Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Perhaps it's time to drop the comments about posters and get back on-topic. I can be a pain in the arse and so can LR and many other members here. We can also have interesting, fruitful discussions.

I'll third that, since I see Trent has already seconded it.

[floo]

If god exists why do some people reckon they have found it, and others like myself didn't, when I sincerely tried to discover some sense of its presence when I was a child?

[SteveH]

If god exists why do some people reckon they have found it, and others like myself didn't, when I sincerely tried to discover some sense of its presence when I was a child?

If God doesn't exist, why do some people reckon they have found God? It cuts both ways.

[BeRational]

If God doesn't exist, why do some people reckon they have found God? It cuts both ways.

Simple.

They make it up.

An invisible friend that makes you feel happy.

The default position is that no god exists.

[Stranger]

If God doesn't exist, why do some people reckon they have found God? It cuts both ways.

Ah, but if there's only one, why have people found so many of the blighters?

[floo]

If God doesn't exist, why do some people reckon they have found God? It cuts both ways.

Imagination?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Nope. What you were asked is to provide evidence that he said he had lots of objective evidence.

Yep. AB – if you’re still around could you confirm for Gabriella please that you have told us that you have lots of evidence (and logic too) for your beliefs being objectively true? I forget now whether your phrase was “lots” or “plenty” of evidence, but either way it’d put this to bed. Thanks. .

Clearly I have understood, which is why I asked you to show whether AB had claimed he has objective evidence for God. When you're ready feel free to refer me to the post where he claimed he had objective evidence, as opposed to testimony or personal experience.

Clearly you haven’t because you’ve just shifted ground. AB can tell us himself what he said (I had a flick through earlier but couldn’t find it, but several of us repeated his quote since in order to rebut it). What you were talking about though was testimony and experience as evidence, in reply to which I explained to you that you’re committing a category error – essentially evidence of opinion, memory etc vs evidence of objective facts about the world.   

Incorrect. I was using meaning 3 in the Merriem-Webster definition so I do understand a meaning of the word "forensic" and was using a different meaning to you. I was using the first meaning of the word "forensics" from the first on-line dictionary I came across - the Oxford English Dictionary :
forensic
fəˈrɛnsɪk/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime.
"forensic evidence"
2.
relating to courts of law.
noun
1.
scientific tests or techniques used in connection with the detection of crime.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/forensic

The meaning from the Cambridge dictionary - second on-line dictionary I came across:
related to scientific methods of solving crimes, involving examining the objects or substances that are involved in the crime:

Thanks for clarifying the meaning you are using.

That’s just dishonest. I reminded you that you’d introduced forensic evidence into the discussion. You denied it. I explained why I was correct by giving you the dictionary definition. You now say that your denial related to a different part of the definition. Doesn’t wash – it was me who said you’d introduced forensics (meaning “to do with court proceedings”) and that remains the case – that you’ve now decided that your denial related to just one definition of the term is irrelevant. 

If that's true then please point me to page number and line from the documentation to support your claim. By the way, as you're such a fan of definitions, didn't we establish on here that the word "lying" means deliberately telling an untruth. If I am mistaken, you should be able to provide evidence for that rather than just asserting it.

You do this a lot – you claim that something isn’t the case, some of us take the time to find the evidence that falsifies you, you go quiet for a bit, then you repeat the mistake, then when you’re reminded that you’ve already been corrected you demand to see the evidence again. What do you think this is - some kind of free endless fetch can carry service? Go back to when we provided the evidence already, read it properly, then try to tell us that it doesn’t say that the RC position isn’t that God, the resurrection etc are as factually, objectively true as, say, the speed of light in a vacuum. 

As for lying, what else should it be called when you’re given the evidence that falsifies you and then just repeat the mistake? Amnesia? Difficulty in understanding? What?

Feel free to support your claim by quoting the statement that you are referring to. You do know we could save ourselves a lot of time if you just learned to be less vague in your posts.

See above. Presumably your thinking here is that when you’re given something then repeatedly ask for it over and over again your interlocutor will just go away? Well, it’s working.   

See above -  we could save ourselves a lot of time if you were less vague in your posts and just quoted or linked to the evidence.

Usually I do. I can’t lay my hands on AB’s quote but it was widely discussed after he made it and with a bit of luck he’ll short cut this by repeating it in any case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

If God doesn't exist, why do some people reckon they have found God? It cuts both ways.

That's a called a non sequitur. That lots of people reckon they have found (lots of) gods tells you nothing about whether one or more of those gods exist. If the earth isn't flat, why do lots of people think it is?

By the way I put you straight on your category error mistake a few posts back. I mention it here because, as you haven't addressed the correction, perhaps you missed it?

[wigginhall]

If God doesn't exist, why do some people reckon they have found God? It cuts both ways.

Just echoing Stranger, but how come that there are so many gods?  I have been reading some stuff about ancient Egypt, and all the beautiful and amazing constructions and wall paintings and so on often concern the gods Hathor and Anubis (the jackal), and Isis, and so on.   

Does this mean that God appears in many forms?  Or in none?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Bingo! Here's AB (Reply 27831):

"But I can find no arguments to support the existence of leprechauns, but overwhelming evidence for the existence of God."

Apparently he thinks he has not just evidence but overwhelming evidence for the existence of God! Apparently too based on his proselytising he expects me to think that this "fact" is a fact for me too - ie, it's a statement of objective fact about the world. He hasn't actually produced any of this evidence of course, but that's not the issue. 

You're welcome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Simple.

They make it up.

An invisible friend that makes you feel happy.

The default position is that no god exists.

Private Frazer ''How is it the default position?''
Be Rational    ''Oh look, a bee''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The default position is that no god exists.

Bzzzz Positive assertion You have a burden of proof.

Also where's Bluehillside. The emperor Ming of this sort of thing. Neglecting his duty?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Private Frazer ''How is it the default position?''
Be Rational    ''Oh look, a bee''

In which Vladdo still fails to grasp that the default for all guesses asserted to be objective facts about the world is that they're probably no such thing. Why? Because if you let one through the net then you have no choice but to let the rest through too - guesses are epistemically the same regardless of the characteristics their objects.

[SteveH]

Imagination?

Lack of imagination?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Gabriella,

Bingo! Here's AB (Reply 27831):

"But I can find no arguments to support the existence of leprechauns, but overwhelming evidence for the existence of God."

Apparently he thinks he has not just evidence but overwhelming evidence for the existence of God! Apparently too based on his proselytising he expects me to think that this "fact" is a fact for me too - ie, it's a statement of objective fact about the world. He hasn't actually produced any of this evidence of course, but that's not the issue. 

You're welcome.

Thanks for providing what should be from here on in a citation to be referred back to, demonstrating your utter ignorance of what religious belief entails.

Before people discovered gravity, was it a subjective or objective fact that gravity exists?

Did the sum of the square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle being the sum of the squares of other two sides of the triangle only become objective fact when Pythagoras discovered it?

There is *nothing* stopping you testing Alan Burns' claims for yourself. In fact, that's the advice of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: Seek and you will find. However, that's where you guys have a problem. Your philosophy calls that a 'confirmation bias', so once again, you find yourself in the impossible position of asking for evidence of something, whilst using a methodology that makes a predictive claim about the origin of that evidence.

You are without excuse because all of the arguments you use here against religious belief fall down flat when used on your arguments against religious belief.
- Your worldview assumes the truth of it's position.
- Your worldview is not falsifiable
- Your worldview requires faith (something that is wrong when people with a religious belief do it) as it is unprovable.
It's why you guys have a whole philosophy set up (Negative Proof Fallacy, etc) which means that you never have to account for your own position. If you could defend it, you would and if shown to be true would disprove all religious belief claims.

I would go as far as to say that your position is a whole lot worse than those of religious belief. Taking the main monotheistic religions: For Christianity, the falsification test is whether or not Jesus Christ rise from the dead. For Islam, there is only one God (Allah) and that Muhammad is the messenger of God (I'll stand to be corrected by Gabriella on that one). For Judaism, the Messiah is still to come.

You justify the double standards by trying to claim that belief v non-belief is not a 50-50 scenario (same as Dawkins tried in 'The God Delusion'). Again, all that illustrates is the double-standards, hence why positive claims from religious believers always have to be backed up, but positive claims by those arguing against religious belief (e.g. God does not exist, Jesus didn't rise from the dead, etc), do not appear to require justification.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vladdo still fails to grasp that the default for all guesses asserted to be objective facts about the world is that they're probably no such thing. Why? Because if you let one through the net then you have no choice but to let the rest through too - guesses are epistemically the same regardless of the characteristics their objects.

It's a positive assertion Hillside end of. The universe is God Free is the default position. Demonstrate it's true firstly....because it is a positive assertion and demonstrate it is the default position.

That it is a guess is your opinion based on the strange reason that you are not a bronze age goatherder.

Since you have positively asserted it's guessing demonstrate that as well.

IMHO you've crashed the car.

[Gordon]

Thanks for providing what should be from here on in a citation to be referred back to, demonstrating your utter ignorance of what religious belief entails.

Before people discovered gravity, was it a subjective or objective fact that gravity exists?

Did the sum of the square on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle being the sum of the squares of other two sides of the triangle only become objective fact when Pythagoras discovered it?

There is *nothing* stopping you testing Alan Burns' claims for yourself. In fact, that's the advice of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: Seek and you will find. However, that's where you guys have a problem. Your philosophy calls that a 'confirmation bias', so once again, you find yourself in the impossible position of asking for evidence of something, whilst using a methodology that makes a predictive claim about the origin of that evidence.

You are without excuse because all of the arguments you use here against religious belief fall down flat when used on your arguments against religious belief.
- Your worldview assumes the truth of it's position.
- Your worldview is not falsifiable
- Your worldview requires faith (something that is wrong when people with a religious belief do it) as it is unprovable.
It's why you guys have a whole philosophy set up (Negative Proof Fallacy, etc) which means that you never have to account for your own position. If you could defend it, you would and if shown to be true would disprove all religious belief claims.

I would go as far as to say that your position is a whole lot worse than those of religious belief. Taking the main monotheistic religions: For Christianity, the falsification test is whether or not Jesus Christ rise from the dead. For Islam, there is only one God (Allah) and that Muhammad is the messenger of God (I'll stand to be corrected by Gabriella on that one). For Judaism, the Messiah is still to come.

You justify the double standards by trying to claim that belief v non-belief is not a 50-50 scenario (same as Dawkins tried in 'The God Delusion'). Again, all that illustrates is the double-standards, hence why positive claims from religious believers always have to be backed up, but positive claims by those arguing against religious belief (e.g. God does not exist, Jesus didn't rise from the dead, etc), do not appear to require justification.

Utter drivel: and I mean that constructively, since there is nothing salvageable in this post whatsoever and it is a waste of time pointing out your glaring errors, which begin with a 'Courtier's Reply' and then wander through a forest of fallacies.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

It's a positive assertion Hillside end of. The universe is God Free is the default position. Demonstrate it's true firstly....because it is a positive assertion and demonstrate it is the default position.

That it is a guess is your opinion based on the strange reason that you are not a bronze age goatherder.

Since you have positively asserted it's guessing demonstrate that as well.

IMHO you've crashed the car.

Seconded.

You will also note from Gordon's response to my post that he has demonstrated exactly what I was saying by failing to provide anything to back up his wild accusations.

Note Gordon. Truth doesn't stop being truth because you call it utter drivel. Just for once in your life, do try and see if you can come up with some independent thinking. Like I said elsewhere, the arguments used by atheists here fall down on properties of truth and the fact that you always have to respond with pejorative comments is a classic illustration of this.

[Stranger]

There is *nothing* stopping you testing Alan Burns' claims for yourself. In fact, that's the advice of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: Seek and you will find.

I don't suppose for a moment you'll have the courage to stick around long enough to engage with this but...

Drop the pretend philosophy - you clearly don't understand what you're talking about and tell us exactly how we can test Alan's claims - in some (any) objective way.

How does one 'seek' without the hint of any evidence as a starting point (or too much if we want to accept all religious claims as 'evidence')?

How do we reconcile the glaring contradictions in Alan's claims?

[SteveH]

You justify the double standards by trying to claim that belief v non-belief is not a 50-50 scenario (same as Dawkins tried in 'The God Delusion'). Again, all that illustrates is the double-standards, hence why positive claims from religious believers always have to be backed up, but positive claims by those arguing against religious belief (e.g. God does not exist, Jesus didn't rise from the dead, etc), do not appear to require justification.

Fair dos - "God does not exist" is a negative claim, and the burden of proof is on those making the positive claim, that God does exist (actually, God, although real, doesn't exist, but that's a different kettle of ballgames).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Utter drivel: and I mean that constructively, since there is nothing salvageable in this post whatsoever and it is a waste of time pointing out your glaring errors, which begin with a 'Courtier's Reply' and then wander through a forest of fallacies.

Courtiers reply doesn't survive close inspection. Atheist and theist writings are replete with criticism of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fair dos - "God does not exist" is a negative claim, and the burden of proof is on those making the positive claim, that God does exist (actually, God, although real, doesn't exist, but that's a different kettle of ballgames).

God does not exist is a positive assertion and has a burden of proof.

We can test God does not exist by substituting Theresa May for God so that it reads Theresa May does not exist. Clearly that requires proof.

[SteveH]

The universe is God Free...

I am the universe!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am the universe!

Me too and so's my wife.

[Gordon]

Seconded.

You will also note from Gordon's response to my post that he has demonstrated exactly what I was saying by failing to provide anything to back up his wild accusations.

Note Gordon. Truth doesn't stop being truth because you call it utter drivel. Just for once in your life, do try and see if you can come up with some independent thinking. Like I said elsewhere, the arguments used by atheists here fall down on properties of truth and the fact that you always have to respond with pejorative comments is a classic illustration of this.

I believe I asked you earlier to list these 'properties of truth' - waiting!