Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[Rampant.A.I.]

That conclusion is only self-evident to people who believe it to be

Well you're slow to catch on huh


@ Esq can you fix your #%¥℅ centre tags please! :(

So you have no response to:

Given God the creator, creation is all the evidence we need of his intervention. Nothing further needs to be said or done. That statement is complete.

The "givens" you're asking for here:
<The universe was created by a conscious entity>
<That entity is my Religion's God>
<God exists>
<That God is my Religion's God>
<The universe is intelligently designed>
<God created the universe>
<God created everything in the universe>

Further proof of anything about anything is redundant conjecture.

It would be, if you were speaking to contemporaries who assumed all of the conclusions listed above were "given", for the sake of argument building on those conclusions as premises.

However, you've been asked to provide arguments to support the above conclusions before you can introduce them as premises and show the conclusion <My God is the creator> you introduced as self-supporting.

That conclusion is only self-evident to people who believe it to be: And belief is not logical support.

So you've reverted to all of these unsupported assertions with a personal attack, and concede you have no logical argument to back even one of them up.

[fr0d0]

Forgive me Rampant I didn't really want to insult you. Please forgive me. It seems you are unfamiliar with the idea. The statement makes clear that an assumption is made.

Given God, as we are if someone poses a question about God, then we can easily confirm the evidence of his creation (already assumed).

Addressing the concept of God fully and correctly, there cannot ever be 3rd party proof of his existence. That would be illogical to an atemporal entity (unless the observer is also atemporal).

[discipulus]

[quote='max-greece' pid='609017' dateline='1393212424']
I wanted to pick up on this section separately.


I have highlighted 2 parts of the above and quoted the whole thing just to ensure I am not quote-mining.

Now there are several examples given of where praise is due and freely given and these are good examples.

I am not sure how they would apply to the God:Man scenario, however, as there is a total lack of equivalence between the parties here.

When I praise my wife, or my child, colleague, friend etc. there is a sense of equals. My praise should mean something to them. This is not the case with God.

As we are talking about the Christian God this is even more the case. Christians delight in telling us that we are all worthless worms in the face of God. I find that loathsome for a variety of reasons, particularly as they go on to say something to the effect of the only good things about us coming directly from God.

In effect, therefore, if the only good things about us are the bits that come from God then what is God measuring when he decides who gets into heaven and who doesn't? Isn't he really just measuring the percentage penetration of himself into us? Does that make any sense?

The second highlighted section shows the true nature of things to a Christian. We exist to praise God. As I stated in my initial response this demeans any else we do that is not specifically aimed at doing that thing.

Art, literature, music, astronomy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, architecture, history, geography, medicine........all now worth less, less than our main reason for existence - praising God.

I mentioned freedom before. I now do it again in the light of the Christian perspective.

Assuming the Christian God:

I was not asked if I wished to be born. In being born I am declared guilty, guilty of original sin. I must praise my creator and his son (who is him), who I never met, who died to pay for my sins, without my asking.

If I pray to the son and believe in him my sins are taken onto his shoulders and I get a pass into heaven because somehow this fools God into thinking I am sin free and I must be sin free to get in (why?).

I will be watched by God 24 hours per day, 7 days per week for my entire life. He claims to be like my parent - yet he never leaves me, never lets me go.

God, apparently, doesn't need my praise, but I can't get into heaven without it. It doesn't matter what "good deeds" I do if I haven't praised God enough I don't get in. In fact, not getting in doesn't mean being left in peace for me, it means being sent to a place where I will burn forever.

And who runs that place? Not the devil - he's burning there too apparently. So God is running hell too, set up for us worms that didn't get the message.

So I am born into a scenario where my creator hides from me. I must praise him and love him (commanded to love him no less). If I don't do it right (choosing the right path and all that) I am punished, for eternity and just to make sure he knows how I am behaving I am monitored constantly.

Sorry - but this is a dictatorship. It isn't even a benign dictatorship. I have to do what my dictator tells me to do, when he tells me to do it and as often as he tells me to do it. Failure to comply is an eternity of punishment.

So ask me again about freedom.

---

But scientists are how mainstream science gets done, and the process is self correcting. Disregard science all you like, but the only time you'll be justified in doing so is when you can present competing evidence that shows a better way. All you've done is labelled conclusions you dislike for ideological reasons "wrong," and moved on without bothering to present the evidence that would correct mainstream science to be more in line with your views.

Hence, you are disregarding science.

I have said science has its limits. You agree, at least I hope. I sure hope you are not espousing scientism, for it also is self-refuting. But I digress....

I have nothing at all against science. As I said I am enthralled by it. I believe that science is possible only because God sustains and orders the world to begin with. In fact, if you research the issue, you will find that modern science was birthed in a particular geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian worldview. Why? This worldview is far more conducive to science than a naturalistic/atheistic worldview. For in such a worldview, it is said, that things are they way they are by pure chance. That there is no rhyme or reason, no creative mind behind it all. No assurance that what has been will be in the future. Such a worldview completely undermines science, for science, in order to flourish, must be undertaken with a view that our observations and measurements are reliable and that we live in an ordered and consistent universe. A naturalistic universe affords none of these things which science depends on.

You've actually got it ass backwards: start from reality, the facts of the world around you, and build your position based on that: if christianity fits into the things you can confirm to be true, then there, you've got your position. To start from a claim and work backward just leaves you open to confirmation bias; since you've decided christianity is true and have, by all accounts, stopped looking, how will you ever find out if some or all of it is false?

I started from reality my friend. Reality is Christianity is the religion which boasts the most adherents. That is a fact about the world I live in. From there if I find Christianity to indeed be true via investigation of its truth claims then I have found the truth. The crux as I stated is: Is Christianity True? Is Christ the Son of the Living God? He either is or He is not.

If I come to find the truth is that He is, then He is. It is plain and simple.

Here's the thing: just deciding that something is beyond the realm of science doesn't mean it actually is,

I agree.

and it certainly doesn't mean that it actually exists.

I agree.

You seem to think you can just define your god out of needing evidence or falsifiability by asserting that such things are impossible for it. That's not the case.

God cannot be put under a microscope or in a test tube. Nor can He be measured. You would have better luck trying to pull your thoughts out of your head a place them on a set of scales to see how much they weigh. Science is not the only means we have of learning about reality my friend. I am sorry, but science is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. This is something you will have to come to terms with or be forever stunted and limited in your knowledge of the world in which you live.

It seems to me you are espousing some sort of scientism.

Methodological naturalism makes no statement about god, it merely states that things that can't be detected using the only measures of detection that humanity has... cannot be detected by humans. An entirely uncontroversial statement, I'm sure you'll agree, and yet when it comes to god, you'll claim that it's somehow unreasonable to expect to be able to detect things that you think exist.

And since we have no instruments which can detect God then He cannot be detected. This is what the naturalist must conclude. But why believe that the only things that exist are those which can be detected by humans via man made instruments? Is man omniscient? No. Then why rule out the supernatural a priori?

Why not rather admit ignorance and use other disciplines at your disposal?

Pray tell, how do you detect god, then?

God is a person. You keep speaking about Him as if He is some object. This belies your misconception of Him.

That's also not what I said. I said that, were you to lower your minimum expectations for evidence to the point where you could accept christianity as being true (without engaging in special pleading) then you would then be in a position of accepting all other religions as true, because despite what you may say, there is not a significant level of support that is unique to christianity sufficient to justify believing the supernatural claims within that religion.

I disagree with you.

If you have examined the claims of Christianity and found them to be unsubstantiated then fine.

However, what are you using to privilege your christian claim over the islamic one? If you have no support, then you're just using special pleading to say one is true and therefore the other must be false. But in order to support your christian claim, you'd need evidence, which would put you in the position of using the dreaded empiricism to resolve your conflicts!

I have plenty of support for my views. But nothing at all in the way of evidence that cannot be explained away by them that are unwilling to accept it. You see, I am not the one asking for evidence. You are. I am completely persuaded that Christ came in the flesh in accordance with scripture.

It is you who denies such proof could exist when you say god is transcendent and undetectable by the senses or the scientific method. That's your problem, stop trying to foist it onto me. Despite your claims, I don't have any innate knowledge of god, or spiritual bull that could detect that he's there; none of us do. We've only got our senses and our instruments, unless you can prove the existence of some other way. If you can't, then this problem you're saying I have only exists in your mind.

I believe you do have innate knowledge of God, though it be distorted by sin. I have support for this belief and evidence for this belief as well. But once again, nothing in the way of evidence that cannot be explained away by them unwilling to receive it.

And I don't care about who. As has been said previously, Flew had dementia, and more importantly, he was also a deist and not a christian toward the end of his life, so clearly this shit wasn't that convincing.

Go ahead and explain it away. You simply prove the point I have been speaking of. Any explanation other than that Flew was right. You stoop so low as to say the man's dementia was the reason he abandoned his atheism. This is incredible! hock:

And my point remains that reinterpreting our motivations so that we're "unwilling to accept" evidence, rather than finding it unconvincing, is nothing more than a pitiable attempt at diverting investigation.

I have evidence. It is of such a nature that it can be explained away by those that are unwilling to accept it.

[Angrboda]

In other words, you don't have any evidence that doesn't require prior belief in order for it to be received as true. If you don't see the problem with that, you are truly lost.

[discipulus]

In other words, you don't have any evidence that doesn't require prior belief in order for it to be received as true. If you don't see the problem with that, you are truly lost.

I do not have any evidence that cannot be explained away by someone who is unwilling to accept it.

In other words, the evidence I have is of the sort that it can be explained away if it is presented to a person who does not want to accept it.

I hope you can see how this differs from what you have suggested I have said. I have mentioned nothing about "prior belief" at all.

[Crossless2.0]

In other words, you don't have any evidence that doesn't require prior belief in order for it to be received as true. If you don't see the problem with that, you are truly lost.

I do not have any evidence that cannot be explained away by someone who is unwilling to accept it.

In other words, the evidence I have is of the sort that it can be explained away if it is presented to a person who does not want to accept it.

I hope you can see how this differs from what you have suggested I have said. I have mentioned nothing about "prior belief" at all.

So anyone who finds your evidence unpersuasive is simply unwilling to accept it? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the nature of the evidence? Sorry, but I call bullshit.

[Angrboda]

In other words, you don't have any evidence that doesn't require prior belief in order for it to be received as true. If you don't see the problem with that, you are truly lost.

I do not have any evidence that cannot be explained away by someone who is unwilling to accept it.

In other words, the evidence I have is of the sort that it can be explained away if it is presented to a person who does not want to accept it.

I hope you can see how this differs from what you have suggested I have said. I have mentioned nothing about "prior belief" at all.

Look up the word "belief."

[SteelCurtain]

In other words, you don't have any evidence that doesn't require prior belief in order for it to be received as true. If you don't see the problem with that, you are truly lost.

I do not have any evidence that cannot be explained away by someone who is unwilling to accept it.

In other words, the evidence I have is of the sort that it can be explained away if it is presented to a person who does not want to accept it.

I hope you can see how this differs from what you have suggested I have said. I have mentioned nothing about "prior belief" at all.

But you are clearly implying it. The "evidence" you have presented clearly only works with a presupposed belief in god.

You understand that a desire to accept evidence has nothing at all to do with the quality of that evidence, right? If you present evidence that is unconvincing, that is your problem, not ours.

Remember: you are that theist that came to an atheist forum. It is absolutely ridiculous to come in here and claim that we are the ones with the problem if we don't accept what you say. It's just beneath rationality.

[discipulus]

So anyone who finds your evidence unpersuasive is simply unwilling to accept it? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the nature of the evidence? Sorry, but I call bullshit.

No. That is a non-sequitur.

It could be that the person is willing but that they have judged the evidence to be weak.

---

I do not have any evidence that cannot be explained away by someone who is unwilling to accept it.

In other words, the evidence I have is of the sort that it can be explained away if it is presented to a person who does not want to accept it.

I hope you can see how this differs from what you have suggested I have said. I have mentioned nothing about "prior belief" at all.

Look up the word "belief."

Why?

[Crossless2.0]

So anyone who finds your evidence unpersuasive is simply unwilling to accept it? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the nature of the evidence? Sorry, but I call bullshit.

No. That is a non-sequitur.

It could be that the person is willing but that they have judged the evidence to be weak.

Fair enough. So willing persons who judge the evidence to be too weak to adopt Christian belief are condemned by your loving god, or do they get a mulligan for good intentions?