Evidence for atheist claims

[robvalue]

At least you've changed it to "materialist atheist". You have learnt one thing at least, that's good.

That's more progress than some people have made since I've been on the forum.

[Ben Davis]

Why are you still ignoring my posts? I've engaged you and shown you the courtesy of answering your poorly formed request for evidence, offering advice on how you might better approach such questions in the future. I've yet to even receive an acknowledgement, let alone a response to the information I've provided. That's very rude.

Now you come with a completely different topic, derailing your own thread! Is that because you refuse to accept that your challenge has been met? Is it because you can't keep a thought straight in your own head? What's going on?

---

I do not like the theology of the calvinists, but I must accept they do a good job with apologetics. To quote a post of a site named "CARM":

This article is titled: "Atheists err when asking for material evidence for God's existence".

"Atheists often ask for evidence to prove that God exists. They say that they want tangible, testable evidence that can be verified via the scientific method. Unfortunately for them, such a request is the wrong approach. Instead, they should look for evidence consistent with a Transcendent God. Let me show you why.

First of all, the scientific method is a system of learning that consists of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, and theory. It is based on logic and observations of the material universe and its properties.
Second, the scientific method, along with a materialistic worldview, necessarily excludes transcendence--that which exists independent of the universe. Therefore, it can't detect what is outside of the material realm since it is based on observing things inside the material realm.
Third, the Christian worldview proclaims a transcendent God who exists outside of and independent of the material universe. In other words, the Christian God is not dependent upon the material universe or its properties for His existence.

Therefore, to ask for scienfically testable, material, non-transcendent based evidence for an immaterial, transcendent God is the wrong approach because it is a category mistake--explained below.
But, this is not to say that there are not material evidence is for God's existence. For example, Jesus walked on the earth 2,000 years ago as a physical man who, according to Scripture, is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14, Colossians 2:9) and who rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). He showed Thomas the wounds of His crucifixion ordeal that had led to that death (John 20:25-28), thereby demonstrating His resurrection. This is material evidence. But, of course, we don't have access to it.

Category Mistake
A category mistake is an error in logic in which one category of a thing is presented as belonging to another category. For example, to say that "the rock is alive" assigns the category of life to an inanimate object. Another example would be to judge the beauty of a painting based on how much it weighs. This is a category error since the category of beauty is not determined by the category of weight.
So, for the atheist to work from inside his materialistic, non-transcendent worldview and require evidence for the non-material, transcendent God (which necessarily exists outside his perceived worldview) risks being a category mistake because it is asking for the non-transcendent evidence of the transcendent in a form that is restricted to testable, material form. It is like asking to have a thought placed on a scale. It doesn't work because they are different categories.
But, some will assert that it is fair to ask for some sort of demonstration that such a Transcendent Being exists. After all, if there is no evidence of Him, how can we know He exists? For that, see What kind of evidence should we expect from a transcendent God?
What is left for the materialist atheist to do?
This means that the materialist atheist cannot logically require material-based evidence for the immaterial without committing a category mistake, so he is left with the option of trying to demonstrate that the Christian worldview is internally incoherent. After all, if he cannot show that Christian theism is false, then how can he rationally retain his atheism?
But, to step into the Christian worldview and attempt to show that it is not true, the atheist must use logic. This requires the use of the Laws of Logic. The problem is that these Laws are transcendent in that they are not dependent on the physical universe or its properties for their validity (See, The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, points 5-8). But for the materialist atheist to presuppose the validity of transcendental Logical Truths--in order to argue against a Transcendental God--is inherently self-contradictory since he would be using transcendentals to argue against a Transcendental God.
Furthermore, it would mean that the materialist atheist is presupposing the validity of the transcendental Laws of Logic--without being able to justify them from within his materialistic worldview. To presuppose their validity is to commit the logically fallacy of begging the question.

Conclusion
The materialist atheist is left without a valid means in falsifying Christian Theism, which means his atheism cannot be validated as being true.

---

1. He cannot rightfully require material, non-transcendent evidence for a non-material, transcendent God without committing a category mistake. He must abandon his materialistic worldview, but this is incompatible with his atheist worldview.
2. He cannot enter into the Christian worldview, which is based on a Transcendent God, and use the transcendent laws of logic without being self-contradictory in his approach."

Nonsense. The whole point of a theistic god is that it intervenes in human affairs, in the material universe (any god which fails to intervene is deistic not theistic). Such intervention must, by definition of occurrence in the material universe, leave a testable trail. If you claim that your god answers prayers, grants blessings, turns wine in to blood, tests can be made to verify the veracity of such claims. If your god makes no interventions, there would be no point to it: from the perspective of our universe, there's no difference in attributes between that god and something that is non-existent.

So which is it? A theistic god, the existence of which can be proven or a deistic god that matters not?

[robvalue]

Haha, he's ignoring you because you're actually providing what he requested and he wasn't counting on that. This is really pathetic. Lying for Jesus.

[robvalue]

Since we've established he's not interested in actually learning anything, let's have a little music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbGH9c0hwMs

[GUBU]

Okay, if you're going to play silly games, goodbye. I tried to help you.

You're asking for a whole science education on a forum post.

Now who is the irrational one?! You are acting exactly like the believers you complain of!

Alright, I will do the same then, everytime you ask me about evidence of my "God claims" I will tell you: "Okay, if you're going to play silly games, goodbye. I tried to help you. You're asking for a whole theological education on a forum post." and that is it. I asked a basical question: "How did this earth come into existence?" and absolutely no one answered me.

I am not surprised of what I discovered. You believe things with no basis for them, you just believe them because "the scientists say so". It says so on the wikipedia and on the internet and you believe it without any research because "it is science". This is just pathetic, and this is how almost all of the atheists in this forum behave towards me, they gave me absolutely no evidence for their claims and they mocked me for my beliefs. It is all a matter of belief, you believe your bunch of people and I believe mine.

So for the evidence provided to have any validity according to you, it must be provided by tgose with perfect understanding of it and written in a forum post in its entirity?

Go fuck yourself with a rusty barbed wire rahat pentru creier, because, frankly, giving yourself tetanus is the best thjng you could do for humanity.

[Ben Davis]

I'm eternally optimistic that courtesy begets courtesy and I always hope for the best out of people's nature. We'll see if that's my failing in this case.

[robvalue]

It's lucky science keeps on working regardless of random peoples' opinions of it.

You've been extremely courteous Ben. I was too, right up until the point where he basically put his nob in my face. If you can get through to him, you're a better man than me.

[Wryetui]

Why are you still ignoring my posts? I've engaged you and shown you the courtesy of answering your poorly formed request for evidence, offering advice on how you might better approach such questions in the future. I've yet to even receive an acknowledgement, let alone a response to the information I've provided. That's very rude.

Now you come with a completely different topic, derailing your own thread! Is that because you refuse to accept that your challenge has been met? Is it because you can't keep a thought straight in your own head? What's going on?

---

I do not like the theology of the calvinists, but I must accept they do a good job with apologetics. To quote a post of a site named "CARM":

This article is titled: "Atheists err when asking for material evidence for God's existence".

"Atheists often ask for evidence to prove that God exists. They say that they want tangible, testable evidence that can be verified via the scientific method. Unfortunately for them, such a request is the wrong approach. Instead, they should look for evidence consistent with a Transcendent God. Let me show you why.

First of all, the scientific method is a system of learning that consists of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, and theory. It is based on logic and observations of the material universe and its properties.
Second, the scientific method, along with a materialistic worldview, necessarily excludes transcendence--that which exists independent of the universe. Therefore, it can't detect what is outside of the material realm since it is based on observing things inside the material realm.
Third, the Christian worldview proclaims a transcendent God who exists outside of and independent of the material universe. In other words, the Christian God is not dependent upon the material universe or its properties for His existence.

Therefore, to ask for scienfically testable, material, non-transcendent based evidence for an immaterial, transcendent God is the wrong approach because it is a category mistake--explained below.
But, this is not to say that there are not material evidence is for God's existence. For example, Jesus walked on the earth 2,000 years ago as a physical man who, according to Scripture, is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14, Colossians 2:9) and who rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). He showed Thomas the wounds of His crucifixion ordeal that had led to that death (John 20:25-28), thereby demonstrating His resurrection. This is material evidence. But, of course, we don't have access to it.

Category Mistake
A category mistake is an error in logic in which one category of a thing is presented as belonging to another category. For example, to say that "the rock is alive" assigns the category of life to an inanimate object. Another example would be to judge the beauty of a painting based on how much it weighs. This is a category error since the category of beauty is not determined by the category of weight.
So, for the atheist to work from inside his materialistic, non-transcendent worldview and require evidence for the non-material, transcendent God (which necessarily exists outside his perceived worldview) risks being a category mistake because it is asking for the non-transcendent evidence of the transcendent in a form that is restricted to testable, material form. It is like asking to have a thought placed on a scale. It doesn't work because they are different categories.
But, some will assert that it is fair to ask for some sort of demonstration that such a Transcendent Being exists. After all, if there is no evidence of Him, how can we know He exists? For that, see What kind of evidence should we expect from a transcendent God?
What is left for the materialist atheist to do?
This means that the materialist atheist cannot logically require material-based evidence for the immaterial without committing a category mistake, so he is left with the option of trying to demonstrate that the Christian worldview is internally incoherent. After all, if he cannot show that Christian theism is false, then how can he rationally retain his atheism?
But, to step into the Christian worldview and attempt to show that it is not true, the atheist must use logic. This requires the use of the Laws of Logic. The problem is that these Laws are transcendent in that they are not dependent on the physical universe or its properties for their validity (See, The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, points 5-8). But for the materialist atheist to presuppose the validity of transcendental Logical Truths--in order to argue against a Transcendental God--is inherently self-contradictory since he would be using transcendentals to argue against a Transcendental God.
Furthermore, it would mean that the materialist atheist is presupposing the validity of the transcendental Laws of Logic--without being able to justify them from within his materialistic worldview. To presuppose their validity is to commit the logically fallacy of begging the question.

Conclusion
The materialist atheist is left without a valid means in falsifying Christian Theism, which means his atheism cannot be validated as being true.

---

1. He cannot rightfully require material, non-transcendent evidence for a non-material, transcendent God without committing a category mistake. He must abandon his materialistic worldview, but this is incompatible with his atheist worldview.
2. He cannot enter into the Christian worldview, which is based on a Transcendent God, and use the transcendent laws of logic without being self-contradictory in his approach."

Nonsense. The whole point of a theistic god is that it intervenes in human affairs, in the material universe (any god which fails to intervene is deistic not theistic). Such intervention must, by definition of occurrence in the material universe, leave a testable trail. If you claim that your god answers prayers, grants blessings, turns wine in to blood, tests can be made to verify the veracity of such claims. If your god makes no interventions, there would be no point to it: from the perspective of our universe, there's no difference in attributes between that god and something that is non-existent.

So which is it? A theistic god, the existence of which can be proven or a deistic god that matters not?

Excuse me, Ben Davis, but if you cannot comprehend that in this post there is a lot of brainless commentaries and that yours was lost between them we are not going anywhere. I do not have time to read trough the whole page you provided, I have opened it and it is full of technicism I do not understand, that is why I just asked you to simplify them and to give me a brief and simplified answer, is it that hard?

[robvalue]

Lol oh wow.

Oh boy.

This guy is just too much.

[Wryetui]

Now who is the irrational one?! You are acting exactly like the believers you complain of!

Alright, I will do the same then, everytime you ask me about evidence of my "God claims" I will tell you: "Okay, if you're going to play silly games, goodbye. I tried to help you. You're asking for a whole theological education on a forum post." and that is it. I asked a basical question: "How did this earth come into existence?" and absolutely no one answered me.

I am not surprised of what I discovered. You believe things with no basis for them, you just believe them because "the scientists say so". It says so on the wikipedia and on the internet and you believe it without any research because "it is science". This is just pathetic, and this is how almost all of the atheists in this forum behave towards me, they gave me absolutely no evidence for their claims and they mocked me for my beliefs. It is all a matter of belief, you believe your bunch of people and I believe mine.

So for the evidence provided to have any validity according to you, it must be provided by tgose with perfect understanding of it and written in a forum post in its entirity?

Go fuck yourself with a rusty barbed wire rahat pentru creier, because, frankly, giving yourself tetanus is the best thjng you could do for humanity.

Look at that. This cannot be the norm in this forum, right?

---

Lol oh wow.

Oh boy.

This guy is just too much.

I may be too much but besides complaining you did not provide any evidence for anything and no information either.