes
Atheists don’t believe in god or gods. What is meant by ‘God’ in the mind of the atheist is any and all gods that they have been exposed to. All past gods they have heard of. Not one of them has stood up to critical inquiry. This is generally the reason why most atheists say they do not believe in god or gods. That does not mean, you could come up with a God that all atheists would believe in.
Lets say you call your coffee cup God. Well obviously God exists. We just call it a coffee cup and you happen to call it a God. You are not arguing for any relevant theological version of a god and you still have all your work cut out for you. You must still demonstrate why it is the coffee cup is God, and what its attributes are else it is completely unnecessary.
(NOTE: I insisted on all gods "exposed to.’ I did not say all gods. So please don’t run down the path of we have not disproved all gods. No one has to disprove anything, That is not the way logic, reason, or the scientific method works. )
Even after you name your god we accept that your god thing is real. There is still the problem of worshiping or even liking your god thing. Just because it is a god thing does not make it worthy of friendship, love, or even association.
The short answer: It is not up to atheists to define your version of a God thing.
2 Likes
Then you are not reading:
2. There is no conflict at all between science and religion. Religions make claims and science asks them for evidence. When the evidence is not forthcoming the null hypothesis can not be rejected. The only conflict occurs in the mind of the religious, who insist their perspectives be true absent support for their perspectives.
3. (See #2) God is a complex being: This assertion has never been demonstrated
4. (See #2) See #2 and #3 Nothing has ever been rigorously demonstrated.
5. (See #2) It is not that it can’t be rigorously demonstrated, it is that it has not been demonstrated to even the smallest degree. (You’ve made the assertion that we are referencing the Biblical God. Why?) Atheists do not believe in god or gods. Very few Christians argue for the existence of the Biblical god. An asshole that butchers people by the millions, impregnates virgins, kills babies, demands blood sacrifices,
You’re a scientist and your challenge was answered. Briefly, succinctly, and logically in my very first post. The null hypothesis can not be rejected*
Regardless of where you go in your mental meanderings, you have not yet gotten past this simple fact.
NOTE: I previously cited All gods we have been exposed to.* Whether or not a god can be demonstrated remains to be seen. I gave you the atheist definition of gods we do not believe in. “All gods, thus far, that we have been exposed to.” You have not gotten past a rejection of the null hypothesis.
2 Likes
@Cognostic, based on this short statement, my intuition is that you would also hold proposition 3 to be true. Again, prop. 3 is not an existential claim, but a claim about the way things are conceived or about the meaning of words.
[caveat: this will likely require a bit more reflection to understand properly] In your statement you tie existence to space-time, hence necessarily to a kind of complexity, manifested by having material parts, or occurring at different times, or moving through space or any number of other things of the sort. So in brief, for you existing things are complex. And so, probably all notions of God conceived (eg In a statement of what you’ve called the null hypothesis) as potentially existing are going to be complex.
I like how your statement got to a fundamental aspect of your vision. It also gave me occasion to clarify a little more the notion of “complexity.”
———
On that note, it’s been requested by at least one of you, Dawkins has a very insightful thing to say at 5:52 in this video
(Warning: Piers Morgan is being painfully and obnoxiously ignorant. He’s not even able to speak relevantly to what Dawkins is saying, never showing he’s even understanding what he’s being told. Dawkins’ patience here is admirable.)
I clearly addressed position 3. The null hypothesis can not be rejected. Do you not understand what I am telling you? (“God is a complex thing.” Your assertion in point 3, is, in fact, an existential claim.) You are demonstrably wrong and there is no cause to believe such a claim.
Existence is temporal. You have no evidence of non-temporal existence. Again, you are up against the null hypothesis. If you make the assertion things can exist without time or space, you must evidence your claim. There is no reason to believe such a claim, (NOTE: I have not asserted it is impossible and I have not tied existence to time or space. I am implementing basic logic and reason. If you make the claim you must support your claim with evidence. What evidence do you have for a nontemporal existence of anything?
Stop telling me what I believe. I don’t know why you would assume anything is complex. It is a red herring and not worth discussing. Your conclusion is erroneous and an attempt at diverting the discussion.
I have no idea what complexity has to do with anything. I don’t care what Dawkins has to say. Arguments are either valid and sound or they are not. I have no idea why you are jumping to complexity.