Secular Nativity

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly - and the positive assertion here is that God exists. The onus is thus on you to demonstrate that God's existence is at least more likely than not.

No, Steven you are neglecting the word belief. The definition of delusion demands incontravertable evidence to the contrary.
The statement of Delusion assumes then that there is incontravertable contrary evidence. That God doesn’t exist so come on lads and produce it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So when you said god had to be the ultimate you're now saying it doesn't. Again your sloppy definition means that means that you end up contradicting yourself. A d circular definitions don't help you out of your approach that things need creators apart from what doesn't.

No, God is the ultimate. If there is a chain of contingency then it ends with the ultimate. Ockham and all that. Contingent things need creators not ALL things. I thought we’d been through all this.

[Nearly Sane]

No, God is the ultimate. If there is a chain of contingency then it ends with the ultimate. Ockham and all that. Contingent things need creators not ALL things. I thought we’d been through all this.

Yes, but you then moved on to the idea that any simulation hypothesis posits a de facto god contradicting that definition. Your sloppy approach makes discussion  worthless because you appear to have no idea of tge impact of the different positions you take.

[Gordon]

No, Steven you are neglecting the word belief. The definition of delusion demands incontravertable evidence to the contrary.
The statement of Delusion assumes then that there is incontravertable contrary evidence. That God doesn’t exist so come on lads and produce it.

It seems your stupidity knows no bounds: nobody here on the atheist side of the fence is attempting to show that 'God' doesn't exist, especially since 'God' is an incoherent claim and, as such, there is nothing of substance to engage with in the first place.

I did, however, suggest that the core notion in Christianity - that Jesus was dead for around three days but didn't stay dead - has incontrovertible contrary evidence in that there are no known substantiated cases of this (ask any undertaker) - therefore  it is reasonable to conclude that the 'Jesus was dead for a while and then wasn't' claim is most likely a false belief.

If you want to claim otherwise then on you go: 'God' is your claim after all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It seems your stupidity knows no bounds: nobody here on the atheist side of the fence is attempting to show that 'God' doesn't exist, especially since 'God' is an incoherent claim and, as such, there is nothing of substance to engage with in the first place.

I did, however, suggest that the core notion in Christianity - that Jesus was dead for around three days but didn't stay dead - has incontrovertible contrary evidence in that there are no known substantiated cases of this (ask any undertaker) - therefore  it is reasonable to conclude that the 'Jesus was dead for a while and then wasn't' claim is most likely a false belief.

If you want to claim otherwise then on you go: 'God' is your claim after all.

If belief in God is a delusion Gordon there should be incontravertable evidence to the contrary.
That’s the definition. If you can’t provide it, get someone who can.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It seems your stupidity knows no bounds: nobody here on the atheist side of the fence is attempting to show that 'God' doesn't exist, especially since 'God' is an incoherent claim and, as such, there is nothing of substance to engage with in the first place.

I did, however, suggest that the core notion in Christianity - that Jesus was dead for around three days but didn't stay dead - has incontrovertible contrary evidence in that there are no known substantiated cases of this (ask any undertaker) - therefore  it is reasonable to conclude that the 'Jesus was dead for a while and then wasn't' claim is most likely a false belief.

If you want to claim otherwise then on you go: 'God' is your claim after all.

You’ve just put up arguments Gordon. Where’s the evidence that God does not exist. Do we have all the funeral records from Palestine in 33 AD? Or videos.?

[Gordon]

If belief in God is a delusion Gordon there should be incontravertable evidence to the contrary.
That’s the definition. If you can’t provide it, get someone who can.

Really - I'd have thought there being no evidence in the first place would be enough: but now you straying into the dear old NPF (it's been a while), and some of us aren't stupid enough to indulge the folly of that approach.

'God' is your incoherent claim, as are the fantastical claims of Christianity where there is incontrovertible contrary evidence which indicates that, for example, Jesus not staying dead is a false belief. The 'God' claim is yours to defend and not mine to rebutt beyond pointing out the incoherent idiocy you are indulging in.

[Gordon]

You’ve just put up arguments Gordon. Where’s the evidence that God does not exist. Do we have all the funeral records from Palestine in 33 AD? Or videos.?

No I haven't - I've just pointed out that your claims are incoherent and contradicted by evidence (people who have been dead for a few days don't recover). Since I think that 'God' is meaningless nonsense I just reject it out of hand as a parcel of superstitions and fallacies that are best dismissed: if you want to substantiate it on you go.

The alleged death and resurrection of Jesus is your problem, since you believe it, and not mine. I think you are holding a false belief because there is contrary incontrovertible evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really - I'd have thought there being no evidence in the first place would be enough: but now you straying into the dear old NPF (it's been a while), and some of us aren't stupid enough to indulge the folly of that approach.

'God' is your incoherent claim, as are the fantastical claims of Christianity where there is incontrovertible contrary evidence which indicates that, for example, Jesus not staying dead is a false belief. The 'God' claim is yours to defend and not mine to rebutt beyond pointing out the incoherent idiocy you are indulging in.

No Gordon the definition of delusion is a BELIEF
Which is FALSE and has INCONTRAVERTABLE evidence to the CONTRARY. A belief Gordon so no NPF.

So we need from you the incontravertable evidence.

[Gordon]

No Gordon the definition of delusion is a BELIEF
Which is FALSE and has INCONTRAVERTABLE evidence to the CONTRARY. A belief Gordon so no NPF.

So we need from you the incontravertable evidence.

I've already done that regarding the delusional resurrection claim you hold, which evidence confirms is likely a false belief, and if you don't accept that then you'll be sinking into special pleading (or worse).

'God', and all the Christian nonsense that hangs of it, is your claim and your problem. You are exactly inviting me to indulge in the NPF - I'm not that stupid, though you clearly are for thinking I might.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've already done that regarding the delusional resurrection claim you hold, which evidence confirms is likely a false belief, and if you don't accept that then you'll be sinking into special pleading (or worse).

'God', and all the Christian nonsense that hangs of it, is your claim and your problem. You are exactly inviting me to indulge in the NPF - I'm not that stupid, though you clearly are for thinking I might.

Still waiting for the incontrovertible evidence that belief in God is a delusion.

Regarding the resurrection. No incontrovertible evidence.  Can you just recap what it is concerning resurrection that you think is false belief thank you.

[Gordon]

Still waiting for the incontrovertible evidence that belief in God is a delusion.

Regarding the resurrection. No incontrovertible evidence.  Can you just recap what it is concerning resurrection that you think is false belief thank you.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my various previous answers regarding the incoherent 'God' claim and the delusional beliefs (i.e. dead people not staying dead) that flow from that: all you need is already there, Vlad.

[jeremyp]

Let us remind ourselves of the definition of Delusion. Delusion is a false belief in something which has incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Which opens the question of falsification as well.

Let us remind ourselves that that is only one of a couple of definitions of "delusion" and Vlad is being deeply dishonest in choosing that particular one.

My computer has that definition but also "false belief or perception". So my challenge to Vlad could just as easily be "Can you demonstrate that your encounter with God was real and not a false belief". Of course he can't and, since the god he believes in is an incoherent concept, (as discussed at length already) I am entitled to dismiss his assertion of an encounter with God as complete bollocks.

[jeremyp]

Furthermore, I don't claim that Vlad's encounter with his god is a false belief: I claim that it is indistinguishable from a false belief.

It might be true, but he has no way to show that it is true. How do I know that? Because if he had a way to show that his belief in his encounter with God was true, he would have done it already.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let us remind ourselves that that is only one of a couple of definitions of "delusion" and Vlad is being deeply dishonest in choosing that particular one.

My computer has that definition but also "false belief or perception". So my challenge to Vlad could just as easily be "Can you demonstrate that your encounter with God was real and not a false belief". Of course he can't and, since the god he believes in is an incoherent concept, (as discussed at length already) I am entitled to dismiss his assertion of an encounter with God as complete bollocks.

So there is more than one definition and your favourite one that gives no definition of false is the correct one, eh?

[jeremyp]

So there is more than one definition and your favourite one that gives no definition of false is the correct one, eh?

Stop giving us that bullshit.

Demonstrate that we can distinguish your claim from falsehood or shut the fuck up.

[Maeght]

Again, an atheist would say the existence of suffering and of bad design in nature

Some might.

[Gordon]

So there is more than one definition and your favourite one that gives no definition of false is the correct one, eh?

For crying out loud: you can't falsify incoherent nonsense. All you can do is point out that it is incoherent nonsense. The notion that my 'salvation' is in the hands of an alleged preacher who lived and died (but didn't stay dead) in antiquity seems to me, without sound supporting evidence, to be incoherent nonsense.

It is for the likes of you, Vlad, to explain why it isn't incoherent nonsense without relying on related incoherent nonsense.

[Maeght]

Have to agree with Walt about 'delusion'.

[Gordon]

Have to agree with Walt about 'delusion'.

As is often the case with Vlad he's conflating matters - that a delusion is a false belief is fine but that this belief must require contrary incontrovertible evidence is the conflation, since a false belief for which there is no relevant supporting evidence at all that can be rebutted may well be delusional.

Vlad's invitation is to provide contrary incontrovertible evidence to the claim of 'God' which is, of course, no more than incoherent white noise for which there is no credible supporting evidence in the first place.  Can there ever be contrary incontrovertible evidence to meaningless incoherent waffle - I think not, and I suspect Vlad well knows that.

[Maeght]

As is often the case with Vlad he's conflating matters - that a delusion is a false belief is fine but that this belief must require contrary incontrovertible evidence is the conflation, since a false belief for which there is no relevant supporting evidence at all that can be rebutted may well be delusional.

Vlad's invitation is to provide contrary incontrovertible evidence to the claim of 'God' which is, of course, no more than incoherent white noise for which there is no credible supporting evidence in the first place.  Can there ever be contrary incontrovertible evidence to meaningless incoherent waffle - I think not, and I suspect Vlad well knows that.

As I see it. He doesn't need to provide incontrovertible evidence for the existence of God. To be deluded you need to have a belief that goes against incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. There isn't incontrovertible evidence that God doesn't exist so a belief in God isn't delusional. Where is that wrong?

[Gordon]

As I see it. He doesn't need to provide incontrovertible evidence for the existence of God. To be deluded you need to have a belief that goes against incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. There isn't incontrovertible evidence that God doesn't exist so a belief in God isn't delusional. Where is that wrong?

I would say he does, if he expects the rest of us to believe it.

But if his beliefs are fantastical, incoherent and are unsupported by any credible evidence at all, then there is no need to negate his claim of 'God' by citing contrary incontrovertible evidence - since there can be none in response to such an incoherent and nonsensical claim, which can therefore just be viewed as an example of unjustified false belief - hence a delusion.

It may be that the term 'delusion' isn't often used in relation to the claims of Christianity but I'd say that anyone who seriously entertains a belief that a 2/3 dead person didn't stay dead is holding an unjustified false belief that can be dismissed as being delusional.

[Maeght]

I would say he does, if he expects the rest of us to believe it.

But if his beliefs are fantastical, incoherent and are unsupported by any credible evidence at all, then there is no need to negate his claim of 'God' by citing contrary incontrovertible evidence - since there can be none in response to such an incoherent and nonsensical claim, which can therefore just be viewed as an example of unjustified false belief - hence a delusion.

It may be that the term 'delusion' isn't often used in relation to the claims of Christianity but I'd say that anyone who seriously entertains a belief that a 2/3 dead person didn't stay dead is holding an unjustified false belief that can be dismissed as being delusional.

Is there incontrovertible evidence that God doesn't exist?

[Gordon]

Is there incontrovertible evidence that God doesn't exist?

Since 'God' is a meaningless/incoherent term then I've no idea - it isn't a serious proposition.

Vlad is inviting us to commit the negative proof fallacy: he should know better by now.

[Maeght]

Since 'God' is a meaningless/incoherent term then I've no idea - it isn't a serious proposition.

Vlad is inviting us to commit the negative proof fallacy: he should know better by now.

I don't think he is in this case, he is arguing against the use of the word deluded.