Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

unjustified.

I think not: even something as basic as the 'burden of proof' is a mystery to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hume was against cause and effect. He was Acausist. Does that means he lacks a belief? Has no burden of proof, holds the default position? Or does he have an Alternative philosophy which needs grounds?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think not: even something as basic as the 'burden of proof' is a mystery to you.

Yes and your justification for your position on that is that it is “routine”. And then you deny that you are arguing from tradition.

[Gordon]

Yes and your justification for your position on that is that it is “routine”. And then you deny that you are arguing from tradition.

It is 'routine' to take care when handling sharp objects - are you saying that taking care when handling sharp objects is also 'traditional'?

[Maeght]

I think it might be your position but the default position? When were you not convinced of your surroundings I.e. that they were there.....You see, You’ve as yet given no reason why it should be the default position

You come convinced by evidence. You become convinced of your surroundings by experiencing them. Not being convinced is the starting position surely - hence the default position. You need to become convinced.

[Stranger]

It is though supposed to be the default position.

No it isn't. FFS, why don't you actually take any notice of what is said to you? The default position is to not accept any proposition without supporting evidence or reasoning.

Well they have had them placed in front of them...

We've been treated to a string of terrible, fallacy-ridden excuses for arguments, and some absurd claims of evidence. 

...so they a) must have reasons for disagreeing with them...

Which have all been explained to you. So why just ignore them and come back with the same old, same old, as if nobody had said anything at all?

...at the same time dispute having to provide those reasons because they don’t have a burden of proof.

The reasons for why we find theist arguments, and supposed claims of evidence, unconvincing in the extreme, have been explained at great length and endlessly repeated on this thread because, apparently, neither you nor Alan seem to to be blessed with a functioning memory.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You come convinced by evidence. You become convinced of your surroundings by experiencing them. Not being convinced is the starting position surely - hence the default position. You need to become convinced.

It all depends on what constitutes evidence though. In maths you become convinced by mathematical proof. In logical argument you become convinced by the logic. Not wishing to tar all atheists there are some who will borrow from the need for physical evidence or philosophical or mathematical argument as it suits an underlying  atheism.In other words God dodging.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't. FFS, why don't you actually take any notice of what is said to you? The default position is to not accept any proposition without supporting evidence or reasoning.

We've been treated to a string of terrible, fallacy-ridden excuses for arguments, and some absurd claims of evidence. 

Which have all been explained to you. So why just ignore them and come back with the same old, same old, as if nobody had said anything at all?

The reasons for why we find theist arguments, and supposed claims of evidence, unconvincing in the extreme, have been explained at great length and endlessly repeated on this thread because, apparently, neither you nor Alan seem to to be blessed with a functioning memory.

And my argument is the basis for many of these dismissals is not on the grounds of logic but the advocacy of atheism

[Maeght]

It all depends on what constitutes evidence though. In maths you become convinced by mathematical proof. In logical argument you become convinced by the logic. Not wishing to tar all atheists there are some who will borrow from the need for physical evidence or philosophical or mathematical argument as it suits an underlying  atheism.In other words God dodging.

No it doesn't. Whatever the evidence that convinces you is you still aren't convinced until you are convinced by that evidence.

[Sebastian Toe]

.In other words God dodging.

Is that anywhere similar to Vlad's Islam-dodging?
Mohammed was visited by an angel of God who amongst other things said that Jesus was a prophet and therefore could not be  God.

Are you saying that is definitely not a fact or are you just not convinced?

[Outrider]

Your claim is then, by default, that you do not accept my claim of God. Do you have any reasons for this non acceptance?Can you share them with us?

You've failed to make a compelling case. Your various arguments and claims are not sufficient for me to believe that you're correct.

Regarding Leprechauns, it seems to me that Your Atheism is based on believing that there is one  less item in the sum of things in the universe.

My atheism is based upon no-one giving me an account of gods that seems convincing - I've no idea how many ideas of gods there are, I've no idea of how many ideas of other notional things that I don't believe in are (ghosts, nature spirits...). It's not that there's one less item in the sum of things, it's that I think you're potentially overestimating the sume of things in (and out of) the the universe.

But such a belief imv isn’t appropriate for God who isn’t another item in the universe but what is at the bottom of all hierarchies.

That's part of the case that you've failed to make adequately for me to accept your notion.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You've failed to make a compelling case. Your various arguments and claims are not sufficient for me to believe that you're correct.

I dispute that.

My atheism is based upon no-one giving me an account of gods that seems convincing - I've no idea how many ideas of gods there are, I've no idea of how many ideas of other notional things that I don't believe in are (ghosts, nature spirits...). It's not that there's one less item in the sum of things, it's that I think you're potentially overestimating the sume of things in (and out of) the the universe.

The question then is what counter account for how things are are you convinced of and how a perfectly logical argument, namely contingent things are dependent failed to convince you of that argumentPresumably it’s failure to do so prevented you from taking that argument to it’s logical conclusion. I on the other hand find counter arguments either not actually arguments for atheism, illogical, or special pleading, or appeal to a particular epistemology or philosophy.

Given that....what makes your position the more “competent”?
That's part of the case that you've failed to make adequately for me to accept your notion.

O.

[Stranger]

And my argument is the basis for many of these dismissals is not on the grounds of logic but the advocacy of atheism

Then you should be able to counter the objections. So why don't you, instead of just repeating yourself?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is that anywhere similar to Vlad's Islam-dodging?
Mohammed was visited by an angel of God who amongst other things said that Jesus was a prophet and therefore could not be  God.

Are you saying that is definitely not a fact or are you just not convinced?

I'm not dodging the one God thing though Seb

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then you should be able to counter the objections. So why don't you, instead of just repeating yourself?

Let me repeat an often used claim by atheists...... I already have.

[Stranger]

Let me repeat an often used claim by atheists...... I already have.

All your objections were addressed and yet still here we are right back at the start again, as if nothing had ever been said. You are once again not grasping what the 'default position' is and presenting the 'argument from contingency' as if you'd already established it, not to mention the even more ridiculous simulated universe comedy show.

What's the point in going back to the start all the time? What is it about some theists that makes them think this is a good strategy? Alan has done exactly the same thing here. Literal creationists do the same thing all the time on other forums too.

What's the matter with you guys?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All your objections were addressed and yet still here we are right back at the start again, as if nothing had ever been said. You are once again not grasping what the 'default position' is and presenting the 'argument from contingency' as if you'd already established it, not to mention the even more ridiculous simulated universe comedy show.

What's the point in going back to the start all the time? What is it about some theists that makes them think this is a good strategy? Alan has done exactly the same thing here. Literal creationists do the same thing all the time on other forums too.

What's the matter with you guys?

No they haven't been addressed. You may think they have been but my contention is that your judgment is flawed by God evasion.

Vis rejecting for atheistic purposes the statement that contingent things depend on something external. That is what contingent means.

In this it is still possible to claim the argument from contingency actually means the universe is the necessary entity....although there are arguments against that. Or remain atheist by claiming a non conscious necessary entity.

But no atheists like yourself plump for the inadequate infinite regress because the argument from contingency leaves room for God....and that I move is the real reason behind your rejection.

[Stranger]

No they haven't been addressed. You may think they have been but my contention is that your judgment is flawed by God evasion.

That's not a good reason to pretend that nobody has said anything at all about it. The evasion idea is also just silly. Your god is not special. There are endless gods, other superstitions, and indeed, non-superstitious but baseless claims, that I disagree with for exactly the same reasons.

Vis rejecting for atheistic purposes the statement that contingent things depend on something external. That is what contingent means.

Never mind the reasons, who even rejected that?

In this it is still possible to claim the argument from contingency actually means the universe is the necessary entity....although there are arguments against that. Or remain atheist by claiming a non conscious necessary entity.

As I have pointed out, I don't see how a 'necessary entity' is logically possible and also that the whole universe (space-time manifold) doesn't not appear to be contingent on anything.

Your 'answer' to the first seems to be "but what is the alternative?" - see below. And you don't seem to understand the second. So why aren't we talking about those, if you want to bring up the subject again, rather than doing a total reset and acting as if nothing has been said at all?

But no atheists like yourself plump for the inadequate infinite regress...

Except that I don't. What's more I haven't seen anybody else do so either. You seem to think that your (apparent) fear of not knowing is common to everybody and that somebody who disagrees with your proposed 'solution' must have a preferred or better solution. This is just not the case.

Absent any credible solution with supporting evidence or reasoning, the rational response is always to admit that we don't know. There is simply not enough to go on to come to a conclusion.

I seriously don't understand why you find this so alien and hard to grasp.

[Outrider]

I dispute that.

I don't see how you can dispute my position that your argument hasn't convinced me. Are you suggesting that you have convinced and that I've not realised yet? Or that I'm lying? You might think that your argument is logically robust, but that's not the criterion required for stopping me being an atheist, it has to be an argument that convinces me, and so far it's not.

The question then is what counter account for how things are are you convinced of...

In totality, none. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I suspect that a purely naturalistic argument is viable, but I've not seen someone lay it out to convince me of it, I think I'm likely to be more accepting of a claim, but I try to listen to all the arguments.

...and how a perfectly logical argument, namely contingent things are dependent failed to convince you of that argument.

Well, it could be that it's not as logically robust as you think it is, it could be that it's logically robust but based upon flawed premises, it could be that I'm just intellectually or psychologically incapable of grasping your case, it could be that you're somehow not capable of adequately conveying your otherwise robust argument. There are probably other explanations.

Presumably it’s failure to do so prevented you from taking that argument to it’s logical conclusion.

Or its apparent flaws meant I didn't need to.

I on the other hand find counter arguments either not actually arguments for atheism, illogical, or special pleading, or appeal to a particular epistemology or philosophy.

Your logical failure here is that you keep trying to pitch your arguments against the 'strong' atheists who aren't there. We aren't making a case for atheism, we're not just not accepting of your (or anyone else's) case for gods. We don't need to make an argument against a claim for gods that doesn't stand up, any more than we need an argument against cheese-monsters

Given that....what makes your position the more “competent”?

I don't definitively say that it is, I give my arguments and stand by them, I point out what I see as the flaws in other arguments where I see them. I'm not an atheist because my argument is competent, I'm an atheist because yours isn't.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Absent any credible solution with supporting evidence or reasoning, the rational response is always to admit that we don't know. There is simply not enough to go on to come to a conclusion.

Yes - the "get out of jail free"  card when presented with anything which is impossible to explain in purely materialistic terms is "we don't know" - which explains nothing.
Then when presented with a non material explanation you (or others) will attempt to ridicule this using words like "magic" or "leprechauns" or bringing up silly emojis instead of engaging in reasonable dialogue.
The bottom line is that there is more, much more to reality than can be explained in purely material terms.

[Maeght]

Yes - the "get out of jail free"  card when presented with anything which is impossible to explain in purely materialistic terms is "we don't know" - which explains nothing.
Then when presented with a non material explanation you (or others) will attempt to ridicule this using words like "magic" or "leprechauns" or bringing up silly emojis instead of engaging in reasonable dialogue.
The bottom line is that there is more, much more to reality than can be explained in purely material terms.

Saying "we don't know" when we don't is the correct thing to do.

I see plenty of reasonable dialogue on here in response to repeated unevidenced assertions and claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

God doesn’t answer don’t know questions about the universe? Can you give us any idea what you are talking about here.

Yes – there are questions about the universe we can’t answer: How did it come to be here? Did it have a beginning? Was there a “before” the universe, and is that question even cogent? etc. Your response is “Goddidit”. Fine – so apply the same questions to that god then: How did god come to be here? Did god have a beginning? Was there a “before” god, and is that question even cogent? etc.

Where does that get you though – you’ve just replaced one set of “don’t know” answers to questions about the universe with another set of “don’t know” answers to the same questions about your god. You’ve just relocated the problem, not solved it – and no amount of special pleading, "it's magic innit?" etc can get you off that hook.   

You seem to be saying that all don’t know questions are answered scientifically…

I’ve never said that at all. Stop lying.

…, ergo this is just your funded extreme Scientism coming out.

You really should stop lying now. What do you get from it?

We can dismiss this, I think, as fanaticism.

You can dismiss any straw man of your own making as anything you like. What’s the point though?

Oh, and as you keep making the same mistake over and over again let’s try to fix it for you one more time. Can you see the fundamental difference between the following two statements?

A. I don’t have sufficient grounds to accept your claim that that X exists (though X might exist nonetheless).

B. X does not exist.

A is the rationale for atheism. B is the straw man version of atheism you keep lying about.

Do you get it now?

[Stranger]

Yes - the "get out of jail free"  card when presented with anything which is impossible to explain in purely materialistic terms...

The only problem with something 'non-material' is proper definition and a robust method to test claims about it.

...is "we don't know" - which explains nothing.

It's not supposed to. Why do so many theists seem so hostile to not knowing things? Is there some deep psychological need thing going on? Is that way you have to believe something...?

Then when presented with a non material explanation you (or others) will attempt to ridicule this using words like "magic" or "leprechauns" or bringing up silly emojis instead of engaging in reasonable dialogue.

Wow. Not engaging with reasonable dialogue!? Try posting some for a change! Try actually engaging with counterarguments and requests to explain apparent gibberish phrases that you keep using. Try to post something that isn't riddled with obvious logical fallacies.

IOW, stop being such a hypocrite.

The bottom line is that there is more, much more to reality than can be explained in purely material terms.

So stop the mindless repetition and bring on the evidence and/or reasoning... We're all waiting.

[Outrider]

Yes - the "get out of jail free"  card when presented with anything which is impossible to explain in purely materialistic terms is "we don't know" - which explains nothing.

But your counterpoint of 'God did it, I don't know how or why, he works in mysterious ways' doesn't explain anything either, but comes with added homophobia which is problematic.

Then when presented with a non material explanation you (or others) will attempt to ridicule this using words like "magic" or "leprechauns" or bringing up silly emojis instead of engaging in reasonable dialogue.

How you can you 'reason' regarding something that you can't demonstrate, can't explain, can't quantify, can't justify and can't rationalise itself. That fact that you see the ridiculousness of tales of magic and leprechauns, but can't get past your preconceptions to see that you're making exactly the same argument is evidence that reason isn't going to work.

The bottom line is that there is more, much more to reality than can be explained in purely material terms.

There might well be, but you don't have a sufficient basis to state that as fact.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm not dodging the one God thing though Seb

You are dodging the Jesus is not God thing.