Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God?

[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?

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.

Link you to that post!! - That Christianity thread, I am sure you agree has become rather large 316 pages..I don't think I'll scour through it. Maybe after a few cups of tea, I'll redo it 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. 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...no one can say that I have not given him ample opportunity to bring them down to Earth.

There you are, talking to your imaginary "fan base" again.

You can't get more "down to earth" than the above.

I'm sorry that I can't get it "down to kindergarten" for you.

[attofishpi]

HEY!! I found it, and you did give some replies, rather stunted though..it ws on PAGE 208 of Christianity thread

Again, the only reason you are able to assert that here is because you merely assume that this objective morality is derived from a Christian God that you basically refuse to take here...

1] to a demonstrable proof of the existence 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

I know the above was not directed my way, but allow me to have a crack.

1] to a demonstrable proof of the existence your God or religious/spiritual path

Simulation or Divine Reality - evidence of God\'God'
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

Define "demonstrable"?

You define it.

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?

To know God is via Christ - a bloke that went to his death stating he is the path - seems a likely place to start.

Tell that to all the folks on these paths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

Why would I tell that to them - in the past 2000 years at some point in their past life they would have had the chance to discover God via the one man worth.Y of the path.
Clearly they saw no worth in Christ and reincarnated according to their beliefs. Many these days reincarnate into atheist upbringing - it's just a choice one makes in ones current life. Clearly these people are not TRULY interested in the love of wisdom.

3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths

What do you mean?

Start with the OP here:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

i love love of wisdom!! funny name that forum - atheists don't truly love wisdom tho.
Sorry, I rarely zip off to other sites during a discussion - care to explain it within this thread?

4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

Wo/men can be evil. God can also be evil, where required. Per my experience of this entity - it is very hard to <Live> when God does <eviL> to you.

Well, for some, given the existence of a God, the God, His Evil makes Him nothing short of a sadistic monster.

Indeed, that's why those like Harold Kushner felt compelled to suggest that, given the world as it is, the God of Abraham is simply not omnipotent. He created it all but it got beyond His control.

God is more 'potent' to this reality than even most theists could comprehend. I have been a victim of the evil side, sadistic monster? mmm.

You really are not thinking particularly deep about this entity R U? In fact, few do.
----------------------
I'd now like to add, what makes YOU consider God a "sadistic monster"?

[iambiguous]

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

There you are, talking to your imaginary "fan base" again.

You can't get more "down to earth" than the above.

I'm sorry that I can't get it "down to kindergarten" for you.

I'm sorry, but the only conclusion I can reach here is that you are indeed afflicted with a "condition". Perhaps not on par with those like ecmandu or her over at ILP, but something must not be not working right "in your head". No one, in my view, would argue that your posts here cannot get anymore "down to Earth" -- actually believe that! -- and not be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Though, sure, this is in turn no more than my own subjective "personal opinion" rooted existentially in dasein. I could well be completely wrong.

On the other hand, I suspect, it would take a miracle from God [yours or henry's or another's here] to convince me of that.

Anyway, you've got your fair share of folks here who seem willing to approach God and religion more or less on your own "epistemic" terms.

All the best with them, okay?

[Immanuel Can]

...rooted existentially in dasein...

[iambiguous]

HEY!! I found it, and you did give some replies, rather stunted though..it ws on PAGE 208 of Christianity thread

Again, the only reason you are able to assert that here is because you merely assume that this objective morality is derived from a Christian God that you basically refuse to take here...

1] to a demonstrable proof of the existence 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

I know the above was not directed my way, but allow me to have a crack.

1] to a demonstrable proof of the existence your God or religious/spiritual path

Simulation or Divine Reality - evidence of God\'God'
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

Define "demonstrable"?

You define it.

Well, the dictionary works for me: "clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved."

Now, let's go back to the distinction I made with IC. How it seems clearly apparent that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican. And how using the English language, the sentence "Pope Francis resides in the Vatican when in fact he is at the Vatican" is a rational, epistemologically sound statement.

Unless, of course, in the interim he has died.

This as opposed to others arguing that it is clearly apparent that their own God resides in the equivalent of Heaven and that it is epistemologically sound to argue that their own God does in fact exist.

Or, for that matter, if Pope Francis has died unbeknownst to me that it is clearly apparent and epistemologically sound that he Himself is now in Heaven. Unless, of course, the Christian God knows something about him that we don't.

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?

To know God is via Christ - a bloke that went to his death stating he is the path - seems a likely place to start.

Tell that to all the folks on these paths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions[/quote

Why would I tell that to them - in the past 2000 years at some point in their past life they would have had the chance to discover God via the one man worth.Y of the path.

And what of the souls of those millions upon millions of men and women who lived and died before Christ. And what of the souls of those millions upon millions who never came into contact with Christianity at all after he was alleged to be around? Do they all get a Get out of Hell free card? And what of those millions upon millions folks in alll the other denominations who will be quick to point out that you are damned for not being on their One True Path.

Might I advise that for once in your life you actually think this through in depth?

Clearly they saw no worth in Christ and reincarnated according to their beliefs. Many these days reincarnate into atheist upbringing - it's just a choice one makes in ones current life. Clearly these people are not TRULY interested in the love of wisdom.

This is basically just "religious gibberish" to me. You believe it in your head and that's as far as it will ever go in my view.

3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths

What do you mean?

Start with the OP here:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

i love love of wisdom!! funny name that forum - atheists don't truly love wisdom tho.
Sorry, I rarely zip off to other sites during a discussion - care to explain it within this thread?

No, in my view, I would be completely wasting my time with you. In fact, join the other True Believers over at ILP. You'll fit right in.

4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

Wo/men can be evil. God can also be evil, where required. Per my experience of this entity - it is very hard to <Live> when God does <eviL> to you.

Well, for some, given the existence of a God, the God, His Evil makes Him nothing short of a sadistic monster.

Indeed, that's why those like Harold Kushner felt compelled to suggest that, given the world as it is, the God of Abraham is simply not omnipotent. He created it all but it got beyond His control.

God is more 'potent' to this reality than even most theists could comprehend. I have been a victim of the evil side, sadistic monster? mmm.

You really are not thinking particularly deep about this entity R U? In fact, few do.
----------------------
I'd now like to add, what makes YOU consider God a "sadistic monster"?

How are posters like this to be explained at a forum derived from Philosophy Now magazine?!

I guess they just Google "religion and philosophy" and PN pops up as a place to go. After all, for some here, religion and philosophy are clearly the same thing.

It's a truly sad commentary on the internet I suppose.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

[iambiguous]

I'm sorry, but the only conclusion I can reach here is that you are indeed afflicted with a "condition". Perhaps not on par with those like ecmandu or "her" over at ILP, but something must not be not working right "in your head". No one, in my view, would argue that your posts here cannot get anymore "down to Earth" -- actually believe that! -- and not be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Though, sure, this is in turn no more than my own subjective "personal opinion" rooted existentially in dasein. I could well be completely wrong.

On the other hand, I suspect, it would take a miracle from God [yours or henry's or another's here] to convince me of that.

Anyway, you've got your fair share of folks here who seem willing to approach God and religion more or less on your own "epistemic" terms.

All the best with them, okay?

Like I said, all the best among your own ilk here.

[attofishpi]

HEY!! I found it, and you did give some replies, rather stunted though..it ws on PAGE 208 of Christianity thread

Define "demonstrable"?

You define it.

Well, the dictionary works for me: "clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved."

Now, let's go back to the distinction I made with IC. How it seems clearly apparent that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican. And how using the English language, the sentence "Pope Francis resides in the Vatican when in fact he is at the Vatican" is a rational, epistemologically sound statement.

Unless, of course, in the interim he has died.

This as opposed to others arguing that it is clearly apparent that their own God resides in the equivalent of Heaven and that it is epistemologically sound to argue that their own God does in fact exist.

Or, for that matter, if Pope Francis has died unbeknownst to me that it is clearly apparent and epistemologically sound that he Himself is now in Heaven. Unless, of course, the Christian God knows something about him that we don't.

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?

To know God is via Christ - a bloke that went to his death stating he is the path - seems a likely place to start.

Tell that to all the folks on these paths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions[/quote

Why would I tell that to them - in the past 2000 years at some point in their past life they would have had the chance to discover God via the one man worth.Y of the path.

And what of the souls of those millions upon millions of men and women who lived and died before Christ. And what of the souls of those millions upon millions who never came into contact with Christianity at all after he was alleged to be around? Do they all get a Get out of Hell free card? And what of those millions upon millions folks in alll the other denominations who will be quick to point out that you are damned for not being on their One True Path.

Might I advise that for once in your life you actually think this through in depth?

Clearly they saw no worth in Christ and reincarnated according to their beliefs. Many these days reincarnate into atheist upbringing - it's just a choice one makes in ones current life. Clearly these people are not TRULY interested in the love of wisdom.

This is basically just "religious gibberish" to me. You believe it in your head and that's as far as it will ever go in my view.

3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths

What do you mean?

Start with the OP here:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

i love love of wisdom!! funny name that forum - atheists don't truly love wisdom tho.
Sorry, I rarely zip off to other sites during a discussion - care to explain it within this thread?

No, in my view, I would be completely wasting my time with you. In fact, join the other True Believers over at ILP. You'll fit right in.

4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

Wo/men can be evil. God can also be evil, where required. Per my experience of this entity - it is very hard to <Live> when God does <eviL> to you.

Well, for some, given the existence of a God, the God, His Evil makes Him nothing short of a sadistic monster.

Indeed, that's why those like Harold Kushner felt compelled to suggest that, given the world as it is, the God of Abraham is simply not omnipotent. He created it all but it got beyond His control.

God is more 'potent' to this reality than even most theists could comprehend. I have been a victim of the evil side, sadistic monster? mmm.

You really are not thinking particularly deep about this entity R U? In fact, few do.
----------------------
I'd now like to add, what makes YOU consider God a "sadistic monster"?

How are posters like this to be explained at a forum derived from Philosophy Now magazine?!

I guess they just Google "religion and philosophy" and PN pops up as a place to go. After all, for some here, religion and philosophy are clearly the same thing.

It's a truly sad commentary on the internet I suppose.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

Well, as I being a man with gnosis, knowledge that God exists (no longer a mere theist), yes you are wrong..and as per above, rather arrogant about it.

I find it extremely vexing and not really sure Y I bother dealing with your sort (borderline militant atheists - the worst type of 'godbotherers'), but alas, Y NOT?

Will you agree that this thread Dawkins and Hitchens is not the place for our further discussion, and I will start a new thread to continue where you left off?
Simply reply :- Yes or No?

[attofishpi]

OK, I got impatient - Metaphysics seemed appropriate:- viewtopic.php?f=16&t=35082

[Veritas Aequitas]

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 argued theism and God is a psychological derivative as a defense mechanism against primal insecurities which by default defies logic, as such I anticipate there is no way you will see the logic in my argument.

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.

My point again,
As I had argued theism and God is a psychological derivative as a defense mechanism against primal insecurities which by default defies logic, as such I anticipate there is no way you will see the logic in my argument.

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.

Here is the brief outline of the book and you are blind if have read it and you still cannot grasp the varieties of the religious experiences therein.
Note "the religious are often neurotic"

CONTENTS
LECTURE I
RELIGION AND NEUROLOGY
Introduction: the course is not anthropological, but deals with personal documents— Questions of fact and questions of value— In point of fact, the religious are often neurotic— Criticism of medical materialism, which condemns religion on that account— Theory that religion has a sexual origin refuted— All states of mind are neurally conditioned— Their significance must be tested not by their origin but by the value of their fruits— Three criteria of value; origin useless as a criterion— Advantages of the psychopathic temperament when a superior intellect goes with it—especially for the religious life.

LECTURE II
CIRCUMSCRIPTION OF THE TOPIC
Futility of simple definitions of religion— No one specific "religious sentiment"— Institutional and personal religion— We confine ourselves to the personal branch— Definition of religion for the purpose of these lectures— Meaning of the term "divine"— The divine is what prompts SOLEMN reactions— Impossible to make our definitions sharp—We must study the more extreme cases— Two ways of accepting the universe— Religion is more enthusiastic than philosophy— Its characteristic is enthusiasm in solemn emotion— Its ability to overcome unhappiness— Need of such a faculty from the biological point of view.

LECTURE III
THE REALITY OF THE UNSEEN
Percepts versus abstract concepts— Influence of the latter on belief—Kant's theological Ideas— We have a sense of reality other than that given by the special senses— Examples of "sense of presence"— The feeling of unreality— Sense of a divine presence: examples— Mystical experiences: examples— Other cases of sense of God's presence—Convincingness of unreasoned experience— Inferiority of rationalism in establishing belief— Either enthusiasm or solemnity may preponderate in the religious attitude of individuals.

LECTURES IV AND V
THE RELIGION OF HEALTHY—MINDEDNESS
Happiness is man's chief concern— "Once-born" and "twice-born" characters— Walt Whitman— Mixed nature of Greek feeling— Systematic healthy-mindedness— Its reasonableness— Liberal Christianity shows it— Optimism as encouraged by Popular Science— The "Mind-cure" movement— Its creed— Cases— Its doctrine of evil— Its analogy to Lutheran theology— Salvation by relaxation— Its methods: suggestion—meditation— "recollection"— verification— Diversity of possible schemes of adaptation to the universe— APPENDIX: TWO mind-cure cases.
LECTURES VI AND VII
THE SICK SOUL
Healthy-mindedness and repentance— Essential pluralism of the healthy-minded philosophy— Morbid-mindedness: its two degrees—The pain-threshold varies in individuals— Insecurity of natural goods—Failure, or vain success of every life— Pessimism of all pure naturalism— Hopelessness of Greek and Roman view— Pathological unhappiness— "Anhedonia"— Querulous melancholy— Vital zest is a pure gift— Loss of it makes physical world look different— Tolstoy—Bunyan— Alline— Morbid fear— Such cases need a supernatural religion for relief— Antagonism of healthy-mindedness and morbidness— The problem of evil cannot be escaped.

LECTURE VIII
THE DIVIDED SELF, AND THE PROCESS OF ITS UNIFICATION
Heterogeneous personality—Character gradually attains unity—Examples of divided self—The unity attained need not be religious—"Counter conversion" cases—Other cases—Gradual and sudden unification—Tolstoy's recovery—Bunyan's.
LECTURE IX
CONVERSION
Case of Stephen Bradley—The psychology of character-changes—Emotional excitements make new centres of personal energy— Schematic ways of representing this— Starbuck likens conversion to normal moral ripening— Leuba's ideas— Seemingly unconvertible persons— Two types of conversion— Subconscious incubation of motives— Self-surrender—Its importance in religious history— Cases.

LECTURE X
CONVERSION—concluded
Cases of sudden conversion— Is suddenness essential?— No, it depends on psychological idiosyncrasy— Proved existence of transmarginal, or subliminal, consciousness— "Automatisms"— Instantaneous conversions seem due to the possession of an active subconscious self by the subject— The value of conversion depends not on the process, but on the fruits— These are not superior in sudden conversion— Professor Coe's views— Sanctification as a result— Our psychological account does not exclude direct presence of the Deity— Sense of higher control— Relations of the emotional "faith-state" to intellectual beliefs— Leuba quoted— Characteristics of the faith-state: sense of truth; the world appears new— Sensory and motor automatisms—Permanency of conversions.

LECTURES XI, XII, AND XIII
SAINTLINESS
Sainte-Beuve on the State of Grace— Types of character as due to the balance of impulses and inhibitions— Sovereign excitements—Irascibility— Effects of higher excitement in general— The saintly life is ruled by spiritual excitement— This may annul sensual impulses permanently— Probable subconscious influences involved— Mechanical scheme for representing permanent alteration in character—Characteristics of saintliness— Sense of reality of a higher power—Peace of mind, charity— Equanimity, fortitude, etc.— Connection of this with relaxation— Purity of life— Asceticism— Obedience—Poverty— The sentiments of democracy and of humanity— General effects of higher excitements.

LECTURES XIV AND XV
THE VALUE OF SAINTLINESS
It must be tested by the human value of its fruits— The reality of the God must, however, also be judged— "Unfit" religions get eliminated by "experience"— Empiricism is not skepticism— Individual and tribal religion— Loneliness of religious originators— Corruption follows success— Extravagances— Excessive devoutness, as fanaticism— As theopathic absorption— Excessive purity— Excessive charity— The perfect man is adapted only to the perfect environment— Saints are leavens— Excesses of asceticism— Asceticism symbolically stands for the heroic life— Militarism and voluntary poverty as possible equivalents— Pros and cons of the saintly character— Saints versus "strong" men— Their social function must be considered— Abstractly the saint is the highest type, but in the present environment it may fail, so we make ourselves saints at our peril— The question of theological truth.


LECTURES XVI AND XVII
MYSTICISM
Mysticism defined— Four marks of mystic states— They form a distinct region of consciousness— Examples of their lower grades— Mysticism and alcohol— "The anaesthetic revelation"— Religious mysticism—Aspects of Nature— Consciousness of God— "Cosmic consciousness"—Yoga— Buddhistic mysticism— Sufism— Christian mystics— Their sense of revelation— Tonic effects of mystic states— They describe by negatives— Sense of union with the Absolute— Mysticism and music—Three conclusions— (1) Mystical states carry authority for him who has them— (2) But for no one else— (3) Nevertheless, they break down the exclusive authority of rationalistic states— They strengthen monistic and optimistic hypotheses.

LECTURE XVIII
PHILOSOPHY
Primacy of feeling in religion, philosophy being a secondary function—Intellectualism professes to escape objective standards in her theological constructions— "Dogmatic theology"— Criticism of its account of God's attributes— "Pragmatism" as a test of the value of conceptions— God's metaphysical attributes have no practical significance— His moral attributes are proved by bad arguments; collapse of systematic theology— Does transcendental idealism fare better? Its principles— Quotations from John Caird— They are good as restatements of religious experience, but uncoercive as reasoned proof— What philosophy CAN do for religion by transforming herself into "science of religions."

LECTURE XIX
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS
Aesthetic elements in religion—Contrast of Catholicism and Protestantism— Sacrifice and Confession— Prayer— Religion holds that spiritual work is really effected in prayer— Three degrees of opinion as to what is effected— First degree— Second degree— Third degree—Automatisms, their frequency among religious leaders— Jewish cases—Mohammed— Joseph Smith— Religion and the subconscious region in general.

LECTURE XX
CONCLUSIONS
Summary of religious characteristics— Men's religions need not be identical— "The science of religions" can only suggest, not proclaims a religious creed— Is religion a "survival" of primitive thought?—Modern science rules out the concept of personality— Anthropomorphism and belief in the personal characterized pre-scientific thought—Personal forces are real, in spite of this— Scientific objects are abstractions, only individualized experiences are concrete— Religion holds by the concrete— Primarily religion is a biological reaction—Its simplest terms are an uneasiness and a deliverance; description of the deliverance— Question of the reality of the higher power— The author's hypotheses: 1. The subconscious self as intermediating between nature and the higher region— 2. The higher region, or "God"— 3. He produces real effects in nature.

POSTSCRIPT
Philosophic position of the present work defined as piecemeal supernaturalism— Criticism of universalistic supernaturalism—Different principles must occasion differences in fact— What differences in fact can God's existence occasion?— The question of immortality— Question of God's uniqueness and infinity: religious experience does not settle this question in the affirmative— The pluralistic hypothesis is more conformed to common sense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

_______

You got it wrong.

Atto stated that 'I spoke as if I have all the answers that science has yet to discover.'
That is a strawman cos' I never claimed that.

However, I stated even if Science has discover all that is to be known [an impossibility] what science can produce at best are mere polished conjectures.
Theists has the tendency to borrow from scientific facts [fine tuning] to justify their God exists.
So it follows, their justification can only be at best a polished conjectures which cannot assure certainty God exists as real.


I have already answered re the terrible evils [your images] you presented. Read again.
The Moral Framework [leverage on the Kantian] I proposed will strive toward minimizing all evil acts, wars, poverty, famine, violence, etc.
I have argued extensively for the effectiveness of my proposed Moral Framework in the Ethics section. I have raised near-100 or maybe more threads related to Ethics and Morality therein.

That is the problem and limitation with your approach, i.e. so narrow and shallow without consideration for Ethics and Morality of Humanity but merely 'eyes'. Yours is merely noises and no potential actions to contribute to the well being of humanity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.)

My argument 'God is Impossible to be Real' is not based on a scientific justification.
It is basically like it is impossible for a square-circle to exist as real.

The idea of God is a psychological derivative as a defense mechanism and a balm against the terrible cognitive dissonances within that are driven by an existential crisis.

That is why you are angry all the time due to that 'defense mechanism' [fight or flight] and your psychological security is under threat in this case, thus the "U FUCKING MORON" which is expected from your current state of insecurity.

The test of the above is so simple,
IF I simply concede 'God exists as real' even without justifications, you will immediately feel a sense of relieve and joy.

[attofishpi]

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.)

My argument 'God is Impossible to be Real' is not based on a scientific justification.

Point taken. It then follows that you have NO grounds to make your claim "God is Impossible to be Real", do you understand? OR, shall I continue to consider you a moron?

[Dontaskme]

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.)

My argument 'God is Impossible to be Real' is not based on a scientific justification.

Point taken. It then follows that you have NO grounds to make your claim "God is Impossible to be Real", do you understand? OR, shall I continue to consider you a moron?

If truth be told: Relatively speaking: Nothing - No thing knows itself. How could knowing know itself? it would haven to split in two into knower and known.


Truth is, there is only this immediate knowing that cannot be known. ''Knowing'' is a verb.

God is just another word for Silence. God is silent. The rest is HISstory.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.)

My argument 'God is Impossible to be Real' is not based on a scientific justification.

Point taken. It then follows that you have NO grounds to make your claim "God is Impossible to be Real", do you understand? OR, shall I continue to consider you a moron?

Why not, since we cannot rely on science, I am relying on the grounds of philosophical reasonings and logic to assert "God is Impossible to be Real". It is a non-starter.

As I had stated it is the same ground as claiming 'a square-circle is impossible to be real' which is a non-starter for any one with average intelligence.

Call what you like, it will only reflect back on yourself.