Evidence of God

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't seen any of the evidence of god I assume was proffered in this threads title yet Vlad.

There's been plenty of going around the houses words though, all without the viable evidence that would be required to convince the, so called, atheists, you know Vlad, 'atheists' the more level headed people that post on this forum.

 

Let’s have your justification of level headedness for starters rather than I would imagine an outsiders view that you are obsessed atheists.

[Stranger]

The Johnsonian level of hypocrisy in calling NPF on believers and then freely owning up to not being able to disprove God but acting as though you have needs flagging up regularly.

You really don't get the burden of proof at all, do you? "God" is meaningless. There are countless different claims about contradictory versions of god(s), and saying that nobody has ever given me a definition and an accompanying objective reason to take any of them seriously is not acting as if I've disproved them. There is no need to even try to disprove something if you've seen no reason to take it seriously in the first place. It's the way everybody acts with regard to most fantastical claims all the time.

“Question everything” the skeptics say but some of them don’t like it when it’s them.

What do you think isn't being questioned? Where has somebody made a solid claim (rather than just speculation) that they wouldn't question?

[Gordon]

While you dismiss the reasons people believe their religion to be sensible, while people paint religious people as somehow mentally unstable or thick while substituting thinking with a doctrinaire scientism themselves, it is necessary to counter those views. Not to save God, he’s already old enough and ugly enough to look after himself but as an antidote to ignorance and professional turdpolishing.

I presume you've had a fresh delivery of straw.

We know God cannot be proved or disproved scientifically so that is not in question.

Not quite: it is more that claims of 'God' are irrelevant for science since such claims are made without reference to any methodology that would get you to a 'proved vs disproved' outcome.

The Johnsonian level of hypocrisy in calling NPF on believers and then freely owning up to not being able to disprove God but acting as though you have needs flagging up regularly.

Nobody is trying to 'disprove God' since, as noted above, there is no method that could be used to do so - which is why it is reasonable to dismiss the claim until such times as there is a suitable method available: that prospect seems remote though, and since proponents of 'God' can't advance even a testable definition of 'God' then their claim can be parked.

Nor can you retreat into ''atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods''. Since your definitions have gone further into the reasonableness of what believers have said about God and the obviousness of your following Dawkins in the attitude and relationship he thinks atheists should have with religion.

Nope - an absence of belief about 'Gods' is a reasonable summary, and nothing else is required.

“Question everything” the skeptics say but some of them don’t like it when it’s them.

Provided, of course, that the question being asked is a valid one.

[jeremyp]

While you dismiss the reasons people believe their religion to be sensible, while people paint religious people as somehow mentally unstable or thick while substituting thinking with a doctrinaire scientism themselves, it is necessary to counter those views. Not to save God, he’s already old enough and ugly enough to look after himself but as an antidote to ignorance and professional turdpolishing.

Straw man.

We know God cannot be proved or disproved scientifically so that is not in question.
The Johnsonian level of hypocrisy in calling NPF on believers and then freely owning up to not being able to disprove God but acting as though you have needs flagging up regularly.
Nor can you retreat into ''atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods''. Since your definitions have gone further into the reasonableness of what believers have said about God and the obviousness of your following Dawkins in the attitude and relationship he thinks atheists should have with religion.

Another straw man.

“Question everything” the skeptics say but some of them don’t like it when it’s them.

Another straw man.

It's getting positively agricultural in here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You’ve managed to pack an awful lot of stupid and an awful lot of dishonest into one post here. Let’s quickly dispense with both, and then see what you’re really up to shall we?

While you dismiss the reasons people believe their religion to be sensible,…

No, what I do is to identify where the logic used to justify beliefs is wrong. On the rare occasions you actually try at least to argue for something rather than misrepresent the views of others you always do it with one or several fallacies. I’ve even in the past codified and numbered them to save time by just replying “1, 3, 7” etc when you do it remember?

…while people paint religious people as somehow mentally unstable or thick…

No-one dos that. Stop lying.

…while substituting thinking with a doctrinaire scientism themselves,…

No-one does that. Stop lying.

…it is necessary to counter those views.

No it isn’t because they’re not views people here express; they’re just more of your straw men (another fallacy).

Not to save God, he’s already old enough and ugly enough to look after himself…

It’s belief in god, not "god". You’re reifying – another fallacy.

… but as an antidote to ignorance and professional turdpolishing.

It’s not ignorant or “professional turdpolishing” to identify correctly when your attempts at logic are wrong.

We know God cannot be proved or disproved scientifically so that is not in question.

No-one has suggested otherwise. Same goes for leprechauns though, which is why the people proposing god and leprechauns alike have the burden of proof to demonstrate their claims or at least to provide a method to do so, which is the point at which you always run away.

The Johnsonian level of hypocrisy in calling NPF on believers and then freely owning up to not being able to disprove God but acting as though you have needs flagging up regularly.

Deep, deep stupidity there. You refer to the NPF, then align with it by complaining that people can’t “disprove God” (even though no-one claims to). The point of the NPF is that the absence of a disproof isn’t an argument for a proposition, and in any case the absence of a disproof of "god" is wholly a function of the failure of theists to provide a method – any method – to investigate the claim. You can’t disprove leprechauns either, and for the same reason: I’ve provided no method to investigate that claim either.   

Nor can you retreat into ''atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods''.

It’s not a “retreat”, any more than your position that a-leprechaunism is merely the lack of belief in leprechauns is a retreat.

Since your definitions have gone further into the reasonableness of what believers have said about God and the obviousness of your following Dawkins in the attitude and relationship he thinks atheists should have with religion.

Incomprehensible gibberish. The “reasonableness” concerns entirely whether or not the arguments theists here attempt to justify their religious beliefs are logically sound. So far, none of them have been. 

“Question everything” the skeptics say but some of them don’t like it when it’s them.

Stop lying – you’re welcome to question anything you like (that's one of the many differences between us: I answer questions; you don't). The only one who doesn’t “like it” is you, which brings us to what you’ve really been up to here: evading.
 
You were asked some simple questions:

1. If you don’t like “magic” to describe your justification for your claim “god” that’s incoherent, vague and non-investigable and concerns an entity that apparently exists outwith all physical, temporal and it seems logical constraints then what word would you prefer?

2. Why did you shift the burden of proof by complaining that I hadn’t proposed a method to investigate your claim “god”, and can you now see what an epic mistake in thinking this was?

3. The big one – after all you ducking and diving, flat out lying, straw manning etc you’re still left with the same question: what method would you propose for anyone to investigate, test and verify your claim “god”? Would it really kill you even to make a vague attempt to answer that rather than return yet again with your usual ragbag of evasions and diversionary tactics?

Really though?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really don't get the burden of proof at all, do you?

Yes, Naturalism, physicalism, materialism, empiricism have a burden of proof.

The problem is whether an atheist status quo is the same as any of the aforementioned or indistinguishable from.

So when Hillside chuffs and puffs about belief being indistinguishable from a guess.
The atheist status quo remains stubbornly indistinguishable from naturalism, physicalism, materialism and empiricism.

It is all very well, not being able to, or not having to prove God does not exist, it's acting as though you HAVE which is the problem.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes,...

Then why the cock up of complaining that I hadn't come up with a method to investigate your claim "god"?
 

Naturalism, physicalism, materialism, empiricism have a burden of proof.

Which the three of them that people actually argue for satisfy.

The problem is whether an atheist status quo is the same as any of the aforementioned or indistinguishable from.

No it isn't. The "atheist status quo" is where you arrive when you identify that the arguments attempted to justify the claim "god" are wrong - no more, no less 

So when Hillside chuffs and puffs about belief being indistinguishable from a guess.

What - your claim "god"? Until you ever provide some method to investigate, test and verify it that's exactly what it is.

The atheist status quo remains stubbornly indistinguishable from naturalism, physicalism, materialism and empiricism.

No, just logic. Be nice if you stopped lying about that.

It is all very well, not being able to, or not having to prove God does not exist, it's acting as though you HAVE which is the problem.

No-one does that but, even if they did, why would that be any more a problem than acting as if you'd disproved leprechauns?

[Stranger]

So when Hillside chuffs and puffs about belief being indistinguishable from a guess.
The atheist status quo remains stubbornly indistinguishable from naturalism, physicalism, materialism and empiricism.

Unless you can provide some way (methodology) to distinguish between claims about god(s) from guessing, then nothing else is needed to dismiss such claims - certainly not any of the -isms you list.

It is all very well, not being able to, or not having to prove God does not exist, it's acting as though you HAVE which is the problem.

Yet again: the unqualified word "God" is entirely meaningless because it refers to multiple different concepts - most of which are indistinguishable from guessing without the aforementioned methodology (and those that aren't are falsified by evidence).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

No it isn't. The "atheist status quo" is where you arrive when you identify that the arguments attempted to justify the claim "god" are wrong - no more, no less 

That is quite different from A-anything is the status quo which is what I think you came out with. To have identified that the arguments for God are wrong suggests total knowledge, a delusion that Carl Sagan avoided but stressed but is impossible to avoid for an Essex ego.

Also you start with the status quo in an argument. Here you admit to ending with it.

Epic bollocks from North Essex.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unless you can provide some way (methodology) to distinguish between claims about god(s) from guessing, then nothing else is needed to dismiss such claims - certainly not any of the -isms you list.

Back to status quo. What you are doing is basing the status quo on not being able to empirically detect God when you look out. If that clinches your atheism that IS empiricism. However empirical science does not support that conclusion which is merely a matter of belief that what I can empirically detect is all there is. Any argument for empiricism being rendered circular argument. Empiricism is therefore a guess. To say that theism is more ''Guessy'' than empiricism is special pleading although Hillside tells us that Stephen Laws has tried to pull it off.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

That is quite different from A-anything is the status quo which is what I think you came out with.

No it isn’t. “A-anything” is what you have before any arguments are attempted for the “anything”. It doesn’t matter at that point what the anything happens to be – above the axiomatic in the absence of reasoning we can only accept everything as true or nothing as true, and the former is incoherent.   

To have identified that the arguments for God are wrong suggests total knowledge, a delusion that Carl Sagan avoided but stressed but is impossible to avoid for an Essex ego.

Why are you such an epic fucking liar? What I actually said was: 

“Incomprehensible gibberish. The “reasonableness” concerns entirely whether or not the arguments theists here attempt to justify their religious beliefs are logically sound. So far, none of them have been.”

Can you see that “theists here attempt”?

Can you though?

Which part of that qualifier have you managed to turn into a false claim about “total knowledge”? I’ve told you before – if you insist on telling lies here at least try not to be so shit at it.

Also…

There can be no "also" when your prior lying has been identified.

…you start with the status quo in an argument. Here you admit to ending with it.

Gibberish.

Epic bollocks from North Essex.

Lying about what people say so as to call the lie “epic bollocks” is pretty desperate don’t you think?

Also why the weird obsession with god's own county? I don't live there now anyway, but my former bit of it happens to be rather lovely. 

So anyway, the main question I predicted correctly you’d run away from (because you always do) was this: what method would you propose for anyone to investigate, test and verify your claim “god”?

It’s ok, you can say it. You have no method of any sort to offer of have you. We knew it anyway, so you might as well say so. 

[Stranger]

Back to status quo. What you are doing is basing the status quo on not being able to empirically detect God when you look out.

Drivel. Yet again: the word "God" is devoid of any meaning because it refers to countless different and contradictory claims - and it's up to those who make those claims to provide some (any) method of distinguishing said claims from guessing. Empirical evidence is a way to distinguish guesses from probable truths (as is logic) but if you have some other way, it really is up to you to provide it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel. Yet again: the word "God" is devoid of any meaning because it refers to countless different and contradictory claims - and it's up to those who make those claims to provide some (any) method of distinguishing said claims from guessing. Empirical evidence is a way to distinguish guesses from probable truths (as is logic) but if you have some other way, it really is up to you to provide it.

Empiricism is a guess...as I have pointed out to you before.
Empirical evidence sorts out empirical guesses any claims for them beyond that is empiricism.
For logic I don't think there is the talent on this board for a proper oversight of that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

Empiricism is a guess...as I have pointed out to you before.

Lie 1 – it’s no such thing, for reasons that have been explained to you many times.

Empirical evidence sorts out empirical guesses any claims for them beyond that is empiricism.

Lie 2 – you’re misrepresenting empiricism as an absolutist position rather than a probabilistic one.
 

For logic I don't think there is the talent on this board for a proper oversight of that.

Lie 3 – there doesn’t need to be a “talent on this board for a proper oversight of that”. Your rare forays onto attempting arguments to justify your beliefs are always logically false. We know this because they align exactly with logical fallacies that are established and codified.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

Lie 1 – it’s no such thing, for reasons that have been explained to you many times.

Lie 2 – you’re misrepresenting empiricism as an absolutist position rather than a probabilistic one.
 
Lie 3 – there doesn’t need to be a “talent on this board for a proper oversight of that”. Your rare forays onto attempting arguments to justify your beliefs are always logically false. We know this because they align exactly with logical fallacies that are established and codified.

Its not just talent that is needed for oversight its maturity, people skills and integrity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

Its not just talent that is needed for oversight its maturity, people skills and integrity.

So you get caught out in yet more lying, and reply only to complain about the integrity of other people?

Really?

How about you making an apology instead for your latest set of lies, misrepresentations and straw men and we'll see how we go from there?

[ippy]

Let’s have your justification of level headedness for starters rather than I would imagine an outsiders view that you are obsessed atheists.

Well basing views on evidence for a start, wouldn't that be a level headed approach to how one bases a view on any subject including religions?

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,



You’re misrepresenting empiricism as an absolutist position rather than a probabilistic one.

Oh, Do you mean Empiricism is probably the belief that only the empirically detectable and measureable are meaningful or exist rather than just the belief that only the empirically detectable and measureable are meaningful or exist? Or you just don't believe it absolutely and wouldn't and haven't bet the house on it?
And how does that ride with your acting like the atheist big shot? Or is your statement just evasive codswallop?
Then of course there is your adherence to physicalism, of which we can ask the same questions.....and naturalism and scientism and evasionism.

If you are Probably of these Isms, what is it that you are improbably, but with an outside chance you are, an adherent of?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well basing views on evidence for a start, wouldn't that be a level headed approach to how one bases a view on any subject including religions?

Empirical evidence, yeah. Thank you Ippy you've proved my point.

[Outrider]

But I am arguing that the eternal reality and God are one and the same.

That's not an example or definition of a god that ties into anything even remotely like the normal usage.  It's almost as though you're trying to tie the word god to any concept you can find that's sort of even tangentially relevant to the discussion just to claim validity for your claim of gods, even if it means losing all meaning of the word in the process.

So the eternal reality is self determining and since it is the one thing there is no accident to have, no direction to unconsciously blunder into, no randomness.

No, it's not 'self determining' - it does not 'choose' a direction, it's derterministic.

Any potentialities as far as a temporary or temporal universe is concerned must exist within the eternal reality for there is nowhere else to exist.

Possibly - it can be infinite in time and space but completely orthogonal to things happening in other dimensions.

That the universe is a single consistent actualised potentiality points to self control which a single eternal reality, entity or necessary must logically be imbued with.

No, it doesn't point to 'self control' at all, there is nothing in the conception the requires or suggests there is any degree of 'control' over the process.  Processes occur under the influence of natural laws, which are intrinsic parts of reality, but there is nothing selecting them to apply, nothing choosing 'levels' of them or means of interaction, they simply are.  There is no 'self' to be doing any determining, there are just natural processes and time.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not an example or definition of a god that ties into anything even remotely like the normal usage.

That is incorrect. The word eternal is associated with religion and god and not 'normal usage' as you construe it. Reality is certainly a term used in God as ground of being theology. In eastern theologies God is the ultimate reality. Your opening statement is thus immedately off the mark considering you have co opted many of the properties of the necessary being from God anyway.

It's almost as though you're trying to tie the word god to any concept you can find that's sort of even tangentially relevant to the discussion just to claim validity for your claim of gods, even if it means losing all meaning of the word in the process.

In view of my accusation I think it would be helpful if you outline, warts and all, your conception of God, bearing in mind I suspect your experience has been largely secular till now.

No, it's not 'self determining' - it does not 'choose' a direction, it's derterministic.

Firstly if the universe is deterministic then there must be a determiner, whatever it is. For the necessary, definitially it must be self determining other wise if it is not there is something which determines it and that then becomes the necessary. Since you are saying the universe is determined You have now then almost proved God IMHO.

there is nothing in the conception the requires or suggests there is any degree of 'control' over the process.  Processes occur under the influence of natural laws,

You can be under the influence by being ''under the control of'' so I don't see what the argument is

 which are intrinsic parts of reality, but there is nothing selecting them to apply, nothing choosing 'levels' of them or means of interaction, they simply are.  There is no 'self' to be doing any determining,

And yet you are suggesting the laws of nature are doing what they do by themselves!!!

there are just natural processes and time.

Oh dear the inevitable cop out by declaration of naturalism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge

Oh, Do you mean Empiricism is probably the belief that only the empirically detectable and measureable are meaningful or exist rather than just the belief that only the empirically detectable and measureable are meaningful or exist? Or you just don't believe it absolutely and wouldn't and haven't bet the house on it?
And how does that ride with your acting like the atheist big shot? Or is your statement just evasive codswallop?
Then of course there is your adherence to physicalism, of which we can ask the same questions.....and naturalism and scientism and evasionism.

If you are Probably of these Isms, what is it that you are improbably, but with an outside chance you are, an adherent of?

What do you think your unremitting lying disingenuity is doing for what I imagine is your already wrecked reputation here? 

You know already the series of lies you’ve just told. What would be the point on correcting them once again only for you to ignore the corrections and repeat them same lies down the line?

So anyway, the main question you’re still evading remains: what method would you propose for anyone to investigate, test and verify your claim “god”?

Do you seriously think that just telling lies about what people here say is a legitimate way to respond to that?

Why?

PS So no apology then for your latest misrepresentation about my supposedly claiming total knowledge when I expressly referred only to argument attempted here? Didn’t Jesus have something to say about bearing false witness? What do you think he’d make of your behaviour here would you say?   

[ippy]

Empirical evidence, yeah. Thank you Ippy you've proved my point.

Vlad, what point of yours have I inadvertently managed to demonstrate?

See if you can answer this question without applying the equivalent of three or four pages of foolscap, where you somehow manage to write acres of your long winded mostly meaningless scribble.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, what point of yours have I inadvertently managed to demonstrate?

That you require empirical evidence. There you go. Five words.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

Vlad, what point of yours have I inadvertently managed to demonstrate?

See if you can answer this question without applying the equivalent of three or four pages of foolscap, where you somehow manage to write acres of your long winded mostly meaningless scribble.

He doesn't like evidence because it's "empirical", but he'll never propose an alternative method to investigate his various claims and assertions. He tries to distract from that failure by posting lots of irrelevant lies about what empiricism actually entails. That's his schtick.