This is from a previous discussion with JamesR (he was quoting your dictionary response) that deals with what you say .. To save time repeating myself, I will just copy/paste it, since you probably didn't read it: I can't help but notice the hand wiggling you employ to equate "having power over" to be identical to "being above". Yet for some funny reason, atheists prefer to use their own word, "supernatural", instead of any one of a bevy of words theists already provide that satisfy the same requirements, eg transcendent, immanent, omnipotent, etc. You have, as yet, still failed to explain why it is the case that atheists bring exclusive terminology to define the subject. Supernatural things have no fundamental relationship with the "reality" of things. No relationship of contingency exists between an "enabler" and "reality" if you want to run around calling things "supernatural". No doubt this is a convenient euphemistic tool of thought for atheists, since a dumbed down version of God provides easier access to their arguments (at least for as long as the fact that atheists are utilizing their own euphemistic language is glossed over, I suppose). Actually if you remove the supernaturalfrom a designated supernatural thing, the designated thing ceases to exist. This is why arguments against supernatural things are easier to float than transcendent or immanent things. Gee. Now what supposed agenda do you suppose atheists could have in corralling the definition of God into a more easily dismissible category at the onset of all their arguments? Is bypassing philosophy the mark of an intelligent argument or a political one? It comes as no surprise that euphemisms often find themselves in the company of other forms of logical fallacies.
DaveC426913: No, that's a really bad idea. If you go down that road, you're buying into Jan's distraction tactic. He will demand that you define God, again, and then spend pages telling you that you got it wrong because you're an atheist, etc. etc. Jan shouldn't be allowed wriggle room here. Either he will present evidence, or he won't. My guess is that he won't, because he can't. In the meantime, with his every post in which he goes on about atheist denial and other off-topic rubbish, Jan exposes the ultimate emptiness of his own position. Dig even a little into his belief and there's nothing there but empty claims.
Ah. So your claim here is that theists do not use that word when talking about God. Leslie White from an article in Beliefnet: "7 Ways to Tap into the Supernatural Power of God" http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/chr...natural-power-of-god.aspx#k1zaMuLuWg7QH6eF.99 From Access Jesus - "God’s Miracles – The Supernatural In The Natural World" - includes the quote "God is a supernatural person." http://access-jesus.com/gods-miracles-html/ From J. Warner Wallace of Cold Case Christianity - "Natural Explanations and A Supernatural God" http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/natural-explanations-that-deny-a-supernatural-god/ From the United Faith Church - "GOD’S SUPERNATURAL SEED" (referring to God's words) https://www.unitedfaithchurch.org/gods-supernatural-seed/ Looks like you have been betrayed by your own fellow Christians. Quick! Change the subject, or call someone a name! Redefining words to try to win an argument is a sure sign you are losing the argument - badly.
That's your opinion James. I beg to differ, as I have explained on quite a number of occassions. If you are asking me a question, then it is up to me how I choose to respond to that question. In this case, I choose to go in depth of what is preventing you from accepting God, because when I talk about God, it just seems to go over your head, and you end up talking about what you think God is, and how evidence of God should be. This only results in you justifying your atheism by only accepting a God that is suitable for such purposes. I have done. It's really that simple. You don't accept Bill Craigs evidence? No surprise there then. You will not accept anything, that suggests God. So why waste time? You need to change your mindset, if you are sincere about the thread topic. So right now anything is relevant, until you can do that. There you go dictating how I should respond to your question. Quoting out of context James? You must be getting desperate to win. Because man is man, whereas God is God. Define God? Let's see how you go with that? jan.
And these contributors strike you as philosophical heavy weights? All that aside, nothing in the links you provided demand that supernatural is an exclusive or central term to God (some parts go at length to discriminate supernatural things that are connected to God, and supernatural things that are not connected to God .... which is, in itself, a novel concept to say the least.) As per your atheism, I am genuinely surprised that you would suddenly rise to defend the supernatural as a sort of event that occurs in reality.
Now you're resorting to discussing me in public with your fellow atheist. Desperate times. Check out Bill Craig. I'm fine with the evidences he put forward, so there is no need for me write them out again. What? You don't agree with Craig? No surprise there. Now what do we do? Why do you assume it's off-topic (I know you don't really think it's rubbish)? Do you think I should conduct myself the way you would, in this thread? Would that be right in your eyes? You're the one who makes claims James. I have no problem with accepting that you're an atheist. And I know your atheism is not based on evidence, or lack of evidence for God. It can't be, unless you make assumptions, then believe them to be true. jan.
Musika: It appears you've got muddled, and maybe didn't read another reply I made to you, here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/evidence-that-god-is-real.161157/page-29#post-3546153 If you think this is problematic, you ought to explain why. The prefix "super-" in "supernatural" literally means "above" or "beyond". I don't believe it is a terminology exclusive to atheists. It is interesting that you say that. Are you saying, therefore, that anything "supernatural" is therefore necessarily a fantasy? I suppose that, if this is your position, you would describe God as entirely "natural". But in that case, empiricism would appear to be the logical epistemology method for investigating God, would it not? What's your preferred, smartened-up version of God? I take it you argument, then, is that God is immanent and transcendent, rather than supernatural. How does this impact the evidentiary question? It seems to simplify things, from my point of view. We needn't worry about God having "more than natural" attributes. No miracles allowed, I assume. So, given that we can't appeal to miracles as evidence for this immanent, transcendent God, what evidence are you going to present? It's an interesting question to consider, but one better suited to a different thread. This one is for discussion of evidence for God, as you know. Okay, let's assume you have talked about your toolbox. So, you use your non-empirical tools to dig up the evidence and ... what do evidence do you find that shows that God is real? Well? Where is it? There are now more than 600 posts in this thread. Will your next post be the one where you stop talking about the method for obtaining the evidence, and finally post some of the evidence itself? Fortunately, you aren't constrained by my automatic compulsions. You can approach the evidence non-empirically. I just want to see the evidence. No, theories don't equate to evidence. That's why I keep bugging you and Jan to stop explaining how one might theoretically go about finding evidence, and to start actually finding some evidence. You asked me what relation I think that theory has to evidence, and I told you in a previous post (the one you apparently didn't read, linked above). Anybody can float a hypothesis. To use your example, in cosmology there are many competing hypotheses. Where evidence is lacking, it can be impossible to tell which, if any, is correct. Therefore, I do not commit to any single theory, but keep an open mind, pending collection of the relevant evidence. If there is no evidence to be had, then the theory is mere speculation. It could be right, or it could be wrong; there's literally no way to tell for sure. Your theory, and Jan's, is that God is real. Jan apparently has no evidence to offer. Let's hope you can do better. And yet, you do not do point to a single example. Why not? It sounds like you're saying that hoping to find evidence of God is another "impossible victory". Is that what you're saying? Let me ask you directly: do you have any evidence for God? Do you think that any evidence exists?
Of course if an atheist had recourse to a form of God that wasn't a concept, it would make it terribly difficult to be an atheist.
I'm a visual guy. I'd be happy to talk about anything Jan can demonstrate to me that's of God. (We call that 'evidence' but let's keep that between you and me.) Because having him agree to actually talk about God and his manifestations is far closer to the thread topic than having him wax poetic on atheistic straw men. Too bad though. His best evidence of God - in merely the 600 posts of this thread alone - is 'Google'.
Go look them up. I have responded to your question, as requested. If you have doubts, you raise them. Again with the assumptions. What is wrong with you? That is my response. You said nothing about bringing anything to the table. If you think they are not evidence of God, you explain why. You're the one asking me, remember. I say that it is for you to find out. Is there any evidence that it does? If so, present it. His argument present evidence for God. The title says nothing about presenting evidence that God is real. You already know Craigs arguments, plus I already know you don't accept them. So what is the point of presenting them? They are there should you choose to disagree. There's no point. We've been going through this for years, and the result is always the same. You deny and reject God. I'd rather take a different approach at your question this time. As I said, there is no point. Plus, you already know his arguments. So just say what you're going to say. jan.
Check out Bill Craig, I'm okay with that evidence.. Other than that I would like to continue with my own approach to this question. jan.
There are very practical reasons why we can't take your suggestion to simply go read Bill Craig's works. 1] Such discussion will invariably lead to requests for clarification on certain points. We cannot do that with Bill. It requires two-way discussion. Like on a forum. 2] In reading an entire work, we have no way of knowing what your favorite bit of evidence is. And it is you that we will be discussing it with. Let's not spend 600 more posts with us saying 'OK, this doesn't sound right' and you responding with 'bad example, pick another'. 3] You are asserting the evidence as compelling, here. The onus is on you - not a third party - to put forth an argument succinctly. We cannot have a discussion that spans an entire book. Let's start small. 4] In 600 posts, you've written written more than an entire article by Bill Craig. You can't possibly suggest it's too hard to write out a paragraph or two. So, come on. Show us this isn't a stall.
Jan Ardena: I invite readers of the thread to judge for themselves. Or not respond, as the case may be. This thread isn't about me and my problems accepting God. It is about evidence for God. Is there any? Do you have any? The answer, based on your posts to the thread, is: you have nothing. Which evidence? You have yet to post a single item of evidence from Craig, or anybody else. If you present it, then I could tell you whether I accept it. Even if you're right in your assumption about me, it's irrelevant. My lack of acceptance doesn't stop you posting the evidence, if you have any. Nothing is relevant until you make it so. If you have a point, make it. Oh, how terribly rude of me to say things like "by all means, make your argument". How restrictive of me. You didn't answer the question. Try again. Already done. Besides, I just advised Dave to avoid throwing himself into that particular black hole of yours. Why do you imagine I would do so, again? Here's an alternative: try addressing the thread topic, Jan. What should I check out, specifically? I asked you before, but you came up blank. Agree with him about what? You have posted nothing from him. No extracts, no links. Nothing. This thread is about evidence for God. We all make claims, Jan. This thread is about evidence for God. Have you got any? I'm so glad. Now can we have your evidence, please? Is this magical knowledge from God, again? Can't we discuss what my atheism is or isn't based on in a different thread? This one is about evidence for God.
I have stated the source of that evidence. The title said nothing about giving presentations. But why does it matter whether or not I present it, now that you have the source? jan.
Jan Ardena: No, Jan. I'm not about to go on a wild goose chase. Read the opening post again: "The aim here is to have the theists post what they regard as good evidence." This thread is about evidence for God, not evidence against God, or absence of evidence for God. Although, of course, that's all we're seeing here: absence of evidence for God. What argument? Where? The opening post does: "I invite our resident theists to put forward what you regard as the best evidence for the existence of the God or gods that you believe in." Not the ones that present evidence for God. What are they? You have yet to post a single example. More avoidance. Your behaviour here is transparent, Jan. All you have is excuses and avoidance.
So, in the spirit of cooperation, and acquiescence to Jan's request, I have looked at "any" of Bill Craig's works. This is from page one: As you can see, Bill Craig's argument - which Jan supports, as much as anything else Bill Craig has written - is a tautology. It begs the question - a very basic logical fallacy - it takes its conclusion as one of its premises. Here, I'll call it out: Premise: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. ... Conclusion: Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God The premise has not been granted, therefore the conclusion cannot be made. Since Jan has made it plain that any of Bill's evidence is as good as any other, it follows that any of Bills evidence is as bad as any one chosen. The first one is faulty. Jan's evidence dies a still birth. Well that was easy. Musika, you're up next.
The one you looked at is not concerned with evidence, but philosophical argument. Also, we discussed this in depth a long time ago. There's an entire thread titled "Kalam cosmological argument" somewhere in archives. Maybe Jan thinks that philosophical arguments are the same as evidence. There's no way to tell, since he is yet to suggest anything specific that he regards as evidence in this thread.
