It is true because you dont understand it

[Edwardo Piet]

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

And then I said that it doesn't substantiate your claim, it's pretty much just a paraphrasing of the same thing. You mention how according to you atheists cherry pick and ignore philosophy with science, but you don't substantiate this, so throwing it in does nothing. How do atheists do that? You're speaking of atheist argument and atheist's 'screwy logic'. But the definition of atheism does no coincide with that, unless you can explain how all atheists are by definition like that...even when by definition they just don't believe in God.

Like I said, how does mere non-belief in God='screwy logic'? That's a huge logic jump and you need to do a lot more to substantiate that, than simply asserting that atheists 'cherry pick' and 'ignore philosophy with science'.

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 asked for you to substantiate your claim of there being such a thing as screwy 'atheist logic', what is atheist logic? Logic that applies to those who don't believe in God, right? So as I've said, how does non-belief in God necessarily='Screwy logic'?

I'm not asking you to tell me what I think. You say that 'I do it', so you are implying that I have 'screwy logic'/cherry pick/'deny philosophy with science', etc, right? Now I don't think this is true, but even if it was, it would do nothing for your claim. Because you spoke of screwy atheist logic, not an atheist's screwy logic. My logic could be completely screwy, a number of atheist's logic could be screwy, but that doesn't mean atheist logic is screwy. To substantiate that claim you have to substantiate that all atheist's have screwy logic, you have to substantiate that it's necessarily true by the definition of atheism, to have 'screwy logic'.

"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."

1. Why should I believe that? 2. Why should I give it priority over searching for the IPU, in terms of probability of it being true that the Christian God actually exists. 3. How is the Christian God actually any more reasonable than the IPU in terms of probability of existence? 4. How does quoting a baseless assertion that 'willingness and purity and wanting to see the truth', and 'spiritual condition and free will [which I also know of no evidence of for that matter, in a meaningful non-compatiblist sense anyway]' remotely substantiate the claim of it's truth? How does the assertion substantiate the assertion? So you're just giving me more baseless assertions then? No argument for them?

"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."."

Can you elaborate on this? How does Quantum Vacuum= The Christian God, with the Father, The Holy Spirit, and Jesus Meek and Mild? And all the rest of the stuff in the bible for that matter? how close is "close" exactly, in this analogy? Unless you're arguing for deism...? But even then......

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.

Reveals what? I already explained that I was in a completely different position then. Then I had a motive because I was unsure about whether God existed or not, and wanted to find out. Now I'm in the position that searching for God is as futile as searching for the IPU.

Is it revealing that you won't go searching for the IPU?

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

I don't believe I ever said it. If I did, it's completely out of character, and I've been spending all this time waiting for your response. If I really did, I apologise. If you think I implied it, there was no such implication (and least not intended).

LOL no evidence is our taboo subject IIRC

What does IIRC mean? I've wanted to know whenever you say it, but I forgot to ask till now.

From how I understand, what was taboo was the battle between Evidence and Faith outside the debate forum. And if evidence alone was disallowed, why not faith? Because I distinctly remember that there definitely was no bias of one over the other - outside the debate forum, it's either one of them alone, or neither. We're not going to favour one over the other outside the debate forum.

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.

Please do explain, I see no such contradictions. What I see in the above quote of mine, is me not giving God special treatment over the IPU. And I can be interested in what you believe, any why you believe it, without expecting to be converted myself - where, in that logic, are the contradictions you speak of??

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.

Maybe you could understand, that from my point of view, you, and everyone else who's ever tried - has failed to demonstrate to me (and anyone else as far as I know), that there's any more to God than the IPU, or that Theology can somehow study God, in a way any more or less unreasonably than the IPU can (or can't) be studied. That it is in any way a real subject, any more than studying the IPU would be. The fact that it is called a subject does nothing to the reality. Popularity is not evidence. If the IPU had a subject and God didn't, that wouldn't make the IPU any more reasonable, and it's same the vice-versa you see.

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. By that logic, your mind is closed for not spending your time searching for the IPU. How is God any more reasonable?

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.

I do have interest in investing my time in religion. In the same sense as I would with Mythology, I just don't search for Evidence for the existence for Zeus, for the same reason I do for the IPU, and also for the same reason...I don't for God. Because as far as I know, it's all completely futile. But just as I can still be interested in Mythology without searching for evidence for the existence of Zeus, the same can be said for God.

If IPUism was really popular in the world, it would be no less futile to search for evidence for the existence of the IPU, but that doesn't mean I couldn't find the fact people believed in the IPU interesting - so why should it be any different for God??

EvF