Are we purely material beings or do we have souls?

[paddoboy]

No you don’t. You say daft things like it is a scientific fact that prior to modern science, people were swinging in the trees. That’s your idea of science, a version that fits your worldview, not science, or even history.

Here we go again! The old Jan...same old.same old Pot, Kettle Black scenario!!
Again science isn't my world view. Science is generally "the " world view. And yes without it, you would still be up in them trees, swinging with your cousins!

 

[paddoboy]

What does that even mean?

Give me good evidence for God and I'll accept him...or even a magical spaghetti monster!

 

[paddoboy]

You get Christmas gifts under the tree

Evidence enough for me

I may need to lay off a bit. Jan appears to be close to the edge again.

 

[Michael 345]

I may need to lay off a bit. Jan appears to be close to the edge again.

Jan fell off the edge long ago, long before anything you did

Now any intervention would send you rappelling down with a stretcher

 

[(Q)]

It doesn’t work like that bilvon.
Everyone who meets you will have a different version of “you”. But you remain. Same with God. I may think of God from my own perspective, and it will differ from all other thoughts. But God is who and what God is. The transcendental origin of everything.
Either you accept that, or you don’t.

It doesn't work like that, Jan. No one has ever met God so you can't compare meeting God to meeting Billvon.

All you have to go on is a phrase: The transcendental origin of everything.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It doesn't work like that, Jan. No one has ever met God so you can't compare meeting God to meeting Billvon.

I’ve never met bilvon, but I bet my version of bilvon differs from your version, and from anybody else’s version who he has had contact with.

All you have to go on is a phrase: The transcendental origin of everything.

I’m not going in that. That is the definition. You accept it or you don’t. You don’t. I do.

 

[paddoboy]

I’ve never met bilvon, but I bet my version of bilvon differs from your version, and from anybody else’s version who he has had contact with.

You've missed the point again Jan...sheesh! Here read it again.

It doesn't work like that, Jan. No one has ever met God so you can't compare meeting God to meeting Billvon.

I’m not going in that. That is the definition. You accept it or you don’t. You don’t. I do.

Of course you are! And again, you can accept all you like, but Jan, why do you find it obligatory to ram down others throats?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You've missed the point again Jan...sheesh! Here read it again.

What point have I missed?
Or is this you just making stuff up! Again!

 

[(Q)]

I’ve never met bilvon, but I bet my version of bilvon differs from your version, and from anybody else’s version who he has had contact with.

I’ve never met God, but I bet my version of God differs from your version, and from anybody else’s version who God has had contact with.

Do you get the point now, Jan?

I’m not going in that. That is the definition. You accept it or you don’t. You don’t. I do.

That's all you have, the whole shebang, the entire ballgame that you play is completely encapsulated into one tiny, loosely worded and unsupported, dictionary definition. And, somehow you can't even understand how desperately weak, unfounded and irrelevant your belief system is when placed up to the light for everyone to see as you rely on that one phrase to defend your house of cards position.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I’ve never met God, but I bet my version of God differs from your version, and from anybody else’s version who God has had contact with.

Do you get the point now, Jan?

Thanks for making my point for me.

That's all you have, the whole shebang, the entire ballgame that you play is completely encapsulated into one tiny, loosely worded and unsupported, dictionary definition.

If you keep asking for evidence of God, then you need to know what God is. Otherwise how are you going to know what is, or is not evidence of God? But I think we can safely assume that you aren’t really asking for evidence of God. You see I know that you already know the definition, and you know my definition is correct. That’s what makes the dialogue so interesting. I just need to extract what you already know, but won’t accept.

And, somehow you can't even understand how desperately weak, unfounded and irrelevant your belief system is when placed up to the light for everyone to see as you rely on that one phrase to defend your house of cards position.

Not at all. That “one phrase” shows your denial and rejection. It reveals the raw atheism. The subconscious affirmation of “there is no God”.
You can’t even accept a definition. You outrightly deny and reject God.

 

[(Q)]

Thanks for making my point for me.

Which means you either still didn't get my point or are deliberately ignoring it.

If you keep asking for evidence of God, then you need to know what God is. Otherwise how are you going to know what is, or is not evidence of God? But I think we can safely assume that you aren’t really asking for evidence of God. You see I know that you already know the definition, and you know my definition is correct. That’s what makes the dialogue so interesting. I just need to extract what you already know, but won’t accept.

You work in reverse exactly like a pseudoscientist quack who makes a conclusion and then tries to go looking for its evidence. It's the other way round, the evidence has to present itself, we don't just make something up and hope to find it.

Not at all. That “one phrase” shows your denial and rejection. It reveals the raw atheism. The subconscious affirmation of “there is no God”.
You can’t even accept a definition. You outrightly deny and reject God.

Lol. Still turning your nonsense back on me. Yes Jan, that is your only game, you have nothing to else to present. Own it.

 

[paddoboy]

What point have I missed?
Or is this you just making stuff up! Again!

I don't make stuff up Jan...Obviously again you miss the point as you so often have done. Perhaps to impress your overlords Jan?
Now forget the nonsense and think!

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't make stuff up Jan...Obviously again you miss the point as you so often have done. Perhaps to impress your overlords Jan?
Now forget the nonsense and think!

I’ve asked you a question because you accused of missing the point. Can you respond to the question please?

 

[paddoboy]

I’ve asked you a question because you accused of missing the point. Can you respond to the question please?

I have responded. You miss the point, now go back and approach the relative sentence without bias. Two of us have now informed you, so please go educate yourself.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Which means you either still didn't get my point or are deliberately ignoring it.

Well let’s see. What was your point?

You work in reverse exactly like a pseudoscientist quack who makes a conclusion and then tries to go looking for its evidence. It's the other way round, the evidence has to present itself, we don't just make something up and hope to find it.

What are you talking about?
You ask for evidence of God (which theists believe in), I give you a definition so that if you happen upon some evidence, you can evaluate it.

Lol. Still turning your nonsense back on me.

That is a cop out.
You have no response, so you piggyback off mine. Typical.

that is your only game, you have nothing to else to present. Own it.

It’s not a game, Q.
It is a description of your position.
You deny and reject God, you don’t accept any definition, then you falsely ask for evidence.

Your cover is blown mate!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well let’s see. What was your point?
You appear to have piggybacked off mine, again.

What are you talking about?
You ask for evidence of God (which theists believe in), I give you a definition so that if you happen upon some evidence, you can evaluate it.

That is a cop out.
You have no response, so you piggyback off mine. Typical.

It’s not a game, Q.
It is a description of your position.
You deny and reject God, you don’t accept any definition, then you falsely ask for evidence.

Your cover is blown mate!

 

[Write4U]

You deny and reject God, you don’t accept any definition, then you falsely ask for evidence.

A "definition" is not "evidence".
Citing a definition is not providing evidence.

Definition

A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols).[1][2] Definitions can be classified into two large categories, intensional definitions (which try to give the sense of a term) and extensional definitions (which try to list the objects that a term describes).[3] Another important category of definitions is the class of ostensive definitions, which convey the meaning of a term by pointing out examples. A term may have many different senses and multiple meanings, and thus require multiple definitions.

In mathematics, a definition is used to give a precise meaning to a new term, by describing a condition which unambiguously qualifies what a mathematical term is and is not.[5] Definitions and axioms form the basis on which all of modern mathematics is to be constructed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition

Evidence

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

Scientific evidence consists of
observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Epistemology

Epistemology (/ɪˌpɪstɪˈmɒlədʒi/; from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning 'knowledge', and -logy) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge.

Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas: (1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification, (2) various problems of skepticism, (3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and (4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.

Epistemology addresses such questions as: "What makes justified beliefs justified?",[3] "What does it mean to say that we know something?",[4] and fundamentally "How do we know that we know?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Give me evidence that cannot be explained by a natural science. Then I'll listen. As it stands it seems to me you are so invested in your religion that the prospect of changing your perspective scares the hell out of you. (pun intended)....

 

[(Q)]

Well let’s see. What was your point?

There really is no hope for you, the point was simple to understand, I can only assume you're trolling.

What are you talking about?
You ask for evidence of God (which theists believe in), I give you a definition so that if you happen upon some evidence, you can evaluate it.

First comes the evidence, then the definition, not the other way round.

It’s not a game, Q.
It is a description of your position.
You deny and reject God, you don’t accept any definition, then you falsely ask for evidence.

First comes the evidence, then the definition, not the other way round.

 

[Jan Ardena]

@Q

You’re like a rabbit caught in the headlights.

 

[Jan Ardena]

A "definition" is not "evidence".
Citing a definition is not providing evidence.

Nobody is saying it is.
It defines the God theists believe in.
So if you want evidence of God, we believe in, then you have to find evidence that matches a transcendental origin of everything. Otherwise asking for evidence is nothing short of lip service.

Give me evidence that cannot be explained by a natural science. Then I'll listen.

It’s not for me to give you anything, as your the one who requires evidence. For me it is obvious that God Is.

As it stands it seems to me you are so invested in your religion that the prospect of changing your perspective scares the hell out of you. (pun intended)....

Religion has nothing to do with it. We’re talking about God, belief in, and denial and rejection of.
You ask for evidence.
You get provided a definition so you know what it is you ask evidence of.
Simples really.