No, I am saying that there are some atheists, like yourself that claim God is an impossibility and that there is no evidence possible of God’s existence.
You obviously don’t understand what constitutes evidence and the various types of evidence that exist and the concept that some evidence is more convincing than others. Not all evidence establishes or explains every aspect of an event. Many times the totality of evidence is required to be convinced of the nature of something. There is not one thing that has to occur that provides conclusive evidence of an event or the existence of something.
I can say that I believe certain witnesses about events that happened without having to completely understand or explain what happened. I am capable of saying that I don’t know what happened and that it does not appear to be explained by any previously understood explanation. The all-knowing atheist like yourself claims absolute knowledge of the unkown. This is why when people relay stories/evidence about being dead and then brought back to life you say the stories are false and not possible.
I have made no requirement that you believe every story. What you have done is reject every story before you have heard it.
“we can examine what is claimed that god is and understand that it can’t possibly be.” That is Baawa’s statement from this thread. See it is not quite as uncommon as you are trying to pretend.
If he is referring to a being that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, he’s totally correct. It cannot be.
-Jon
No, but unlike the atheist I do not assume that all experiences or evidence of God is by definition a hallucination. That is the distinction. The atheist rukes out the possibility by definition.
Again, I don’t start with the assumption that they are false. First, I examine the evidence presented and evaluate the sources. Then I come to a conclusion. The atheist assumes by definition it is all false, so in fact the evidence is irrelevant. When you read religious writings you start with idea that they are false by definition. There is no such things as true writings for you because you have made that an impossibility by your own definition.
See we have two atheists who claim God is an impossibility as commonly defined. And to think all these people saying these atheists don’t exist.
Because those characteristics are logically incoherent and contradictory of one another.
-Jon
Ok, these strawmen are getting really annoying.
Because, you know, it’s not like the followers of the god of Abraham don’t do the same thing based on the ‘evidence’ that there is only one true god therefore any evidence of other gods is automatically “false by definition”.
For some reason they are rational in their beliefs but you haven’t been able to elaborate as to why.
But, but, look at all the personal evidence to the contrary…
Of course, this means you have a perfect understanding of the universe. There are many things that scientifically seemed contradictory in the past but after further knowledge were not illogical or contradictory.
See as an atheist you claim perfect knowledge of the universe, so by definition all evidence contrary to your presumed perfect knowledge is false. So there is no quantity or quality of evidence that could be presented that can prove God’s existence to you.
I notice you didn’t say anthing about the atheists in this thread who have articulated the atheist doctrine as first defined by myself. Apparently, all of your protestations about it not existing and there being no atheists who ascribed to this thinking can be placed in the trash bin.
I haven’t said anything about any religion as to the rationality of it. I am discussing the atheists and their doctrine. It is you who wants to discuss Christianity.
Nope, but I do know that things that are logically contradictory (i.e. that state both x and ¬x are true) are doomed from an epistemic POV. They’re not knowledge, just nonsense. So indeed, nothing would convince me of the existence of a logically contradictory/incoherent entity, and nothing would convince me of the existence of square circles. How dogmatic of me.
BTW, this does not mean I think any supernatural force is impossible. All it means is I think logically contradictory nonsense is worthless. So please don’t try spin this into some rant about the “atheist doctrine” (reminds me of Klein and her strawman-laden “Shock Doctrine”.)
-Jon
What, you mean the discussion you and Jon are having? I don’t think he needs any help on that one.
Are you suggesting that someone who doesn’t believe in evidence that is self-contradictory is irrational? Or maybe someone who doesn’t believe in ‘personal evidence’ that proves that a self-contradictory entity exists is irrational?
Plus its not a matter of not believing in the evidence because god can’t possibly exist but because the ‘evidence’ isn’t enough to prove something self-contradictory is even possible.
That’s my take on it anyway since I don’t presume to be able to make vast generalizations about their belief systems unlike other people.
I assumed your definition of ‘god’ as the Old Testament God was to establish a baseline for a belief system that practiced rational thought as that’s what this discussion is all about.
Who said anything about Christianity anyway? The Jews, Muslims and Mormons along with a few others all share the same god.
I was speaking to you about your claim that there are no atheists that by definition claim god is impossible. Apparently, most of the one’s here think that. So your babbling about there being no atheists that follow that doctrine is false.
Actually, science is beginning to discover all kinds of things that were previously thought logically contradictory. Quantum physics to think of one area where previously held truths are being shown to be not as completely “true” as once thought.
Again, you assume perfect knowledge of all things possible and that you have complete understanding of what is possible in the universe. You claim that you can explain all events and anything you can not explain must by definition be false.
Cool, thanks for that. It really wasn’t that hard now was it?
So when you say ‘atheistic doctrine’ we can assume that you are referring to them and only them or do you wish to include any other groups of people?
Now all you have to do is prove that they are irrational for not believing in evidence that is based upon ‘personal experience’ that establishes the existence of a self-contradictory entity.
max is making some totally unfounded leaps in his “reasoning.” Those books, and all the accounts by those “million of people” are evidence of something, but it is important to recognize what, exactly, they are evidence OF. If someone tells me he saw angels while he was unconscious, and I find him to be a credible and trustworthy witness, I must accept his account of the specific things he observed. It by no means follows, however, that I must accept the conclusion he draws from it. There is no logic which can extrapolate his experience into evidence of a divine being or creator of the universe or any such thing. Rather, it is an act of blind speculation, a purely arbitrary conclusion. Logically, an arbitrary statement does not merit any further consideration and must be summarily dismissed.
That’s cute. Too bad modern science deals with causal relations and not the nature of things, such as entities said to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Note: erroneously thinking some things are contradictory does not mean that other things thought to be contradictory are not so. Who knows, maybe one day modern science will show that circles can be squares!
[8-)]
-Jon
Yet another strawman. No atheist has EVER claimed perfect knowledge of the universe. That’s what science is about, finding out what the nature of the universe, including man, is, as can best be determined by experiment and/or a priori reasoning.
And, yeah, there are events that would certainly go a long way in proving the existence of a god or gods to me that I could accept. If, say, every flat surface on the face of the earth were to simultaneously have a message claiming to be from god with a specific prediction that comes true right on schedule, then sure, I’d convert or repent or whatever it is that theists do.
Short of something positively miraculous, though, you’re just begging the question. And that moves faith completely out of the picture. Can’t you just accept that some people don’t have faith and let it go? Or do you just like to abuse people and be abused in turn?
If you want or need answers, start with George H. Smith’s “Atheism: the Case Against God”. I’m done here.
I have consistently said that they are not irrational for not believing. They are irrational for saying all evidence of God’s existence is impossible by definition. It has nothing to do with belief. They are claiming that evidence is impossible by definition.