Fair enough, and it’s not pedantry on my part I assure you, as we have had exhausting debates where visiting theists and apologists use semantics to relentlessly misrepresent atheism. So I find it prudent to clearly state what I do and do not believe from the onset.
What is the measurable difference between a god that hides, and a god that doesn’t exist? 
1 Like
I don’t think there’s any other example of the stem - “thw” in the English language. “Thwack!” Comes to mind as a sort of comic book invention. “Thwarted”??? 
. I think I need to smoke some hemp and think about this some more.
Now there is a semantic tactic/ “I don’t believe in a god,” is a belief that is held.* What a bunch of horseshit. (Justified in holding what? My non-belief in a god? NOTHING is being held.) There is no reason to believe the god claim. This is a completely justifiable position. “The null hypothesis can not be rejected.” Pretending it is a belief that is held is a bullshit tactic. And, nothing but wordplay and an attempt at shifting the burden of proof. I am holding nothing when you have done nothing to demonstrate the existence of your god thing.
At least you are moving somewhere/
It most certainly does. You can not establish a probability of a god’s existence (or nonexistence) unless you define a god as probable. Probability is based on facts. You’re talking out of your ass again. Before you can establish probability. You need data. You have none. What empirical facts can you use to establish probability? There is no “probability” that God doesn’t exist without first defining what in the hell you are talking about. You can’t get there, there is no data. The null hypothesis has not been rejected.
You just don’t get it, do you? You are putting the cart before the horse, over and over and over again. You’re getting nowhere. Define your god. If you define it in some way that we can actually establish a probability, then we can talk about probability.
No. Not if the Atheist takes the position God does not exist. He is held to the exact same standard in logic as the Christian. What god are you talking about? What evidence do you have? This is the standard for logical discourse. A person making a positive claim has the burden of proof.
You are “IN FACT” creating a 'Burden of Proof Fallacy." A burden of proof fallacy is when a person tries to eschew their need to provide proof. It does not matter how you argue your position. The person making the positive claim “God does not exist.” has a burden of proof. If you make the claim you must demonstrate your claim to be true.
3 Likes
I’m hearing the opening bars to the sound track and they go like: “Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush the mulberry bush, Here we go round…”
And here comes @Sheldon reaching out to grab @TheMetrologist by one of the many assertions he’s left undefended and flapping in the breeze, but what’s this: TheMetro has, yes he has left the track once again promising to gather irrefutable evidence from his imagination proving that god exists, really it does and it is even a nice god forced to do nasty things. We only have to stretch our imagination into the bliss of incredulity for this to be true. Leaving Sheldon’s plea for evidence unanswered yet again and leaving the audience reaching for another handful of Popcorn. And now a word from our sponsors slippery as an eel debate cream. For those times when your beliefs seem about to be overwhelmed by reason just apply a liberal coating of slippery as an eel debate cream to any endangered assertions and run like the devil for the exit in a shower of popcorn from the disappointed audience…
4 Likes
Hey, thanks for saving me a seat, Old Man… (munch-munch-munch… slurrrrrrp… smacking lips)… Yum! Extra butter and salt. Just the way I like it. 
… (burrrrp)… Oh, excuse me. That soda had a little kick to it. Here, everybody, have some bon-bons… (passing box down the row)… Hey, does anybody think Metrologist knows the distance between Earth and Heaven? Just curious.
2 Likes
Glad you could make it…mind my droppings if you please…mmm bon-bons… got any more soda?
Ummm… Tin didn’t tell you about the bon-bons? Nevermind.
Frankly, I am still waiting for the Good Reason god has hidden himself. I think that was my original question (Yeah, yeah, I know we have not yet concluded anything called a god exists or could exist unless it is a pencil sharpener, but I am still curious about this missing god’s reason for missing. I would assume it is Wednesday and he is washing his hair.
WHAT IS THIS GOOD REASON?
That was my intention to speak on the subject of if there is a god then why this world of suffering in the first place and why not be more active in it. The question of why the god of the bible would allow and ask for what we would see as evil acts should be sidelined for the question; Does a god who creates this world AS WE SEE IT, have any reason for allowing it to persist as it has.
It would seem to me that if a god needs to be created, and i think we do need one that has a collective input of all humanity. A god that replaces politics and laws that cant be rightly enforced. A god that can not be controlled by dictators and lobbyists. Something that is not human but is willing to give up its own existence for humanity. This to me seems more important than discovering that the edge of the universe is just alot like Wyoming. Although the discoveries we make would most certainly be needed to create such a being on our behalf.
So here is the question. If man could make a god. What should that god be. The god of the bible could be compromised. Which may be why he hide’s himself. Humans would set him up not as a god for all but rather a god for themselves. A supreme D. Trump. And that would be disgusting. I guess i don’t blame god for hiding if thats what he was going to ge from humanity, much better the way it is now. A less supreme Trump. So then he would have to work out some plan to bring humanity to him, because we are lost and don’t even want to create a god that is for all. As christianity has shown, even that of today’s christians who fight a culture war against their own country because they are afraid the government will limit their freedom of religion. If god needs a religion, that is no god at all.
Lots to be said on this subject. In summary, If there is a void in this existence that could house a god, then what would that god look like. Although not a god that skirts around the hard questions of what the Bible proposed as god, lest we miss out on discovering as it were the real reason for why god has hidden himself. If there is one. We would have to know what is if anything true about “scripture”.
What could come of this? We could either prove a theory of a god that should exist, one that is better than all the mythology. Or forge a pathway to a god that can be created. Doesn’t hurt to test the hypothesis does it. Who knows, perhaps all the ramblings on of humans about there god is not of something that is or once was but rather of something that is to come.
I snuck in some candy i bought from the dollar store if anyone would like some.
Why does an imaginary deity make the laws anymore “right”, what does “right” even mean, since morals are subjective so would the notion of right be subjective.
Since you’re talking predominantly to atheists, the question is moot, surely you can see that? The only pertinent question is what objective evidence (if any) can you demonstrate that a deity exists, or is even possible?
Human’s have been “making” gods for millennia, a real step up might be one that was demonstrably real.
3 Likes
What makes the laws we make up right? Is it not the subjects that agree that a thing is right or wrong. Whether subjectively or objectively, you can still have morals. Doesn’t mean the subject or object have to agree with those morals. Which would then allow for there to be alteration of the legal code. Its not as cut and dry as we would like to be. Especially given that a lump of matter can contemplate that which is immaterial.
Even if someone could demonstrate that in fact steve who lives on the corner was god all along. What would that evidence be? To me it would not matter if steve had attributes that could not be explained by science. He would have to reveal all scientific knowledge to me. How does the theory of relativity actually work. Explain infinity to me. What is on the other side of a blackhole. Make that blackhole into a star again. Even if we saw that, would we claim that was god. Or would we push the goalposts once more and just say it is an advanced being with more knowledge and therefore control of out universe. I understand atheists don’t see a god. But then how would they know a god if the evidence was given. Thats why the question is asked, what is god?
Time to stop reinventing the wheel and create a being that can not be harnessed by religion. Religion is poison. God is inspiration and guidance for the betterment of all humanity. Real or not. It may be a concept that is perhaps even an exhaust fume of an inquiring mind.
You didn’t answer my question, why would a deity, imaginary or otherwise make our laws anymore right? Which was what you implied.
The person making the claim carries the burden of proof, you made a raft of claims about a deity, and your profile shows you are a theist, ipso facto it is for you to define that deity, and properly evidence it exists. Otherwise your claims about it are moot.
NB I have no idea what significance you think the name Steve has here, or why you’re not capitalising it as a proper noun?
Are you trying to say a deity would have to be omniscient? If so we can dispense with the rather laborious analogy, and the bafflingly lowercase steve (sic). Then go back to you objectively evidencing a deity, otherwise your conjectures about that deity can’t be used in an argument for its existence, as this is called a begging the question fallacy.
Can you even demonstrate that omniscience is possible? if not then again such speculation is meaningless. I am dubious omniscience is possible, and of course if a being existed that knew literally everything, any notion of free will would be an allusion, for us and for that deity.
Why would atheists per se being any less able to evaluate any arguments or evidence than theists? This sounds like a no true Scotsman fallacy to me. And you have not accurately defined the deity you believe exists yet, so the question remains unanswered, and of course if you cannot objectively evidence it exists or is even possible, then arbitrarily assigning characteristics to what you imagine a deity to be is again just meaningless speculation.
This sweeping claim is demonstrably untrue, since the belief in a deity has often been deeply pernicious, throughout human history. So perhaps it would be better to stop imagining deities that there is no objective evidence for, and accept responsibility for our actions.
Now one more time, can you demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity exists or is even possible?
It can be pretty easily inferred to reflect the morality of the human cultures and the epoch from which it was derived. No deity need exist to explain this, and since there is no objective evidence that the bible is anything but human in origin, we wouldn’t need to posit a deity at all.
Well you just claimed we needed to create a deity that replaces laws that can’t rightly be enforced? So which is it, and why would creating a deity make laws more right, what would that even mean?
It doesn’t make it more right it represents the whole of humanity better than a decree from a man.
Someone asking if a god exists who does this or that, is that right? Which is what i am asking. My first statement in opening this thread was a statement of my belief in god. Not a claim that you must adhere to. I also claim to be an atheist (whatever that means to you i care not) which means there can be no evidence given for gods existence from this universe.
Steve, steve, stephen or steph has no significance but now i know you are completely missing anything i am trying to say.
My point was that even if a diety is omniscient, I wouldn’t believe that is god just because of omniscience. God must continually prove himself to us not us to him.
I am not trying to say what a god is. I am asking if this, then would it not rightly be that… i apologize for any confusion on my opening statement. That was a claim that I believe not one that must be believed. I also believe God is not contained in this universe and therefore anyone who says God does not exist is justified in believing that. Anything more is a leap of faith that i have the right to take without explaining myself to anyone.
Why do you think i am making claims that i must defend? This does not have to be an argument about what is or isn’t. Who are you that i should you to you anyway? You see that i claim i am a theist and then ask me to give evidence that you know i don’t have. What is your problem? Based off of this line you f thinking you knock on the window of a police cruiser and say , your cruiser claims you are a police officer, defend that claim. This website says that it excepts even the believer to be apart of a discussion. If all that means is that you continuously say i have no evidence that is justified in proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a god. Then what are we doing here?
The proper question would have Are you saying, not jumping to conclusions about what you think i was saying. My point is that humans should have a say in whether what a god does is right or wrong. Especially one that claims it is righteous or holy.
Then please tell me something that is.
Stop asking me a question that you already know the answer to. You have no authority over me i do not have to give you any evidence, even if had evidence i would not show you. If i had evidence i would not be here. I would not have to debate about what it was that turned me away from removing myself from this planet. I do have to say three hail marys and an amen i do not have to speak in toungues. I do not have to what any religious zealot says i have to.
Yes and frankly, the notion of flirting with imaginary characteristics of an imaginary character is so much mental masturbation…
Edit
Close the door next time
1 Like
Your suggestion seems to concern countries, or the entire world. Do you consider should also be the case for any group? A city, a neighborhood, a family? Should laws (rules, edicts) inside a family home come from a constructed god instead of a wo/man? For instance, should “clean up your plate or no dessert,” come from that god or from a parent? Why / why not?
1 Like
Well if this isn’t preacher talk I’ll eat Tinny’s hat.
Here is a plug for end times and as a bonus, an answer a question with a question deflection. @Sheldon can a deflection be a fallacy?
A come to Jesus moment. A pitch for a theocracy and an admission god is created in our imaginations. Which has been my position from the beginning. Why can’t you accept there is no god and that our moral compass if used judicially can lead us to personal responsibility.
Again a question rather than a statement and hilariously the same question I asked @TheChristianAtheist.
Can you see the mulberry bush beginning to form lets all follow the @TheChristianAtheist in the mullberry dance. His questions are meant to control the narative by engaging people in developing its outcome. I think CA might be trying to run a focus group with the aim of starting the one true religion. Could he be channelling Joe Smith, Jim Jones. YooHoo @Tin-Man please can you lend me your hat?
Nothing i have said has anything to do with the end times.