Enough of this crap, I want to hear directly from god

[cyber_freddy]

A post like this shows why arguments from experience fail on both sides.

A non-believer making the claim that God does not exist because he has not spoken to them is fallacious. An agent's existence does not depend on the agent interacting with anyone.

Likewise for the theist, due to the fact personal experience cannot be verified empirically, the "God exists because he spoke to me" claim also does not provides grounds for the universal acceptance of a claim especially when such claims are not even the slightest bit uniform.

[The Grand Nudger]

And what are these facts ? You provided none. Children are just tilted towards belief, regardless of their culture or their parents' influence.
Of course you can loosen the definition of purpose to take out anything about the divine or heaven. But that would be just you playing with nomenclature.

You supplied all the facts I require.

Children tend to ascribe purpose to natural phenomena, and children have trouble with difficult concepts.  Given these two things about children I find it wholly unremarkable that they explain whatever purpose they see....real or imagined, in fanciful and familiar terms.  

Yes.. Of course I can't prove a negative assertion. What's remarkable, though, is that you're prepared to consider the possibility of an afterlife with no god, but not prepared to consider that the universe is the product of a conscious architect. We have more good reasons for the latter than for the former. I think that's a bit dishonest.

I'm prepared to consider all sorts of possibilities, including the possibility that something I know with certainty is wrong.  That said, we are only concerned with one possibility at present.  The possibility that the things children see aren't indicative of the existence of gods.

Absent any deity, nothing differentiates me technically from a battery. Does a dead battery have an afterlife ? We can't prove that it doesn't, at the same time we know it just won't happen.

To me, that's an absurd assertion.  You are just as different from a battery without a god as you are with a god.   No fact about you or batteries change on account of changing some fact about a god.  Just like no fact about chickens or eggs changes by changing a fact about the chicken god.

Consider this. You and I are different people. A third person is in the room with us. Do you and I cease to be different people when that third person leaves the room? Do we become different people, again, when that person reenters?

I agree. And in this case, what purpose can you make of the universe, while thinking about all the billions of victims of war, genocide, famine, torture, rape, how they're gone forever, how their only precious lives are taken away forever by some lunatic's thirst for power or lust..?

All of the purpose I already make, and all of the purpose that children see.  For you, this is some black hole of meaning that you can't escape from - but for me...it's just a thursday.

You rattled off a list of Bad Things™...and it seems to me that since you're so concerned with them, you could find purpose in preventing them or helping victims of those things. You could do this, and people do exactly this, regardless of whether they believe in gods, and regardless of whether there are any gods. I didn't have any trouble doing it, or finding purpose in it.

-and..before you launch yourself wholeheartedly into some comment about how only god-purpose is real purpose, and all of those people who don't need god for purpose have it wrong - consider what that does to your assertion about children and their tendencies. You would be asserting that some (if not most) of what they see...is wrong, not real.

[Angrboda]

I can suggest that there are facts about children which explain this.

Nor do I have to prove that there is no god to demonstrate that purpose can be and is conceived of without one.

And what are these facts ? You provided none. Children are just tilted towards belief, regardless of their culture or their parents' influence.
Of course you can loosen the definition of purpose to take out anything about the divine or heaven. But that would be just you playing with nomenclature.

The definition is that loose to start with. The one playing with nomenclature is the one claiming heaven or the divine are required.

[The Grand Nudger]

The objection appears to have been, more accurately, not that children ascribing purpose to natural phenomena is indicative of a gods existence or even that there was no natural or more probable explanation for their doing so.

Rather, that if there were no god and no heaven and no hell, regardless of what those children might see and ascribe as purpose, it would not be the right kind of purpose. God purpose.

I have no idea what that's supposed to be, but assuming it was a thing, then yeah...if there were no god, there would be no god purpose. That seems rather self explanatory.

[R00tKiT]

You supplied all the facts I require.

Children tend to ascribe purpose to natural phenomena, and children have trouble with difficult concepts.  Given these two things

Actually, we're only interested in the assertion in bold, for which you provided no satisfactory explanation whatsoever, forget about the other thing. Until you provide an explanation, let's go with the appearances of things, it's more probable than not that an observed tendency towards teleological thinking points to the object of teleology -god.

To me, that's an absurd assertion.  You are just as different from a battery without a god as you are with a god.   No fact about you or batteries change on account of changing some fact about a god.  Just like no fact about chickens or eggs changes by changing a fact about the chicken god.

With a god the notion of a soul becomes perfectly conceivable. If there is no soul, that is, an immortal part of us, then there is no afterlife by definition.
If we change a fact about the chicken god, chicken may acquire a soul, and thus they may have an afterlife to "look forward to".

Consider this.  You and I are different people.  A third person is in the room with us.  Do you and I cease to be different people when that third person leaves the room?  Do we become different people, again, when that person reenters?

The existence of god isn't exactly equivalent to the existence of a third person in the room.. and you already know that.. why come up with this half-baked comparison. There is a causal relationship between people and God, God caused the existence of people -regardless of how many events it took to create them. The third person in the room with us is exactly like us. God is not like us.

You rattled off a list of Bad Things™...and it seems to me that since you're so concerned with them, you could find purpose in preventing them or helping victims of those things.  You could do this, and people do exactly this, regardless of whether they believe in gods, and regardless of whether there are any gods.  I didn't have any trouble doing it, or finding purpose in it.  

-and..before you launch yourself wholeheartedly into some comment about how only god-purpose is real purpose, and all of those people who don't need god for purpose have it wrong - consider what that does to your assertion about children and their tendencies.  You would be asserting that some (if not most) of what they see...is wrong, not real.

Of course I could do this. But this is not what we're discussing here. Absent any god, the universe is really without purpose for all these people who were victims of these Bad Things. The existence of god does change a lot for them. Of course I can find purpose - I, who happens to be luckier than all these poor victims - in helping the poor victims, but what about purpose for these victims themselves?

Absent a god, there is nothing for example one can say (or do) to consolate the mother of a -raped then butchered- innocent little girl, nothing. No amount of effort in this life will make it up for here. She can only find hope and purpose in the idea of hell for the rapist, and heaven for her daughter.

And this does nothing to my assertion about children and their tendencies, I already said we're only interested in the tendency, not what shape their tendencies and dreams may take. And my bet would be if you tell a random sample of children about some really tragic story involving some of these Bad Things, a good proportion - even if not taught anything about religion - will tell you they can only wish for the criminal some kind of eternal torture, and the victim some form of eternal bliss, like flying with unicorns or swimming in a pool of ice-cream.

[Fake Messiah]

Actually, we're only interested in the assertion in bold, for which you provided no satisfactory explanation whatsoever, forget about the other thing. Until you provide an explanation, let's go with the appearances of things, it's more probable than not that an observed tendency towards teleological thinking points to the object of teleology -god.

Explanation of what? That little children are gullible, naive and have vivid imagination? Are you serious?

Absent a god, there is nothing for example one can say (or do) to consolate the mother of a -raped then butchered- innocent little girl, nothing. No amount of effort in this life will make it up for here. She can only find hope and purpose in the idea of hell for the rapist, and heaven for her daughter.

Really? And where is a study on that assertion you made?

Meanwhile

Video

[LadyForCamus]

Sorry, still catching up here. Is @Klorophyll s argument: children believe in the supernatural, therefore god exists?

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually, we're only interested in the assertion in bold, for which you provided no satisfactory explanation whatsoever, forget about the other thing. Until you provide an explanation, let's go with the appearances of things, it's more probable than not that an observed tendency towards teleological thinking points to the object of teleology -god.

I see that you decided to retract one of your asserted facts - no matter.  

You have yet to get past the point of children's tendencies being more than a brute fact of what children do.  It's no surprise to me that children describe the world as they see it in human terms.  Seems like it might go with the territory of being human.  You think it means more.

How, a giant mystery.  I think you should reread the thread - because the comment above goes past a disagreement regarding facts and deeply into the territory of a bold faced lie.  I did...of course...offer explanations.  None of them had any allah, however, so you didn't like them.  

If you demanded a chocolate cake and I gave you a couple vanilla cakes...it wouldn't be accurate to say that you'd been given no cake.  Just didn't get the one you wanted.  

So let's start...again, at the very bottom.  Children ascribe purpose to natural phenomena.  They could do this because they're hilarious little fantasy machines and see what doesn't exist, or they might do this because a natural teleology is conceivable.  I suspect that it's a bit of both.

You?

With a god the notion of a soul becomes perfectly conceivable. If there is no soul, that is, an immortal part of us, then there is no afterlife by definition.
If we change a fact about the chicken god, chicken may acquire a soul, and thus they may have an afterlife to "look forward to".

Who cares whether you have a soul or whether you have something to look forward to?  To hear you lot tell it, most of us who (allegedly) do have souls don't have anything to look forward to, anyway.  

You insisted that without a god you were no different than a battery.  That much is laughably and demonstrably false.

The existence of god isn't exactly equivalent to the existence of a third person in the room.. and you already know that.. why come up with this half-baked comparison. There is a causal relationship between people and God, God caused the existence of people -regardless of how many events it took to create them. The third person in the room with us is exactly like us. God is not like us.

It's precisely equivalent to the conjecture that without god, there would be no difference between this or that.  Gods aren;t a difference making property - but asserting that..if a god left the room..you and a battery (or you and I) would be identical is exactly where this assertion goes.  If you don't believe that, then you don't believe your own assertion.

-Which is great...because it's ridiculous on it's face.  

Of course I could do this. But this is not what we're discussing here. Absent any god, the universe is really without purpose for all these people who were victims of these Bad Things. The existence of god does change a lot for them. Of course I can find purpose - I, who happens to be luckier than all these poor victims - in helping the poor victims, but what about purpose for these victims themselves?

Absent a god, there is nothing for example one can say (or do) to consolate the mother of a -raped then butchered- innocent little girl, nothing. No amount of effort in this life will make it up for here. She can only find hope and purpose in the idea of hell for the rapist, and heaven for her daughter.

And this does nothing to my assertion about children and their tendencies, I already said we're only interested in the tendency, not what shape their tendencies and dreams may take. And my bet would be if you tell a random sample of children about some really tragic story involving some of these Bad Things, a good proportion - even if not taught anything about religion - will tell you they can only wish for the criminal some kind of eternal torture, and the victim some form of eternal bliss, like flying with unicorns or swimming in a pool of ice-cream.

Could?  Could but don't?  You leave me wondering what your life is supposed to mean with a god.  

You tell me that absent a god your life is without purpose, I rattle of some things that people find purpose in, things you mentioned...and you nope out.  Perhaps your life truly is purposeless...but you must understand that this is a you problem?  

Anywho, there are plenty f things that you could do for suffering people.  I suspect you have as much interest in that as you have in any other non-god thing.  This is one of the things about your god concept that irks me to no end.  

You excuse yourself for being worthless and uninterested in becoming worthy on account of it.

Sorry, still catching up here. Is @Klorophyll s argument: children believe in the supernatural, therefore god exists?

I don't think that it's so important that...if he believed otherwise, he would think it was some indication that there were no gods...so, no.  It's just another one of a barrel of darts thrown at a wall to see which might stick.

[WinterHold]

I believe God already spoke to us, but so many don't know God's language.
Look in your creation as a creature, look in the skies, look in the moon and the sun, look in life.

God already spoke, and everything in this universe is what he said.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's fine as a belief, but a poor way to establish the accuracy of those beliefs content. If everything were god-breathed then why should any particular thing strike me as evidence of a gods existence?

A rock shaped by wind and water is just as designed as anything else in that case. If I step on a walnut - the crumbled pieces of shell and even where they end up and how....designed.

- you've left no frame of reference. No object or phenomena or fact where we can rationally say "ah, this, this thing is remarkable, it's clearly designed!". All those things you listed off may be more remarkable for other reasons and fill you with a sense of wonder - but none of them are any more or less designed than my rock, or my shell.