Atheists... why do you believe that God doesn't exist?

[Rampant.A.I.]

'pocaracas' pid='659986' dateline='1398778632']

"Assuming supernatural influence"? really?
That's your starting point?

Brain power is needed i'm afraid. Are you out?

The starting point is reality. From reality we observe logic. From logic we deduce what must be logical. From what we know, we predict what we don't know. Accuracy depends on the quality and completeness of the subject.

"Infinity corresponds to boundless observations"

"Nature expresses the doorway to external reality"

"Information is the foundation of descriptions of reality"

"Qualia grows through incredible facts"

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com

"anything" is such a strong word...
It's like "always" and "never". I don't like them.

I like beautiful girls... bring them on!

Now seriously, what does that have to do with anything we're talking about?!

You said that we could dismiss religion because some things which are bad have been done in its name.

---

If you want to understand something, you shouldn't begin with an assumption. That's your first mistake.

Would you apply that to scientific discoveries?

I assume that you're human. I test for human. Human test passed. Subject assumed to be human.

Please demonstrate the fault with this process. I'm not disagreeing with you, as I don't need to. I'm merely interested.

[Tonus]

We call what cannot be faulted knowledge. If you can't fault a premise, then you can build on that premise, as long as it stands unrefuted.

Are you sure? Because I have a pretty lively imagination, and I can build one heck of a premise. And the only thing you can refute is the part about what me and that shapely redhead did in the janitor's closet.

[Ryantology]

We call what cannot be faulted knowledge. If you can't fault a premise, then you can build on that premise, as long as it stands unrefuted.

Your materialism is destroyed.

Spoken like a true know-nothing.

Also, I seem to have missed where you refuted materialism.

[fr0d0]

Your materialism denies logic without material proof Ryan. If the above is true, then materialism is false.

[Chad32]

If you want to understand something, you shouldn't begin with an assumption. That's your first mistake.

Would you apply that to scientific discoveries?

I assume that you're human. I test for human. Human test passed. Subject assumed to be human.

Please demonstrate the fault with this process. I'm not disagreeing with you, as I don't need to. I'm merely interested.

Of course it applies to the scientific method. Science is all about finding evidence for stuff to understand things. Someone might see a neanderthal, and assume it's human, but after testing they find out it's not. Some European might see an African, and assume it isn't really human, but after testing we find out that they are.

Supernatural forces can't be tested, so we can't find out anything definitive about them, so it's not good to assume they exist anyway. To understand something about a supernatural being, you'd have to find definitive answers about the existence of the supernatural, and how supernatural things work. We can't do that, so we can't say gods exist, how many there are, what they can and can't do, or anything about them.

A christian will assume the supernatural exists, there is one god, and he's omnipotent, present, and knowing. Despite not being able to provide concrete evidence on any of that. You have said yourself that supernatural forces can't be examined by natural means, and leave no natural evidence, so debating about these things is no more productive than debating on the existence of vampires. Are they're ugly or beautiful, what powers do they have, can they subsist on animal blood, and are they always evil?

These questions about vampires have fueled many stories in multiple medias, but one person can't definitively say one way or another because we haven't found any vampires yet. Are you going to assume vampires are real anyway?

[Tonus]

Supernatural forces can't be tested,

On some level it seems as if they should be testable. That is what groups like the Randi Foundation offer a reward for. If you told them you could walk on water and they arranged for a test and you did so, and there did not appear to be any reasonable alternative, then we would have tested and verified a supernatural act. If you could restore amputated limbs with a touch, it would be something easy to verify and quite difficult to ascribe to some alternative natural explanation. If you could take a few fish and loaves of bread and serve thousands of people and recover more food as leftovers than you started with, that could be tested and verified as a supernatural act.

What we cannot test are claims about beings that exist yet cannot be detected and only reveal themselves in private and personal ways that leave no evidence. But as is often pointed out, there have probably been thousands --if not millions-- of such beings worshiped throughout human history. And we cannot falsify a single one of them, if they are defined in that same manner.

[Coffee Jesus]

So I've given you good reason why the concept if God is different to myths. But you ignore, not challenge that reasoning. Noted.

Let's say all non temporal entities are equal. Where is the need to prove existence? My belief certainly never demands it. Quite the opposite: it claims that objective proof cannot exist.

Where does this leave your objection? Completely destroyed.

Casper the ghost haunts me, playing tricks on me while nobody is looking. You can't prove he doesn't exist because he's invisible, immaterial, and intentionally hiding.

post #167, with portions that I've highlighted in bolded blue.

My belief isn't supernatural. I believe in a supernatural entity defined as the Christian God. Why not believe in any absurd idea of the supernatural: because I have the ability to reason what those ideas are, as we can all know what they are.

Is it beyond your intellect to understand the meaning of leprechauns, for example?

Moreover, studying Christian doctrine is an in depth study of the supernatural. It's my subject. So I'm better equipped to consider questions of supernatural origin. Someone ignorant of the field wouldn't be as equipped to consider such problems. Practically, I will be more aware of superstitious practice and able to avoid them. That's my experience.

If you want to dismiss supernatural entities, I would expect you to have some idea why. If you have no reason, then I'm happy to acknowledge your lack of opinion.

In other words, you know how to disprove the existence of Casper the ghost. Please enlighten us. It's not an argument if you just say "I know, but I'm not going to tell you how I know."

I endlessly go into the reasoning in detail as the questions arise. Answering such a nebulous request is like explaining the universe to a baby. Baby steps is what the uninitiated need.

But your question isn't cogent in the first place. Answering it would compound the error.

I didn't ask a fucking question, unless you interpret "Please enlighten us" as a question, so don't give me some bullshit about my question being incogent without even specifying how.

[pocaracas]

"Assuming supernatural influence"? really?
That's your starting point?

Brain power is needed i'm afraid. Are you out?

It must be rubbing off of you!

The starting point is reality. From reality we observe logic. From logic we deduce what must be logical. From what we know, we predict what we don't know. Accuracy depends on the quality and completeness of the subject.

Makes sense... now where in that whole procedure may a god pop up?

"anything" is such a strong word...
It's like "always" and "never". I don't like them.

I like beautiful girls... bring them on!

Now seriously, what does that have to do with anything we're talking about?!

You said that we could dismiss religion because some things which are bad have been done in its name.

I said what?!

If I recall correctly, all I said was that believing in god has informed a few worldviews which have led to the destruction of life, instead of what you were saying that such belief "informs a world view which improves life", implying that it is always the case.

I was merely correcting the implication of your sentence, pointing out that sometimes it fails.

[Ryantology]

Your materialism denies logic without material proof Ryan. If the above is true, then materialism is false.

If the above is true, you should be able to demonstrate it in some way. If you can't, then I have every reason to assume you are talking out of your ass while having no way of knowing that you're not.

I know, you insist that you can't demonstrate it. What I don't get is why you think that this failure on your part weakens my position.

[fr0d0]

If I recall correctly, all I said was that believing in god has informed a few worldviews which have led to the destruction of life, instead of what you were saying that such belief "informs a world view which improves life", implying that it is always the case.

I was merely correcting the implication of your sentence, pointing out that sometimes it fails.

Oh alright I'll let you off. This time *que menacing music