It is true because you dont understand it

[fr0d0]

"Atheist argument relies on screwey logic.. cherry picking as with denying philosophy with science."

How does that substantiate your previous claim? That's just covering it with a paraphrasing of the same claim! That also lacks substantiation!

I said you missed it & this is what you missed.

How does the definition of atheism (since you say "atheist argument" - that's my point)=denying philosophy? Atheism in and of itself says nothing of philosophy or science at all actually. Atheism is just non-belief in God. As I said, how does non-belief in God=screwy logic? How does it make sense for you to say Atheist argument relies on screwy logic? And I still fail to see how you've substantiated this. You've just told me that atheists cherry-pick and deny philosophy 'with science', but how so?

You asked me for an example and I gave it to you.

How so? you do it - I'm not going to tell you what you think!

I was speaking of claims made by JP and Arcanus. My claims you skilfully circled around too.

I know you were, you're referring to the logical arguments that have been 'demonstrated' or 'presented' on these forums according to you. That according to you, I have 'ignored' or 'failed to understand'. But I'm just saying that...that's, as I said - from your point of view. From my point of view however, I haven't ignored anything. Because in my view there's nothing to ignore, because despite what you think you, Arcanus and JP, etc, have said that have been logical arguments for God according to you - I have seen no such logical arguments that in any way provide evidence for God. So from my perspective I haven't ignored, because there's no evidence of anything to ignore. Why would I believe if, in my view, there's no evidence?

"According to Christianity, whether you are revealed the truth from God does not depend on some coincidence, but on your own willingness and purity to see and want it's truth, your own spiritual condition and free will."

"in the words of the Anglican particle physicist who helped discover the quark, John Polkinghorne, that "the nearest analogy in the physical world [to God] would be ... the Quantum Vacuum."."

So you mean no one has inspired you enough to look into it seriously. That's a bit different from saying there is no evidence. You are simply taking other people's word for that, having never looked into it yourself to make up your own mind.

Why would I look into it or find it any more inspiring than the FSM, or countless of other hypothetical deities? Just because it's popular? That's not logical.

If you're interested in finding out about something the usual thing to do is invest something into that quest. You did it for TGD but are unable to somehow for this. I think that's revealing.

It is. I had nothing to say. I've suggested we resume before and you've declined.

Did I? What the fuck? I never do that. Please provide a quote if you can! I mean, when did I? I certainly never explicitly did. I've been waiting for you to reply this whole time. If you have seen an implication of me saying I don't want to continue with our debate, no such implication was ever intended, if that is so.

You said it last week. If I find it I'll tell you.

Funny I thought evidence was our topic and not faith.

It is, I was just saying how it was okay to mention just evidence here, so long as I don't mention faith I think...if we are to mention both, then that goes in the debate, right?

I only mentioned faith to try and confirm this...

LOL no evidence is our taboo subject IIRC

So it's not that you don't want to understand it it's that you don't want to look into it

Correct, I'm questioning why you and other theists believe (and also why deists believe), and why you think there's evidence, and what you think that evidence is. I don't expect there to be evidence. I'm not saying it's impossible - but I might as well go searching for the IPU!!

That's just so contradictory.

I've detailed my case up to that point in support of my logic. I've taken you to the book shop and placed TGD in your hands. Now all you have to do is read it. Why did you read TGD if looking into this subject was futile as you say? You take great interest and research around anti God because somehow this interests you, yet you refuse to give the same importance to the very subject you're dismissing... without ever wanting to look into it.

The subject may be the same, but the motives are different. I read TGD because I'm interested in religion. But that's a whole other ball game anyway, because my position was completely different then. Because when I was to read TGD, I didn't consider it as futile because I was more unsure of if there was a God or not at the time, but my superstition in pseudo-scientific New Age bullshit was decreasing, so I was giving it a shot to see if the New Age BS really was BS, and if God was less 50/50, 60/40, 80/20 or even 90/10 odds and if the odds were in fact more against him than that.

RD talks bullshit about religion. It would be like me reading Ray Comfort on Evolution. Maybe you can understand the respect I have for that position.

From the position I'm at now however, what would motivate me into thinking that looking for evidence for God was any less futile than looking for the IPU?

So you're saying you're mind is closed?

No, I look into religion now because I just find it interesting, for moral/immoral and historical reasons, etc. And I find it fascinating the sort of stuff people can believe. I mean, I find religion interesting just as someone who is interested in Mythology is interested in it, without actually thinking Zeus is in any way plausible (not that he's impossible..you can't prove a negative, etc).

So it's some kind of sport to you that you have no interest in investing time in. This is like saying to your guitar teacher that you have no interest in playing the guitar you just want to understand this foolish pastime he indulges in. I'd guess the teacher would walk out.