Evidence God Exists: Part II

[AngelThMan]

As one that has only read this exchange and not taken part, I must say that I have seen this happen so many times it's just silly. rjh4 is not actually addressing anything that is said to him. He is evading the points by harping on the semantics of words and phrases, as opposed to responding to the points that (which he knows full well) were meant by those words and phrases. It is a tactic theists often used to change the focus away from the things they cannot answer coherently.

Oh, puh-lease!! You know how many times I've had to point out to atheists that they're focusing on semantics? You're out of your mind, Paul, if you make this claim.

The semantics thing is really more of a kiddie thing, anyway. Teens and such seem to focus on that.

[Ashendant]

As one that has only read this exchange and not taken part, I must say that I have seen this happen so many times it's just silly. rjh4 is not actually addressing anything that is said to him. He is evading the points by harping on the semantics of words and phrases, as opposed to responding to the points that (which he knows full well) were meant by those words and phrases. It is a tactic theists often used to change the focus away from the things they cannot answer coherently.

Oh, puh-lease!! You know how many times I've had to point out to atheists that they're focusing on semantics? You're out of your mind, Paul, if you make this claim.

The semantics thing is really more of a kiddie thing, anyway. Teens and such seem to focus on that.

Yes very mature of you, calling other people big babies because they don't believe in the same god as you!

[Paul the Human]

As one that has only read this exchange and not taken part, I must say that I have seen this happen so many times it's just silly. rjh4 is not actually addressing anything that is said to him. He is evading the points by harping on the semantics of words and phrases, as opposed to responding to the points that (which he knows full well) were meant by those words and phrases. It is a tactic theists often used to change the focus away from the things they cannot answer coherently.

Oh, puh-lease!! You know how many times I've had to point out to atheists that they're focusing on semantics? You're out of your mind, Paul, if you make this claim.

The semantics thing is really more of a kiddie thing, anyway. Teens and such seem to focus on that.

Firstly, I did not say that atheists never use this tactic. I said that theists often use this tactic. Specifically, I accused rjh4 of using this tactic. You I accuse of outright idiocy.

[rjh4 is back]

As one that has only read this exchange and not taken part, I must say that I have seen this happen so many times it's just silly. rjh4 is not actually addressing anything that is said to him. He is evading the points by harping on the semantics of words and phrases, as opposed to responding to the points that (which he knows full well) were meant by those words and phrases. It is a tactic theists often used to change the focus away from the things they cannot answer coherently.

Oh, puh-lease!! You know how many times I've had to point out to atheists that they're focusing on semantics? You're out of your mind, Paul, if you make this claim.

The semantics thing is really more of a kiddie thing, anyway. Teens and such seem to focus on that.

Firstly, I did not say that atheists never use this tactic. I said that theists often use this tactic. Specifically, I accused rjh4 of using this tactic. You I accuse of outright idiocy.

Actually, to address a point, one needs to understand how the words are being used by the person using them. I have found in these types of conversations there is a lot of back and forth only because two parties are using different definitions/meanings of the words. So, yes I was questioning the semantics but no I was not trying to evade anything. And I do not see how trying to get at how one is using a word (semantics) as a kiddie thing (obviously addressed to AngelThMan). To me it seems like a reasonable thing to do when the words can be taken to mean different things which would change the meaning of statements.

Void, thanks for your answer.

Thor, it seems to me that the truth claim "There is no evidence that supports the existence of a deity" can only be accurately/believably said by one who is omniscient as only one who is omniscient knows all the evidence to determine whether or not the statement is accurate. Since you are standing on that statement and I am quite sure you are not omniscient, I cannot take this statement of yours at face value or seriously. I will continue to take it that you are really saying "I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God exists" and that you do not yet understand the diffference in meaning between:

"There is no evidence that supports the existence of a deity"
and
"I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God (or a deity) exists"

---

Min, clever how you turned agreeing with me on the word use to agreeing with Thor overall.

Of course, I do not agree with your conclusion (no shocker there), but it was clever nonetheless.

[Zen Badger]

As one that has only read this exchange and not taken part, I must say that I have seen this happen so many times it's just silly. rjh4 is not actually addressing anything that is said to him. He is evading the points by harping on the semantics of words and phrases, as opposed to responding to the points that (which he knows full well) were meant by those words and phrases. It is a tactic theists often used to change the focus away from the things they cannot answer coherently.

Oh, puh-lease!! You know how many times I've had to point out to atheists that they're focusing on semantics? You're out of your mind, Paul, if you make this claim.

The semantics thing is really more of a kiddie thing, anyway. Teens and such seem to focus on that.

Firstly, I did not say that atheists never use this tactic. I said that theists often use this tactic. Specifically, I accused rjh4 of using this tactic. You I accuse of outright idiocy.

Actually, to address a point, one needs to understand how the words are being used by the person using them. I have found in these types of conversations there is a lot of back and forth only because two parties are using different definitions/meanings of the words. So, yes I was questioning the semantics but no I was not trying to evade anything. And I do not see how trying to get at how one is using a word (semantics) as a kiddie thing (obviously addressed to AngelThMan). To me it seems like a reasonable thing to do when the words can be taken to mean different things which would change the meaning of statements.

Void, thanks for your answer.

Thor, it seems to me that the truth claim "There is no evidence that supports the existence of a deity" can only be accurately/believably said by one who is omniscient as only one who is omniscient knows all the evidence to determine whether or not the statement is accurate. Since you are standing on that statement and I am quite sure you are not omniscient, I cannot take this statement of yours at face value or seriously. I will continue to take it that you are really saying "I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God exists" and that you do not yet understand the diffference in meaning between:

"There is no evidence that supports the existence of a deity"
and
"I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God (or a deity) exists"

---

Min, clever how you turned agreeing with me on the word use to agreeing with Thor overall.

Of course, I do not agree with your conclusion (no shocker there), but it was clever nonetheless.

That's nice, now show evidence of your invisible friend.

[Thor]

Thor, it seems to me that the truth claim "There is no evidence that supports the existence of a deity" can only be accurately/believably said by one who is omniscient as only one who is omniscient knows all the evidence to determine whether or not the statement is accurate.

Then I suppose that the statement "God does exist" can only be accurately/believably said by someone who is omniscient, as only one who is omniscient knows for certain that this deity is real and can determine whether or not the statement is accurate.

Since you are standing on that statement and I am quite sure you are not omniscient, I cannot take this statement of yours at face value or seriously.

I don't care what you do. Unlike believers, I was not trying to proclaim some absolute truth.

I will continue to take it that you are really saying "I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God exists" and that you do not yet understand the diffference in meaning between:

"There is no evidence that supports the existence of a deity"
and
"I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God (or a deity) exists"

---

Okay. hrugs:

[rjh4 is back]

That's nice, now show evidence of your invisible friend.

As I have told you before, Zen, I think the existence of the universe itself is evidence of the existence of God. Does the existence of the universe necessitate that conclusion? No, but it is evidence nonetheless, even if you take the existence of the universe as evidence of something else altogether.

Evidence is not something that is such that it necessitates only one conclusion. If you hold that, I think you have a very narrowminded view of what evidence is. Evidence is that which one relies upon as support for their conclusions. Even in science, it is possible for different scientists to look at the same body of evidence and conclude different and even incompatible things (even if you exclude scientists who are creationists).

I also think the existence of morals is evidence of God. Again, does the existence of morals necessitate the conclusion that God exists? Certainly not, but I think it is the best explanation. I know many here hold that morals are manmade and only based on what society (the majority) holds as appropriate but I simply do not agree. This has come up a couple of times in my conversations here. To those who hold that what the majority of a society says is right is right, I have presented the following:

Start with a society in which a majority of that society determines that it is ok to kill a minority member of the society. Let's even say that a law is passed that says a member of the majority is obligated to kill a member of the minority if they come into contact with one. Is it then ok (right) for a member of the majority to go around killing members of the minority?

Usually the answer is no and the reason given is because the member of the minority has rights also. But if your position is that morals (right and wrong) are only determined by the majority of a society, then on what basis would the members of the minority have rights at all? If right and wrong are determined my majority of a society, then it seems to me it would logically follow that a member of a society only has the rights granted by that majority. Consequently, this apparently inconsistent position of some, to me is evidence that even those who hold that morals are manmade and based on what the majority in a society says recognize that minority members of a society have certain rights separate and distinct from simply what a majority gives them. I think this logically leads to a conclusion that such rights come from an ultimate source which is God.

So to me, all of this is evidence of God even though you might not be convinced of it. Furthermore, that is why I consider statements like "There is no evidence for the existence of God" inaccurate and unreasonable. I think statements such as "I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God (or a deity) exists" are more appropriate and accurate.

---

Then I suppose that the statement "God does exist" can only be accurately/believably said by someone who is omniscient, as only one who is omniscient knows for certain that this deity is real and can determine whether or not the statement is accurate.

I agree with that. And I do not think I have ever said such a thing here. Do I think/believe that God exists...obviously I do.

---

Unlike believers, I was not trying to proclaim some absolute truth.

It sure sounded like it. That is why I was questioning you.

[Thor]

Then I suppose that the statement "God does exist" can only be accurately/believably said by someone who is omniscient, as only one who is omniscient knows for certain that this deity is real and can determine whether or not the statement is accurate.

I agree with that. And I do not think I have ever said such a thing here. Do I think/believe that God exists...obviously I do.

---

But many believers I have encountered DO say such a thing. VERY LOUDLY, in fact. They KNOW that "God" exists! They KNOW there is a heaven! They KNOW "Jesus" died for our sins. I would even say that the majority of believers I have come across would say "I know God exists!" as opposed to "I believe God exists."

Unlike believers, I was not trying to proclaim some absolute truth.

It sure sounded like it. That is why I was questioning you.

Nope. Believers will proclaim "the truth". I only put forth an opinion.

[Jaysyn]

I also think the existence of morals is evidence of God. Again, does the existence of morals necessitate the conclusion that God exists? Certainly not, but I think it is the best explanation. I know many here hold that morals are manmade and only based on what society (the majority) holds as appropriate but I simply do not agree. This has come up a couple of times in my conversations here. To those who hold that what the majority of a society says is right is right, I have presented the following:

In "The God Delusion" Dawkins points out repeatedly & with supporting evidence that there are plenty of biological & tribal reasons for morals & ethics to develop sans the influence of religion. He also makes a great case that said morals & ethics have managed to develop despite the negative moral & ethical influence of the Christian religion.

Start with a society in which a majority of that society determines that it is ok to kill a minority member of the society. Let's even say that a law is passed that says a member of the majority is obligated to kill a member of the minority if they come into contact with one. Is it then ok (right) for a member of the majority to go around killing members of the minority?

Beautiful example of a strawman argument / appeal to pity. The answer, of course, is no. Now give me a reason you have to have religion to tell you that killing another human, another member of your tribal group so to speak, is wrong.

[rjh4 is back]

But many believers I have encountered DO say such a thing. VERY LOUDLY, in fact. They KNOW that "God" exists! They KNOW there is a heaven! They KNOW "Jesus" died for our sins. I would even say that the majority of believers I have come across would say "I know God exists!" as opposed to "I believe God exists."

No doubt. And when they say such things you take such statements as a claim to absolute truth don't you. But when you make statements that sound like a claim for absolute truth, you seem to expect that it should be taken as your opinion (your statement "There is no evidence of God" (or something similar) coupled with your statement "Nope. Believers will proclaim "the truth". I only put forth an opinion"). Maybe they make such statements in a similar frame of mind as you make your statements. It seems to me it is always best to ask.

---

... the negative moral & ethical influence of the Christian religion.

The actual teachings of Christianity or how some abuse such teachings? There is a difference. I would be interested in hearing how Christian morals and ethics, particularly as presented in the New Testament, would be negative.

Start with a society in which a majority of that society determines that it is ok to kill a minority member of the society. Let's even say that a law is passed that says a member of the majority is obligated to kill a member of the minority if they come into contact with one. Is it then ok (right) for a member of the majority to go around killing members of the minority?

Beautiful example of a strawman argument / appeal to pity. The answer, of course, is no. Now give me a reason you have to have religion to tell you that killing another human, another member of your tribal group so to speak, is wrong.

How is that a strawman argument? A strawman argument is one that a person sets up and portrays as another person's position and then rebuts that, instead of rebutting what the other person's position really is. Mine is merely a hypothetical scenario that I ask people to answer to see how consistently they apply their view of morals. It seems to me that if one believes that morals are manmade and based on the majority of the members of a society, to be consistent, the answer should be "yes", not "no". Nobody has yet explained how a "no" answer is consistent with an initial position of morals being manmade and based on the majority. As to your last sentence, I really did not understand what you want me to explain. If you restate, I will try to answer.