Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

There's a reason this thread is 1179 pages ...

What you are, in reality looking for is proof not evidence.

Something you're not getting Sword, I'm not looking only because there's no good valid reason to look for this god, why would I? Bit of a pointless exercise?

Let me know if you find anything like soul, god etc.
 
Regards ippy

[Enki]

But this is just more evidence of how you get to claim a position as true by default and then use that to say that an opposing argument is false, without ever having to justify that your position is true. For example, I have frequently seen posters (especially Vlad and Alan Burns) accused of using the NPF whenever they ask those claiming the truth of their opposing arguments to justify the foundation for their arguments.

I can see no evidence that any god actually exists, and any argument that I have seen for the existence of any god I really do not find convincing. In this situation, what would you do? For me, I simply hold a position that I don't believe in any gods at all.

I have no quarrel if someone else finds that they are convinced that their particular god exists. That's entirely up to them. If they produce arguments to attempt to substantiate their belief in their god's existence, then I always look at the arguments, and if I disagree, I will point out the reasons why I disagree. I am not in the business of trying to convince others, only in illustrating the reasons why I might disagree with their reasons.

However certain of the theists(e.g. AB and Vlad) make statements which suggest that they, in some way, hold a truth postion as regards their particular god and which, in some way, involves me. For instance, Vlad likes his goddodging idea that suggests that people who do not believe in his particular god really do so, but refuse to admit it even to themselves, and produce any amount of convoluted arguments to deny this god. I find this, in my case, to be a rather ludicrous and false position to take. AB takes the path of assertion, claiming things to have some sort of absolute truth without any justification at all. Basically we are just simply to take his word for it. Again, his aim seems to be to inform others of his assertions and attempt to put them on the right path(e.g. the same or similar to the one that he has chosen for himself, I assume). It strikes me that AB is a bit like a salesman knocking on my door, and trying to convince me that the (imaginary?)product he is selling is something that I desperately need, when I have already spurned his product because there is no evidence that it actually exists and certainly no evidence that I need it anyway. Of course I'm going to confront him, and point out the discrepancies in his assertions and the weaknesses in his hypothetical product. Why shouldn't I? And, in all this, my justifications  are dependent on showing the weakness in his spiel about his product.I can't do more than this because I haven't a (hypothetical) counter product that I'm selling.  Therefore how on earth can I discuss and argue for the foundations of a worldview that I do not have?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I can see no evidence that any god actually exists, and any argument that I have seen for the existence of any god I really do not find convincing. In this situation, what would you do? For me, I simply hold a position that I don't believe in any gods at all.

That's fair enough enki. That said, I do not see you posting numerous times every day on threads like this., so there is a difference between someone in your position (which illustrates an absence of belief) and someone who makes positive claims against religious belief, but doesn't like it when the foundation for that claim comes under scrutiny.

I have no quarrel if someone else finds that they are convinced that their particular god exists. That's entirely up to them. If they produce arguments to attempt to substantiate their belief in their god's existence, then I always look at the arguments, and if I disagree, I will point out the reasons why I disagree. I am not in the business of trying to convince others, only in illustrating the reasons why I might disagree with their reasons.

Again, fair enough.

However certain of the theists(e.g. AB and Vlad) make statements which suggest that they, in some way, hold a truth postion as regards their particular god and which, in some way, involves me. For instance, Vlad likes his goddodging idea that suggests that people who do not believe in his particular god really do so, but refuse to admit it even to themselves, and produce any amount of convoluted arguments to deny this god. I find this, in my case, to be a rather ludicrous and false position to take

This, in my opinion needs to be seen in context. I see it as being directed against those who are continually attacking religious belief.

. AB takes the path of assertion, claiming things to have some sort of absolute truth without any justification at all. Basically we are just simply to take his word for it.

I don't think Alan is expecting you to take his word for it. However, if you don't try something, how are you going to know whether it works or not?

Again, his aim seems to be to inform others of his assertions and attempt to put them on the right path(e.g. the same or similar to the one that he has chosen for himself, I assume). It strikes me that AB is a bit like a salesman knocking on my door, and trying to convince me that the (imaginary?)product he is selling is something that I desperately need, when I have already spurned his product because there is no evidence that it actually exists and certainly no evidence that I need it anyway. Of course I'm going to confront him, and point out the discrepancies in his assertions and the weaknesses in his hypothetical product. Why shouldn't I? And, in all this, my justifications  are dependent on showing the weakness in his spiel about his product.I can't do more than this because I haven't a (hypothetical) counter product that I'm selling.  Therefore how on earth can I discuss and argue for the foundations of a worldview that I do not have?

I do agree that the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. That said, positive claims can be made on both sides. An absence of belief position doesn't make positive claims about that with which it disagrees. Saying, "I don't see evidence for xxx" is not the same as saying, "There is no evidence for xxx" or "arguments for xxx are fallacious"

[ippy]

From S o t S

I do agree that the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. That said, positive claims can be made on both sides. An absence of belief position doesn't make positive claims about that with which it disagrees. Saying, "I don't see evidence for xxx" is not the same as saying, "There is no evidence for xxx" or "arguments for xxx are fallacious"

Only problem here is O K Sword, let's have any evidence you have that this god of yours does in fact exist.

Regards ippy

[SusanDoris]

I don't think Alan is expecting you to take his word for it. However, if you don't try something, how are you going to know whether it works or not?

what is it that you think some of us should try? Describe it.

Saying, "I don't see evidence for xxx" is not the same as saying, "There is no evidence for xxx" or "arguments for xxx are fallacious"

To what kind of evidence do you refer here? It sounds as if the latter use of the word evidence should be  more clearly defined. Is it objective, subjective, anecdotal, or what? For any god, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence but if you can produce an objective piece of evidence, wel, I for one will be very surprised.

[Enki]

Just to take the last two parts of your reply 29461:

I don't think Alan is expecting you to take his word for it. However, if you don't try something, how are you going to know whether it works or not?

Then I would have to try every religion on the same basis. Furthermore, how on earth would this ascertain that AB is correct? whether something 'works or not' is no guarantee that AB's god exists. The best that could be hoped for is that I came to 'believe' in AB's god, in which case it would simply then be a case of 'true for me' but not in any objective sense.

I do agree that the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. That said, positive claims can be made on both sides. An absence of belief position doesn't make positive claims about that with which it disagrees. Saying, "I don't see evidence for xxx" is not the same as saying, "There is no evidence for xxx" or "arguments for xxx are fallacious"

I can only say that I don't see any evidence  for xxx. The only way to convince me is for those who see xxx as a positive claim, to justify it with evidence and reasoning. I can't possibly give any positive evidence as I don't make any positive claims about xxx in the first place. However, if I find any arguments for xxx being fallacious, I am quite in order to point these out and give my justifications for doing so.

[Gordon]

That's fair enough enki. That said, I do not see you posting numerous times every day on threads like this., so there is a difference between someone in your position (which illustrates an absence of belief) and someone who makes positive claims against religious belief, but doesn't like it when the foundation for that claim comes under scrutiny.

Who does this? If you try reading for comprehension I think you'll find that your atheist interlocutors don't make 'positive claims against religious belief' and simply point out where arguments advanced by such as yourself fail due to being fallacious and/or incoherent.

I do agree that the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim.

Super: try and remember this in future.

That said, positive claims can be made on both sides.

Kindly show an example of an atheist here making a positive claim about 'God'.

An absence of belief position doesn't make positive claims about that with which it disagrees.

Excellent: this is something else you need to remember.

Saying, "I don't see evidence for xxx" is not the same as saying, "There is no evidence for xxx" or "arguments for xxx are fallacious"

You're conflating different things here - you need to remember that 'evidence' and 'arguments' aren't the same thing, and that fallacious arguments are failed arguments not worth persevering with once you understand why they are fallacious: this is where you need to do some homework on how to avoid and spot fallacies.

[torridon]

I don't think Alan is expecting you to take his word for it. However, if you don't try something, how are you going to know whether it works or not?

Makes no sense.  How does one go about 'trying' something that is incomprehensible ?

Perhaps I should try adding two to two to try to get seventeen and see if it works ?

[Sebastian Toe]

However, if you don't try something, how are you going to know whether it works or not?

..for posterity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

That's fair enough enki. That said, I do not see you posting numerous times every day on threads like this., so there is a difference between someone in your position (which illustrates an absence of belief) and someone who makes positive claims against religious belief, but doesn't like it when the foundation for that claim comes under scrutiny.

I haven’t seen any examples of that here. Can you identify one please so we know that you’re not just trying a straw man argument?

This, in my opinion needs to be seen in context. I see it as being directed against those who are continually attacking religious belief.

I haven’t seen any examples of “attacking religious belief” here. I can think of plenty of example of falsifying the logic some religious people attempt for their beliefs, and I can think of plenty of examples of identifying disgusting behaviours done in the name of religion, but I can’t think of any examples of just “attacking religious belief”. Can you identify one please so we know that you’re not just trying a straw man argument?

I don't think Alan is expecting you to take his word for it.

Yes he is. When his attempts at logic collapse (as they always do) he resorts immediately to faith claims that he asserts to be true for the rest of us too (“god”, “soul” etc). That is Alan “expecting you to take his word for it”.   

However, if you don't try something, how are you going to know whether it works or not?

What does “works” here mean please? If you mean by it something like, “make me feel good about myself” many beliefs in many gods have done that. If though you mean something like, “can be shown to be true” then to my knowledge even the most deliriously happy-clappy believer has no means to do that. 

I do agree that the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim.

Well, that’s progress of a kind I guess. Let us know how you propose to go about it please re your various claims and assertions. 

That said, positive claims can be made on both sides. An absence of belief position doesn't make positive claims about that with which it disagrees.

Depends what you mean by “positive claims”. My absence of belief in your (or in any other) god relies on “positive claims” as you put it that the arguments you attempt to validate your beliefs are false, but that’s because basic logic does the work for me.   

Saying, "I don't see evidence for xxx" is not the same as saying, "There is no evidence for xxx"…

No it isn’t conceptually, but for practical purposes there’s not much between them. It’s just possible that someone has a cogent argument for “god” that’s so hidden that none of us have heard of it (and no theists who argue their case in the public domain have heard of it either for that matter) but it seems pretty unlikely I’d have thought.   

…or "arguments for xxx are fallacious"

Ah, now you’ve fallen off the cliff again. “Arguments for X are fallacious” isn’t just a claim or an assertion. Logic stands on its own, and various constructions in logic are false. All that’s necessary therefore to justify “arguments for X are fallacious” is that those arguments align with logical fallacies. So far at least those for gods all do (post hoc ergo propter hoc, argumetum ad consequentiam, argument from personal incredulity etc) but that’s not to say that one day someone somewhere won’t find one that isn’t demonstrably false.

[Maeght]

Hillside

I have laid out reasons as to why I concluded your position in the matter.  That being assertion of the universe being a perpetual motion machine.

In the matter of Krauss I merely reported his suspension upon which you confected a whole load of bad motives on my part Imo.

By definition, for Blue to have attempted to falsify a claim he would have needed to have made observations to show Swords claim to be false. Where did he do this?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By definition, for Blue to have attempted to falsify a claim he would have needed to have made observations to show Swords claim to be false. Where did he do this?

He offered big bang and collapse theorit's and multivariate theories with no further explanation as superior to those which he believed were the basis of swords statement that the universe is 13 billion years old.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

A number of posts have been removed as being a significant derail that included multiple rules breaches by two members (along with quotes of these posts and/or related comments).

[Maeght]

He offered big bang and collapse theorit's and multivariate theories with no further explanation as superior to those which he believed were the basis of swords statement that the universe is 13 billion years old.

Offering an alternative theory is not falsification. This requires the presentation of observations which show the claim being made to be false.

[ippy]

All of these posts and there's still not one shred of sensible evidence that is in any way viable that would or could support the idea, (for that's all it is), of this he, she or it thing referred to god does in fact exist.

It looks like it's been taken as put up or shut up has taken over without actually being said and shutting up has won the day.

Has A B managed to find something viable or not that would boost his reputation on this thread?

ippy

[SusanDoris]

All of these posts and there's still not one shred of sensible evidence that is in any way viable that would or could support the idea, (for that's all it is), of this he, she or it thing referred to god does in fact exist.

It looks like it's been taken as put up or shut up has taken over without actually being said and shutting up has won the day.

Has A B managed to find something viable or not that would boost his reputation on this thread?

ippy

I wonder if, during the next few years,  there's even the faintest possible  chance of any world-known personality who will pipe up and say, 'But the Emperor has no clothes' or whatever  phrase is suitable for religious faith beliefs! Maybe Prince George, ;if he comes into contact with enough critical thinkers during his education, might do it...
Well, I'm going to remain an optimist.

[ippy]

I wonder if, during the next few years,  there's even the faintest possible  chance of any world-known personality who will pipe up and say, 'But the Emperor has no clothes' or whatever  phrase is suitable for religious faith beliefs! Maybe Prince George, ;if he comes into contact with enough critical thinkers during his education, might do it...
Well, I'm going to remain an optimist.

I admire your optimism Susan, but it still needs something to slow the process like preventing the religions grabbing them when they're very young but looking on the optimistic side I'm sure there will be a tipping point and they'll all end up in a similar fashion to the old Zeus? who? what?

Having said the above I'm sure you could still find some Zeus followers if you looked hard enough, I find my dedication to Star Trek's enough, it dates back to Flash Gordon you know.

Regards to you Susan, ippy

[Alan Burns]

You probably said that because you wanted to;  and given that we do cannot choose what to want, it's not really free is it ?

That penny is long overdue for dropping.

Of course I have the freedom to consciously choose what I want to do.  I just did it.
So did you.

Just because you can't define a consciously controlled "want" in physical terms does not mean that it does not exist.

We both have the demostrable freedom to choose what we want.  This is the reality which can't be taken away from us by short sighted references to the limited scientific knowledge of material properties.

[wigginhall]

Just curious, so can you choose not to want, what you do want?

[torridon]

Of course I have the freedom to consciously choose what I want to do.  I just did it.
So did you.

Just because you can't define a consciously controlled "want" in physical terms does not mean that it does not exist.

We both have the demostrable freedom to choose what we want.  This is the reality which can't be taken away from us by short sighted references to the limited scientific knowledge of material properties.

If you think you can choose what to want, on what basis could such a choice be made ?

[Alan Burns]

Just curious, so can you choose not to want, what you do want?

I can consciously choose what I want to do - a simple fact.

[Alan Burns]

If you think you can choose what to want, on what basis could such a choice be made ?

my consciously controlled will of course.
I am not a pre programmed robot.
(the same will which is responsible for all the accusations of personal incredulity)

[torridon]

my consciously controlled will of course.
I am not a pre programmed robot.
(the same will which is responsible for all the accusations of personal incredulity)

which is no answer, it is an evasion.

Try again, this time engage with the question.

How can anyone choose what to want, except by reference to what they want to want ?

[SteveH]

which is no answer, it is an evasion.

Try again, this time engage with the question.

How can anyone choose what to want, except by reference to what they want to want ?

What a bloody silly question.

[torridon]

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." - Schopenhauer.

in other words, whilst we might feel degrees of freedom in the pursuit of our wishes, we have no freedom to choose what wishes to have in the first place.  To claim so would be nonsensical.