God's God

[Ryantology]

I've never stated I could prove God to you, as I've said before that is God's work. My knowledge of Him comes through a relational experience and I've never said otherwise.

If you cannot prove, or even demonstrate the possession, of your knowledge to another person, it is not knowledge. It is your very own personal delusion, seeded with information you have absorbed living in a country which has already exposed you, for years, to the idea of the god you worship.

Your claim is confirmation bias until you can show otherwise.

You'll have to show evidence that a person has had an experience, like yours, without ever previously having the slightest cultural awareness of the Christian god if you want to demonstrate that such an experience is what you claim it is, and you're going to have to show evidence that a lot of people have had experiences like yours without ever previously having had the slightest cultural awareness of the Christian god if you want to show that one isn't just a weird fluke. Note: if you find a person who makes that claim, the claim has to be demonstrably true. Testimony proves nothing.

My experience is not subjective, it's an objective relevant experience and for Christians it's proven outside of our heads, just because you do not want to accept our real experiences does not nullify them in the least.

If it is proven outside of your heads, then you can prove it to us beyond our ability to doubt it. If not, then it is not objective.

Why they found nothing I do not know, maybe they did not like what they saw, could be the were scared of what they saw, that's if they went far enough to see God. What could be the real problem is they put faith in a book and not the Author of life that brought the Bible into existence.

Maybe the real problem is that there's no god to find.

By the way what requirement did Christians make up, Christianity is a relationship between God and man, God made this relationship possible, so the requirements would be His not man's.

Until you can demonstrate that your specific God certainly exists, then appealing to God is an invalid argument.

Proving God exist to you is not a requirement for me to have a relationship with Him. It is you allowing God to prove Himself to you that is required for you to have a relationship with Him.

That is certainly true, you can hold your delusions for whatever reasons you want. Proving God's existence to me is a requirement for me to take you seriously, and if you're not engaged in this debate with the hopes of my (or other atheists) taking you seriously, what the hell are you doing?

First off I'm not preaching, whether you believe me or not is not relevant to God's existence. I do not know what kind of chance there is for a nonbeliever to come to Christ, only God knows that. God says that there is always a chance as long as He strives with a person, and Christ said to go, so I do because I've chosen this as my life and it's not stupid. When God shows up with His angels it will be to late for those who have rejected Him. If He does show up with His angels in your life time it will be your pants that will be full of .... and that my friend is not meant to be funny.

It is preaching. It is the same message, repeated endlessly, that all it takes to prove the existence of God is to assume he exists and nurture that into a steadfast refusal to accept any evidence to the contrary.

You have to remember, to us, you're just one kind of crazy among dozens of major kinds of crazy and thousands of less visible kinds of crazy. We look at muslims who insist they can prove the existence of Allah, hindu who are firmly convinced that Vishnu is the Supreme Being, and so on, and every last one of those claims is exactly as demonstrably true as your claim about your god. It's not even really a matter of proving that you're right and your God exists, you also have to prove that all those other gods do not. Can you?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I said if you can make up shit about some non-demonstrable deity (giving whatever secondary characteristics you want) then so can I about whatever I want. That gets us nowhere there smart guy.

I can not find any counter-argument in your response. Probably because there isn't one.

Proving God's existence to me is a requirement for me to take you seriously, and if you're not engaged in this debate with the hopes of my (or other atheists) taking you seriously, what the hell are you doing?

Personally, I do not care if your are persuaded or not. I'm hoping to learn something by being exposed to new ideas and novel ways of approaching age-old problems. Instead, your tired counter-claims to straw men and irrelevant slams have not offered any compelling ideas worthy of taking seriously.

It's not even really a matter of proving that you're right and your God exists, you also have to prove that all those other gods do not. Can you?

Why? Because you say so? As far as I'm concerned Mystic Knight and I have presented a clear and reasonable basis for believing in a Supreme Being, regardless of the name applied to that being. And no serious counter-argument has been made.

there's no reason to assume that cause is supernatural; it could just be a feature of the universe our technology can't detect yet.

That still falls within the definition of supernatural, since it falls outside of what we currently consider natural.

It is your very own personal delusion, seeded with information you have absorbed living in a country which has already exposed you, for years, to the idea of the god you worship.

Since you cannot prove that GodChild's experience is a delusion, then your personal attack is based on a complete lack of evidence. You're all about needing evidence except when it conflicts with your irrational compulsion to ridicule believers.

[median]

I said if you can make up shit about some non-demonstrable deity (giving whatever secondary characteristics you want) then so can I about whatever I want. That gets us nowhere there smart guy.

I can not find any counter-argument in your response. Probably because there isn't one.

Great! Then you agree that simply making shit up about an alleged deity (or assuming secondary characteristics) isn't a sound option, right?

---

As far as I'm concerned Mystic Knight and I have presented a clear and reasonable basis for believing in a Supreme Being, regardless of the name applied to that being. And no serious counter-argument has been made.

The Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity fallacy is supposed to be "reasonable"?? LOL. Actually, counter arguments have been made. Can you read? If you didn't see any then you haven't been paying attention. Merely claiming "God [the supernatural self propelling causer of the universe] is necessary" isn't an argument. It's an unsupported claim, which anyone can do. The truly honest answer, the one that credulous types like you are unwilling to accept b/c of some emotional need you have, is to admit that you simply don't know - and to withhold judgment. But that's just out of the question for you, due to your assumptions, isn't it?

there's no reason to assume that cause is supernatural; it could just be a feature of the universe our technology can't detect yet.

That still falls within the definition of supernatural, since it falls outside of what we currently consider natural.

Ah, so anything you don't personally understand, you put the label "supernatural" on? WOW. There's the inherent problem with faith for ya! Just keep believing credulously even when there isn't sufficient/extraordinary evidence to support an extraordinary claim (all so you can keep feeling comfortable in your holy book assumption).

[archangle]

Jesus Chad, I feel the same way.

I would like a crack at godchild God. I will aproach it from what we do know. I agree, supernatural just means we don't know it yet. We shall draw a reasonable conclusion using what we do know. And then maybe go just a tad off the measured curve to make some reasonable predictions.
Godchild's god is not a delusion, it is an illusion. In that he saw "it" or felt "it" but it is not what he thinks it is.

[Ryantology]

Personally, I do not care if your are persuaded or not. I'm hoping to learn something by being exposed to new ideas and novel ways of approaching age-old problems. Instead, your tired counter-claims to straw men and irrelevant slams have not offered any compelling ideas worthy of taking seriously.

You will never see as compelling any idea which challenges your confirmation bias.

Why? Because you say so? As far as I'm concerned Mystic Knight and I have presented a clear and reasonable basis for believing in a Supreme Being, regardless of the name applied to that being. And no serious counter-argument has been made.

Because your own scripture says so. First commandment. You cannot present an argument for something as vague as a featureless "supreme being" because that is not what your religion teaches. Your religion teaches that a very certain and specific Supreme Being exists and the onus is upon you, maker of the positive claim that your god exists, created the universe, and all other claims are false and blasphemous, to prove it.

Since you cannot prove that GodChild's experience is a delusion, then your personal attack is based on a complete lack of evidence. You're all about needing evidence except when it conflicts with your irrational compulsion to ridicule believers.

You cannot prove that adherents of other religions are not having false visions or delusions, even though your dogma insists that this is true. You have to satisfy the same burden of proof I do PLUS the magnificently stupendous burden of proof regarding your own god.

Since there is no other demonstrably true explanation for what Godschild claims to have experienced, and what he claims to know is true, labeling it a delusion is the only intellectually valid thing to do.

Godchild's god is not a delusion, it is an illusion. In that he saw "it" or felt "it" but it is not what he thinks it is.

The experience, itself, is not a delusion. The ironclad beliefs he has invented and/or absorbed to justify his own opinion of what the experience was, is virtually certain to be a delusion if he cannot prove otherwise.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity fallacy is supposed to be "reasonable"?? LOL.

Actually, my presentation of the cosmological argument has nothing to to with inserting entities into an area of unknown. Quite the opposite. I made a deduction from what is already known.

Can you read? If you didn't see any then you haven't been paying attention. Merely claiming "God [the supernatural self propelling causer of the universe] is necessary" isn't an argument. It's an unsupported claim, which anyone can do.

Apparently you missed, ignored, or do not read at a high enough level to understand my earlier post. Any reasonable person can see that my belief in a necessary being is not an unsupported claim, despite your unsupported claim that my claim is unsupported. (That was fun to write)

The Post You Missed...

[median]

Actually, my presentation of the cosmological argument has nothing to to with inserting entities into an area of unknown. Quite the opposite. I made a deduction from what is already known.

Where is your evidence that something can't come from nothing, when you have no 'nothing' to examine in which something could derive? Again, argument from ignorance. The statement "whatever begins to exist must have a cause" follows trivially. So what. Nothing in Kalam demonstrates anything like what you need to demonstrate a deity. It just displays you're hidden premise, "Well, it just couldn't be anything else but an eternal cosmic disembodied mind!"

Apparently you missed, ignored, or do not read at a high enough level to understand my earlier post. Any reasonable person can see that my belief in a necessary being is not an unsupported claim, despite your unsupported claim that my claim is unsupported. (That was fun to write)

The Post You Missed...

Actually I didn't miss the post at all. First, this "reasonable person" argument is a fallacy (No True Scotsman). "All reasonable people would agree with me. If they don't agree, they aren't reasonable." FAIL.

You're Zeno's paradox was already dealt with, back then and now. The mental mathematical process of thinking about abstract infinities has no bearing on the possibility of an infinity. This is just another big argument from ignorance. "I can't possibly understand how it could be X, therefore X (actual infinity - whatever that means) must be false." NOPE. It's also another God of the gaps type argument as well. You are attempting to use your intuitions about our local current state (and science has so often shown our intuitions false when it comes to finding truth), and trying to force those intuitions/non-comprehensibility onto anything else that might be the case (if you read more Hume you might know that) - instead of honestly admitting you don't know and withholding judgment. That is your fallacy. It's the ultimate form of credulity and human hubris.

Now, there is ample evidence from the sciences, including mathematics, philosophy, and physics demonstrating that our intuitions regarding the edges of our knowledge are often incorrect. As an example:

∞ + 3 = ∞

But does ∞ - ∞ = 3 (as can be shown algebraically)? No it does not. So too also, quantum physics also demonstrates that our intuitive understandings of things start to break-down here (with quantum indeterminacy, virtual particles, etc). So to say, "Actual infinities aren't possible" is simply an unsupported assertion (which is also the case for your claim that something can't come from 'nothing'). It's time to raise your standard of evidence, get honest with yourself when you don't know things, and keep it there.

[Godscreated]

@ median and Ryan, Let's say I see a man stabbed and run to his aide, then the assailant stabs me leaves behind the knife and flees. Then a person comes along and finds us, the man I saw stabbed is dead and I'm dying. The person who finds us calls 911, the police arrive and ask me what happens, I tell them the name of the person who stabbed us, I tell them I've known him for years and he was a very unstable individual, I then die. This man is convicted on my dying testimony, why, I proved nothing, demonstrated nothing, for all anyone knows I stabbed the man, then he took the knife from me and stabbed me. Maybe I did not like the man I named and wanted revenge. Yet my dying testimony was all it took to convict this person, no proof he was even there other than what I said.
Why would you as a juror accept this? Even though I told the truth there is no demonstrable proof I did, so why is this man in jail.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Where is your evidence that something can't come from nothing, when you have no 'nothing' to examine in which something could derive?

Wow! You really are dense. Where did I say the physical universe came out of nothing? The whole point of the cosmological argument is that ‘nothing comes out of nothing’. The physical universe is a something that comes out of another something, just something not bound by the rules of physics.

Actually I didn't miss the post at all.

No you just ignored it an kept on repeating refutations you read somewhere without bothering to consider whether or not they applied to the claims being made.

You're Zeno's paradox was already dealt with, back then and now.

I’m sure even you recognize that you just made an argument from authority.

The mental mathematical process of thinking about abstract infinities has no bearing on the possibility of an infinity.

So you think people should not use mathematics in the pursuit of knowledge. Queer position for a person that claims to have reason on their side.

This is just another big argument from ignorance. I can't possibly understand how it could be X, therefore X (actual infinity - whatever that means) must be false.

Not so. I presented a counter-factual. The premise in question is true because its opposite produces paradoxical results that defy logic. In order to maintain your refutation of the cosmological argument, you must hold two contradictory beliefs.

Moreover, you just admitted that you do not know what an ‘actual infinity’ which means you really didn’t understand what you were reading. That makes you just another new atheist blowhard.

[Simon Moon]

@ median and Ryan, Let's say I see a man stabbed and run to his aide, then the assailant stabs me leaves behind the knife and flees. Then a person comes along and finds us, the man I saw stabbed is dead and I'm dying. The person who finds us calls 911, the police arrive and ask me what happens, I tell them the name of the person who stabbed us, I tell them I've known him for years and he was a very unstable individual, I then die. This man is convicted on my dying testimony, why, I proved nothing, demonstrated nothing, for all anyone knows I stabbed the man, then he took the knife from me and stabbed me. Maybe I did not like the man I named and wanted revenge. Yet my dying testimony was all it took to convict this person, no proof he was even there other than what I said.
Why would you as a juror accept this? Even though I told the truth there is no demonstrable proof I did, so why is this man in jail.

No criminal court (at least in the US) would convict a person of murder based only on the testimony of a dying man.

There are many reasons why, most of them I would have thought would be obvious. I guess not.