Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They may have been rebutted, but rebutted successfully?

Well that is a good point which cuts both ways. Put it this way, many contemporary atheists have eschewed philosophy so there is little technical oversight or expertise on this board to referee

I imagine I'm not alone in adopting the following line of through - I do not believe in the existence of god/gods as there is no credible evidence to support their existence

But credibility is about belief and belief crops up amongst forum atheists perhaps more than they would like

Go ahead Vlad, you can attempt to rebut this, but the only way you'd be able to do that successfully would be to provide credible evidence for the existence of god/gods. So far I've seen none.

So now we come to the second part of credible evidence Evidence. By which all forum atheists who take the evidence line mean scientific/ repeatable evidence. However there is no physical evidence for philosophical naturalism as such. What are needed here are philosophical arguments for them not unjustified suggestions that you have to be diseased or have a deficit in some way.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't seen a coherent depiction of the Trinity that therefore needs an argument; in all the versions that have been presented to me it's inherently self-contradictory, so I don't know that I can help you there.

We've been over the cosmological argument a number of times, I can go back and pick out the relevant points again if it will help.

That they are reclaimed Greek philosophical ideas which were intended as early precursors of what we'd now think of as physics - atoms, quarks, the building blocks of the world - that theology has tried to repurpose as part of a dualist idea of reality where 'spiritual' is treated as something meaningful. That might be an oversimplification, it's not an area I've been particularly interested in, given that it's foundations are fundamentally doubtful from where I'm looking.

O.

I think it was Feser who noted that New atheists could not have debate without turning everything into a matter of science and you seem to have done that here. The word useless comes to mind since you aren't actually addressing a Christian conception of trinity. Dare I suggest Goddodgery on your part?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well that is a good point which cuts both ways. Put it this way, many contemporary atheists have eschewed philosophy so there is little technical oversight or expertise on this board to referee

No doubt you’ll tell us who these supposed “contemporary atheists” are and what they actually say then? While we're waiting for that though...

But credibility is about belief and belief crops up amongst forum atheists perhaps more than they would like

No it isn’t – credibility is about justifiable belief, not unqualified belief. This is where you always fall apart. 

So now we come to the second part of credible evidence Evidence. By which all forum atheists who take the evidence line mean scientific/ repeatable evidence.

Wrong again. If you want to claim “evidence” it doesn’t have to be scientific, but it does have to be supported by a method to distinguish the claim "evidence" from whatever pops into your head or just making shit up. Again, this is where your claims to evidence always fall apart.

However there is no physical evidence for philosophical naturalism as such. What are needed here are philosophical arguments for them not unjustified suggestions that you have to be diseased or have a deficit in some way.

Provided you don’t re-define “philosophical naturalism” just to suit your ends yes there is “physical evidence” for it. Lots of it. I’ve explained why this is to you many times before now, but you’ve always run away when I’ve done it.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well I'd take issue with this for a start:

Gray’s working definition of an atheist is “anyone with no use for the idea of a divine mind that has fashioned the world.”

That isn't the definition of atheism that I (and I image most people who actually are atheists) would use, namely that it is a lack of belief in god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Stranger]

Dare I suggest Goddodgery on your part?

Only if you want to be a laughing stock (again). 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think it was Feser who noted that New atheists could not have debate without turning everything into a matter of science and you seem to have done that here.

If he did, then it seems he’s as prone to straw manning as you are.

The word useless comes to mind since you aren't actually addressing a Christian conception of trinity.

As there seem to be as many “Christian conception(s) of trinity” as there are Christians perhaps you should set out your personal conception of it.

Your abject return to the Courtier's Reply fallacy is noted though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply#:~:text=The%20courtier's%20reply%20is%20a,any%20sort%20of%20criticism%20whatsoever.

Dare I suggest Goddodgery on your part?

You really should abandon your leprechaundodgery – it’s getting wearisome.

[Outrider]

I think it was Feser who noted that New atheists could not have debate without turning everything into a matter of science and you seem to have done that here.

And I think it was Hitchens that posited that which is cited without evidence can be dismissed on the same basis. You don't have to support your contention with science, but if your claims are in defiance of the established science you need some spectacularly strong support to overturn the consensus. You need an equally reliable framework, and whilst pure logic would work it hasn't managed anything robustly resistant to argument yet.

The word useless comes to mind since you aren't actually addressing a Christian conception of trinity.

Which is what? I can only reject the self-contradictory claims that are put to me, I'm not positing anything myself. If you think have a logically coherent explanation for how something can be entirely whole and yet entirely three independent, separate things in their entirety at the same time, I'm all ears.

Dare I suggest Goddodgery on your part?

Dare you not? It seems to be some sort of compulsion with you, I'm at the point where I think it's an OCD thing and you'd possibly have some sort of mental health episode if anyone tried to stop you.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well I'd take issue with this for a start:

Gray’s working definition of an atheist is “anyone with no use for the idea of a divine mind that has fashioned the world.”

That isn't the definition of atheism that I (and I image most people who actually are atheists) would use, namely that it is a lack of belief in god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

Blimey - that took a long time for you to confirm Vlad.

And your issue with my post was:

"It's atheists that have a problem with how some atheists define
 atheism as exemplified by Professor Davey's Post."

And why exactly is it somehow a problem to use the standard definition of atheism - a definition that I think every atheist on this MB seems very comfortable with.

[ProfessorDavey]

But credibility is about belief and belief crops up amongst forum atheists perhaps more than they would like.

Not really, when we are discussing evidence. To be credible this needs to be objectively verifiable and objectively verified. Once you have objective verification for something belief no longer comes into play as belief and faith are what we ascribe to things than cannot be or have not been objectively verified through evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If he did, then it seems he’s as prone to straw manning as you are.

As there seem to be as many “Christian conception(s) of trinity” as there are Christians perhaps you should set out your personal conception of it.

Your abject return to the Courtier's Reply fallacy is noted though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply#:~:text=The%20courtier's%20reply%20is%20a,any%20sort%20of%20criticism%20whatsoever.

You really should abandon your leprechaundodgery – it’s getting wearisome.

Who would want to dodge affable pipe smoking little Irishmen and women?

[Outrider]

Who would want to dodge affable pipe smoking little Irishmen and women?

Is that 'Irishness' a positive assertion that you can justify?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Who would want to dodge affable pipe smoking little Irishmen and women?

You apparently. Besides, the word useless comes to mind since you aren't actually addressing a leprechaunologists conception of leprechauns.

[Maeght]

I'm not convinced by the evidence presented for the existence of God or gods so lack a belief in them so am atheist. I'm open to be convinced. Simple really.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not convinced by the evidence presented for the existence of God or gods so lack a belief in them so am atheist. I'm open to be convinced. Simple really.

Yup - that just about nails it. See also my earlier post, with pretty well an identical view.

So Vlad - to rebut you'll need to provide sufficient credible evidence to overcome a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence. Simples. Weirdly no-one seems capable of providing that credible evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You apparently. Besides, the word useless comes to mind since you aren't actually addressing a leprechaunologists conception of leprechauns.

No, My door is always open to them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, My door is always open to them.

In which case you should finally understand what atheism actually entails - my "door is always open to" your or any other god too, but the justifying arguments for any of them that I've seen so far have been shit. That's your problem if you want thinking people to take your faith claims seriously – finding a justifying argument that isn't shit.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yup - that just about nails it. See also my earlier post, with pretty well an identical view.

So Vlad - to rebut you'll need to provide sufficient credible evidence to overcome a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence. Simples. Weirdly no-one seems capable of providing that credible evidence.

So not merely Lack of belief then.
How are you defining credible evidence here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

In which case you should finally understand what atheism actually entails - my "door is always open to" your or any other god too, but the justifying arguments for any of them that I've seen so far have been shit. That's your problem if you want thinking people to take your faith claims seriously – finding a justifying argument that isn't shit.

People's doors do get open to God. But some people's aren't on the grounds of ego and existential exposure. In short Hillside, they don't want God vis Thomas Nagel and Lawrence Krauss.

This is not the case with Leprechauns who as the universe has been pointing out to you are affable diminutive Irish pipesmokers.

[jeremyp]

No good reasons for theism is a positive assertion  carrying a burden of proof.

I assert there is no good reasons for theism. Why? Because theists have been trying to find a good reason for several hundred years at least and have so far failed to deliver. That's enough justification for my assertion.

If you want to rebut it, all you need to do is tell us a good reason. We are waiting. We have been waiting since the forum started.

It is not the same thing as merely lacking a belief.

My impression is that some of the non believers here hold this position. It doesn't help you, because, if you want to instil a belief in them, you have to provide a good reason for theism - exactly the same as if you want to refute my argument.

[Stranger]

So not merely Lack of belief then.

That's exactly what it is and what was said.

How are you defining credible evidence here?

Otherwise known as 'evidence'. That is objective facts that are consistent with the proposition ("God exists") and not with alternatives. This would also necessarily involve some possible falsification of the proposition. Something we could potentially observe that would disprove your God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

People's doors do get open to God. But some people's aren't on the grounds of ego and existential exposure. In short Hillside, they don't want God vis Thomas Nagel and Lawrence Krauss.

What on earth are you even trying to say now? Rationally, “doors must be open” to the possibility of gods, of leprechauns, of the Loch Ness Monster and of Brigadoon too. This is not helpful to your assertions about only one of them though – it just illustrates the logical impossibility of proving a negative. 

This is not the case with Leprechauns who as the universe has been pointing out to you are affable diminutive Irish pipesmokers.

Bullshit. It is the case about any unqualified conjecture – your god and leprechauns are epistemically in the same category for this purpose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How are you defining credible evidence here?

I addressed your screw up about evidence in Reply 49052, which you ignored.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's exactly what it is and what was said.

Otherwise known as 'evidence'. That is objective facts that are consistent with the proposition ("God exists") and not with alternatives. This would also necessarily involve some possible falsification of the proposition. Something we could potentially observe that would disprove your God.

Stranger " Evidence is er, evidence"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I addressed your screw up about evidence in Reply 49052, which you ignored.

Evidence has to be grounded in methodological naturalism? That is science isn't it? More turd polishing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Evidence has to be grounded in methodological naturalism? That is science isn't it? More turd polishing?

More straw manning isn't helping you here. Try reading and responding to what I actually said, not your misrepresentation of it.