Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

what is a god?

Good question. I'm minded of the Chomsky approach to atheism and theism ''What is it I'm supposed to believe in and what is he supposed to disbelieve?''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not convinced X exists because I haven't been convinced by the evidence for X. Could X exist? Yes, so I can't say X doesn't exist. It may do, I'm just not convinced it does. Maybe there is evidence which would convince me that I just haven't seen for example.

Would that evidence be empirical evidence?

[Nearly Sane]

Good question. I'm minded of the Chomsky approach to atheism and theism ''What is it I'm supposed to believe in and what is he supposed to disbelieve?''

and answer came there none.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A positive claim about the evidence and people on here are constantly addressing why they find the evidence unconvincing.

And I am unconvinced by most of those arguments

You aren't talking to the authors of that paper so why not just address the position people on here have stated?

I address objections here all the time. What people call a demand I address there point is often really a demand that I agree with their position. In other words, they are answered, but they don't like the answer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and answer came there none.

Sorry for keeping you waiting......and thank you for your patience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

'Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.'

There are of course different definitions of the word atheism and they have changed with time. Philosophy may define it in a different way to the way it is defined elsewhere, but everyone (virtually everyone I think) on here has said that they lack a belief in God rather than saying there is no God. So is it that you don't believe them? It might be easier to just say that if so.

The lack of belief definition was I believe introduced or at least first flagged up in 1976 by Anthony Flew in his Paper ''the presumption of atheism'' so on that day or the day they discovered it atheists were largely happy to describe themselves as atheists under various traditional definitions which represented actual reasoned positions against God. Wer these other definitions abandoned?
Did strong atheists CONVERT to Flews redefinition of atheism? That is hardly credible. All it gave them was a device they could now hide behind. Is it possible to lie about disbelieving or Believing that God doesn't exist. Sure it is. Does the definition of atheism  as a lack of belief confer immunity from burden of proof to other iterations, I don't think so.

On that 'wonderful' day back in 1976 when atheists were unified in the category of lacking belief in God Flew also unified atheists with Rocks, stones, jars of marmalade which also lacked belief in Gods.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you are not convinced there is a god your position must be that there in't

Presumably you’re just trolling now.

You are not convinced that leprechauns exist (on the not unreasonable grounds that my arguments for their existence are shit). You have no grounds however to believe that leprechauns definitively do not exist. Thus you are an a-leprechaunist.

I am are not convinced that your god exists (on the not unreasonable grounds that your arguments for its existence are shit). I have no grounds however to believe that your god definitively does not exist. Thus I am an a-theist.

Do you get it now?

[Stranger]

I address objections here all the time.

Well if you think 'addressing' means totally ignoring and just repeating the same argument again, attacking a straw man instead of the actual objection, or zipping off to a different topic to avoid it, then I suppose you 'address' them. That's not what most people mean, however.

To take the example of the dismal argument from contingency. You've continuously used straw men in accusing people of supporting some random other idea instead, then attacked the "don't know" position and brought up the bizarre idea of people being "committed to agnosticism". Then you just went off to other topics, leaving the actual points raised totally unaddressed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I address objections here all the time.

Can you cite an example of you ever actually doing that? Just one will do. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then ignore it, or get on with producing the empirical evidence.

Of course a more nuanced approach would be for you to say that yours is a faith position and that, as such, you've feel no need to provide supporting empirical evidence.

I feel I have no need to provide supporting empirical evidence because the statement ''For things to exist they must have empirical evidence itself has no empirical evidence which is a bit of a drawback really.

What Flew did in 1976 was to hijack the term atheism and redefined it to suit. That on it's own is enough disqualification. But why give Flew's 'New' atheism a hiding when you can give it a good hiding. His demand for everything to need empirical evidence or being empirically evident is just out and out scientism.

[Stranger]

I feel I have no need to provide supporting empirical evidence because the statement ''For things to exist they must have empirical evidence itself has no empirical evidence which is a bit of a drawback really.

There goes another straw man.   

It's perfectly possible for something to exist without any empirical evidence to support it. It just makes it much harder to convince any thinking person that it does exist.

As an unrelated example, it's perfectly possible that we already have the right answer to quantum gravity in that one of the proposed hypotheses may be correct. However, the practical problems with finding direct evidence means that we can't know that it's right, or even that it's probably right.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Presumably you’re just trolling now.

You are not convinced that leprechauns exist (on the not unreasonable grounds that my arguments for their existence are shit).

Yes I get that

You have no grounds however to believe that leprechauns definitively do not exist. Thus you are an a-leprechaunist.

Yes I get that.

I am are not convinced that your god exists

Yes I get that

(on the not unreasonable grounds that your arguments for its existence are shit).

No, that's bollocks

I have no grounds however to believe that your god definitively does not exist.

see previous

I am an a-theist.

Yes I get that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There goes another straw man.   

It's perfectly possible for something to exist without any empirical evidence to support it. It just makes it much harder to convince any thinking person that it does exist.

As an unrelated example, it's perfectly possible that we already have the right answer to quantum gravity in that one of the proposed hypotheses may be correct. However, the practical problems with finding direct evidence means that we can't know that it's right, or even that it's probably right.

Thinking is unnecessary for atheism which is merely, so I'm told merely the lack of belief in God. What relevance does it have here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There goes another straw man.   

It's perfectly possible for something to exist without any empirical evidence to support it. It just makes it much harder to convince any thinking person that it does exist.

As an unrelated example, it's perfectly possible that we already have the right answer to quantum gravity in that one of the proposed hypotheses may be correct. However, the practical problems with finding direct evidence means that we can't know that it's right, or even that it's probably right.

If you are exempting things from needing empirical evidence then what right does Gordon have demanding it from me?

[Stranger]

Thinking is unnecessary for atheism which is merely, so I'm told merely the lack of belief in God.

There you go again. Post any old crap to avoid addressing the points raised. Not accepting any of the propositions that various versions of God or gods exist is a conclusion. Thinking is what one does to arrive at it. Although there seem to be some here who prefer to skip that stage and just proclaim their conclusion as fact....

What relevance does it have here?

What relevance does what have?

[Stranger]

If you are exempting things from needing empirical evidence then what right does Gordon have demanding it from me?

Jeez, do you ever engage your brain before posting? I'm not 'exempting' things (what do you even mean by that?) I'm just pointing out, for about the 10,000th time, or so it seems, that it is possible for things to exist without empirical evidence but it becames much harder to provide good reasons to accept them if they don't.

It's possible your God exists, but you cannot seem to provide a single reason to think that it is in any way probable that it does. That is, you can provide no reason at all to accept the proposition that it does exist.

This really isn't rocket science.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I feel I have no need to provide supporting empirical evidence because the statement ''For things to exist they must have empirical evidence itself has no empirical evidence which is a bit of a drawback really.

Again: if you can’t provide empirical evidence but you think you have some other kind of evidence then just tell us what it is.

What's stopping you?

What Flew did in 1976 was to hijack the term atheism and redefined it to suit. That on it's own is enough disqualification. But why give Flew's 'New' atheism a hiding when you can give it a good hiding. His demand for everything to need empirical evidence or being empirically evident is just out and out scientism.

1. No Flew didn’t. What Flew actually did was to rebut a colloquial use of the term in favour of its actual meaning. Its actual meaning was always its actual meaning though: the prefix “a-“ (as in a-leprechaunism, a-theism etc) just means “without”, “lacking” etc. It's a bit like me writing a paper about bears by prefacing my remarks with "we should stop referring to koala bears as "bears" because they're not bears at all". No shit Sherlock.   

2. Even if Flew had “hijacked” a term as you wrongly state though, so what? One writer/philosopher making an argument does not mean that his statement on the (supposed) prior meaning of a word was correct.

3. Yet again: so far at least, all evidence is empirical. If you don’t like empiricism but you think you have some other (previously unknown) type of evidence though then why not just tell us what it is so it too can be examined and tested.         

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, that's bollocks

Your argument to justify your claim “god” are shit for the reasons I’ve set out for you countless times (ie, they’re always fallacious) and you’ve never managed – or even tried – to rebut. If you want to justify your claim “bollocks” regarding your arguments being shit, then – finally – you should try at least to rebut the falsifications you’re given. Your endless avoidances, straw manning, diversions etc instead just leave the explanations for why your justifying arguments for ”god” are shit intact.   

And for as long are your argument for god remain shit, a-theism is the only rational response to them. 
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And we're back to illiteracy again.

I think there's the question 'is the position there isn't a god indistinguishable from there is no evidence for god one way or the other'. Yes, those are two very different positions. Neither of them are relevant here, though.

There is a world, and we're on it

How are you defining world view here? On a planet or are you using the world in the sense of our planet and the universe?

or, at least, I'm on it,

Wooooooaaahhh. Are you saying there are ways of viewing the world differently but yours is the correct way? Doesn't that make the default position ''Your view'' and the onus of proof on ''those who disagree with you?

and I'm going to presume for the sake of argument here that you are too.

That still leaves the problem of your view versus my view

You then make a claim about that world,

I have a view on how the world is and it becomes rapidly evident that our views are different. You may wake up and see your world as a collection of items and see that this God thing I keep talking about seems to be absent. That of course cuts no ice with Jack who feels God's presence whenever he wakes up or Jill for whom the whole universe is evidence since as far as she is concerned there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing

that it has something to do with a 'god'. We go back and forth about what you mean by this term, and have an approximation of a similar concept about what that is. I then expect you to be able to justify that claim that there is a god before I'll accept it.

Except we haven't agreed on how the world is.....and yet you've gone ahead and used your world view unjustified as it might be to claim immunity from proof of your conclusion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Again: if you can’t provide empirical evidence but you think you have some other kind of evidence then just tell us what it is.

What's stopping you?

1. No Flew didn’t. What Flew actually did was to rebut a colloquial use of the term in favour of its actual meaning. Its actual meaning was always its actual meaning though: the prefix “a-“ (as in a-leprechaunism, a-theism etc) just means “without”, “lacking” etc. It's a bit like me writing a paper about bears by prefacing my remarks with "we should stop referring to koala bears as "bears" because they're not bears at all". No shit Sherlock.   

2. Even if Flew had “hijacked” a term as you wrongly state though, so what? One writer/philosopher making an argument does not mean that his statement on the (supposed) prior meaning of a word was correct.

       

A good argument but I'm yet to be convinced.

Fancy that an Atheist prophet bringing the one true meaning of an empirically unevident non position to the world....Well, well, well an atheist Moses.

There should be no objection to me enrolling my left over patio bricks at the nearest atheist association then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your argument to justify your claim “god” are shit for the reasons I’ve set out for you countless times (ie, they’re always fallacious) and you’ve never managed – or even tried – to rebut. If you want to justify your claim “bollocks” regarding your arguments being shit, then – finally – you should try at least to rebut the falsifications you’re given. Your endless avoidances, straw manning, diversions etc instead just leave the explanations for why your justifying arguments for ”god” are shit intact.   

And for as long are your argument for god remain shit, a-theism is the only rational response to them. 
 

Do you really need me to point out the flaws with infinite regress, circular heirarchies, brute facts, suspension of the PSR, Composite necessary entities,The Kraussian definition of nothing again(although it's obvious he was groping his way towards something)....really?

[Stranger]

A good argument but I'm yet to be convinced.

Fancy that an Atheist prophet bringing the one true meaning of an empirically unevident non position to the world....Well, well, well an atheist Moses.

There should be no objection to me enrolling my left over patio bricks at the nearest atheist association then.

More gibberish.

Arguments about terminology are a pointless distraction. This is the English language. Terms change their meanings all the time. The fact remains that the word 'atheist' today is vary commonly used to refer to agnostic atheism. Get the fuck over it.
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A good argument but I'm yet to be convinced.

That you’ve yet to be convinced isn't relevant – what’s relevant instead is why you’ve yet to be convinced, ie, the part you never address. 

Fancy that an Atheist prophet bringing the one true meaning of an empirically unevident non position to the world....Well, well, well an atheist Moses.

You’ve collapsed into incoherence again here. What are you even trying to say?

There should be no objection to me enrolling my left over patio bricks at the nearest atheist association then.

More dishonest avoidance. Why do you claim to address arguments, but then continue your practice of never addressing them at all?

[Stranger]

Do you really need me to point out the flaws with infinite regress, circular heirarchies, brute facts, suspension of the PSR, Composite necessary entities,The Kraussian definition of nothing again(although it's obvious he was groping his way towards something)....really?

The slaughter of the straw men just goes on and on.

Nobody needs to provide an alternative explanation to conclude that your preferred solution is shit.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Do you really need me to point out the flaws with infinite regress, circular heirarchies, brute facts, suspension of the PSR, Composite necessary entities,The Kraussian definition of nothing again(although it's obvious he was groping his way towards something)....really?

Leaving aside for now whether anyone actually argues for these things as facts rather than just hypothesises them only to the point of “don’t knows”, do you genuinely not think an “it’s magic innit” god claim of fact is a more flawed response than any of them a priori? 

Even if someone did hypothesise that gravity is caused by budgies flapping their wings, that would provide not one jot of support for your claim that it’s actually done by pixies tugging on very thin strings.

Try to remember this.