first just a suggestion. you must put a lot of effort into annotating all the quotes and such. it just makes it hard to follow cause whoever reads it has to line up your point with the quoted point. it takes too much effort to follow, it's harder on you and the reader than it needs to be.
Relating the responses to what they respond to is a requirement for a productive discussion.
I provide clarity because clarity promotes truth and understanding.
i do acknowledge that the afterlife is a different subject than atheism, given one can believe in the afterlife and still not be a theist. i guess it's worth noting to anyone paying attention, that i amended my originial thesis...i dont think atheism is irrational, i think a better word is 'unreasonable'. there's enough plausibility to be an atheist even if it's not reasonable.
It is typical for Christians to be wrong, but it is atypical for them to admit that.
here are two reasons atheism is unreasonable:[55] 1. inexplicable healings occur to theists who pray, but we have no such evidence for atheists, they are all explicable.[56] 2. the overwhelming majority of atheists come back believing in God after NDEs. it doesn't happen that theists become atheists.[56] the atheists who dont convert didn't get any special knowledge about the subject, so we can't base anything on what they think.[57] the only ones who get special knowledge, become theists. almost never the other way around.
i say that's why atheism is unreasonable. i suppose it's plausible, given maybe we just dont have evidence of inexplicable healings occurring to atheists, and it's plausible to argue that NDEs are subjective so maybe the information people receive about God isn't truth it's just like a dream. this all goes against the weight of the evidence, so it's still enough to say atheism is unreasonable.[58]
atheists and people who think NDEs are just hallucinations do need evidence.[59] i've presented an overwhelming amount of evidence,[60] so that means the skeptics have a rebuttable presumption against their views. they have to provide evidence if they want to debunk my evidence. they cant just sit on their hands with no evidence and pretend that their burden of proof is sufficicient.[61] that's not how logic or science or evidence works.
[55] You have yet to demonstrate that atheism is unreasonable, so I assume you merely mean that you have pieces of evidence supporting that atheism is unreasonable.
[56] Again, provide references please. Most skeptics aren't gullible enough to uncritically accept the word of a theist.
[57] How is that supposed to follow ? You seem to be cherry picking the testimonies : “Let's believe the witnesses who agree with me and ignore the others.”
[58] Saying something does not make it true.
[59] That is typical for skeptics : belief comes after the evidence i.s.o. before. That is why most skeptics are atheistic.
[60] Perhaps you have, but not in this thread. Cases aren't made with evidence one has allegedly presented somewhere. Present that overwhelming amount of evidence, so that we may evaluate its strength.
[61] They can do that, but there seems to be no reason for it. Better is to wait for theists to demonstrate their position until tired of waiting.
Since for some reason you are unwilling (or are you unable?) to support your claim that atheism is irrational, I'll bring up some counter-evidence to your afterlife claim. Some children remember a previous life, supporting reincarnation. How do you reconcile that with an afterlife ?
it is common for people to believe in reincarnation if they have NDEs. i dont dispute that. reincarnation and an afterlife are both likely based on the evidence.[62] why dont you look at your own evidence though...[63] if there's kids who reemember past lives, maybe there is more to this life than just us being flesh robots that die and there's nothing greater to it. you have to ignore the evidence that you yourself brought up to pretend this life is all there is.[64]
[62] They appear to be incompatible. Again, how do you reconcile them ?
[63] What do you mean with “my own evidence” ?
[64] Pretense nor evidence ignoring are required to believe this life is all there is. If one considers all the evidence for extraordinary claims i.s.o. cherry picking what supports what one wants to believe, one notices that the evidence is inconsistent because most supported extraordinary claims are inconsistent. So far I have yet observe anyone presenting a remotly plausible explanation that reconciles all the extraordinary claims for which there is evidence. That shows that having evidence for an extraordinary claim is insufficient to warrant belief in that claim.
Fighter pilots are in their training exposed to strong g-forces, which draws oxygen away from the brain, and they often report NDE type experiences.
they might experience somehting similar to and NDE but they're not experiencings all the themes of NDEs and they're not experiencing elaborate afterlife stories.
Maybe so, but nonetheless it undermines the assumption that NDEs point to an afterlife.
also you asked once, so most of my evidence is based on two books, 'evidence of the afterlife' and 'God and the afterlife' both by the author Dr. Jeffrey Long. it's also worth lookin into books by neurosurgeon Dr Alexander and cardio pulmonary surgeon Dr Parnia. Parnia also is the author of the AWARE studies.
Most atheists don't have that evidence. So that you have that evidence is irrelevant to the question of whether atheism is irrational. What is relevant is that you are unable to back up your claims with scientific studies. Skeptics are gullible, but not gullible enough to believe the claims of a biased stranger on the Internet. That is why most skeptics are atheistic.
The claim that needs to be supported is “Atheism is irrational.” But since no one is willing or able to deliver, we will have to settle with a weaker claim. Why is “God does not exist” an irrational statement ?
"God does not exist" is an irrational claim because it presumes the perception of or information on the nonexistent.[65] Since perception requires perceptible data, it necessarily follows that nonexistence cannot be perceived since it's devoid of any and all data. That is, if something does not exist, you don't know it does not exist, because it does not exist.[66] Any information the nonexistent can provide on itself is not there because "its self" is not there. The fact that one is capable of identifying "God" and much less place him as the subject in a claim already defeats and undermines the purpose of "proving his nonexistence."
Everything is perceptible (and therefore exists) [67]
Nothing is not perceptible (and therefore doesn't exist.)
God falls within the realm of Everything. God has a name; God has a form and being; God can be identified; God is perceptible; therefore God exists. If you want this in a syllogistic form then it would go as such:
P1: Everything that can be perceived must exist.
P2: God is perceived.
C: Therefore God must exist.
[65] Your argument appears to be the following :
P1. If one claims “God does not exist”, one assumes the nonexistent can be perceived.
P2. The nonexistent cannot be perceived.
P3. A claim made based on a false assumption is irrational.
C. Therefore, the claim “God does not exist” is irrational.
Is that indeed your argument ?
[66] How does the nonexistence of Spino, the spinosaur fishing in my bathroom sink, prevent me from knowing Spino does not exist ?
[67] Can you prove that everything is perceptible ?
Can you prove that everything that is perceptible exists ?
In this instance perception results in imagination.......So "therefore God must exist" is not rational and does not logically follow.
Okay, let's try this:
P1: Everything that can be perceived must exist.
P2: Numbers are perceived.
P3: Therefore, numbers must exist.
Athias then claims, using zedvictor's rationale (imagined = irrational, logically inconsistent, and nonexistent) that numbers are imagined. (Reason: numbers bear no physical properties; they're maintained via the mind as abstracts; they're functionally no different from the "imagined.")
The meaning of the term existence or the verb to exist for physical things like God is clear. For abstract concepts like numbers is it not. Whether numbers exist is as much a question about the nature of numbers as about the meaning of term existence.
I haven't seen zedvictor4 claim that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent and non-existent.
And numbers and mathematics are a completely different kettle of fish, to imaginary entities.
No, they are not. Math is logically consistent to tee for sure, but it's still abstract.
What if the god proposed is logically contradictory?
Identify and sufficiently explain the contradiction.
Christians sometimes make seemingly inconsistent claims about God. For example,
- God being perfectly loving.
- God is perfectly just.
- God is love.
- God is omnipotent.
- God is omniscient.
- Despite the above two God is allegedly incapable of mitigating lots of problems.
- God cannot lie.
The above claims seem hard to reconcile. Moreover, God supposedly can violate the laws of physics.
In this case, the question being asked is intended to analyze the assertion that all claims of god being nonexistent are illogical. Whether any given God proposition is actually logically contradictory is entirely irrelevant for that is a completely different conversation. And one which I had no intention of having, BTW.
Nonexistence serves of the purpose of merely being the negation of existence. Nonexistence is not rational. And that does not apply to just God(s). It can be applied to Santa Klaus, the Tooth Fairy, Diet Soda, Colors, Numbers, even you and me.
Nonexistence is not irrational either.
I propose a god that can metaphysically function beyond itself.
That's irrational, no matter how you put it. And it is not within my capacity to rationalize using irrational premises.
You keep missing the point. The question is whether it is (ir)rational to claim such a god does not exist.
