Ceteloguing the Tricks Theists Play

[Drich]

God of course... What better proof of God is there than God?

Don't you just love this guy? Hats off!

Which god are we talking about here?
Yahweh?
Allah?
Zeus?
Apollo?
Elohim?
Olodumare?
Baal?
Hindu?

One of these gods is his own proof and winner takes all.

God is a title as you unwittingly pointed out. That means any 'deity' who 'shows up fit to have said title would then indeed be proof of his existence would he not?

You forgot adonia

[Rhondazvous]

The sad part is yes, he is.  Don't bother talking to him about morality or god's nature.  He literally thinks slavery is okay and that someone getting cancer can be 'a blessing from God'.

Sounds like he does a better job betraying his own stupidity than we could do. Maybe he should be encouraged.  Imagine if he got together with Godschild and Professor. Do I hear you groaning?

[Jenny A]

Nuuupe. It's an interesting idea-putting the burden of proof on god himself-but within the constraints of logic, the person making the positive claim is the one with the burden of proof. It's just how it works.

Do you remember the first time you used a GPS or a turn by turn service? Where was the 'proof' in that your garmin or tomtom worked? was it in the person making the claim, or was it in the following of said device to your first destination? "Proof" can work both ways but as you can plainly see is not limited to the person making the positive claim. Proof can also be found in the successful execution of said claim.

Seriously?  I turn on the GPS, it lights up and talks.  I know it exists.  It's right there in my car.  Whether it works is an objective question.  Will it get me to the location I ask it too.  Whataya know it does.  Proof it works.

God.  Hello?  You there?  Nope can't see him. No evidence he exists.  Suppose I ask for a million bucks?  Childish request.  Sure.  But with the exception of base material requests for health and gain the requests I might make are so far from having objective answers that I wouldn't know confirmation that god works from confirmation that he doesn't.  

If God says the only way to find me is for the seeker to "A,B,C" do you think God can be found any other way? Until you follow your first turn by turn navigation trip, you only have the word of others that the turn by turn navigation works. The same is true with God. Until you do what He says do, the only confirmation you will get of God is through those who have "used the GPS" in the bible and found Him.

Bad analogy.  Knowing the GPS exists doesn't require following directions.  It's right there in my glovebox.  Knowing it works does require following the directions. And if you follow the directions it works.

With god, you can't verify he exists or that those are his direction because he's a no see em.   And following the directions doesn't always get you god, or even if it does, the same god. 

I don't think I'd beleive the GPS worked either if it were only in my glove box if I were in the right frame of mind and worked by giving mental images of where to go that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't depending on whether my destination request was good and heartfelt.

You are trying to put philosophical constraints on a principle that they do not fit on. There are many things in this world that we must experience for ourselves before we have 'proof' they exist.

Hallucinations?

[PhilliptheTeenageAtheist]

So? does Justified 'belief' then become truth? Or is truth a standard that stays the same despite what is believed? If in this case God offers 'proof' if one follows a prescribed path, yet people feel justified in what they believe even if they never sought the truth God offers, does what the feel justified then become true?

Truth stays the same no matter who believes it. However, justified doubt is completely possible even when something is true. For example, if someone in the fourth century BC, long before the invention of the microscope, went around claiming he had a vision about cells, though he had no proof other than his vision which no one else saw, other people would be justified in their disbelief of him, because even though cells exist, there was no proof for them and others could doubt reasonably.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in god, but even if one did exist, I'm quite confident it wouldn't torture me forever in hell for justifiably doubting its existence.

[Rhondazvous]

Nuuupe. It's an interesting idea-putting the burden of proof on god himself-but within the constraints of logic, the person making the positive claim is the one with the burden of proof. It's just how it works.

Do you remember the first time you used a GPS or a turn by turn service? Where was the 'proof' in that your garmin or tomtom worked? was it in the person making the claim, or was it in the following of said device to your first destination? "Proof" can work both ways but as you can plainly see is not limited to the person making the positive claim. Proof can also be found in the successful execution of said claim.

I've never driven a car before, but I can't imagine anyone following the directions of a GPS they can neither see nor hear. Maybe you'd do well to try a different analogy.

OTOH we have theits saying that you need to seek god to find evidence for him-as he 'reveals he truth' to you-and when you mention you have sought it, you are just told you didn't seek hard enough.

If God says the only way to find me is for the seeker to "A,B,C" do you think God can be found any other way? Until you follow your first turn by turn navigation trip, you only have the word of others that the turn by turn navigation works. The same is true with God. Until you do what He says do, the only confirmation you will get of God is through those who have "used the GPS" in the bible and found Him.

You are trying to put philosophical constraints on a principle that they do not fit on. There are many things in this world that we must experience for ourselves before we have 'proof' they exist.

Did god say that's the only way he can be found or did you say that. The biblical god came to a lot of people who weren't looking for him. You are signing god's name onto your own agenda and that, my friend, is spiritual forgery.

The word 'morality' has little to no meaning at all. It tries to describe a bunch of vague ideas, but on its own has no substance. I would argue that moral codes within societies are not so much 'designed' and rather that they evolve on their own over time....

I do not disagree. Matter of fact that's kinda what I said minus the fact that many of you will point out that God had babies killed, and glance over the fact that we 'man' since 1980 have killed a billion plus.. Let say God had 10,000 or even 100,000 babies killed, or lets say a million babies were put to death by God... That doesn't even touch the 17 million killed this year by 'civilized' man.
http://www.numberofabortions.com/

Yet because the Jews sang a song about smashing their captors babies against the rocks... God is a monster. Yep no hypocrisy their.

How can god be the standard of morality if you excuse his bad behavior by pointing to what men do? I was warned not to argue morality with you, but I like drawing you out. Please continue.

This 'science is same as faith' thing is so tired and bullshit....

Not what I was saying sport. I was saying 'Science' is your god.

I want you to look at the word atheist. The first syllable A means none, not, no, sin, without, etc. The second syllable theist means god. To say that science is our god is to redefine the word god in a way to which I am not privy.

---

good, good. now replace 'god' with 'evolution'

You are aware that a THEROY is not PROOF, right?

Who said the theory is proof?  The theory points to things which do stand as proof.  Your claims have yet to point to anything outside themselves.

[Drich]

Do you remember the first time you used a GPS or a turn by turn service? Where was the 'proof' in that your garmin or tomtom worked? was it in the person making the claim, or was it in the following of said device to your first destination? "Proof" can work both ways but as you can plainly see is not limited to the person making the positive claim. Proof can also be found in the successful execution of said claim.

Seriously?  I turn on the GPS, it lights up and talks.  I know it exists.  It's right there in my car.  Whether it works is an objective question.  Will it get me to the location I ask it too.  Whataya know it does.  Proof it works.

God.  Hello?  You there?  Nope can't see him. No evidence he exists.  Suppose I ask for a million bucks?  Childish request.  Sure.  But with the exception of base material requests for health and gain the requests I might make are so far from having objective answers that I wouldn't know confirmation that god works from confirmation that he doesn't.  

If God says the only way to find me is for the seeker to "A,B,C" do you think God can be found any other way? Until you follow your first turn by turn navigation trip, you only have the word of others that the turn by turn navigation works. The same is true with God. Until you do what He says do, the only confirmation you will get of God is through those who have "used the GPS" in the bible and found Him.

Bad analogy.  Knowing the GPS exists doesn't require following directions.  It's right there in my glovebox.  Knowing it works does require following the directions. And if you follow the directions it works.

With god, you can't verify he exists or that those are his direction because he's a no see em.   And following the directions doesn't always get you god, or even if it does, the same god. 

I don't think I'd beleive the GPS worked either if it were only in my glove box if I were in the right frame of mind and worked by giving mental images of where to go that sometimes worked and sometimes didn't depending on whether my destination request was good and heartfelt.

You are trying to put philosophical constraints on a principle that they do not fit on. There are many things in this world that we must experience for ourselves before we have 'proof' they exist.

Hallucinations?

My argument was about whether or not GPS exists... It was about how to 'proove' whether or not what the GPS said was accurate. The only way to 'proove' whether or not your getting accurate turn by turn instruction is to follow the instructions turn by turn.

Like wise God's system of proof that is offered is like a set of turn by turn instructions, in that the only way to get to God is to follow the turn by turn instructions.

[PhilliptheTeenageAtheist]

And if someone follows those steps, but doesn't find the proof you're talking about? It's a big assumption that just because you can find what you think is proof, that everyone else can not only find this proof but interpret it the same way as you as well.

[Drich]

So? does Justified 'belief' then become truth? Or is truth a standard that stays the same despite what is believed? If in this case God offers 'proof' if one follows a prescribed path, yet people feel justified in what they believe even if they never sought the truth God offers, does what the feel justified then become true?

Truth stays the same no matter who believes it. However, justified doubt is completely possible even when something is true. For example, if someone in the fourth century BC, long before the invention of the microscope, went around claiming he had a vision about cells, though he had no proof other than his vision which no one else saw, other people would be justified in their disbelief of him, because even though cells exist, there was no proof for them and others could doubt reasonably.  
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in god, but even if one did exist, I'm quite confident it wouldn't torture me forever in hell for justifiably doubting its existence.

Not so fast Scarecrow.. This is not what is being discussed.

You said what if you were a leparchaun who had access to magic fairy land or something. I said the same measure of proof we can use to determine if God is real can inturn be used to see if you are telling the truth. In that all you need to do is show me. Then I made the observation that anyone who did not want to believe what you had to say, even if it were true could just just objectify it because what you shown me was not tangable to them. So then it becomes a matter of 'them' meeting you and getting to show them. Then I pointed out, what if they were A-holes and hated you and everyone you liked, would you still want to share anything with them?

[Faith No More]

It saves us a lot of trouble just having Drich post directly in the thread.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

God of course... What better proof of God is there than God?

Don't you just love this guy? Hats off!

Which god are we talking about here?
Yahweh?
Allah?
Zeus?
Apollo?
Elohim?
Olodumare?
Baal?
Hindu?

One of these gods is his own proof and winner takes all.

When Christians talk about the God character they are referring to one of the six or so versions of the Jewish deity in the Bible.  They don't consider any other ethnocentric deity to be "God".  Based on observation they will never plainly admit that.  As long as it's a Jewish fairy tale they will believe it without a first thought regardless of what the fairy tale is.