Do you agree that we should take into to account, the subject matter (in this case God)? Do you conceptualise God as just another property of the universe? If that is a yes, then we're discussing two different subject matters. Your problem here is your concept. Do you exist in this quote I'm replying to? Maybe you simply cannot, currently comprehend God, while others can. Do you think that is possible? Jan.
How would they know? One of the few things that one can be certain of, is that one can't be virtually certain of anything. And no, that is not paradoxical. And how would we take it into account? What special properties does God have? Then you tell me the nature of your subject matter**, such that it is not a part of the universe. **using a rational description please, not one of your "God just .... is!" platitudes. This is a science form, with standards of communication and description of terms.
Jan espouses that "God exists for the theist but God does not exist for the atheist". It's apparent that when Jan says something exists, it doesn't exist for everyone. So, when he talks about the existence of a given thing, he is talking about existence in a subjective experience, not an objective one. Which is pretty much what we've been espousing all along. God exists for Jan, in his subjective experience. Whatever else exists, or does not exist, outside his experience is not relevant. I am OK with that.
The nature of Jan's concept of God is akin to "the cause of all". As such, it is - per that definition - the reason everything exists, and we are merely manifestations of God. And since, by that definition, it is the cause of anything and everything that exists, the fact that anything exists is "evidence" of that God. The definition introduces an a priori assumption of existence, only supported by circular logic. It is internally consistent in that regard: you accept the definition, the "evidence" supports the existence of the defined thing existing, thus it must exist. If the defined thing didn't exist then nothing would exist. Etc. It is basically the Cosmological Argument.
I feel I must call you out on this, Jan. What JamesR does, and what Sarkus does, and what most others do, is identify what they disagree with in your arguments and they explain why. If you still disagree with them, with their arguments, then you need to do more than simply repeat what it is they disagree with. Neither JamesR nor Sarkus actually do that. They do explain, usually quite clearly in fact. What you then do is simply ignore them, and ignore points you don't understand. You don't seek clarification, you don't say that you don't understand. You ignore them and avoid the issue. From the other's position, if you ignore their explanation, if you subsequently avoid the issue, it is reasonable for them to assume that you have understood their position on the matter. Yet you then later repeat your same position as if they never offered their explanations, their counter-arguments. So they repeat them, to remind you, thinking that your previous avoidance was an implicit acceptance or at least understanding, given your lack of any counter at the time. And now here you are accusing them of simply repeating their arguments. Noone says that you must accept what they say, but if you disagree with them it is you who needs to do more than simply repeat your assertions You need to explain why you disagree with their counter-arguments, as they do. You need to ask them to clarify anything you don't understand, as they do. You don't simply ignore them and keep asserting the same things as if they have never offered a counter-argument which, unlike them, is what you do.
Yup. It is tantamount of asserting that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure, the evidence for the existence of the GGA is that: well, we're here are we?? If the GGA hadn't sneezed, there would be nothingness. Thus, since something, therefore GGA.
By the same method used to know anything. Of course it's not. It coincides with your worldview. How is it that for the whole of mankind, there are only a few things one can be certain of? How did you come by this exclusive knowledge? What good would that do? I've spent a good amount of time explaining the nature of the subject matter, according to scipture. If you're really interested go and look. But I'm not wasting my time writing about God's nature, in this thread (unless I choose to). Same as above. It's not my fault that you are without God, and unable to grasp 'God IS'. It means something, but you're not aware of it, and I'm not going to waste time in this thread (about atheist), talking off topic stuff that just goes over your head. Look up other stuff I've written, and state you contention. If you like. I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions. Any reasons for that? jan.
Everything exist via our subjective experience. Compassion exists. We can't see , taste, touch, smell, or hear it, yet it is one of the most important human attributes. Plus we commend animals when they display compassion. Can you show me the properties of compassion without using one's own, or, anybodies ability to be compassionate? jan.
It works both ways. They need to do more than just defend their positions, hence the reason they repeat the same old blocks and insults. It works both ways. You're not bias. Are you Baldeee? Noooooooooooo! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
But you are without God. You may not want to accept it, but from all perspectives, it is true. You may say there is no evidence for God, but you cannot know that as a fact. Do you know that as a fact, or do you have good reason to suppose that their currently exists no evidence for God's existence? How will you know that the evidence will reveal God (given that you currently are without God)? Do you suppose that if you find evidence of God you will be a theist like me? Or do you think you will be a different kind of theist? Why do you even think that God could possibly exist? Is it to keep a rational image, or do you really think it is possible. If the latter, why? jan.
Saying that one person is without a personal God doesn't mean that you are with one. The atheist position is generally that they have not yet been convinced there is a god. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim to justify it. So it doesn't matter if we don't know whether evidence for a god exists somewhere. Again, doesn't matter. We are looking for evidence of it's existence, not a revelation of god itself. Hell no. I wouldn't worship that monster.
Ad hom. Invalid. If you had a case, you could make it, regardless of anyone's worldview. We are humans and fallible. How about you explain to us how you can "know" that God exists? Actually, don't bother. You've been asked this time and again, and have weasel-worded out of it every time. No, you really haven't. As has been pointed out by others, you've spent a tremendous amount of time dodging and evading its nature. Exactly. You'll happily waste your time here spinning all sorts of evasions, such as it "just is!" But actually put your money where your mouth is? No. You don't have the courage of your convictions.
They do do more: they enquire about yours as well, asking you to explain and clarify. You don't even defend your position but instead ignore issues and questions you don't like, and deflect others. You don't ask people to explain when you don't understand. Yes, Jan, it does work both ways. Just not with you. It should indeed work both ways, so why don't you do it? Against poor arguments, Jan, sure I am. But your effort to dismiss an argument as being simply born out of bias is noted, and merely reinforces the criticisms of your manner.
I think you and a few others must have blue faces from the endless ?discussion? You and the others appear to be on one side of a river yelling at someone on the other bank about what your side looks like But doing it through a mist Trouble is the other person won't be convinced to even try to look over to your side insisting his is the only side and you are without and lacking a side His side just IS don't you know ME? I'm in the middle walking on water I'm a Thesist since I believe in the god Thor But I am also a Atheists as it is the wrong god Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh Mighty god Thor who art in heaven (you are in heaven right? Your not kidding me? Only I haven't seen you in a while and a few others are saying you don't exist. I call them AThorist which they don't like. Anyway if you could give them some evidence it would help. Lend me your hammer for a few days perhaps? OK just a thought) Now where were we? Never mind You Mighty Thor know the routine since you know everything So I'll be off OK? And think about lending me the hammer to make a few more Thorist Cheers Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You can lead from poor arguments to discussion points but you cannot force to drink from the well of reasoning Poe circa 2017 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You have 'gators We have crocs Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Photo NT News Darwin The Praying Mantsis by the way is 2 metres long Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You both must be close to the Guinness Book of World Records for Boredom not to mention Tediousness Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Mantids are scary down under, eh?
