Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Greatest I am]

Actually, it uses none of these phrases, and does not say these things. You've imbibed too much pop theology.

I know how to use a biblical search engine.

Then you know these terms are not in there.

God's ways are said to be "unfathomable," but God is said to be "known" and "knowable": and "God works in mysterious ways" is a non-Biblical platitude, not a Biblical claim at all.

Your too ill-informed for me to bother with.

I can find better mental midgets.

[Immanuel Can]

I know how to use a biblical search engine.

Then you know these terms are not in there.

God's ways are said to be "unfathomable," but God is said to be "known" and "knowable": and "God works in mysterious ways" is a non-Biblical platitude, not a Biblical claim at all.

Your too ill-informed for me to bother with.

Well, not so "ill-informed" that I can't find a Biblical search engine and use it...and not so "ill-informed" that I don't even have to, to know you were wrong.

But yeah, somebody's definitely "ill-informed."

[commonsense]

Oh. So you think Judaism is the true religion? Then for you, it would be Judaism that forms your ethics, and the ethics are grounded in the nature of HaShem.

But secularism still can't ground an ethic.

It is YOU who think of religions in terms of there being one true religion.

So do you, though you don't know you do.

Do you think opposite claims can be simultaneously true? Can Jews be "The Chosen Nation" and also, as per Islam, "accursed infidels," and as per Atheist secularism, "deluded fools"? Only one of those, at most can be true at the same time. So you're going to have to pick.

So yeah, you do think of there being one truth, in regard to religion.

But if there is no God, none of the religions have the truth.

[Greatest I am]

It is YOU who think of religions in terms of there being one true religion.

So do you, though you don't know you do.

Do you think opposite claims can be simultaneously true? Can Jews be "The Chosen Nation" and also, as per Islam, "accursed infidels," and as per Atheist secularism, "deluded fools"? Only one of those, at most can be true at the same time. So you're going to have to pick.

So yeah, you do think of there being one truth, in regard to religion.

But if there is no God, none of the religions have the truth.

Or Jesus was correct in indicating that we are all Gods.

Jesus would have been correct.

I see a lot of truth in the Bible, but it is lost to those who have ruined their thinking with supernatural beliefs.

I love the Bible.

It showed me beyond a doubt who my real God is.

I am is the name of God. I am that I am.

Are you your own master and controller, or are you some other entities make work project?

I am a better God than the genocidal Trinity.

Are you?

[Immanuel Can]

It is YOU who think of religions in terms of there being one true religion.

So do you, though you don't know you do.

Do you think opposite claims can be simultaneously true? Can Jews be "The Chosen Nation" and also, as per Islam, "accursed infidels," and as per Atheist secularism, "deluded fools"? Only one of those, at most can be true at the same time. So you're going to have to pick.

So yeah, you do think of there being one truth, in regard to religion.

But if there is no God, none of the religions have the truth.

Right. Then Atheism would have it...no thanks to Atheism's methods, since it really has nothing to go on, and is, in that negative sense, very "religious" itself. But it would be accidentally right, if that were the case.

Atheists also think of their way as being the "one true religion." They are just as exclusivist as everybody else.

[mickthinks]

Atheism … has nothing to go on, …

Manny seems to think that an atheist’s lack of evidence for a deity is a weakness in their reasoning that there is none. Bless!

[Atheism] is, in that negative sense, very "religious" itself.

lolwat!? It looks like Manny believes that having no basis (“nothing to go on”) is a defining characteristic of religions in general. I wonder if he includes his own in that, or if not, why not?

Atheists … are just as exclusivist as everybody else.

Huh? Atheists exclude absolutely no one from their promise of, er … permanent insensible death.

[Immanuel Can]

Atheism … has nothing to go on, …

Manny seems to think that an atheist’s lack of evidence for a deity is a weakness in their reasoning that there is none. Bless!

No. It's their lack of evidence for Atheism that's the problem.

[MikeNovack]

No. It's their lack of evidence for Atheism that's the problem.

But why do you se that as a problem?

I agree, they can no more present evidence for "there is no god or gods" than you can for "there is GOD". It is simply not the sort of question that can be settled by examination of evidence.

[FlashDangerpants]

Atheism … has nothing to go on, …

Manny seems to think that an atheist’s lack of evidence for a deity is a weakness in their reasoning that there is none. Bless!

[Atheism] is, in that negative sense, very "religious" itself.

lolwat!? It looks like Manny believes that having no basis (“nothing to go on”) is a defining characteristic of religions in general. I wonder if he includes his own in that, or if not, why not?

Atheists … are just as exclusivist as everybody else.

Huh? Atheists exclude absolutely no one from their promise of, er … permanent insensible death.

Manny tends to serruptitiously argue ought to is, which he doesn't think is the same problem as arguing from is to ought (ask him, you will find his explanation amusing).

I've seen him imply that the problem with atheists is that we have no moral truth so we are moral ghosts and we don't experience morality at all, and that the universe can't be like that. There ought to be truth about good and bad, therefore there there must be a god, therefore there is a god.

[Immanuel Can]

No. It's their lack of evidence for Atheism that's the problem.

But why do you se that as a problem?

It's none for me. But it has to be, for them.

You see, Atheism (as opposed to mere agnosticism) is a one-line statement about God. It's a view of God, in that sense, a view that denies His existence. That means it's a positive statement or claim about the non-existence of one particular kind of entity.

Okay, what is the evidence for that positive claim to know that no God or gods exist in the universe? What is the scientific or rational test that gives the Atheist reason to make it, and justification to claim to be rational in so doing?

There's none. He can think of nothing sufficient to warrant such a confidence as he is expressing. Yet he insists. Without evidence.

But of course there IS evidence FOR God...the Atheist just refuses to accept any of it AS EVIDENCE. He looks at the natural world, and denies he sees order. He looks at his own self, and denies he sees design. He looks at the Scriptures, and denies they are true. He looks at the lives of believers, and denies he sees anything special. He looks at Christ, and denies he's Messiah. And he looks at the entropic direction of the world, and denies he's hastening to judgment. NOTHING ever counts, for him, as evidence for God. Not surprisingly, he knows nothing of God.

That's a problem...for him.

[Greatest I am]

No. It's their lack of evidence for Atheism that's the problem.

But why do you se that as a problem?

It's none for me. But it has to be, for them.

You see, Atheism (as opposed to mere agnosticism) is a one-line statement about God. It's a view of God, in that sense, a view that denies His existence. That means it's a positive statement or claim about the non-existence of one particular kind of entity.

Okay, what is the evidence for that positive claim to know that no God or gods exist in the universe? What is the scientific or rational test that gives the Atheist reason to make it, and justification to claim to be rational in so doing?

There's none. He can think of nothing sufficient to warrant such a confidence as he is expressing. Yet he insists. Without evidence.

But of course there IS evidence FOR God...the Atheist just refuses to accept any of it AS EVIDENCE. He looks at the natural world, and denies he sees order. He looks at his own self, and denies he sees design. He looks at the Scriptures, and denies they are true. He looks at the lives of believers, and denies he sees anything special. He looks at Christ, and denies he's Messiah. And he looks at the entropic direction of the world, and denies he's hastening to judgment. NOTHING ever counts, for him, as evidence for God. Not surprisingly, he knows nothing of God.

That's a problem...for him.

"""But why do you se that as a problem?
It's none for me. But it has to be, for them.""

It is a problem for you when the Word of God says that God is unknowable, unfathomable and works in mysterious.

Seems you know more than the Word of God says you can know.

What I know is that any God who puts the good of the few above the good of the many, is not a worthy God.

Are you afraid to judge God?

The Word of God says you must, to show you know good from evil.

[MikeNovack]

A) Okay, what is the evidence for that positive claim to know that no God or gods exist in the universe? What is the scientific or rational test that gives the Atheist reason to make it, and justification to claim to be rational in so doing?

There's none. He can think of nothing sufficient to warrant such a confidence as he is expressing. Yet he insists. Without evidence.

B) But of course there IS evidence FOR God...the Atheist just refuses to accept any of it AS EVIDENCE. He looks at the natural world, and denies he sees order. He looks at his own self, and denies he sees design. He looks at the Scriptures, and denies they are true. He looks at the lives of believers, and denies he sees anything special. He looks at Christ, and denies he's Messiah. And he looks at the entropic direction of the world, and denies he's hastening to judgment. NOTHING ever counts, for him, as evidence for God. Not surprisingly, he knows nothing of God.

A) Quite correct, the Atheist has no good evidence that NO GODS (of any sort) exist. The run of the mill atheist is usually arguing against a particular conception of god, usually because they are trying to separate themselves from the religion which had taught them "this is the only true religion, this is the only way to perceive god.
When this is pointed out to them, they often decide that they are actually agnostic because never before considered other versions.

B) NONSENSE ---- NONE of that is evidence unless you already believe. But let's take just two to discuss.
"He looks at the lives of believers, and denies he sees anything special." Quote so, he may see a believer doing good, and hear the believer tell him "this is because of my religious faith" ---- But wait IC, I haven't told you that this believer is a Christian yet ----- maybe this believer is a Buddhist, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a ............
In other words, NOT evidence for any particular religious faith. Perhaps evidence for "religious beliefs can serve humans well, help them be better humans, regardless of whether true".

<< important aside --- I would be willing to discuss "what is religion good for?" and "can religion serve a good purpose regardless of whether true" but I don't think you are suited to take part in such a discussion >>

"Scriptures" --- while I would not care to argue "only literate cultures can have religion" I will point out that Christianity is not unique in having a "written text". You can't say "go by what's in a book" without having already decided which book. Did you perhaps mean we should go by the Bhagavad Gita ?

[Immanuel Can]

A) Okay, what is the evidence for that positive claim to know that no God or gods exist in the universe? What is the scientific or rational test that gives the Atheist reason to make it, and justification to claim to be rational in so doing?

There's none. He can think of nothing sufficient to warrant such a confidence as he is expressing. Yet he insists. Without evidence.

B) But of course there IS evidence FOR God...the Atheist just refuses to accept any of it AS EVIDENCE. He looks at the natural world, and denies he sees order. He looks at his own self, and denies he sees design. He looks at the Scriptures, and denies they are true. He looks at the lives of believers, and denies he sees anything special. He looks at Christ, and denies he's Messiah. And he looks at the entropic direction of the world, and denies he's hastening to judgment. NOTHING ever counts, for him, as evidence for God. Not surprisingly, he knows nothing of God.

A) Quite correct, the Atheist has no good evidence that NO GODS (of any sort) exist. The run of the mill atheist is usually arguing against a particular conception of god, usually because they are trying to separate themselves from the religion which had taught them "this is the only true religion, this is the only way to perceive god.
When this is pointed out to them, they often decide that they are actually agnostic because never before considered other versions.

Right. Dawkins is a clear example. When pressed on the irrationality of Atheism, he retreats to "I'm not that; I'm a 'firm agnostic.'" But anybody can see the straw house is on fire.

B) NONSENSE ---- NONE of that is evidence unless you already believe.

I disagree. I think it is always evidence. One only has to have not closed one's mind before one begins looking.


But let's take just two to discuss.
"He looks at the lives of believers, and denies he sees anything special." Quote so, he may see a believer doing good, and hear the believer tell him "this is because of my religious faith" ---- But wait IC, I haven't told you that this believer is a Christian yet ----- maybe this believer is a Buddhist, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a ............[/quote]
I invite you to look closer. You will see that they behave very, very differently, and for very different reasons. A devout Muslim will behave one way...but not like a Hassidic Jew will, nor for his reasons. A Christian will behave in some way toward the poor; but not like a Hindu will, and not for his reasons. The problem is not that the difference is hard to find; it's that the observer has no will to find it.

Still, the evidence of transformed lives is but one of the various evidences I listed, and there are others. And like snowflakes and avalanches, even when one ignores one of them, it's their combined weight that becomes overwhelming.

<< important aside --- I would be willing to discuss "what is religion good for?" and "can religion serve a good purpose regardless of whether true" but I don't think you are suited to take part in such a discussion >>

Then that would suggest you're not willing to discuss it...at least with somebody who will question your preferences on it.

"Scriptures" --- while I would not care to argue "only literate cultures can have religion" I will point out that Christianity is not unique in having a "written text". You can't say "go by what's in a book" without having already decided which book. Did you perhaps mean we should go by the Bhagavad Gita ?

I've got the Gita, right here. If you ever want to discuss it, I'm game. But you're certainly going to find out what I found out, when I read it; though beautfully translated (mine is by the celebrated Sir Edwin Arnold) it's ethics are actually quite ghastly and its worldview implausible. But I certainly invite you to check. You can't miss it. Read chapter 11, if nothing else.

Now, Jews have a book. And it's a great one. Muslims have a book. And it's possibly one of the most stupid and clumsy pieces of vicious nonsense ever penned. So "others have a book" isn't much of a rejoinder. The thing about having a book is to have the right book.

[MikeNovack]

Now, Jews have a book. And it's a great one. Muslims have a book. And it's possibly one of the most stupid and clumsy pieces of vicious nonsense ever penned. So "others have a book" isn't much of a rejoinder. The thing about having a book is to have the right book.

Well besides pointing out that humans had religions before they had any "books" let's examine your last line.

HOW (by what evidence) do you argue "this book is the right book and that book the wrong book"? This evidence would have to be external to the books themselves. If you allow evidence internal to the books, you are simply not seeing the symmetry of the situation. The Muslim is just as convinced of the truth of Al Quran as you are of your religious text. The Hindu of the Bhagavad Gita. Etc.

[Immanuel Can]

HOW (by what evidence) do you argue "this book is the right book and that book the wrong book"?

Oh, that's very easy. Read them.

This evidence would have to be external to the books themselves.

No, that would be illogical. If there is a problem, it will be inherent to the book itself, though it may well connect to something outside the book, as well. But the basis for decision will be in the text first, because one cannot compare the text to the world if one does not already know the text.

If you allow evidence internal to the books, you are simply not seeing the symmetry of the situation. The Muslim is just as convinced of the tl Quran as you are of your religious text. The Hindu of the Bhagavad Gita. Etc.

Au contraire: you're not seeing the asymmetry, if you're not reading the books and then making the comparison to each other and to the real world. What you're doing, in that case, is operating without half the data. And without half the data, comparison with anything becomes impossible. It cannot even be done.