To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Why is it reasonable to assume that a supreme being capable of organizing all that we perceive would be incapable of perceptually exposing itself? It seems more reasonable to assume is that if such a supreme being does exist it has no desire to make itself obvious to us.

If the behavior and motivation of a god were beyond the bounds of our understanding, our faculties of perception and reason may not be able to distinguish God from madness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Spidergoat,

So it conflates God with invisible tennis playing table-cloths. No need to tell me, you should point the out to Sarkus.

Of course I do, I believe in the exact equivalent of invisible kung fu fighting cheese slicers.

Don’t mind me, go right ahead.

Make sure you get the bit with the big lump on it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yazata,

Do you know it’s rude to talk about someone as it they’re not there, knowing that they are there and can see everything? More rude than not responding to posts, it could be argued.


I’ve take over Pachomius? Really?

I like the way you guys make these assumption as though they are truth. Did I say we should abandon reason?

Can you show me where I encourage the abandonment of reason, minds, and human faculties.


You should come out of hiding Yaz, instead of throwing insults from behind the sofa. The absurdity explanation is just a bold attempt of what you and others always do, blend attacks with what appears as reasonable observations.


Jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you cannot just simply accept that such a being even exists, how can you ever hope recognize it?


Scenario; God walks up to you in the guise of an ordinary person, and say’s ‘’I’m God’’, what are you going to do. Ask him to perform magic tricks like David Blaine, or Dynamo? If He gives you the ability to view Him in a Universal Form, and you accept. What then? You tell others of you experience and they think you’re off your rocker?


There are good, common sense reasons why God would not just reveal Himself to ordinary people. One of the best one’s I can think of, is, it wouldn’t be of benefit to anyone. It would be better to realise who and what God is, through the aspect of the human existence that is of the same nature.

You can't just strip the concept of God down to what you think, or what suits you. For example atheists do not tolerate any scriptural definitions of God, unless of course they use something to build up their case for reasons not to believe (a good example being God is a murderer). But to dismiss the scriptural definitions serves no purpose, because they are still there, and they are very relevant in comprehension of who and what God is.

Equating Invisibe curtains orbiting alpha-centauri, to God, and then drawing conclusions from that equation, only has a chance of working if you abandon scripture, and try to describe God from your own perspective. When one understands God from the scriptural perspective, such silly conclusion are merely seen to be not idiotic, because of the celebrity who said it.


Jan.

 

That's a very good point.

If the nature of something lies beyond our understanding, then it would seem to be part of the unknown, simply by definition.

So the question becomes -- do we have any justification for assuming that all of the contents of the unknown, everything that human beings don't currently understand and perhaps never will, must conform to what human beings currently take to be logic and reason?

I'm inclined to say that there doesn't seem to be any way that we can know that. (That's one reason why I'm something of a hard-agnostic, I guess.)

But having said that, logic and reason remain the best tools that human beings have for distinguishing between truth and madness. So while we can't say with absolute assurance that absurd and illogical things can't exist, that acknowledgement isn't any kind of reason to think that they do. (It couldn't be.)

I guess that in our human condition we need to make use of the best tools that we currently have, even if we can't be certain that they are the final and ultimate tools.

 

It's an observation, not an assumption.

The ones that make sense, no one denies outright. Yours are not among them.

But we can - it's called "suspension of disbelief", and the audience for stories is most of the human race.

Nobody's doing that. What we're equating is your arguments and evidence for your notion of God, including your charming but very silly idea that any aspect of it is "universal", with the arguments and evidence for invisible unicorns. Their habit of mistaking their own ideas, assertions, arguments, and "evidence", for God almighty, is one of those quirks of the theistic that lead the atheistic to find humor in such comparisons.

 

Jan, the issue isn't that a non-believer in unicorns couldn't or wouldn't recognize one if one showed up. The problem is simply that one hasn't shown up.

Your argument that one has to believe in God before recognizing God is rather circular and self-serving.

It's not even the problem of an ordinary looking man showing up and announcing "I'm God". If the ordinary looking man can also restore amputated limbs to those so afflicted (rather than "curing" things that often "cure" themselves) this would go a long way toward the proof of that man being God or at least having supernatural powers that are associated with being god-like.

Simply appearing in one's mind or in a book written by man doesn't suffice.

 

I can reason the existence of countless potentialities, but the application of reason also necessitates that an assignment of actuality is conditional on a standard of evidence. If your standard of evidence were consistently applied, it would necessitate a belief in every imaginable interpretation of universal creation and motivation, and would essentially render the concept of belief meaningless.

All that we know is a result of an application of logic and reason to our perceptions. The quality of knowledge is proportional to the quality of the logic, reason and perception associated with its derivation. All that we will ever know must conform to some form of logic and reason.

 

iceaura,

What is that observation?

That's okay. We just feel sorry for you.

I posited no such argument, and have iterated that quite a few times. The fact that you have to keep accusing me of something I'm not guilty of, is very telling.

Has it occurred to you that if limbs started sprouting spontaneously, it could be argued that it is an act of nature? It doesn't have to be God, any more than the origin of the universe, worlds, and living bodies? Can you not think of something that only God could do, like manifesting universes, worlds.and living bodies. Something that cannot be explained by nature?

jan.

 

Caprucus,

The standard of evidence has to match the subject. If God exists, then He is the origin of all material manifestations. That is the claim. Right?
So how can any one thing in this world, show, above all else, that it was manifested by God. That would imply that other things aren't a product of the manifestation, which would create more confusion than answers. So the idea of obtaining physical data to prove the existence of God, so one can decide whether or not one wants to believe in him, is an oxymoron. Knowing this, but persisting in requiring that type of evidence, is denial.

I would say that is the least of your worries.

jan.

 

Thanks for your reply Spidergoat.

I will just dwell on your statement:

You mean there are scientists who claim on their scientist authority as men of science

“that things on the quantum scale do not obey typical laws of cause and effect.”​

Is this one of the laws of cause and effect not obeyed in the quantum scale of the universe?

"Everything with a beginning has a cause."​

Can you present an example of something in the quantum scale of the universe which has a beginning in existence but no cause brought it forth to its beginning.



See you guys again soon.




Annex

I will just post again my system of argument for the existence of God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.

 

From post #71:

"Theists don't believe in God on the basis of arguing whether or not He is real...

Belief, is actual, not fantasy, or some idea, which is why man cannot extinguish the idea of God, fully within peoples minds. That time will naturally arise, just like it say's in the scriptures. We can see it occurring throughout the world, everyday as it becomes a little more God-less.

If you need what you regard as credible and positive reasons to believe in God. It suggests, that (a) you currently don't believe in God (for which you have equally not credible and positive reasons), and (b) you have not allowed yourself to accept who and what God is, by dint of scriptures. IOW, you are only prepared to choose a brand of satisfaction."

From post #85:

"Why is it necessary to support the tenet of ones belief?"

From post #86:

"There is no evidence that can make a person believe in God. The person has to accept God regardless of physical appearances...

If you understand what theism is, not simply the definition of the word, you would understand that you don’t simply believe in God because of scientific evidence."

From post #87:

"Atheist’s (despite titles) believe God does not exist, and the reason they believe this is personal to each and every one of them. Of course most of you have been conditioned to cry ''no evidence'', but no evidence cannot yield any experience to back up your claims. You simply have no choice but to stick to ''I can't see God with my eyes, therefore God does not exist''. That is ALL you have to bring to the table. And the FSM, and Celestial Teapot, only serve highlight that.

They say there is no evidence for God, then they do everything within their power to deny God and scripture, completely oblivious to the transparency they create by their actions."

From post #88:

"In this world, God can not exist, and can exist. It is a world of duality. If you bothered to comprehend scripture you would realize this. This is why it is important. The scriptures aren't ambiguous. They don’t debate whether or not God exists. God exists, period. ...

So in this world, if we don’t want God to exist, then it done.
God does not exist for that person.

Being true to oneself is the beginning of liberating oneself from illusion. So if one truly does not believe in God, then one must know why, and not leave it to some vague, fashion statement like, there is no evidence. That is just an obvious wall one hides behind."

From post #102:

"Unless you believe in God, you have no experience of what belief in God is. Without experience, your knowledge is incomplete. Yet you think that you know what belief in God IS, over and above people who believe in God. Another case of wilful ignorance."

From post #105:

"I said ‘’There is no evidence that can make a person believe in God’’. Please try and keep up...

Theists don't need a reason to believe in God, the attraction is already there. It is up to us in what we decide. We already have a capacity be self-destructive while in full knowledge of our demise, showing that reasons come well after. In the same way we can put refrain from self-destruction and embrace self-realization."

 

What I quoted, from you, right there, directly and obviously replied to - "Why assume there is no evidence for God, in the first place?"

The phrase you labeled assumption, is an observation. This has been pointed out to you many times. You should (and would) have written "why observe there is no evidence for God?" - if you intended to debate honestly with me.

Absolutely. Yes. Explicitly and famously.

Nobody knows. But that's not as easy or simple an assertion as you seem to think. There are a lot of things - rain, butterflies, meteorite impact locations - that seem to have history in the world of cause and effect (which some people think implies beginning) but not identifiable cause per se. And something that has no such history is of course not even in the running for a cause.

 

Maybe I should have put a question mark after my question. My bad.
Now you gone to the trouble of quoting me, maybe you can show where I ''encourage the abandonment of reason, minds, and human faculties.''

jan.

 

iceaura,

Okay, how have you observed the non-existence of God?

I'm not even aware that there is observable evidence that shows the non existence of God. But you're going to enlighten me aren't you?

Well let's see what observable evidence of God's non existence (outside of I can't see God, therefore God does not exist) you or anyone can come with, before we start with the accusations.

jan.

 

1) You know very well, having had it explained to you dozens of times here in very simple terms, that nobody here has ever claimed to have observed the non-existence of any deity.

2) That is an example of you attempting to frame things in an invisible unicorn "argument", once again. That is how it comes up - you and your fellow Abrahamic monotheists (almost entirely) present it. It doesn't become trivial when people reply - it's trivial from the moment you bring it up.

3) The question now is far more interesting than yet another invisible unicorn argument for some deity. The questioning has become focused on the revealed level of bad faith, self-deception, and simple dishonesty inherent in so much theistic "argument". What is it about theistic belief that cripples people's ethical and moral considerations in rhetoric and persuasion? We know what it is in marketing - money - and politics - power. But theology?

 

iceaura,

Of course I know that, but the question is: Do you?

Bring what up?

What are you talking about?

jan.

 

An art gallery is assumed to be filled with paintings of a single artist, but only one is singed. By applying your above reasoning we must conclude that the unsigned paintings cannot be the work of the artist in question. Does this seem reasonable to you? You’ll probably counter by saying that God is (unjustifiably) presumed to be the only artist, and that assigning authorship to other paintings implies the impossibility of other painters, which brings up the question of not only evidentially discerning a single god, but potential multitudes of gods. You seem to be willing to apply a standard that assumes multiple creative entities in our personal reality, but inconsistently denies them universally.

 

I do not believe that you actually believe anything you have written on this website.

 

The argument seems to effectively be that God is a feeling like Love. Some people are more emotional than others and therefore more believing or more religious. It's too bad that society hasn't left it at that.

You either don't have supernatural beliefs or you are sensitive to the feeling called God.

Either way it's not worth getting worked up about as it is not negatively affecting anyone else. Of course in reality that's not the situation unfortunately.