Hello soulcalm17

[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.