-->
@ronjs
The two unequivocal facts, atheists cannot prove that gods do not exist and theists cannot prove that gods do exist.
A challenge to theists. Can you be honest.
Posts
Total:
436
-->
@EtrnlVw
LOL....Sorry, but womb bullshit.
And the brain is what it is and observation is what it is...No brain=no observation=no acquired and stored data= no EtrnlVw=no ritual speak.
And I freely admitted that I was as conditioned as you, only slightly differently....Which really is the basis of the ongoing contention and why websites such as this exist.
And feeling sorry is a sorrowful attempt at a cheap and meaningless dig.
And your integrity in respect of your own personal mind set, is not being doubted. One only asks for you to be honest and accept the truism...It's not as if you are being asked to denounce either your conditioned principles or your belief in a god.
And yes, questions...When will a theist actually prove that a god exists?...Will it be tomorrow?...Probably not, but you never know.
-->
@zedvictor4
So, no evidence, just asserting a perceived absolute.
-->
@zedvictor4
No amount of fanciful words can make a god concept externally real.So the god concept is real enough inside your head.But can you be honest and admit that you have no way of converting this internal notion into an external reality?
Do you remember when we had this discussion some time back?
When my brain inputs visual data I assume with a level of certainty that what I see is what there is. Similarly, if I transcribe information to an external medium, the process is wholly reliant on internal data processing, so I can still only assume with a level of certainty that what I am doing is actually having an external influence.I can never be 100% certain of the existence or nature of an external environment.Where, between 1 and 100 my level of certainty sits, I cannot say.What do you think?Remember, a percentage is a ratio. In order for you to relate levels of certainty, you'd have to be able to perceive each part of your scale (from one to 100.) If you don't know what 100 percent is, then how can you characterize anything you presume to know as a level of certainty? And this is quite analogous to my argument. If "actual existence" as it's been argued is something independent of perception, then why would one relate what one does perceive to that which they can't perceive? It's not really on a scale from one to 100; it's a scale from one to x, where x is unknowable.
Why would it then be at all significant that the "God concept," as you put it, has an "external reality" when your experience of an external reality is based on an assumption? And the level of certainty you pointed out back then isn't really a level of certainty in that context because as you admitted you don't proffer outside of an assumption that what you're doing is actually having an external influence. And as I argued then, if you didn't have any grasp of 100 percent, then how could you relate any "level" of certainty when certainty is an unknown.
The problem is with your posit of an "external" reality, zedvictor. In order for you to contain an external reality within epistemological parameters, you must control for the experience of existence independent of one's mind. Such a feat would be paradoxical and logically incoherent. You are not trivializing or even qualifying the existence of God(s) by claiming he/it is real inside one's head. The "truth" is, everything we know exists, exists "inside our heads." Even your physical senses must conform to the express function of your mind's faculties.
So then if "external reality" is an epistemological insignificance, what weight does it bear in any argument over the existence of God? None.
-->
@zedvictor4
Zed? Zed?
Where are you Zed?
Are you processing the data? Looking for a way to dodge Athias' point?
Zed?
-->
@Athias
Well.
"Epistemology" is what it is and does nothing to explain or reduce the dilemma that is, mans uncertainty. Epistemology is just another internal exercise concerning the manipulation and ordering of data.
So we accept operational parameters within a certain level of internal certainty based upon acquired data.
Therefore a concept is the internal manipulation of data and as such gods are internally valid and therefore able to be regarded as an internal certainty and I would imagine that no reasonable person would deny the existence of gods as an internal, conceptual certainty. Similarly no reasonable person would seek to deny the theists ability to convert their internal certainty into an assumed external reality (belief).
Nonetheless, the theist makes an assumption based upon internal processes. They assume that their interpretation of data and god concept unequivocally proves the existence of a god as an external reality.... If this is not correct, then why does the theist struggle to accept the truism?
All that the truism asks, is for the theist to be honest and accept their god concept for what it is and also for what it has become, which is an internal certainty and a consequent assumption.
-->
@ethang5
Patience Mr Ethan.
Saturday 7.30 am and no need to get up quite so early.
-->
@ronjs
How does one separate perception from the human condition?
The human condition is everything to the human.
Nonetheless, the truism makes no startling claims.
Zedvictor4 the atheist cannot prove that gods do not exist.
Can ronjs (presumably the theist) prove that gods do exist.
So....We can both conceptualise gods but that is not the ongoing contention.
The ongoing contention is the existence or not of an external god.
The Athias style academic discourse is all well and good but only seeks to distract from the real issue.
It's only common sense god doesn't exist.
-->
@zedvictor4
Saturday 7.30 am and no need to get up quite so early.
It wasn't too early for you to dodge his points. Lol.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If your posts are examples of what you call common sense, then you're right.
-->
@ethang5
If you're allowed to speak nonsense, i too can speak nonsense.
It's religion forum.
No one has ever been wrong.
-->
@zedvictor4
"Epistemology" is what it is and does nothing to explain or reduce the dilemma that is, mans uncertainty.
You're the one presuming that this uncertainty is a dilemma.
Epistemology is just another internal exercise concerning the manipulation and ordering of data.
Epistemology is fundamental to rationalizing existence. It isn't "just another..."
So we accept operational parameters within a certain level of internal certainty based upon acquired data.
Why is this data "acquired" not "created"?
Therefore a concept is the internal manipulation of data and as such gods are internally valid and therefore able to be regarded as an internal certainty and I would imagine that no reasonable person would deny the existence of gods as an internal, conceptual certainty. Similarly no reasonable person would seek to deny the theists ability to convert their internal certainty into an assumed external reality (belief).
Belief is an "assumed" external reality? Why would a logical incoherence demand proof?
Nonetheless, the theist makes an assumption based upon internal processes. They assume that their interpretation of data and god concept unequivocally proves the existence of a god as an external reality...
No, some theists posit God to be a fundamental truth to an inter-subjective experience. Externality has nothing to do with it. This theist however argues that the subjective is the only epistemologically significant premise for analyzing an existence capable of being rationalized.
If this is not correct, then why does the theist struggle to accept the truism?
Because it's not a truism. Your argument essentially reduces to this: atheists can no more disprove the subjectivity of God(s) than a theist can prove the objectivity of God(s.) But objectivity is logically incoherent because it necessitates that one rejects one's own being the subject of one's experience. Proof is irrelevant to that which is logically incoherent. In other words, the theist bears no obligation whatsoever to substantiate their God objectively, or as you put it, manifest in an external reality (a logical incoherence.) You yourself admitted that you can never be certain that what you do has an external influence, so why are setting standards of proof and quality based on that which you concede is an assumption?
All that the truism asks, is for the theist to be honest and accept their god concept for what it is and also for what it has become, which is an internal certainty and a consequent assumption.
No, the "truism" demands that one accept that standards of proof for either is reciprocal, when they are in fact not.
The Athias style academic discourse is all well and good but only seeks to distract from the real issue.
My style is irrelevant. I'm attempting to have you grasp that your concept of an external reality is logically incoherent and that having your arguments center on matters of proof as it concerns a logical incoherence is an exercise in epistemological futility. I'm not trying to "distract" you.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If you're allowed to speak nonsense, i too can speak nonsense.
So I'm your standard? Cool. At least you are aware you're speaking nonsense.
It's religion forum. No one has ever been wrong.
Another example of your common sense?
-->
@zedvictor4
Ouch Z-man. Will you come back from this? Zed?I'm attempting to have you grasp that your concept of an external reality is logically incoherent...
Why is this data "acquired" not "created"?
Yeah! And from whom is it acquired? Some external being?
Why would a logical incoherence demand proof?
Yeah Zed. Why?
-->
@zedvictor4
LOL....Sorry, but womb bullshit.
It's called the soul (I know, crazy that you would see religious concepts in a religious forum right?), laugh it up but one day you will experience first-hand what I'm saying. The soul exists independent of the physical body, it enters the womb and it leaves the body at death, in other words the soul exists prior to the physical body it inhabits. Pay attention to NDE's and you have an overwhelming data base of evidence, you will certainly be experiencing the same phenomenon.
And the brain is what it is and observation is what it is...No brain=no observation=no acquired and stored data= no EtrnlVw=no ritual speak.
No, the soul can experience observation outside the physical body and brain. The brain is simply a component that confines your experience to a physical body, it does not create consciousness. Think of the brain like you would an electrical panel, it's simply a conductor of consciousness/electricity.
And I freely admitted that I was as conditioned as you, only slightly differently....Which really is the basis of the ongoing contention and why websites such as this exist.
But as I explained, it is only your mind and emotions that are conditioned. There is another part of you, which exists independent of the mind which you can fall back on. The mind is nothing more than a tool consciousness uses to store information, memory and what it categorizes. You can thank me later, I'm here to show you how to get outside the conditioned mind whether you choose to or not is up to you.
And feeling sorry is a sorrowful attempt at a cheap and meaningless dig.
Sure. But actually I do feel sorry for the limits you place on yourself. Your experience is limited by the very restrictions you put in place.
And your integrity in respect of your own personal mind set, is not being doubted. One only asks for you to be honest and accept the truism...It's not as if you are being asked to denounce either your conditioned principles or your belief in a god.
But we've already crossed that bridge. You're not going to get me to agree that God only exists in my own head lol, God exists independent of what I think or believe. You won't engage in content so you aren't giving me a chance to articulate, that's your way of running from the discussion so be it.
And yes, questions...When will a theist actually prove that a god exists?...Will it be tomorrow?...Probably not, but you never know.
Why don't you go back to my original posts I explained all that. You just keep ignoring me while talking over me. If I can get you to at least consider the nature of God that's the first step in dealing with this dilemma. Do you understand the nature of God?
-->
@zedvictor4
No brain=no observation
If you were to be honest here you would consider NDE's as evidence, which just means "is an indicator that something or a proposition is true". It just so happens that they coincide with Theistic propositions, they can be categorized as whatever you make it to be but look at it for what it is. But to attempt to limit them to some hallucinations or dreams is an insult to intelligent people who understand full well what normal conscious experiences are like. When does the brain ever produce experiences outside of its confines? is that a normal experience of the brain to allow the observer to have observations away from the physical body? or does the soul exist independent of the material body?
The soul detaches from the physical body and brain the moment the brain or body shuts down, this is why the soul continues its experience after death and when the brain is not functioning. NDE's are recorded hours and even days after brain death, even if the brain were still functioning when does it ever allow the individual to go outside its own body and observe it?
Spiritual experiences, OBE's and soul travel also coincide with this proposition. Since the soul exists independent of the body and brain it can alternate between worlds or realms of experience. This is why spiritual encounters are not limited to just NDE's, the soul can have transcendent observations either at will from practice or even accidental.
The multiverse theory is actually a legit theory whether people believe it or not. Creation is set up in layers or planes or parallel worlds, as the soul leaves the physical world it is present within the very next plane. So the soul is covered in what are known as subtle bodies AKA spirit body with the physical being the outermost "layer". The soul though exists independent of these layers and views through them like masks, they are just coverings that confine the soul to each world. Of course you're going to find this really funny but at this point I'm just talking to myself anyways lol, knowing you will just ignore my posts and talk over me but I can elaborate on any of this. Not much going on in the religion forum unfortunately so things get boring.
-->
@zedvictor4
I've conceived a different approach:
OED defines "proof: I. Senses relating to the establishment or demonstration of truth or validity
1. a. Something that proves a statement; evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of anything, or belief in the certainty of something; an instance of this."
Your challenge not only argues for proof by a negative logic, which cannot be proven [and which I have already argued] but that it ignores the notion that proof is made, even in a positive logical construct limited to the five traditional senses, I.e., sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. The OED makes no such limitation in its definition. I contend there are more senses available to us than five. Just the evidence that additional senses are available to other animal forms, such as the ability to sense earth's magnetic field, and for others the ability of echo location, so humans [some, at least] have a very internal, tactile sense know as faith, which is not synonymous to belief. Proof of that is that belief does not compel one to do anything about the belief, whereas faith carries the demand for action on what is accepted by faith, or, it is not faith.
-->
@ethang5
Hey.
I like the new hippy style.
Guru Athias induced it would seem.
And so when is anyone in the Dart god club going to give me proof of an external god?
Never.
-->
@fauxlaw
Nonetheless, all internal processes, even if reliant upon external stimuli.
So show me the external stimulus that is a god....I have never stated that such a thing does not exist....All that the truism asks is for proof that it does.
Your new approach is still only an internally based assumption.
-->
@EtrnlVw
So prove it.God exists independent of what I think.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Prove it.The soul detaches from the physical body etc.
-->
@zedvictor4
You only have your subjective internal senses, you cannot perceive anything external....when is anyone in the Dart god club going to give me proof of an external god?
Stop asking for things you've told us you cannot perceive.
-->
@Athias
Same old same old.
I think that I will refer to it as Athiasism.
So prove the existence of an external god then.
And how do you think that knowledge/information/data (other than inherent functionality) gets into your brain?......I would suggest, acquisition.
The term acquired data is therefore aptly descriptive.
-->
@ethang5
Good morning America.
I can perceive the screen in front of me.
And if you can show me a god I will be able to perceive that also.
I acquired the god concept as data input long ago. Though I have never perceived the actual thing.
-->
@zedvictor4
And what proof would you accept that there is a God? You started this thread in bad faith simply to mock your own hypocrtical standards. If you truely believe there is no God then there is no need for theism and anti theism to agree. If you want proof of a God then i suggest miracles and supernatural events and manipulation of the natural world its self as proof of a more powerful being, (all of which has been done) if not, then tell what proofs you will accept. Or continue ranting foolishly
-->
@Melcharaz
Melcharaz the ranter.
Check me out.
Have I ever denied the possibility of a god?
The god hypothesis is a as valid as any other.
The truism does not ask that either the hypothesis or peoples faith in the hypothesis should be denounced.
The truism only asks that such people accept that the god hypothesis does not prove the existence of a god.
-->
@zedvictor4
Show me, show me, show me. Show, yourself. You know no one is going to prove anything to you, so why ask? There's a certain Madman in the streets, holding a lantern, inquiring, "I seek God" as if God would show Himself to such. One finds God in the subtle, quiet places, in a leaf, turning. Turning both bright colors, and dying, pulling against the tree in a wind to be free. In a river, cold and silent at its depth. In a sunrise, glorious and quiet, peaceful to the bone. And even on a street crner, but the lantern is only to see one's self. God is seen in the heart.
-->
@zedvictor4
So you have no proof and want no proof. A fool says there is no God
-->
@ethang5
God wants to save you from death.
Absolute BS!
God makes no secret of the fact that he is a murderous psychopath and even admits to being a "jealous god of war".
And the bible itself records ALL of the murders of innocent people including babies - that your god committed. So stop with your lies and bullshit and start by explaining to us all why your god, that, according to only you -" wants to save us from death" is doing all the murdering of innocents in the bible? And explain why he is such a disgusting psychotic paranoid murderer of the innocent who kills people for simply for a wager .