Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe you are feeling very insecure [shaking] inside...

You believe many, many things, my friend...

So amusing.

My main point is the idea of a god is a psychological derivative

You actually don't understand that you've provided no reason for anybody to believe that. But it's hard to point that out to you, since you don't even know what evidence looks like, apparently.

Your claim is entirely gratuitious. And yes, you may "believe" it: but of course, that doesn't make it even remotely true. I've explained why...

But I can explain things to you...I can't understand them for you.

Anyway, I suppose this goes nowhere, so unless you have something stunningly interesting to say, I think we're about as done as we can be.

First,
God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

As I had stated the idea of God is a psychological derivative as explained in this "stunningly interesting" argument;
The Emergence of Theism and Solutions
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=35074
It would be appropriate for you to counter my argument there.

I have explained God as a psychological derivative active a range of experience that is claimed to be associated with a real God. Note William James, Varieties of Religious Experience and the whole load of books and articles related to theists experience of their God.

Those with the most intense experience of a 'God' are the messenger, prophets, sons, or agents of God who are trusted by lay theists and believers.
But the fact is those [incl. non-theists] are mental and psychiatric cases, with brain damage, took hallucinogens, drugs, stressed, magnetically triggered and the likes also reported they have similar experience of God and similar altered states of consciousness.
I have already provided links to the above.

God is a psychological derivative to soothe the most terrible mental pains any human will suffer. Thus God as a psychological relief is most precious to the extent that theists will kill any one who threaten their soteriological security. This is so evident throughout the history of mankind, at present and will continue in the future.

When theists has to cling to God as a psychological crutch, there is no way they will ever see the irrationality of theism, since to give it up means inviting terrible mental pains, thus they are likely to suffer from Selective Attentive Disorder, e.g. not seeing the 500 pounds gorilla right in front of them.
see this real experiment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
Read the book for an explanation:
The Invisible Gorilla
http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/overview.html

[attofishpi]

God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

You are amazing. I'd imagine within that link you have ALL the answers that physicists are still unable to comprehend, starting with actually understanding the quantum universe, how consciousness exists, dark-matter, dark-energy etc, etc, etc..

...thus they are likely to suffer from Selective Attentive Disorder, e.g. not seeing the 500 pounds gorilla right in front of them.

500 pounds for a gorilla!! I had no idea we can buy them! I've got a spare 500 quid, if you post me your address I'll have it delivered to you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

You are amazing. I'd imagine within that link you have ALL the answers that physicists are still unable to comprehend, starting with actually understanding the quantum universe, how consciousness exists, dark-matter, dark-energy etc, etc, etc..

The general principle is,
all scientific facts are conditioned upon a human-made Framework and System of Reality [or knowledge] FSK which processes are polishing conjectures [hypothesis] with available evidences,
thereupon all scientific facts, truths and knowledge, are at best mere polished conjectures.

If any theists were to rely on whatever facts, truths or knowledge to leverage their conclusion God exists [which in reality is not possible], it follows the theist conclusion is grounded on mere polished conjectures.

So whatever or whenever science has answers for
the quantum universe, how consciousness exists, dark-matter, dark-energy etc, etc, etc..
the are at best mere polished conjectures without any absolute certainty.

[attofishpi]

God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

You are amazing. I'd imagine within that link you have ALL the answers that physicists are still unable to comprehend, starting with actually understanding the quantum universe, how consciousness exists, dark-matter, dark-energy etc, etc, etc..

The general principle is,
all scientific facts are conditioned upon a human-made Framework and System of Reality [or knowledge] FSK which processes are polishing conjectures [hypothesis] with available evidences,
thereupon all scientific facts, truths and knowledge, are at best mere polished conjectures.

If any theists were to rely on whatever facts, truths or knowledge to leverage their conclusion God exists [which in reality is not possible], it follows the theist conclusion is grounded on mere polished conjectures.

So whatever or whenever science has answers for
the quantum universe, how consciousness exists, dark-matter, dark-energy etc, etc, etc..
the are at best mere polished conjectures without any absolute certainty.

WELL THEN.

It follows that you have no basis for your insistence that God is impossible to exist - U FUCKING MORON. (I have a good reasonable position to state from that, that you are in fact a moron, and at the least one that doesnt fuck, I apologise for misrepresenting you.)

[Iwannaplato]

The general principle is,
all scientific facts are conditioned upon a human-made Framework and System of Reality [or knowledge] FSK which processes are polishing conjectures [hypothesis] with available evidences,
thereupon all scientific facts, truths and knowledge, are at best mere polished conjectures.

If any theists were to rely on whatever facts, truths or knowledge to leverage their conclusion God exists [which in reality is not possible], it follows the theist conclusion is grounded on mere polished conjectures.

And so moral facts fails as a conclusion because in the scientific FSK, we have behaviors, neuronal patterns, etc. And explanations without moral facts, using strongly supported facts from the natural sciences, are MORE PARSIMONIOUS. Occams' Razor, or its modern forms, prefer the explanation without the extra objects moral facts.

[seeds]

God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

You are amazing. I'd imagine within that link you have ALL the answers that physicists are still unable to comprehend, starting with actually understanding the quantum universe, how consciousness exists, dark-matter, dark-energy etc, etc, etc..

The general principle is,
all scientific facts are conditioned upon a human-made Framework and System of Reality [or knowledge] FSK which processes are polishing conjectures [hypothesis] with available evidences,
thereupon all scientific facts, truths and knowledge, are at best mere polished conjectures.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the issue being raised by atto has anything to do with what science has to say about how the mysterious features (and unfathomable order) of the universe came about.

No, I think the issue being raised by atto is how does your so-called [FSK]...

(or personal theory, or polished conjecture, or whatever you wish to call it)

...answer the questions.

And that also brings me back - again and again - to the following specific questions that you keep refusing to adequately address...

...aside from your nihilistic vision of reality that implies that there is no ultimate and eternal purpose for humans as individuals,...

...what exactly are you offering to humans that might give them a glimmer of "hope" that there might be more to life than what meets the eye?

For example, what words of comfort and solace do you have to offer to grieving parents who just lost their young child to a disease?



Or what specific words or vital aspect of your philosophy would be useful for this little girl to recall...



...in the few remaining moments before the vulture comes in to devour her flesh?

Come on now, Veritas, give me the best and most memorable lines from your materialistic philosophy that will help these humans endure their darkest hours on earth.

And just in case you missed it, let me repeat that last sentence:

Come on now, Veritas, give me the best and most memorable lines from your materialistic philosophy that will help these humans endure their darkest hours on earth.

_______

[Immanuel Can]

God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Seen it. It's nothing.

It contains arguments that impress only you, and are unimpressive to anybody who can do basic logic. You don't listen to any of your critics, don't respond to questions cogently, and don't develop any line of argument any sane person has a reason to believe.

Bluffs...is that all you ever do?

As I had stated the idea of God is a psychological derivative

Yep. But you have nothing to show that's the case. And "you stating" it means nothing without that.

What you don't understand, because you don't do logic, is that the burden is on you to show that ALL religious activity is NOTHING BUT stuff in the brain. If even one religion, or one religious experience since the dawn of time, is something else, then your argument is utterly disproven. And there's no way you can meet anything close to that burden of proof.

But you won't see that, because you despise logic.

William James, Varieties of Religious Experience

I have it right here. Instead of just floating the title, how about you give a quotation to prove to me you know what you're talking about, and show me that James provides the proof you lack?

Yet another bluff. But nobody's fooled if all you do is quote a book title. It doesn't mean you've even read it. And you've clearly lied about that before. So we have no reason to believe you now, unless you've got the proof.

But without logic, you won't see any of this. So there's no cure for your wrongness. You're just going to keep being wrong.

Enjoy it, I guess.

[iambiguous]

Here's the thing, iambiguous, there's nothing at stake!

Right. Tell that to the millions upons millions of mere mortals who insist that everything is at stake. And from both sides of the grave.

I'm trying to, but the brainwashing that they (and you) have received from being subjected since birth to the "old spiritual paradigm" has a strong hold on the human psyche.

Look, there's no getting around two things...

1] that, if we choose to interact with others in any particular community, there is going to be a need for "rules of behavior". And for any number of those here on spiritual paths [old or new], that revolves first and foremost around one or another Scripture. The word of one or another God in particular.

2] that, sooner or later, we all die. And for any number of those here on spiritual paths [old or new], that's comfortingly and consolingly subsumed in one or another "leap of faith" to immortality and salvation. Revolving, in turn, around one or another Scripture revolving around one or another God.

Though, sure, depending on which particular historical and cultural and experiential context you are "thrown into" at birth, this brainwashing can and will vary considerably.

How about yours?

Let me repeat what I said earlier...

You need to stop focusing on and fretting over the silly nonsense handed down to us from ancient minds who used dire threats and grim warnings as rhetorical devices that functioned as "hooks" and "barbed fences" to ensure that the sheep (out of fear) stayed within the confines of a particular religion.

Now you come off [to me] as someone with a "condition". Your brain is wired -- somatically? -- such that you can think up these things and they become true because you thought them up. You don't bring your points out into the world of actual human interactions and you certainly make no attempt to actually demonstrate that they are true given a set of circumstances relating to why Gods and religions have been thought up over and over and over again down through the ages.

Really?

Yeah. You believe these things but [to me] they stay up in the spiritual clouds. Again, you don't connect the dots between your "world of words" assessment and morality on this side of the grave. Let alone immortality and salvation on the other side. Like most other spiritual/religious paths. Why should others believe what you say is true? How would you go about showing them?

Am I to understand that you consider someone who dares to suggest that the truth of reality might be much more wonderful and purposeful than the old religions have led us to believe, has a "condition"?

Interesting.

That certainly is one possibility. Religious delusions -- psycho and/or somatic -- are not exactly rare phenomena down through the ages.

And, over and over and over again...

I'm less interested in what people claim to believe about any spiritual paradigm [old or new] and more interested in what they can demonstrate to me is true.

You can start by how, empirically, materially, phenomenologically, etc., you demonstrate it to yourself.

[iambiguous]

1] demonstrable evidence that this God is the Christian God and not one of the other ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
2] the sort of proof that would [again] be on par with proof that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican

Both have already been dealt with. You were asleep, and didn't notice, I guess.

How have they already been dealt with?

Simple. You claim your "proof" that 1] it's the Christian God in Heaven that exists and not all the other Gods worshipped and adored by those making the same claims about their own One True Path and 2] that you know that He resides there as clearly as it can be demonstrated that the Pope resides in the Vatican, because it's based on your own "standard of evidence".

And your videos of course.

And if anyone -- not just me -- doesn't conclude the same thing as you do about His exclusive existence, it's their own "standard of evidence" that is the problem. Heads you win, tails they lose.

Again, as with Seeds above, I speculate that it is one of two things here:

1] you are so attached [existentially] to the comfort and the consolation that Christianity provides you [on both sides of the grave], you are but one more embodiment of what I call the "psychology of objectivism" in the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

2] it's a "condition". Your brain is "broke" [chemically, neurologically] and it compels you to believe what you must.

Or, sure, in a wholly determined universe, you and I are both posting and reading what we could never have not posted and read.

Then straight back up into the substance-less intellectual/spiritual clouds you go:

I'll summarize in the briefest possible way:

The existence of ANY God or gods, regardless of their particular nature, it a complete defeater for Atheism. The particular nature of God is a secondary question, one that cannot even be coherently asked if God does not exist in the first place.

Secondly, you know the Pope is in the Vatican by two means you have identified yourself: your own belief that he is (you say you have not gone to check personally) and the report of other people (which you are accepting on faith, I guess). So if you set the same epistemic standard to the God question, it's already met: I believe in God, and other people also report His existence.

"Epistemic standard".

Perfect!

Now, sure, you have those here who will play these "intellectual/spiritual/philosophical" word-games with you. Me, I'm still more intent on bringing your Christian God around to these considerations:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

With a "standard of evidence" considerably closer to, say, the "scientific method" than to the theological "proofs" we get from religious apologists way, way up in the ecclesiastical/spiritual clouds.




Edit:

Look, here is a list of "relatively modern" religious movements...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... _movements

Then there are the particularly fanatic religious cults. Just in the U.S. alone folks like these:

The Peoples Temple
The Branch Davidians
Sullivanians
Children of God
Heaven's Gate

Does anyone here argue that they too didn't believe that their own God was the one and the only Real Deal?

[Immanuel Can]

1] demonstrable evidence that this God is the Christian God and not one of the other ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
2] the sort of proof that would [again] be on par with proof that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican

Both have already been dealt with. You were asleep, and didn't notice, I guess.

How have they already been dealt with?

The words you quoted below. It's all covered there, as simply as I can break it down.

If it needs, for your sake, to be more simple than that, I can't make it any easier. I guess you're on your own.

Iam quoted:

I'll summarize in the briefest possible way:

The existence of ANY God or gods, regardless of their particular nature, it a complete defeater for Atheism. The particular nature of God is a secondary question, one that cannot even be coherently asked if God does not exist in the first place.

Secondly, you know the Pope is in the Vatican by two means you have identified yourself: your own belief that he is (you say you have not gone to check personally) and the report of other people (which you are accepting on faith, I guess). So if you set the same epistemic standard to the God question, it's already met: I believe in God, and other people also report His existence.

[iambiguous]

Both have already been dealt with. You were asleep, and didn't notice, I guess.

How have they already been dealt with?

Simple. You claim your "proof" that 1] it's the Christian God in Heaven that exists and not all the other Gods worshipped and adored by those making the same claims about their own One True Path and 2] that you know that He resides there as clearly as it can be demonstrated that the Pope resides in the Vatican, because it's based on your own "standard of evidence".

And your videos of course.

And if anyone -- not just me -- doesn't conclude the same thing as you do about His exclusive existence, it's their own "standard of evidence" that is the problem. Heads you win, tails they lose.

Again, as with Seeds above, I speculate that it is one of two things here:

1] you are so attached [existentially] to the comfort and the consolation that Christianity provides you [on both sides of the grave], you are but one more embodiment of what I call the "psychology of objectivism" in the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

2] it's a "condition". Your brain is "broke" [chemically, neurologically] and it compels you to believe what you must.

Or, sure, in a wholly determined universe, you and I are both posting and reading what we could never have not posted and read.

The words you quoted below. It's all covered there, as simply as I can break it down.

If it needs, for your sake, to be more simple than that, I can't make it any easier. I guess you're on your own.

I'll summarize in the briefest possible way:

The existence of ANY God or gods, regardless of their particular nature, it a complete defeater for Atheism. The particular nature of God is a secondary question, one that cannot even be coherently asked if God does not exist in the first place.

Secondly, you know the Pope is in the Vatican by two means you have identified yourself: your own belief that he is (you say you have not gone to check personally) and the report of other people (which you are accepting on faith, I guess). So if you set the same epistemic standard to the God question, it's already met: I believe in God, and other people also report His existence.

So, here's what I came up with "on my own" in reacting to that:

"Epistemic standard".

Perfect!

Now, sure, you have those here who will play these "intellectual/spiritual/philosophical" word-games with you. Me, I'm still more intent on bringing your Christian God around to these considerations:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

With a "standard of evidence" considerably closer to, say, the "scientific method" than to the theological "proofs" we get from religious apologists way, way up in the ecclesiastical/spiritual clouds.

And...

Look, here is a list of "relatively modern" religious movements...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... _movements

Then there are the particularly fanatic religious cults. Just in the U.S. alone folks like these:

The Peoples Temple
The Branch Davidians
Sullivanians
Children of God
Heaven's Gate

Does anyone here argue that they too didn't believe that their own God was the one and the only Real Deal?

Now, let's see what "on your own" you can provide us with in the way of a more substantive reaction to that.

Or, sure, you can stick to the exchanges that stay up in the "spiritual clouds" and argue over the definition and the meaning of words. With verses from the Bible and with videos clearly open to conflicting interpretations. Imagine how much less conflicting the videos of the Pope in the Vatican would be.

All I can suggest further is that if there is a Christian God residing in Heaven how could He not be embarrassed Himself by your posts here?

[Immanuel Can]

Now, let's see what "on your own" you can provide us with in the way of a more substantive reaction to that.

Ah, he thinks that the multitude of his words is impressive.

Maybe to somebody. Not at all to me. I already made the answers as clear and simple as I could. Simpler, I simply cannot go. You're on you own.

So I'll let you reread the previous message, in the hopes that at some point you'll understand it...which I'm now thinking might take forever.

Either way, I've done my best for you.

[attofishpi]

Now, sure, you have those here who will play these "intellectual/spiritual/philosophical" word-games with you. Me, I'm still more intent on bringing your Christian God around to these considerations:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

With a "standard of evidence" considerably closer to, say, the "scientific method" than to the theological "proofs" we get from religious apologists way, way up in the ecclesiastical/spiritual clouds.

Why Mr iambiguous, did you not respond when I addressed all you points above within the "Christianity" thread. Indeed, I think you have ignored me more than once?

[iambiguous]

Now, let's see what "on your own" you can provide us with in the way of a more substantive reaction to that. Or, sure, you can stick to the exchanges that stay up in the "spiritual clouds" and argue over the definition and the meaning of words. With verses from the Bible and with videos clearly open to conflicting interpretations. Imagine how much less conflicting the videos of the Pope in the Vatican would be.

All I can suggest further is that if there is a Christian God residing in Heaven how could He not be embarrassed Himself by your posts here?

Ah, he thinks that the multitude of his words is impressive.

Maybe to somebody. Not at all to me. I already made the answers as clear and simple as I could. Simpler, I simply cannot go. You're on you own.

So I'll let you reread the previous message, in the hopes that at some point you'll understand it...which I'm now thinking might take forever.

Either way, I've done my best for you.

Note to others:

Again, if you are willing play his word-games up in the stratosphere of definitions and deductions, okay by me.

But no one can say that I have not given him ample opportunity to bring them down to Earth.

His "arguments" are [to me] the sort you would expect to find on a Christian forum. Preaching to the choir. Quoting from the Bible.

Or over at ILP.

It's just not the sort of "standard of evidence" [or intellectual depth] one would expect from those who subscribe to and read Philosophy Now magazine.

Well, if I do say so myself of course.

[iambiguous]

Now, sure, you have those here who will play these "intellectual/spiritual/philosophical" word-games with you. Me, I'm still more intent on bringing your Christian God around to these considerations:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

With a "standard of evidence" considerably closer to, say, the "scientific method" than to the theological "proofs" we get from religious apologists way, way up in the ecclesiastical/spiritual clouds.

Why Mr iambiguous, did you not respond when I addressed all you points above within the "Christianity" thread. Indeed, I think you have ignored me more than once?

Please link me to that post. I don't ignore anyone willing to bring their God down out of the spiritual clouds. Well, provided I am able to respect their intelligence.