Evidence that God is real

[DaveC426913]

Google William Craig Lane evidence for God, and you can pick out any evidence you like.

And find none.
So it is a fair and logical conclusion that you are lying (since you have no intention of defending your assertion that there is some to be found).


Guys, Jan is just trolling us now. He knows he's caught; his game is not to argue the topic, his game is to see how long we will tolerate this vexatious behavior.

 

[DaveC426913]

What onus?
What do theists have to defend?

You asserted that Bill Craig has evidence of God.
It is not on us to prove he doesn't; it's on you to prove he does.
Unless you do, that assertion is baseless.

There is no basis for the assertion that Bill Craig has evidence of God.

And thus, no evidence for it has come to light in this thread.


You know, it's OK if you keep this up. Every deflection and non-answer is another nail in the coffin of your credibility (the coffin is pretty much all nail, now) and the theist stance. Theists will read this thread, see how poorly you've handled it, and hang their heads in shame.

 

[Sarkus]

I’ve already said to Choose any or all of them, I don’t mind. It simply saves me the time of writing it out.

All or any of which arguments, Jan? No, I'm not going to do your homework for you. You say that all or any are good, so set one out.

We were asked to put forward what we think is good evidence for God, and that is what I did.

I've seen no evidence from you, read no argument from you, just the claim that you support the arguments of William Craig. What arguments are those, Jan? What is the evidence that he puts forth that you agree with?

There is nothing to discuss, only whether you accept the evidence or not.

There is everything to discuss: namely why some people accept the example as evidence and why some people don't. If you have no intention then wtf are you doing in this thread, other than to continue your trolling ways?

Obviously no atheist is going to accept it as evidence, so what is there to discuss?

Perhaps matters of "why?" or "why not?" Jan. However, what can be discussed or not is rather moot if nothing is put forth as the subject of discussion, if no examples are put forth.

There’s nothing wrong with my response to the thread Sarkus, and you know it. So stop whining.

I'm sure the boy thought so, too, as he left smiling with the turd on the floor.

You think the Bill Craig’s layout, is comparable, in the way of gleaning information (laymanic), the same as vomit?
And you want to charge me with not being sensible.

William Craig, nor his arguments, are the boy, Jan. You are.

I think your vile.

My vile what?

Humouring or not, he did what he was supposed to do. You on the other hand seem to have a bit of trouble in that department.

"Supposed to do"? Wow, so you really do see people as there to do all your homework for you? This is a discussion forum, Jan. Try actually discussing sometime.

Google William Craig Lane evidence for God, and you can pick out any evidence you like.

No, Jan. That's not how it works. You post what you consider to be evidence. If he is your source, then be all means indicate that once you have detailed what you consider to be the evidence, but post what you think to be evidence.

It’s already laid out. If you wish to discuss something, then discuss.

What do you consider to be evidence for God, Jan? Please detail a specific argument (or more than one) that you feel provides evidence. If you have no intention then please stop trolling the thread, please clean up your faeces, and leave.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's kind of painful to read almost anything Bill Craig writes.

Check out this logic:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

So, how does Bill rationalize premise #2? His words: "I don't see any reason to think that in the absence of God, human morality is objective."

So, with his specific reason in place of the generalization, we get this:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. I don't see any reason why moral values would be objective without God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

In other words, he begs the question. He uses the basic faulty logic of assuming his conclusion in his premise. He is literally saying 'It seems to be so because it seems to make sense to me'.

Note that this is not evidence, this is simply a belief he's stating. It just happens to have a grade school level flaw in it.

Other arguments he holds have the exact same question-begging error.


To cut him a break, I've re-written his argument to make it valid:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. I don't see any reason why moral values would be objective without God.
3. Therefore, I don't see any reason why God doesn't exist.

 

[iceaura]

Yes. I used Yazata’s collection WLC quotes on evidence for God.

Filtered and edited, from a small part of Craig's writings.
And you didn't use them. You pointed at their source, who is not here, and otherwise had nothing to do with them.

That is basically all of Craig’s arguments for God’s existence (basically).

For the reality of God. (Again - you seldom get that right).
No, it isn't. He has lots more than that - Yazata had to filter, even from the partial source summarized. You linked to the guy, remember - explicitly refusing to select from the mass of drivel that is Craig's life's work.

And it wouldn't matter if it were - you have never yet said how you think Yazata's summaries of some of Craig's ideas are relevant here, either. Yazata's partial list of Craig's ideas is of stuff that doesn't make much sense on its own, after all, being essentially things Craig finds mysterious for some reason together with questionbegging assumptions Craig makes without evidence,
helpfully paraded out in syllogistic form to make locating the absences of evidence a quick and easy task,
so it's not at all clear what Craig's thoughts are doing on this thread. There isn't even a Craig here to explain them.

Perhaps this is the explanation, as with so many oA theist's postings here:

So it’s just some nonsensical diversion tactic

 

[Jan Ardena]

Filtered and edited, from a small part of Craig's writings.

No they’re not.
He only need to type the request in, then cut and paste, or not.

And you didn't use them.

Why would I use them?
I didn’t request them.
They’re for atheist consumption.
So it’s you that didn’t use them.
But Yazata did.

You pointed at their source, who is not here, and otherwise had nothing to do with them.
For the reality of God. (Again - you seldom get that right).

The source doesn’t need to be here, he is represented by his evidences.

Not according to the title of the thread.
Are you refusing to read that as well?
What a rebel.

No, it isn't. He has lots more than that - Yazata had to filter, even from the partial source summarized.

No he doesn’t.
Are you trying to call my bluff. Silly boy.

You linked to the guy, remember - explicitly refusing to select from the mass of drivel that is Craig's life's work.

“Mass of drivel”?
And you wonder why I’m not going to waste my time discussing anything about God with you.
Your (atheist) psychology is the new discussion format. All theists should be made aware of this.

And it wouldn't matter if it were - you have never yet said how you think Yazata's summaries of some of Craig's ideas are relevant here, either.

That’s not for me to say, as I don’t deny and reject God.

Yazata's partial list of Craig's ideas is of stuff that doesn't make much sense on its own, after all, being essentially things Craig finds mysterious for some reason together with questionbegging assumptions Craig makes without evidence,
helpfully paraded out in syllogistic form to make locating the absences of evidence a quick and easy task,
so it's not at all clear what Craig's thoughts are doing on this thread. There isn't even a Craig here to explain them.

Perhaps this is the explanation, as with so many oA theist's postings here:

So you don’t accept Craig’s evidence. Shock!

See, didn’t need to waste time presenting stuff.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

No they’re not.
He only need to type the request in, then cut and paste, or not.

Nonsense.
He did, in fact, edit and filter and omit all but part of one essay by Craig. Craig has written far more than Yazata posted - including that stuff you tried to disown, above. Yazata filtered all that out.

Why would I use them?

To make an honest poster out of yourself, after all those claims.
To make at least a pretense of discussion, instead of more bad faith and dishonesty.

They’re for atheist consumption.

Which means theist production, i.e. use. Yours.
It's called English - a language in which words have meanings.

So it’s you that didn’t use them.

I'm not an Abrahamic theist - I would have no use for them even if they were useful. They would hardly be my evidence of the reality of God, even if they were such evidence, eh?
And they are useless here - this thread is for evidence of the reality of God. None actually appears in them.

The source doesn’t need to be here, he is represented by his evidences.

You aren't. You presented no "evidences".

But Yazata did.

No, he didn't.
- - - -

No he doesn’t.
Are you trying to call my bluff. Silly boy.

Yes, he does. You sent us looking, remember?
You aren't bluffing, you're lying. There's a difference.

“Mass of drivel”?
And you wonder why I’m not going to waste my time discussing anything about God with you.

You discuss nothing with anybody. Your excuses don't matter.
Measnwhile, you endorsed drivel, but carefully refused to put it in your name or present any of it specifically as yours - that shows awareness. You apparently know as well as anyone how full of shit Craig is, but he's useful to you so you don't care - your agenda is conscious, your dishonesty calculated.

So you don’t accept Craig’s evidence. Shock!

I accept all of Craig's evidence.

That’s not for me to say, as I don’t deny and reject God.

?
It is for you to say, because you don't deny and reject God. That's what the thread was set up for, remember?
(Not that they weren't warned).
You just won't say it, because you'd be accountable - accountable for some embarrassingly stupid fundie crap, as it happens, but that's not your objection. Your objection is to being accountable to reason, for anything.

That would be honest discussion, and that's not what you're here for.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nonsense.
He did, in fact, edit and filter and omit all but part of one essay by Craig. Craig has written far more than Yazata posted - including that stuff you tried to disown, above. Yazata filtered all that out.

I don’t deny that Craig has written more than the evidences he presents. But you can get all his arguments for evidence, without having to go through everything he ever wrote.
If Yazata did have to wade through everything Craig ever wrote to find that, then Yazata is not as smart as I thought. But I doubt that.

To make an honest poster out of yourself, after all those claims.

“Honesty”, like “God”, are simply words to you.
While you may understand the dictionary meaning, you currently apply them to your delusion.

You actively deny and reject God,. That is the context in which you apply your so called honesty.

So you’ll excuse me if I take you uttering wit a pinch of salt.

To make at least a pretense of discussion, instead of more bad faith and dishonesty.

I’ll leave the pretence to you. That’s what makes you so interesting. It’s just a pity it’s so sad.

Which means theist production, i.e. use. Yours.
It's called English - a language in which words have meanings.

Huh?
Whatever!

I'm not an Abrahamic theist - I would have no use for them even if they were useful.

Because you’re in denial.
You’re only here to make yourself feel better about your questionable worldview.

They would hardly be my evidence of the reality of God, even if they were such evidence, eh?

How would you know, unless you actually know God Is, at least on some subconscious level, but choose to deny and reject?

!!Psyche!!

And they are useless here - this thread is for evidence of the reality of God. None actually appears in them.

Read above.

You aren't. You presented no "evidences".

Read above.

No, he didn't.

Are you denying and rejecting the fact that Yazata not only posted the evidence , but gave a critique of the evidence as put forward by Craig?

Meanwhile, you endorsed drivel, but carefully refused to put it in your name or present any of it specifically as yours

*shakes head*

You’re in worse shape than I thought.

You apparently know as well as anyone how full of shit Craig is, but he's useful to you so you don't care - your agenda is conscious, your dishonesty calculated.

I think you have the wrong person.
I don’t deny and reject God. You do.

That's what the thread was set up for, remember?

Yes. Evidence has been put forward, and you reject and deny it.
That’s all you can ever do as an atheist. Hopefully one day you will awaken from your slumber and see that.

You just won't say it, because you'd be accountable - accountable for some embarrassingly stupid fundie crap, as it happens, but that's not your objection. Your objection is to being accountable to reason, for anything.

This is good. You are projecting your foolishness on to me. Let’s see how far you can go. If you push real hard you may actually heal your self-delusion in the long run.

Jan.

 

[Yazata]

I'm breaking this post into two parts, since the board won't let me post it in one.

In post #7 I wrote:
________________________________________________________

I will post what I think are the most persuasive theistic arguments (or argument-types). I'm not persuaded that any of these argument types point unambiguously at a deity, but they are at least consistent with the possibility of a deity. That does make them useful to theists against a certain kind of strong-atheist argument.

1. The cosmological fine-tuning arguments. This one appears to me to be a recent (last few decades) eruption of the traditional design argument in new ostensibly scientific guise. But I'm put off by how it's dependent on what I consider highly speculative theories of mathematical physics, incomprehensible to laymen and hence a matter for religious-style faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/

2. The class of more traditional cosmological arguments, derived from Aristotle by way of Aquinas.

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

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

3. Religious experience. This class of evidences has the advantage of being exceedingly empirical, assuming that we allow 'empirical' to range over all experience and not just sensory experience.

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

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-experience/

4. Miracles. A great deal depends on what we interpret this word to mean.

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

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/

_________________________________________________________

Then in post # 702, I reproduced William Lane Craig's summaries of his own theistic arguments:

William Lane Craig (I won't call him 'Bill' since I've never met him and don't know the man) typically makes the same points in his various writings.

That's true in both senses: 1. His arguments seem to parallel the arguments that I referred to in post #7, and 2. Craig tends to defend very similar arguments in all of his writings. (At least those that I'm aware of.) So it doesn't matter all that much which of Craig's writings one reads, you are gonna get the same arguments (more or less).

Craig addresses fine tuning in his IV, he addresses the cosmological arguments in I, II, and III, he presents a cosmological-style argument from the philosophy of mind in V and the traditional moral argument in VI, religious experience in VIII and what looks like Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the ontological argument in VII.

Here's a list of his reasons for believing in the existence of God, taken from an essay he wrote for Issue 99 (2013) the "God Issue" of Philosophy Now. It must be noted that Craig goes to some effort to argue for all this, but here's the bare outline.

Obviously all of this can be criticized in various ways, but my purpose in this post is simply to lay it out as fairly as I can. Lest anyone think that I'm reducing Craig to a caricature...

These little numbered sets of propositions are William Lane Craig's own words (with the accompanying explanatory material snipped out):

(I) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.

1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being.
3. The universe is a contingent thing.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being.

(II) God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
3. Therefore the universe has a transcendent cause.

(III) God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world.

1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, God exists.

(IV) God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

(V) God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.

1. If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist.
2. But intentional states of consciousness do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

(V) God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

1. Objective more values and duties exist.
2. But if God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

(VII) The very possibility of God's existence implies that God exists.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.

(VIII) God can be personally known and experienced.

_______________________________________________________

JamesR's original post #1 asked the theists what kind of evidence convinces them of the existence of God. Jan said that he/she finds Craig's arguments convincing. That looks to me like a completely reasonable answer to the question in the OP. James didn't demand that the theists justify their 'evidence' to his or any other atheist's satisfaction (probably an impossible task, given the psychologies). There's been page after page of anger that Jan didn't lay out all of Craig's arguments in Jan's own words, but is that really necessary in order to respond to post #1? Jan says that Jan finds Craig's arguments convincing. Take it or leave it.

This thread is ostensibly about what the theists find persuasive, not about what convinces atheists. While the traditional theistic arguments don't convince me (I stoutly maintain my agnostic position) I do think that they deserve more intelligent discussion than they've yet received.

In particular, to many/most theists, there needn't be any grand violation of the order of the universe to convince them of the existence of God. The fact that there is an order to the universe suffices. To them, the universe displays reason, so whatever its explanation, that explanation must presumably be rational. So the point they've made repeatedly in earlier posts, that the initial question might be misconceiving the whole thing, might have some plausibility. Seen this way, the universe itself is evidence of the divine. Theists of this sort appeal to the same evidence that atheistic scientists do, they just spin the same evidence a bit differently. (But not differently than early modern scientists like Newton or Leibniz did.) There needn't be any divine appearances on mountaintops in Sinai.

 

[Yazata]

Part 2:

Then in post #687 I wrote the material below. I think that it's a pretty devastating rejoinder to the whole hard-atheist project. It simply points out that a number of things besides the existence of God don't seem to be a whole lot better justified epistemologically. Those things include ethical principles (and Sciforums is nothing if not morally judgmental, just read many of the posts in this thread or anything in the politics forum) and the principles of logic and mathematics (and by extension, science).

__________________________________________________________________

Here's a potential objection that our atheists might want to consider: The analogy between religious epistemology and moral and mathematical epistemology. All three present what might arguably be similar problems.

"We do not attempt to discover what people ought to do in particular circumstances by designing and performing crucial experiments; nor do we think our moral beliefs are inductively confirmed by observation. Experience does not appear to play an evidential role in our moral knowledge. In these and other ways, moral knowledge seems to resemble mathematical knowledge more than it resembles the kind of knowledge that is delivered by the empirical sciences." (from McGrath, Sarah [2007] "Moral Disagreement and Moral Expertise" in Oxford Studies in Metaethics Vol. 3 87-108)

So... why shouldn't religious knowledge be added to that?

Presumably that suggestion won't be welcome. Yet atheists in general seem to absolutely love mathematics, despite its rather vague epistemological foundations. (Modern science would be impossible without it.) And right here on Sciforums, one of the most pleasurable recreations for most participants is casting angry and perjorative moral judgements against others. (Finger-pointing and shouts of "Evil!" The 'ethics' and 'politics' fora consist of little else.)

So why must theists be expected to present a sort of evidence for their theism that we don't typically expect people making moral judgments to provide for their moral intuitions or mathematicians and logicians to present for whatever it is that they are doing?
____________________________________________________________

There's been lots of noise in this thread about how William Lane Craig is morally deficient because he defends the nastier bits of the Old Testament. Presumably people feel (not think) not only that Craig's morally wrong/evil, but that his perceived moral deficiency somehow makes it unnecessary to discuss his theistic arguments.

Here's my challenge... how can our moral paragons of virtue here on Sciforums defend their own intuitions of right and wrong? What kind of "evidence" can they present for any of that?

Our choices seem to be to 1. Forego moral judgments, 2, admit that some of our deepest beliefs aren't justified by evidence, or 3. provide convincing evidence justifying why we are right and our moral opponents are wrong. #1 seems to me to be socially impossible, while #3 doesn't seem very likely either.

And it's not just ethics where this kind of problem arises. It arises in mathematics too. Mathematics makes a big deal of its proofs. But proofs make use of logical connectives. The idea is that stringing them together in the right way necessarily preserves truth, so that if our initial premises are true, our conclusion must necessarily be true too. But how do we know that? How do we determine the truth of our initial premises and how do we perceive their logical implications? Not with any of our senses. And any attempt to justify logic using logic would be circular. There seems to be a big element of rational intuition there.

So, if we are going to admit rational intuition (and we must if we want to preserve science), why can't theists appeal to religious intuition as well?

 

[Sarkus]

JamesR's original post #1 asked the theists what kind of evidence convinces them of the existence of God. Jan said that he/she finds Craig's arguments convincing. That looks to me like a completely reasonable answer to the question in the OP. James didn't demand that the theists justify their 'evidence' to his or any other atheist's satisfaction (probably an impossible task, given the psychologies). There's been page after page of anger that Jan didn't lay out all of Craig's arguments in Jan's own words, but is that really necessary in order to respond to post #1? Jan says that Jan finds Craig's arguments convincing. Take it or leave it.

The author of the OP seems to think that more should be provided than simply a name and a subsequent demand to do our own homework on the matter. Back in post #146 JamesR requested he expand on it. So far nothing. If Jan was truly here for discussion he would provide something more than just a name. At the moment he has you second-guessing what arguments he is referring to, all the while being utterly non-committal and able to distance himself from anything and everything about them.

This thread is ostensibly about what the theists find persuasive, not about what convinces atheists. While the traditional theistic arguments don't convince me (I stoutly maintain my agnostic position) I do think that they deserve more intelligent discussion than they've yet received.

And some people can't/won't even provide an explanation of what they find persuasive about the arguments of the name that they have provided.

In particular, to many/most theists, there needn't be any grand violation of the order of the universe to convince them of the existence of God. The fact that there is an order to the universe suffices. To them, the universe displays reason, so whatever its explanation, that explanation must presumably be rational. So the point they've made repeatedly in earlier posts, that the initial question might be misconceiving the whole thing, might have some plausibility. Seen this way, the universe itself is evidence of the divine. Theists of this sort appeal to the same evidence that atheistic scientists do, they just spin the same evidence a bit differently. (But not differently than early modern scientists like Newton or Leibniz did.) There needn't be any divine appearances on mountaintops in Sinai.

Sure. Now let the actual theists put that forth to discuss it, if that is what they believe. Why second guess them unless you want to make their arguments for them, and counter those arguments yourself, and then provide subsequent rebuttal etc. You can do that in the comfort of your own head, and even put the exchange in a blog if that appeals. Here we should wait for the theist to promote their own thoughts, don't you think. If someone is not willing then why engage with it at all.
And a name with nothing else, requiring the other party to do all the homework, I don't find that acceptable.
William Lane Craig himself is not evidence (at least no more or less than one might think anyone else is - and if the argument is that every person is evidence, then they should put that forth). Some would argue that his arguments are also not themselves evidence, but rather attempts at logical philosophical argument to support propositions that themselves require evidence to justify their veracity. Others might take those arguments as evidence, sure, but then they should be willing to actually specify which arguments, where the wording can be found (so as to avoid confusion and subsequent back-tracking), and - for the purposes of this thread - some reason for considering them evidence. But please don't excuse Jan's turd-dumping and then requiring the others to filter through it for meaning as acceptable behaviour.

So why must theists be expected to present a sort of evidence for their theism that we don't typically expect people making moral judgments to provide for their moral intuitions or mathematicians and logicians to present for whatever it is that they are doing?

Perhaps because such people don't claim to know that their conclusions are objectively true, or their conclusions are not just valid but sound, in isolation to actual physical/empirical evidence. Mathematics merely maps inputs to outputs via a function. It is used to model reality, but it is empirical evidence that confirms it or not, etc.
Theists tend to claim knowledge of an objective reality in the absence of that empirical evidence. That seems to be the difference.

 

[iceaura]

Are you denying and rejecting the fact that Yazata not only posted the evidence , but gave a critique of the evidence as put forward by Craig?

There is no evidence in what Yazata posted from Craig. Nobody discussed anything except a couple of Craig's "arguments".
- - - -

Jan said that he/she finds Craig's arguments convincing. That looks to me like a completely reasonable answer to the question in the OP.

It is not.
Jan did not even specify which of Craig's arguments were convincing. Jan referred to the man's entire output and bid us search it, then he refused to even discuss what that search turned up. That is not reasonable behavior.
And the OP question was specifically addressed to evidence, which Craig does not present. Neither does Jan, of course - and Jan refuses to discuss that, as well.
No discussion, from Jan.

There's been lots of noise in this thread about how William Lane Craig is morally deficient because he defends the nastier bits of the Old Testament. Presumably people feel (not think) not only that Craig's morally wrong/evil, but that his perceived moral deficiency somehow makes it unnecessary to discuss his theistic arguments.

Bullshit. That's not at all what appears in the posts above.

And it's not just ethics where this kind of problem arises. It arises in mathematics too. Mathematics makes a big deal of its proofs. But proofs make use of logical connectives. The idea is that stringing them together in the right way necessarily preserves truth, so that if our initial premises are true, our conclusion must necessarily be true too. But how do we know that?

We don't know it. We explicitly do not "know" that. We explicitly assume it, and justify our assumptions by reasoning and discussion in good faith. We go so far as to define terms such as "truth", by fiat, in that way, so as to proceed. That is basic, core level, bedrock rationality and reason in the sciences.

Misrepresenting other people and what they say is the oA theist's stock in trade on science forums. It is done so blatantly, so openly, so repetitively, that it often reframes the viewpoints of those accustomed to basic honesty and tolerant of what appears merely typo level errors or trivial misspeaking.

Don't cut those folks that kind of slack. Their agenda is not a good one. Jan is here to post things like 832 on a science forum, and for no other reason.

 

[iceaura]

You actively deny and reject God,.

As far as I know, I have presented the only bona fide evidence based argument for the reality of what anyone would call a God, on this forum. That's far more than you have provided - you who claim to believe.
- - - -

There's been page after page of anger that Jan didn't lay out all of Craig's arguments in Jan's own words, but is that really necessary in order to respond to post #1?

Yes. In particular, Jan in honest discussion on this thread would select and post that part of Craig's drivel that Jan regards as evidence for the reality of God, including some justification for so regarding it - because a regular person reading Craig cannot be expected to accomplish that, even if they try.

btw: The wordfog again - Note that confusing evidence and argument, substituting one for the other, responding to difficulties with one in terms of the other, etc, is so common in oA theist posting on science forums it earns status as a technique.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The author of the OP seems to think that more should be provided than simply a name and a subsequent demand to do our own homework on the matter. Back in post #146 JamesR requested he expand on it. So far nothing. If Jan was truly here for discussion he would provide something more than just a name. At the moment he has you second-guessing what arguments he is referring to, all the while being utterly non-committal and able to distance himself from anything and everything about them.

The author of the Op, if being honest and sincere in his request, should accept whatever he is given, then decide for himself.

There are evidences for God within WLC’s arguments, as far as I’m concerned.

As far as presenting it goes, I’m not going to waste my time, based on past experience, and understanding of his psychology in this specific genre. But as the OP did not demand a presentation, I decided to bite (seeing as this thread was sort of based around me anyways).

It seems I was correct in my decision as the majority of atheists on here, have no intention of disscussing the topic.

You’re really going to complain about having to look up WLC’ evidence of God, calling it homework? I doubt it.
This whole exercise is to try and put theists on the spot, and now you’re frustrated because the request was met, and you’ve been caught out.
That’s all. Poor attempt by the way.

Sure. Now let the actual theists put that forth to discuss it, if that is what they believe.

Sure! Why not?
Let’s pander to every whim of the atheist!
I don’t think so mate. We’ve already got your number. It matters not, if what is put forward as evidence, is evidence (in your eyes), as long as you’re atheist you cannot accept it.

Why second guess them unless you want to make their arguments for them, and counter those arguments yourself, and then provide subsequent rebuttal etc.

Do you want to know if there is evidence for God?

If the answer was yes (we know it isn’t), you wouldn’t mind googling anything to find out. But that the truth is you only want to justify your own belief, and you think you can do that by denying and rejecting God. Period.

Here we should wait for the theist to promote their own thoughts, don't you think. If someone is not willing then why engage with it at all.

I am promoting my own thoughts. Haven’t you noticed. And I am, and have been willing to engage with you.
The problem is, nothing about this thread is genuine, which has been proven.

And a name with nothing else, requiring the other party to do all the homework, I don't find that acceptable.

Well Boo-hoo!

William Lane Craig himself is not evidence

Never said he was.

Some would argue that his arguments are also not themselves evidence, but rather attempts at logical philosophical argument to support propositions that themselves require evidence to justify their veracity.

And some would argue that they are evidence.

Others might take those arguments as evidence, sure, but then they should be willing to actually specify which arguments,

Have done on numerous occasions.

where the wording can be found (so as to avoid confusion and subsequent back-tracking), and - for the purposes of this thread - some reason for considering them evidence.

That would be up to the person who provided the evidence. The thread did not ask for full blown presentation. It simply asked theist to put forward what they thought was good evidence that God is real, and that’s what I did.

But please don't excuse Jan's turd-dumping and then requiring the others to filter through it for meaning as acceptable behaviour.

You should get that incontinence looked at.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

There are evidences for God within WLC’s arguments, as far as I’m concerned.

Which you refuse to present, and then pivot to disparagements of others.
Which is your pattern - in all threads, on all related topics. That's why you're here.

It seems I was correct in my decision as the majority of atheists on here, have no intention of disscussing the topic.

You were incorrect in your repeated assertions that you presented evidence and argument.

Never said he was.

You did.

And some would argue that they are evidence.

Nobody has.
They aren't, btw. I checked.

Have done on numerous occasions.

Nope. Not once.

It simply asked theist to put forward what they thought was good evidence that God is real, and that’s what I did.

You never will have done that, no matter how many times you make that claim.
- - - -

This whole exercise is to try and put theists on the spot, and now you’re frustrated because the request was met, and you’ve been caught out.

You're posting all this stuff in public, Jan. We can all see who's caught out here.
- - -
Obviously these fundies have some reason for posting as they do. That is an interesting topic.

 

[Sarkus]

The author of the Op, if being honest and sincere in his request, should accept whatever he is given, then decide for himself.

He did decide for himself: he decided that what you posted was insufficient.

There are evidences for God within WLC’s arguments, as far as I’m concerned.

So now the arguments aren't evidence but they contain evidence? Which is it? And what evidences are you referring to?

As far as presenting it goes, I’m not going to waste my time, based on past experience, and understanding of his psychology in this specific genre. But as the OP did not demand a presentation, I decided to bite (seeing as this thread was sort of based around me anyways).

Yes - dump your turd and run, little boy.

It seems I was correct in my decision as the majority of atheists on here, have no intention of disscussing the topic.

Currently there's very little to discuss. Do you have anything you want to post?

You’re really going to complain about having to look up WLC’ evidence of God, calling it homework? I doubt it.
This whole exercise is to try and put theists on the spot, and now you’re frustrated because the request was met, and you’ve been caught out.
That’s all. Poor attempt by the way.

No, Jan, it's all about getting you to act with decency. You know, for a change.
So what do you see as evidence within Craig's arguments?

Sure! Why not?
Let’s pander to every whim of the atheist!
I don’t think so mate. We’ve already got your number. It matters not, if what is put forward as evidence, is evidence (in your eyes), as long as you’re atheist you cannot accept it.

So you don't want to post anything of worth. That's fine. Why post at all, then? Atheists can make up whatever they want about theists' reasons for belief, but it will then just be atheist opinion of theists, not theists directly. This thread was for theists to post what they thought was evidence (and you have now merely said that WLC's arguments contain evidences, without actually detailing what those evidences are) and then to discuss. And here you are refusing the discussion. So why post at all, Jan.

Do you want to know if there is evidence for God?

Yes.

If the answer was yes (we know it isn’t), you wouldn’t mind googling anything to find out. But that the truth is you only want to justify your own belief, and you think you can do that by denying and rejecting God. Period.

No, Jan. I am interested in what you consider to be evidence of God. I can find out quite easily what WLC considers to be evidence, but I am interesting in what you and other theists here actually consider evidences to be. Feel free to second guess the intentions of atheists - one day you may inadvertently be correct, but then a broken clock is correct at least once a day.

I am promoting my own thoughts. Haven’t you noticed. And I am, and have been willing to engage with you.
The problem is, nothing about this thread is genuine, which has been proven.

You're not promoting your own thoughts. You're promoting those of WLC without any input by you, or even any indication that you actually have a clue what Craig argues, and not what evidence he brings to the table.
As for this thread, this would have been a genuine thread into what theists see as evidence, but once again you have seen a threat to your thinking (if you actually have any) and have done your utmost to bring the walls crashing in and to lay waste to the thread.

Well Boo-hoo!

It's akin to posting a video with no analysis. It's against what I understand to be forum rules.

Never said he was.

Just clarifying.

And some would argue that they are evidence.

On what basis do you consider them evidence rather than merely philosophical arguments?

Have done on numerous occasions.

Where? Post number, please.

That would be up to the person who provided the evidence. The thread did not ask for full blown presentation. It simply asked theist to put forward what they thought was good evidence that God is real, and that’s what I did.

And you haven't done. You've simply provided a name and a demand for others to Google it.

You should get that incontinence looked at.

No incontinence, Jan, just your deliberate actions in destroying another thread you don't like.

 

[Jan Ardena]

He did decide for himself: he decided that what you posted was insufficient.

That’s up to him.

No, Jan. I am interested in what you consider to be evidence of God.

I’ve posted what I regard as decent evidence.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I can find out quite easily what WLC considers to be evidence,

Then do it.
Stop worrying about poohing on the floor.

but I am interesting in what you and other theists here actually consider evidences to be.

Then be nice.
No one wants to discuss anything with a mardy little poo-pants, who acts like an idiot because he can’t get his own way.

You're promoting those of WLC without any input by you, or even any indication that you actually have a clue what Craig argues, and not what evidence he brings to the table.

Obviously, as I put it forward for evidence, there is an element of support for it, but I would hardly call that promoting. Especially as it is merely a preferred response to a question.

The good think about WLC's arguments which reveal evidence of God, is that he wholly explains it. There is no ambiguity, no need for second guesses.
So if you can't be arsed to unpack it, maybe you're not really interested in finding evidence of God.
Who are we kidding? You aren't.

As for this thread, this would have been a genuine thread into what theists see as evidence, but once again you have seen a threat to your thinking (if you actually have any) and have done your utmost to bring the walls crashing in and to lay waste to the thread.

So much of a threat that all you can do is whinge, moan, and talk about when you used to poo on the floor.
You haven't once talked about what I regard as evidence for God, irrespective of whether you like how I have presented it or not.
Because that isn't what this is about is it.

If you think my thinking is under threat, then expose it, as I know you're not interested in evidence for the God you already know exists, but deny and reject it.
Otherwise what are you doing here?

It's akin to posting a video with no analysis. It's against what I understand to be forum rules.

Then analyse it.
I'm not going to do that for you.

On what basis do you consider them evidence rather than merely philosophical arguments?

So theist not only have to present evidence to the mighty atheists, they have explain why they regard it as evidence?
What does the mighty do with that information? Decide whether it fits with their little worldview?
Are you the judge Sarkus? I don't think so mate.

From where I sit, you're the one that is lacking, not me?
If you want to find God, then do so. But don't hold me responsible for your lazy, foolish attitude, which you seemingly allow to stop your search.
You're not my responsibility.

Where? Post number, please.

Find it yourself.

And you haven't done. You've simply provided a name and a demand for others to Google it.

So google it, and stop whinging.

No incontinence

So why keep talking about when you used to poo on the floor?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Well, I guess this is just another thread trashed into worthlessness by Jan's involvement.
Thanks, Jan.
Close your lights on the way out, there's a good chap.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well, I guess this is just another thread trashed into worthlessness by Jan's involvement.
Thanks, Jan.
Close your lights on the way out, there's a good chap.

*slow handclap*

Another tactic!
Can't get your own way, so you join the other tacticians in giving the impression that I am some kind of disease, that trashes threads.
It is childish Sarkus.

But notice, you have not once talked about what I regard as evidence.
Why is that Sarkus?
Please don't make the excuse that I have not presented it. I have. That you don't like it, is besides the point.
So why?

jan.