A God?

[Edwardo Piet]

No EvF... I've said very many times... my position is the result of rational thought. Your position is the result of obviously flawed reason.

OBVIOUSLY flawed? Let's take a look here..

I'm not saying it the other way around. I'm not saying before you think about it you have a fixed belief in something... that's equally ridiculous as not believing because of a lack of evidence that's impossible to obtain.

Well, either you believe in something...or you don't!! Do you believe once there is reason to? Or do you believe FIRST and then only DISbelieve once there is evidence against? (which is nonsensical, because there can't possibly be any evidence AGAINST if there is no evidence OF in the first place).

It seems like your stuck in a position of complete lack of thought.

Actually, I have a LOT of thoughts to be quite frank :$

You have no idea what the hell to think on the subject. You have no thoughts.

I am simply saying that I think it is more rational to need a reason TO believe FIRST. Either you believe in something or you don't. Do you 1. Need a reason TO believe first. Or do you 2. Expect there to be a reason NOT to believe first? (and if there's no evidence OF the thing existing in the first place, how can you expect there to be any evidence AGAINST it?)

This backwards idea is simply a non starter. You tried but brought up another dead end.

How is it? As I have said above - either you believe or you don't. And do you expect there to be evidence FOR something first, or AGAINST something first (before you believe)? To expect evidence against FIRST is nonsensical because, as I have said, you cannot expect there to be evidence AGAINST something before there is even any evidence OF that very thing in the first place!

I find it illuminating given the claim that you would change your mind given reasonable evidence, but here you stubbornly refuse to accept the truth when it smacks you in the face. You hold on to the evidence line no matter how extremely implausible it becomes. One thing this absolutely definitely ISN'T is open minded. Science is far away from your standpoint.

I think it is very closed-minded to just believe in something without any evidence because how are you justifying your belief when there are a SHIT LOAD of other things too ALSO without evidence, that you do NOT believe in? You seem fixated on your belief in specifically God (and things relating to him) without evidence. But there's an absolute TON of other things without evidence, you do not believe in because you are not fixed on them. I think you are fixated on God and biased towards him in particular, give him special treatment, etc, - i.e.: closed-minded.

If you believe in God without evidence, how come you don't believe in EVERYTHING without evidence? How are you doing this picking? I think it is special treatment, cherry picking - you are fixated, I think THAT is closed-off and closed-minded..

The fact there can be no empirical evidence of God does not count as evidence towards him! (obviously, no evidence is no evidence). If you believe it DOES, how come you are not applying the same logic to everything ELSE that is ALSO unprovable and unfalsifiable? (e.g. the FSM, Santa, Zeus, etc, etc, etc on and on)

Either you believe or you don't. Do you expect some evidence to believe IN something first. Or do you expect there to be evidence AGAINST that very something first, before there is any evidence OF it in the first place (therefore meaning you'd just believe in anything and everything, otherwise you are simply biased and cherry-picking; and closed-off, close-minded, etc - very nonsensical, etc)?

EvF

EDIT:

BUT - to BELIEVE you still need evidence. Whether you can have it or not. You STILL need a REASON to BELIEVE (i.e. evidence) before you can rationally believe something..

1. What is your own definition of 'god'?

The supposed supernatural creator(s) of the universe.

[fr0d0]

No EvF... I've said very many times... my position is the result of rational thought. Your position is the result of obviously flawed reason.

OBVIOUSLY flawed? Let's take a look here..

Yes, very.

I'm not saying it the other way around. I'm not saying before you think about it you have a fixed belief in something... that's equally ridiculous as not believing because of a lack of evidence that's impossible to obtain.

Well, either you believe in something...or you don't!! Do you believe once there is reason to? Or do you believe FIRST and then only DISbelieve once there is evidence against? (which is nonsensical, because there can't possibly be any evidence AGAINST if there is no evidence OF in the first place).

Your repeating yourself again. I already said, and of course it's obvious, no one believes without reasoning. Evidence, we have established, is a ridiculous requirement. Yet you hold on to it like grim death. This you call open mindedness.

It seems like you're stuck in a position of complete lack of thought.

Actually, I have a LOT of thoughts to be quite frank :$

Hehe

You have no idea what the hell to think on the subject. You have no thoughts.

I am simply saying that I think it is more rational to need a reason TO believe FIRST. Either you believe in something or you don't. Do you 1. Need a reason TO believe first. Or do you 2. Expect there to be a reason NOT to believe first? (and if there's no evidence OF the thing existing in the first place, how can you expect there to be any evidence AGAINST it?)

Yup. I needed reason to believe first. I believe everyone does. I already said this in answer to you last time. You missed it apparently.

Evidence... yeah, I'm a god obviously and can know the evidence (sic).

This backwards idea is simply a non starter. You tried but brought up another dead end.

How is it? As I have said above - either you believe or you don't. And do you expect there to be evidence FOR something first, or AGAINST something first (before you believe)? To expect evidence against FIRST is nonsensical because, as I have said, you cannot expect there to be evidence AGAINST something before there is even any evidence OF that very thing in the first place!

Like I answered you, you need reason first. Evidence!!! Are you not reading what I've put? You need to counter that first before you repeat what has been thoroughly logically dismissed.

I find it illuminating given the claim that you would change your mind given reasonable evidence, but here you stubbornly refuse to accept the truth when it smacks you in the face. You hold on to the evidence line no matter how extremely implausible it becomes. One thing this absolutely definitely ISN'T is open minded. Science is far away from your standpoint.

I think it is very closed-minded to just believe in something without any evidence because how are you justifying your belief when there are a SHIT LOAD of other things too ALSO without evidence, that you do NOT believe in? You seem fixated on your belief in specifically God (and things relating to him) without evidence. But there's an absolute TON of other things without evidence, you do not believe in because you are not fixed on them. I think you are fixated on God and biased towards him in particular, give him special treatment, etc, - i.e.: closed-minded.

Here we go again... yeah yeah, I know, you say it every other post EvF. That doesn't make it right. The point has been thoroughly beaten yet you repeat it regardless.

If you believe in God without evidence, how come you don't believe in EVERYTHING without evidence? How are you doing this picking? I think it is special treatment, cherry picking - you are fixated, I think THAT is closed-off and closed-minded..

The fact there can be no empirical evidence of God does not count as evidence towards him! (obviously, no evidence is no evidence). If you believe it DOES, how come you are not applying the same logic to everything ELSE that is ALSO unprovable and unfalsifiable? (e.g. the FSM, Santa, Zeus, etc, etc, etc on and on)

Either you believe or you don't. Do you expect some evidence to believe IN something first. Or do you expect there to be evidence AGAINST that very something first, before there is any evidence OF it in the first place (therefore meaning you'd just believe in anything and everything, otherwise you are simply biased and cherry-picking; and closed-off, close-minded, etc - very nonsensical, etc)

You're talking about evidence of which there can be none. Your points here are therefore irrelevant. You need to re-phrase them.

[Edwardo Piet]

No EvF... I've said very many times... my position is the result of rational thought. Your position is the result of obviously flawed reason.

OBVIOUSLY flawed? Let's take a look here..

Yes, very.

Nope.

Your repeating yourself again. I already said, and of course it's obvious, no one believes without reasoning. Evidence, we have established, is a ridiculous requirement.

Yet actually, the thing is you keep jumping about between two things and that's why it's so hard to debate with you. These are the two things:

Sometimes you say there can be no evidence.

BUT other times you say there can be no emprical evidence.
But there can be evidence of some form and that your reasoning IS evidence for an objective God that actually exists (a reason to believe he actually exists in reality) - it's just not emprical evidence.

Yet you hold on to it like grim death.

You may not believe there can be any emprical evidence, but you say that there can be SOME FORM. In other words the reasons that you DO have is evidence (reason to believe) it is just not empirical evidence. All that I hold on to is that it is irrational to believe without any good reason (I'm sure you'd agree) and if there is no evidence of ANY form (both empirical AND NON-empirical) then there is no good reason...because if there WAS a good reason to believe in God's actual existence - to believe there was some indication of SOME form that he actually existed - then that WOULD count as evidence - it doesn't have to be emprical.

If there's a reason to believe he actually exists then that would count as evidence of his existence. You believe there ARE reasons to believe he actually exists so you believe there is evidence of SOME form at least (besides you have already said before that there is, that it's just not emprical whereas other times you have said there can be no evidence at all! - you keep switching back and forth throughout the forums. This is partly what makes it so confusing for me to talk about this with you, when I play 1 you play the other).

This you call open mindedness.

Yes, I think expecting SOME form of evidence - I repeat I am NOT only talking about empirical - for the existence of God or anything else is to be required before it is rational to actually BELIEVE it really exists.

If there is actually a rational reason to believe God actually exists, to indicate he really exists, then that would count as evidence. I am NOT just talking about empirical.

I'm saying whether God is provable or unprobable, whether he is falsifiable or unfalsifiable it is irrational to believe he actually exists without evidence of SOME form (empirical, or otherwise). Otherwise you might as well believe in anything.

You talk about rational reasons to believe - but if they are rational reasons to believe God actually exists once again, that would count as evidence whether it's empirical or not.

Ok , no empirical evidence. But where exactly is this NON-empirical evidence then?

It seems like you're stuck in a position of complete lack of thought.

Actually, I have a LOT of thoughts to be quite frank :$

[Hehe

Lol, what? I DO have a lot of thoughts. Hehe. I think things through a LOT. You say I have no thoughts. I know you don't mean it literally , but I really do think things through an awful lot too (An AWFUL lot, I analyze like crazy, I'm obsessed lol)

Yup. I needed reason to believe first. I believe everyone does. I already said this in answer to you last time. You missed it apparently.

Well if you have a reason to believe God actually exists. That would count as evidence if the reason is indeed valid and it's an indication (however great or slight) that he DOES actually exist - whether it's emprical or not.

Evidence... yeah, I'm a god obviously and can know the evidence (sic).

Sorry but sometimes you have said there can be no evidence, other times you've said no empirical evidence. You have switched over this once or twice over the forums. I find it very confusing TBH because I am not talking specially of empirical evidence. I am talking of ANY evidence.

If you have evidence of ANY form, ANY rational reason to believe that God actually objectively exists then I am including that when I talk of evidence.

I do not know of such evidence. Empirical or NON-empirical, I know of none. And I know of no more NON-empirical evidence for God (or any 'rational reason to believe in his actual existence') than I do for Zeus, the FSM or Santa.

Do you? If you do, if you have a rational reason to believe in God's objective existence - ANY form of evidence, NON-empirical will do - then that would count as SOME form of evidence.

And I no of none. I don't see where exactly there is any indication that there is any evidence (or rational reason) of ANY form for God, any more (or less) than the FSM, Zeus or Santa.

Zero.

Where? What? How do you distinguish between the "God" that you believe in and Zeus and the FSM? Where are there any more rational reasons? WHERE is there any more NON-empirical (whatever credible form)?

What rational reasons? WHAT non-empirical evidence? How is God any different to the uncountable number of unfalsifiable bullshit including Zeus, the FSM, Santa Claus, Russell's Teapot, the Tooth Fairy and much much much, MUCH much more? Why is he to be treated any differently in a logic and rational sense?

Like I answered you, you need reason first. Evidence!!! Are you not reading what I've put? You need to counter that first before you repeat what has been thoroughly logically dismissed.

Once again. You have said before that you DO believe there is evidence (IOW some actual objective reasons to believe God actually exists) just not EMPIRICAL evidence. Well I am NOT talking just about empirical evidence. I am talking about ALL evidence. ANY valid evidence.

If you have a rational reason to believe he actually exists, IF you do - then that's evidence. I know of none.

It would be a rational reason to believe without evidence of SOME form. You have said before that you believe there IS evidence it's just not emprical. But whenever I mention evidence you simply say there can't be any!! As if every time I say evidence you hear my saying "EMPRICAL evidence". Either that or you just keep switching back and forth between "there can be no evidence" and "there can be no emprical evidence".

Here we go again... yeah yeah, I know, you say it every other post EvF. That doesn't make it right. The point has been thoroughly beaten yet you repeat it regardless.

No it hasn't. And I repeat it because of the awkwardness of the fact that you keep claiming to believe in God rationally WITHOUT evidence. IF there actually was/is a reason to believe that God actually exists then that WOULD count as evidence whether it was empirical or not.

And if there ISN'T a rational reason (as I indeed, don't believe there is) then you just aren't being rational then are you?

And as I have SAID....you have said before that you DO believe there is evidence and it's just not emprical but whenever I ask for it...you simply say there can be no evidence and that you have already stated that.

I am not asking for empirical evidence. I am asking for ANY evidence. ANY rational reason to believe God actually exists objectively.

You say that you DO have rational reasons to believe he exists - SO...what are they? If they are valid then it would count as evidence towards his existence. I am NOT talking about specifically empirical evidence.

I am talking about ANY rational reason to believe in his existence ANY form of evidence. Where are these reasons/what is this evidence? I am NOT talking about specifically empirical.

Where is the (non-empirical included) evidence? Where are the rational reasons?

That's all I am asking. I never asked for specifically empirical and you have said before that there is indeed non-empirical (whereas other times you have simply said there can be no evidence at all).

So I ask you...what NON-empirical evidence then? And how is it evidence?

You're talking about evidence of which there can be none.

So there's no rational reason to believe that God actually exists then? Then how are your reasons to believe in him rational? They can't be then.

As I have said, you have said before that there IS evidence, it's just not empirical. Other times you have said there can be no evidence at all (like just here). But if there is no evidence at all, no indication at all, then there are no rational reasons to believe God exists. Because if there WERE rational reasons to believe that God exists then that WOULD count as evidence whether it's empirical OR.... NON-empirical.

Your points here are therefore irrelevant. You need to re-phrase them.

If you have rational reasons to believe then that would count as SOME form of evidence to believe he actually exists (otherwise it's not rational). It doesn't have to be empirical. It just has to be a rational reason to believe in his existence, to count as SOME form of evidence.

You have said before that there is evidence, it's just not empirical...so...WHAT Non-empirical evidence? WHAT rational reason(s) to believe that God actually exists objectively? ANY form of evidence.

What? Where?

EvF

[g-mark]

The supposed supernatural creator(s) of the universe.

What substance do you think this supposed creator consists of?

@Frodo. Can you answer this question too please.

[Giff]

The Bible contains spiritual truths. I didn't make that up. Verify what exactly?

What is spiritual truth?

And are you are taking the bible seriously? Hope you don't take the Harry Potter books serious too. Want to know a secret? There are no wizards and Harry Potter have never existed, something the author just made up.

[fr0d0]

What substance do you think this supposed creator consists of?

Whatever it is it's inside us too, or can be.
It can exist in infinity all at once, at the same time.
It existed fully in Jesus, and at the same time Jesus was also fully human.
It exists outside of linear time.
It has been observed to interact with humans.
It is unchangeable, yet all powerful and all knowing
It is love, peace, mercy, jealousy & wrath, good and holy

The substance is known as God.

---

And are you are taking the bible seriously? Hope you don't take the Harry Potter books serious too. Want to know a secret? There are no wizards and Harry Potter have never existed, something the author just made up.

Well done with that. Hopefully with that rational step you'll be able to deduce some meaning from the Bible so that it doesn't look the same as nonsense to you. You are better than a person with no clue that would see no difference between something with no meaning and something with meaning.

[Giff]

Bible have a message, I know. So do many books and movies. But people don't say that they contain to be spirtual truths and become religious about them. Just because they have a message doesn't prove anything.

And...what is spiritual truth? You have not yet answered.

[fr0d0]

Yes and some messages are bigger than others. Maybe you realise this but turn a blind eye to it perhaps?

Spiritual truth is truth of a spiritual nature. "In the beginning God.." - or literally, "in the beginning I am" is a statement concerning God's infinity, his existence outside of time. This is a spiritual truth. It's irrefutable; perfect. A perfect statement. The Bible is jam packed full of them.

[Giff]

A perfect statement. The Bible is jam packed full of them.

Ok, give me a example.

Oh! Maybe "you shall not sleep with a man like you sleep with women" is a perfect statement? Or maybe a guy who where homophobic wrote it down?

Stoning children is perhaps also some perfect statment, how could I missed that? Also that a criminals children is as guilty as him or killing first born children. Mm, indeed sounds good, perfect statesment!

[fr0d0]

I already gave you an example Gif.

I could probably make ridiculous conclusions from any book, deliberately misinterpreting what the author is saying. If that's the silly game you want to play, don't expect me to join you.