Why is there no verifiable evidence?

[Stranger]

Cant be a delusion then since any definition of reality is an ontological philosophy and rational argument has not dismissed God.

I said it covered many versions of god.

How can something though held by the majority of people in the world be labelled as a mental disorder I don't know.......(Note for dumbasses ....that is different from an argumentum ad populum.)

First, the definition said typically.

Second, there is no god that is believed in by the majority of people in the world. Whatever god you believe in, most people think you are wrong.

[Stranger]

The question is asking for an exemplar delusion. That is surely a simple and reasonable request.

This is descending into blatant distraction tactics.

How do we assess the truth of claims of the existence of gods? Do you have an answer or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well firstly you are shifting the burden of proof. It's your claim that this experience is God, it's up to you to show how you know it?

Yeh, or I can just relate my experience.

Still....if we're on the subject of claims,Delusion is suggested and mental illness too........go ahead.

Besides why are you guys upset, particularly, at the idea of God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is descending into blatant distraction tactics.

How do we assess the truth of claims of the existence of gods? Do you have an answer or not?

Sometimes the answer only comes after investigation.
How are you getting on with assessing the truth claims of an atheistic ontology?

[Shaker]

Besides why are you guys upset, particularly, at the idea of God?

Nobody is.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Yeh, or I can just relate my experience.

Still....if we're on the subject of claims,Delusion is suggested and mental illness too........go ahead.

Besides why are you guys upset, particularly, at the idea of God?

You can certainly relate your experience, but it would just be that. That's not a method for showing the objectivity of God.

I didn't claim you were deluded, I suggest that it was a possibility.

You really really don't get the burden of proof do you. It's not us that have to show that's it's not God you are experiencing you need to show that it is.

I'm not upset.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

How are you getting on with assessing the truth claims of an atheistic ontology?

What are you asking here? How the could be anything in the absence of God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is descending into blatant distraction tactics.

Stop blatantly distracting then.

Disturbance by the idea of the Christian god is evidence that there is possibly a God as described by said faith.

If you disagree explain your grounds in a way that proves Hope's criticism of your arguments wrong.

[Stranger]

Sometimes the answer only comes after investigation.
How are you getting on with assessing the truth claims of an atheistic ontology?

The only truth atheism claims is that there is insufficient reason to believe in any gods. Something you are demonstrating admirably...

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Disturbance by the idea of the Christian god is evidence that there is possibly a God as described by said faith.

That simply does not follow.

[Shaker]

Disturbance by the idea of the Christian god is evidence that there is possibly a God as described by said faith.

As well as being a colossal non sequitur (as already pointed out by Stephen), you keep asserting that some mythical people are "disturbed" or "upset" by the idea of a god, yet are unable to demonstrate this. Says it all, really.

Does repeating shit time after time amount to evidence in VladWorld?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What are you asking here? How the could be anything in the absence of God?

No.......... show how we assess the totality of reality is natural in the commonly held sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only truth atheism claims is that there is insufficient reason to believe in any gods. Something you are demonstrating admirably...

Since that is a claim feel free to demonstrate the truth of it.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

No.......... show how we assess the totality of reality is natural in the commonly held sense.

I've never claimed it is.

Simply that there is a natural world around us. I'll accept the non-natural elements when someone gives me some specific examples and accompanying methodology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As well as being a colossal non sequitur (as already pointed out by Stephen), you keep asserting that some mythical people are "disturbed" or "upset" by the idea of a god, yet are unable to demonstrate this. Says it all, really.

Does repeating shit time after time amount to evidence in VladWorld?

No, disturbance is manifest by contribution to this forum and the nature of that contribution. That particular focus is shown towards God as opposed to fairies, tree dwellers, paganism etc is also manifest.

You are thus seriously in denial. Not only do you not see the elephant but are refusing to see the room as well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've never claimed it is.

Then there shouldn't be a problem with theism then.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Then there shouldn't be a problem with theism then.

Are you incapable of reading plain English. I have said that I do not rule out the possibility of non-natural things arbitrarily it's just I have no reason to accept them until such evidence is forthcoming (and no that is not an insistence on scientific evidence before you start).

[Shaker]

No, disturbance is manifest by contribution to this forum and the nature of that contribution.

The nature of the contribution to this forum is that many of those making that contribution have an intense dislike of sloppy thinking, poor reasoning and bad arguments, and say so.

That particular focus is shown towards God as opposed to fairies, tree dwellers, paganism etc is also manifest.

The forum is called Religion and Ethics so God would naturally be the focus rather than fairies; but the more pertinent reason is that people who believe in a god try to affect the daily lives of the population using said belief as a justification - the most recent example that springs to mind was the attempt of god-believers to prevent same-sex couples from marrying in a civil, secular ceremony (i.e. an action by god-believers attempting to prevent people from engaging in an activity which had nothing whatever to do with them), but there are many more. That deserves to be fought against wherever and whenever it arises.

You are thus seriously in denial. Not only do you not see the elephant but are refusing to see the room as well.

Prove it.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

The nature of the contribution to this forum is that many of those making that contribution have an intense dislike of sloppy thinking, poor reasoning and bad arguments, and say so.
The forum is called Religion and Ethics so God would naturally be the focus rather than fairies; but the more pertinent reason is that people who believe in a god try to affect the daily lives of the population using said belief as a justification - the most recent example that springs to mind was the attempt of god-believers to prevent same-sex couples from marrying in a civil, secular ceremony (i.e. an action by god-believers attempting to prevent people from engaging in an activity which had nothing whatever to do with them), but there are many more. That deserves to be fought against wherever and whenever it arises.
Prove it.

I was just going to reply but I can't improve on that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you incapable of reading plain English. I have said that I do not rule out the possibility of non-natural things arbitrarily it's just I have no reason to accept them until such evidence is forthcoming (and no that is not an insistence on scientific evidence before you start).

I'm sorry but that's just a fancy way of saying you do hold an ontological position on which your criterion for evidence is based......

.........Hope scoops the pool.

[Shaker]

.........Hope scoops the pool.

The bottom of it, certainly.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I'm sorry but that's just a fancy way of saying you do hold an ontological position on which your criterion for evidence is based......

.........Hope scoops the pool.

No it's not a fancy way of saying anything. It is very simple. I DO NOT SAY THAT THE NATURAL IS ALL THAT CAN BE. Jesus wept.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The bottom of it, certainly.

He's got your number.

Number two ha ha ha.

[Shaker]

He's got your number.

Number two ha ha ha.

Hope wouldn't have somebody's number if they handed him a card with a number on it and said "That's my number."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope wouldn't have somebody's number if they handed him a card with a number on it and said "That's my number."

We know by the brown thumb print on yours where to get a Turd Polisher in an emergency