Hello soulcalm17

[Sheldon]

I'm curious why you think that a God, if it existed, would be the sort of thing that could be demonstrated with objective evidence. 

Exist
verb
1. have objective reality or being.

I should have started with this really, mea culpa maxima.

[soulcalm17]

soulcalm17
I already give argument previously that:

Prophecies that are true is impossible coming from human.

No they're not, and this is a bare claim, as I explained already. people make astronomically unlikely predictions that come true all the time, the lottery would be one good example. 

You compare it with lottery predictions. Was it true parallel comparation?
Lottery, just predict the numbers, that are already set in the fixed characteristic, i.e contains of 6 digits number. While propechies that I mentions is:
1.     The name of the person in the future
2.     The number of his enemies (not fixed characteristic given before)
3.     The number of his followers
4.     The number of his wives
5.     The vehicle of this person
6.     The type of prayer he would make
7.     His time of his born at exact time
8.     His father’s and mother’s name
Now if you used your paremeter, I would like to know, is there any other person who can make claim just from guessing like above and approved to be true. Because it of course also did not from just assumption like, anyone can do it. But no sufficient objective evidence exist.

Note that I’m also open minded person, that those prophecies are not in my religion’s scripture. Yet I can conclude that information must came from God.

May be I must give little correction from my statement. This one is more correct: The information contains about details future is impossible come from human.

I still want to give you rational evidence about my reason:

The information about details future is there and spoken/stated by human. Information can not exist itself without someone/entity made it. It’s illogical if we say information just made itself. So it must be entity which made those information.

The characteristic of the information containing the details future events that proved to be true. Meaning that the maker of this information know about details future. Thus, this entity must be not bounded by the time. If entity is not bounded by the time, then it must be not in our 3rd dimensional universe. It must be in higher than 3 dimension. That is why this entity is unseen to us.

[Silver]

Making up stuff to support more made up stuff. Typical.

[Belacqua]

I'm curious why you think that a God, if it existed, would be the sort of thing that could be demonstrated with objective evidence. 

Exist
verb
1. have objective reality or being.

I should have started with this really, mea culpa maxima.

I'm not quite sure how you're using the word "objective." Are you sure that something which has objective being will necessarily be provable through objective evidence? And I'm not clear what you mean by "objective evidence." I assumed you meant science-type evidence -- empirical, repeatable, testable, quantifiable. But I guess you're not using objective and scientific as synonyms here.

Anyway, you've gone with the first definition on Google, but Merriam Webster has this:

exist
x·ist ig-ˈzist 
existed; existing; exists
intransitive verb
1a: to have real being whether material or spiritual"

That leaves open the question of whether spiritual things exist. As I'm understanding your view of metaphysics, you think they don't. 

And of course there are all kinds of open questions we could raise. For example, do numbers exist? Some people say they do, and some say they don't. If they exist, they are not detectable through sensory tests. For Plato and many others, God is more like a number or a concept than he is like a physical being. 

Does justice exist? It is an intelligible thing, because while we may see the results of justice, or see just acts, we never see justice itself. And many people see God as being more along those lines.

If you want to define existence as something that is detectable by science, then of course theologians agree with you that God doesn't exist in that way. Since I'm not sure how you're using the word "objective," I can't say whether the arguments the theologians and philosophers use are what you would call objective. They are not subjective in the sense that our perceptions of them differ from person to person -- the arguments are there, and unchanging, written down.

I'm not willing to use "objective interpretation" as a synonym for "a literal interpretation." Because for example when Jesus talks about seeds cast on stony ground that don't take root, an objective person would NOT conclude that he's giving advice about agriculture. Objective analysis sees that he's using a metaphor. Likewise, if I say "That guy has really made his way up in the company," an objective listener would not assume that the guy has travelled vertically to a higher floor. The non-literal meaning would be clear to an objective listener.

[The Grand Nudger]

Good lord.....that's a whole lot of words to ask the question of whether things that objectively exist would exist objectively.

Gonna go with a yes on that....?

[Sheldon]

No they're not, and this is a bare claim, as I explained already. people make astronomically unlikely predictions that come true all the time, the lottery would be one good example. 

You compare it with lottery predictions. 

Yes since they disprove your claim that such predictions are impossible, and names exist in the same way numbers do.

The information contains about details future is impossible come from human.

You keep repeating this claim, but have failed to offered any objective evidence to support the claim? Whereas the fact that people accurately predict future events (the lottery for example) simply falsifies your claim this cannot happen. FYI names exist in the same way numbers exist, and lastly of course your criteria are simply a long list of unevidenced claims. You're violating Occam's razor, by adding a deity that you have failed to objectively demonstrate exists, or is possible, especially since you have offered no objective evidence humans can't make such predictions. and then have them come true. 

The information about details future is there and spoken/stated by human. Information can not exist itself without someone/entity made it. It’s illogical if we say information just made itself. So it must be entity which made those information.

1. The fact a claim is written in a book does not represent objective evidence for that claim.
2. The information in the claim comes from humans, we have overwhelming objective evidence humans create books.
3. The addition of a deity is not required or evidenced, and in your previous arguments used a known logical fallacy, and thus cannot be asserted as rational. 
3. No one has suggested the information created itself - this is a straw man.

The characteristic of the information containing the details future events that proved to be true. Meaning that the maker of this information know about details future. 

Two claims, but no objective evidence to support either claim?

Thus, this entity must be not bounded by the time. If entity is not bounded by the time, then it must be not in our 3rd dimensional universe. It must be in higher than 3 dimension. That is why this entity is unseen to us.

A string of unevidenced subjective assumptions about something you can demonstrate no objective evidence exists or is possible, nor do I accept any of it logically follows from your previous two unevidenced claims. 

The only entity I see evidenced are human writers, all the rest is either unevidenced assumptions, or irrational arguments. 

Lets say (purely for the sake of argument) that a very complicated prediction was made, and further that we could demonstrate objectively that it came true exactly as predicted, (you have not done this btw), and that we had no explanation of how this was happened. How does this objectively evidence anything? All we'd have is a mystery we couldn't explain.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't think the existence of God requires positive evidence for God - better explanations would seem to be sufficient. It's the faeries at the bottom of the garden scenario. Until and unless we come up with explanations that would require God, it doesn't seem to be a proposition worth considering.

'It is unreasonable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it to be true.' - Russell

Boru

[Sheldon]

Exist
verb
1. have objective reality or being.

I should have started with this really, mea culpa maxima.

Are you sure that something which has objective being will necessarily be provable through objective evidence?

Well I have not claimed this of course, but why would one assume something can be objectively real and offer no objective evidence? For context the claim that something exists carries the "burden of proof", if they cannot satisfy that then I prefer not to speculate on hypotheticals. 

I'm not clear what you mean by "objective evidence." I assumed you meant science-type evidence -- empirical, repeatable, testable, quantifiable. But I guess you're not using objective and scientific as synonyms here.

Well offer the best most compelling reason you have to believe a deity exists, and I will give it my due diligence. Think of a scale with pure subjective claim at the bottom, and objective fact at the top,  the more evidence one has at the higher end of the scale the more compelling I'd find it. Whilst all beliefs might be influenced subjectively, they are not all equally subjective. If I claim I saw a mermaid, and I claim the earth is not flat, then the beliefs are at different ends of that scale. 

exist
x·ist ig-ˈzist 
existed; existing; exists
intransitive verb
1a: to have real being whether material or spiritual"

Real
adjective
1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

So you seem to have the same problem with the claim a deity exists, namely can you demonstrate that anything spiritual exists outside of the human imagination? 

That leaves open the question of whether spiritual things exist. As I'm understanding your view of metaphysics, you think they don't. 

I do not believe they exist unless someone can demonstrate this objectively, but this is not a claim, as you have worded it, as I suspect the idea is unfalsifiable. FYI I must remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable beliefs, but also withhold belief from them all, since to believe them all would involved believing contradictory ideas, and believing some and not others, must involve closed minded bias. 

And of course there are all kinds of open questions we could raise. For example, do numbers exist? Some people say they do, and some say they don't. If they exist, they are not detectable through sensory tests. For Plato and many others, God is more like a number or a concept than he is like a physical being. 

If you're asserting that deities exists only as an abstract concept, I'd have no problem with that. I see no evidence numbers exist outside of the human imagination that created them, so prima facie I'd say that was a good analogy. 

Does justice exist? It is an intelligible thing, because while we may see the results of justice, or see just acts, we never see justice itself. And many people see God as being more along those lines.

Since justice is a subjective abstract idea, imagined by humans, this seems again like a good analogy. If you're claiming a deity is like this, then I would remain an atheist obviously. 

If you want to define existence as something that is detectable by science, then of course theologians agree with you that God doesn't exist in that way. Since I'm not sure how you're using the word "objective," 

I have not mentioned science, though I would observe that it's results in understanding objective reality makes it by far the best method humans have created. I explained above that imagine it's a scale with purely subjective beliefs and claims at one end, and objective facts at the other. You accept there is a difference I assume between someone claiming they experienced a unicorn spiritually, and someone claiming the earth is not flat?

I can't say whether the arguments the theologians and philosophers use are what you would call objective. They are not subjective in the sense that our perceptions of them differ from person to person -- the arguments are there, and unchanging, written down.

Offer one and we can take a look, I have not seen any that offer objective evidence for any deity thus far, but I am only 58 after all. the second sentence seems wrong, else atheists would not exist surely, it is axiomatic that my perception of theological arguments differs from those who accept they are a compelling reason to believe a deity exists. 
For clarity here, I identify as an atheist, this means I do not believe any deity or deities exist, it does not mean I hold a belief no deity or deities exist, again see my explanation of unfalsifiable beliefs and where agnosticism would also apply. Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is know or can be known about a deity, though it would apply in a broader sense to all unfalsifiable ideas of course. I am agnostic about concepts of deities that are unfalsifiable, as I must be, but I withhold belief from them as well, so am also an atheist. 

I'm not willing to use "objective interpretation" as a synonym for "a literal interpretation." Because for example when Jesus talks about seeds cast on stony ground that don't take root, an objective person would NOT conclude that he's giving advice about agriculture. 

A false equivalence there, since I am dubious any atheist would disbelieve that deities can exist purely in the human imagination, or in the abstract. FYI if Jesus existed, then we can't know what Jesus did or did not say or do, as the gospel myths are anonymous hearsay.  

Objective analysis sees that he's using a metaphor. Likewise, if I say "That guy has really made his way up in the company," an objective listener would not assume that the guy has travelled vertically to a higher floor. The non-literal meaning would be clear to an objective listener.

I agree, though your point escapes me, unless you are saying deities only exist in the human imagination as abstract concepts, so god is only ever being used as a metaphor? Otherwise whilst the assertion is true, almost trivially so, it is irrelevant to the claim a deity exists outside of the human imagination, which I don't believe.

[Belacqua]

Are you sure that something which has objective being will necessarily be provable through objective evidence?

Well I have not claimed this of course, but why would one assume something can be objectively real and offer no objective evidence? For context the claim that something exists carries the "burden of proof", if they cannot satisfy that then I prefer not to speculate on hypotheticals. 

I'm not clear what you mean by "objective evidence." I assumed you meant science-type evidence -- empirical, repeatable, testable, quantifiable. But I guess you're not using objective and scientific as synonyms here.

Well offer the best most compelling reason you have to believe a deity exists, and I will give it my due diligence. Think of a scale with pure subjective claim at the bottom, and objective fact at the top,  the more evidence one has at the higher end of the scale the more compelling I'd find it. Whilst all beliefs might be influenced subjectively, they are not all equally subjective. If I claim I saw a mermaid, and I claim the earth is not flat, then the beliefs are at different ends of that scale. 

exist
x·ist ig-ˈzist 
existed; existing; exists
intransitive verb
1a: to have real being whether material or spiritual"

Real
adjective
1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

So you seem to have the same problem with the claim a deity exists, namely can you demonstrate that anything spiritual exists outside of the human imagination? 

That leaves open the question of whether spiritual things exist. As I'm understanding your view of metaphysics, you think they don't. 

I do not believe they exist unless someone can demonstrate this objectively, but this is not a claim, as you have worded it, as I suspect the idea is unfalsifiable. FYI I must remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable beliefs, but also withhold belief from them all, since to believe them all would involved believing contradictory ideas, and believing some and not others, must involve closed minded bias. 

And of course there are all kinds of open questions we could raise. For example, do numbers exist? Some people say they do, and some say they don't. If they exist, they are not detectable through sensory tests. For Plato and many others, God is more like a number or a concept than he is like a physical being. 

If you're asserting that deities exists only as an abstract concept, I'd have no problem with that. I see no evidence numbers exist outside of the human imagination that created them, so prima facie I'd say that was a good analogy. 

Does justice exist? It is an intelligible thing, because while we may see the results of justice, or see just acts, we never see justice itself. And many people see God as being more along those lines.

Since justice is a subjective abstract idea, imagined by humans, this seems again like a good analogy. If you're claiming a deity is like this, then I would remain an atheist obviously. 

If you want to define existence as something that is detectable by science, then of course theologians agree with you that God doesn't exist in that way. Since I'm not sure how you're using the word "objective," 

I have not mentioned science, though I would observe that it's results in understanding objective reality makes it by far the best method humans have created. I explained above that imagine it's a scale with purely subjective beliefs and claims at one end, and objective facts at the other. You accept there is a difference I assume between someone claiming they experienced a unicorn spiritually, and someone claiming the earth is not flat?

I can't say whether the arguments the theologians and philosophers use are what you would call objective. They are not subjective in the sense that our perceptions of them differ from person to person -- the arguments are there, and unchanging, written down.

Offer one and we can take a look, I have not seen any that offer objective evidence for any deity thus far, but I am only 58 after all. the second sentence seems wrong, else atheists would not exist surely, it is axiomatic that my perception of theological arguments differs from those who accept they are a compelling reason to believe a deity exists. 
For clarity here, I identify as an atheist, this means I do not believe any deity or deities exist, it does not mean I hold a belief no deity or deities exist, again see my explanation of unfalsifiable beliefs and where agnosticism would also apply. Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is know or can be known about a deity, though it would apply in a broader sense to all unfalsifiable ideas of course. I am agnostic about concepts of deities that are unfalsifiable, as I must be, but I withhold belief from them as well, so am also an atheist. 

I'm not willing to use "objective interpretation" as a synonym for "a literal interpretation." Because for example when Jesus talks about seeds cast on stony ground that don't take root, an objective person would NOT conclude that he's giving advice about agriculture. 

A false equivalence there, since I am dubious any atheist would disbelieve that deities can exist purely in the human imagination, or in the abstract. FYI if Jesus existed, then we can't know what Jesus did or did not say or do, as the gospel myths are anonymous hearsay.  

Objective analysis sees that he's using a metaphor. Likewise, if I say "That guy has really made his way up in the company," an objective listener would not assume that the guy has travelled vertically to a higher floor. The non-literal meaning would be clear to an objective listener.

I agree, though your point escapes me, unless you are saying deities only exist in the human imagination as abstract concepts, so god is only ever being used as a metaphor? Otherwise whilst the assertion is true, almost trivially so, it is irrelevant to the claim a deity exists outside of the human imagination, which I don't believe.

Well, there are a number of very smart people who think that numbers do have existence independent of human minds. Roger Penrose, for example. But I suspect you will reject his conclusions since they are not based on "objective evidence" -- at least, I think this is the case. I'm still not sure what you mean by this term, and since you seem unwilling to define it for me I guess I'll just let it go. 

My point about objective interpretations of texts recognizing non-literal expressions goes back to what we were talking about earlier, in which you were saying that the "core messages" of the myths in Genesis were made worthless by the fact that their science is inaccurate. I still hold that non-literal expressions can have "core messages" that are very worthwhile, even if they involve talking animals or other clearly fictional elements. If you look into literary tropes, like Romantic irony, or the ineffibility topos that Dante uses over and over, you'll see that it's long been a characteristic of writing about God that those things which are beyond human speech must be described through non-literal means. It requires effort and imagination on the part of the reader, but I guess that does mean that certain pre-requisites are necessary when reading those things. These literary methods certainly wouldn't fall under what you mean by "objective evidence," I'm pretty sure.

It seems that you've reached the age of 58 entirely innocent of any philosophical arguments for God. Even very basic things, like Plato's Ideas. It would be an awfully big job to start you off on all that now, and given your current epistemological commitments it looks as though you are unsympathetic to the whole project. I think you are satisfied with where you are intellectually, and I'm not interested in rocking the boat. So I'll drop the subject.

[Sheldon]

Well I have not claimed this of course, but why would one assume something can be objectively real and offer no objective evidence? For context the claim that something exists carries the "burden of proof", if they cannot satisfy that then I prefer not to speculate on hypotheticals. 
Well offer the best most compelling reason you have to believe a deity exists, and I will give it my due diligence. Think of a scale with pure subjective claim at the bottom, and objective fact at the top,  the more evidence one has at the higher end of the scale the more compelling I'd find it. Whilst all beliefs might be influenced subjectively, they are not all equally subjective. If I claim I saw a mermaid, and I claim the earth is not flat, then the beliefs are at different ends of that scale. 
Real
adjective
1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.

So you seem to have the same problem with the claim a deity exists, namely can you demonstrate that anything spiritual exists outside of the human imagination? 
I do not believe they exist unless someone can demonstrate this objectively, but this is not a claim, as you have worded it, as I suspect the idea is unfalsifiable. FYI I must remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable beliefs, but also withhold belief from them all, since to believe them all would involved believing contradictory ideas, and believing some and not others, must involve closed minded bias. 


If you're asserting that deities exists only as an abstract concept, I'd have no problem with that. I see no evidence numbers exist outside of the human imagination that created them, so prima facie I'd say that was a good analogy. 

Since justice is a subjective abstract idea, imagined by humans, this seems again like a good analogy. If you're claiming a deity is like this, then I would remain an atheist obviously. 

I have not mentioned science, though I would observe that it's results in understanding objective reality makes it by far the best method humans have created. I explained above that imagine it's a scale with purely subjective beliefs and claims at one end, and objective facts at the other. You accept there is a difference I assume between someone claiming they experienced a unicorn spiritually, and someone claiming the earth is not flat?

Offer one and we can take a look, I have not seen any that offer objective evidence for any deity thus far, but I am only 58 after all. the second sentence seems wrong, else atheists would not exist surely, it is axiomatic that my perception of theological arguments differs from those who accept they are a compelling reason to believe a deity exists. 
For clarity here, I identify as an atheist, this means I do not believe any deity or deities exist, it does not mean I hold a belief no deity or deities exist, again see my explanation of unfalsifiable beliefs and where agnosticism would also apply. Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is know or can be known about a deity, though it would apply in a broader sense to all unfalsifiable ideas of course. I am agnostic about concepts of deities that are unfalsifiable, as I must be, but I withhold belief from them as well, so am also an atheist. 

A false equivalence there, since I am dubious any atheist would disbelieve that deities can exist purely in the human imagination, or in the abstract. FYI if Jesus existed, then we can't know what Jesus did or did not say or do, as the gospel myths are anonymous hearsay.  
I agree, though your point escapes me, unless you are saying deities only exist in the human imagination as abstract concepts, so god is only ever being used as a metaphor? Otherwise whilst the assertion is true, almost trivially so, it is irrelevant to the claim a deity exists outside of the human imagination, which I don't believe.

Well, there are a number of very smart people who think that numbers do have existence independent of human minds. Roger Penrose, for example. But I suspect you will reject his conclusions since they are not based on "objective evidence" -- at least, I think this is the case. 

Another appeal to authority fallacy, so yes given you have offered nothing beyond the fallacy, I will remain dubious. 

 I'm still not sure what you mean by this term, and since you seem unwilling to define it for me I guess I'll just let it go. 

Maybe try reading where I explained what I meant in that very post you just responded to, or consult a dictionary for either word of course? I even gave examples of claims that are entirely subjective, alongside others that can be demonstrated to be objective fact, so this rather petulant response is a little bizarre?

you were saying that the "core messages" of the myths in Genesis were made worthless by the fact that their science is inaccurate. 

Did I say they were worthless? I think you may be paraphrasing more than a little there, why not quote the text of my claim, as I don't think this comes close to the context or what I actually said. I don't consider cartoons worthless, or science fiction, or poetry or art, so this claim is simply wrong. I don't believe they are the immutable and infallible words of a deity, nor do I believe they were inspired by one, for the reasons I gave. I believe from memory the context was theists and apologists quoting the bible at atheists, as if they assume atheists attach the same significance to the book as they do. Muslims often do the same thing btw. or that they imagine that like them, atheists think the bible is error free.

I still hold that non-literal expressions can have "core messages" that are very worthwhile, even if they involve talking animals or other clearly fictional elements. If you look into literary tropes, like Romantic irony, or the ineffibility topos that Dante uses over and over, you'll see that it's long been a characteristic of writing about God that those things which are beyond human speech must be described through non-literal means. It requires effort and imagination on the part of the reader, but I guess that does mean that certain pre-requisites are necessary when reading those things. These literary methods certainly wouldn't fall under what you mean by "objective evidence," I'm pretty sure.

That would depend what one is claiming about them obviously, so in this context the notion they came from or were inspired by an infallible omniscient omnipotent deity, is what was being challenged. I explained what I meant by objective evidence, in the post you're responding to, and of course both words are int he dictionary, so the idea it's some sort of esoteric mystery I'm peddling is just silly. As I said, offer the best most compelling reason you think you have that a deity exists outside the human imagination, I can't examine what is not offered.

It seems that you've reached the age of 58 entirely innocent of any philosophical arguments for God.

It seems you're now moving on to ad hominem fallacies, you made a claim that compelling philosophical arguments for a deity exist, I invited you to offer some, as I have not seen any, it seems they're so compelling you'd rather aim weak and irrational insults at me than just offer one, I guess people may infer what they wish from that. 

Even very basic things, like Plato's Ideas. It would be an awfully big job to start you off on all that now, and given your current epistemological commitments it looks as though you are unsympathetic to the whole project. 

Do all philosophers agree that those arguments represent a compelling reason to believe a deity exists? Plato wasn't even a monotheist was he? Which argument do find a compelling reason to believe in the Christian deity? Was it Plato's argument that "since planetary motion is uniform and circular, and since such motion is the motion of reason, then a planet must be driven by a rational soul. These souls that drive the planets could be called gods." I must say I remain dubious. 

I think you are satisfied with where you are intellectually, and I'm not interested in rocking the boat. So I'll drop the subject.

I think that rather childish piece of arrogant condescension says a great deal more about you than it does me, and your failure to address my post content where it specifically and expansively addressed yours, instead resorting to this sort of petulant ad hominem also has a pretty clear inference. However if you don't think you're able to offer anything beyond irrational ad hominem, and appeal to authority fallacies, to justify your chosen beliefs, then so be it, have a good day.