Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God?

[seeds]

I wish I could wake you up, but the "illusion" of objective reality is so perfectly executed (designed), and so utterly convincing that it causes most humans to be unknowingly relegated to deep levels of somnambulism (some deeper than others), which, in turn, perpetuates their problem.

Now, of course, in your inevitable blusterous response, you will unwittingly demonstrate to me the depth and degree of your own particular level of somnambulism.

And that's because the revealing of your own particular level of somnambulism will be proportional to how "cocksure" you are in your defense of your "God is an impossibility to be real" codswallop.

I am very confident of my "God is an impossibility to be real" because I know the idea of God is an illusion...

Right on que, just as expected.

So then, let me take a crack at suggesting where you are positioned in my little visual representation of the "ascending ladder of consciousness" in our universe...



Just ignore the written dialogue and focus on the image.

Now, of course, you are nowhere near the "basement rung" upon which humans such as KKK members or serial killers, etc., are positioned, for you seem to be awake enough to abhor the idea of hating or harming others.

That being said, you seem to be situated somewhere above the section titled "normal human consciousness," but beneath the proponents and seekers of the metaphysical (or "spiritual") aspect of reality (loosely denoted by the various religious symbols).

You are, however, inclined to reach up into the metaphysical level in your leaning toward Buddhism. But the brand of Buddhism to which you subscribe is more on the order of some kind of "secular formula" for achieving a happy life while on earth, and is nowhere near the upper realm (or "ceiling" rung) of the ladder.

Needless to say, your particular level of somnambulism will prevent you from comprehending any of this. And in your typical peacock display of your condescending superiority complex, you will simply label it as being nothing more than "noise" proposed by someone who is caught in the throes of an "existential crisis," which is pure and utter nonsense.

Again, Veritas, due to your position on the ascending ladder of consciousness, you are simply not conscious enough to understand where I am coming from.
_______

[seeds]

Bottom line: No God, and all of these terrible things have to be endured as just a manifestation of an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence that, for each of us one by one, ends in oblivion.

Or, how about, yes, there is a God, and all of these terrible things that have to be endured are simply a necessary part of our temporary "gestation period," so to speak, within God's "cosmic womb" (the universe)?

Okay, how about that? Back again to believing it "in your head" versus actually being able to demonstrate that it is in fact true.

Please describe for me an example of a specific "demonstration" of whatever it might take to convince you that a higher intelligence is responsible for the creation of this universe.

And then these parts:

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?

Well, first of all, I suggest that almost all of the vast number of "paths" that humans have proposed in the past, all have one thing in common, and that is they all stem from an inherent (intuitive/common sense) feeling that it is ludicrous to think that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of chance.

Therefore, past humans did the best they could to develop fanciful theories as to what the actual source of the order might be.

Clearly, they came up with all sorts of silly concepts that seemed to make sense at the time, but were eventually abandoned. However, the mystery still remains, even to this day. So, we keep trying.

And secondly, you asked me: "...why yours?..."

To which I ask in return, do you even know what my concept of God actually entails?
_______

[iambiguous]

If we really want, we can come up with a benevolent explanation for absolutely anything, no matter how horrific. That's pretty easy. But such explanations get so crazy, they are the exact opposite of being reasonable. People who cling to such explanations and openly preach them, are weak, weak-minded, miserable. They choose feel-good nonsense beliefs over reason.

When you consider just how ghastly, horrendous and unspeakably appalling human pain and suffering has been, is now, will be as a result of "acts of God" [noted by some without a shred of irony], you wouldn't think it would be easy at all.

And, I suspect, for some, it isn't. They do in fact agonize over the gap between the at times terribly cruel world we live in and their belief in God. But what's the alternative? It's either God or these gruesome ordeals have absolutely no ultimate meaning and serve absolutely no ultimate purpose. So, sure, when some human monster abducts your children and then rapes, tortures and kills them, you're going to be on Dateline talking about seeing them again in Heaven and how God gets the final word even if the monster isn't caught down here.

Only a fool wouldn't understand why some go there. And only an insensitive asshole would heap scorn on them for going there.

I'd go there myself if I could.

Let's face it there are those among us who preach the gospel of atheism. They show little but contempt for those who do manage to believe in God. And, in certain moods, I can be one of them. But there are in fact very intelligent men and women who do manage their own spiritual "leaps of faith".

Here and now I'm not one of them. But who is kidding whom regarding just how staggeringly mysterious existence itself is. Sure, God is one possible explanation for it. And if you are able to make that existential/Kierkegaardian leap of faith, or make that Pascalian wager, good for you. I only wish I could myself.

I disagree. Privately people can believe whatever they want, but going public with their leaps of faith, only justifies the monster's actions and keeps humanity in its current state. Humanity will never grow up and try to take its fate in its own hands.

Well, to the extent that, in going public, their aim is theocratic, I agree. It's one thing to profess a belief in a God, the God, my God as a personal choice, another thing altogether to demand that others in the community make the same choice.

As for Humanity taking its fate in its own hands, it's not only the ecclesiastics we have to fear. There are also the secular equivalents. The philosopher-kings, the deontologists, the ideologues, the genes > memes fascists who claim that only their own understanding of "natural behaviors" count. Pertaining to, among other things, race, gender and sexual orientation.

And then those like me, convinced that in a No God world, value judgments are rooted existentially in dasein; and then become convinced that feeling "fractured and fragmented" is a reasonable frame of mind.

[attofishpi]

I'm not stopping them.
But they do need to keep their beliefs to themselves and stop abusing children

..atheists they truly R ...or...the stupidest KUNTS on the planet.

You never fail to make a complete arse of yourself.

R U certain?

In your world only theists abuse children (and R not stupid kunts)?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Re 'time'.
Theists will argue God being the Greatest is not conditioned by time.
Thus God exists independent of time.

God might exist independent of time but any action requires time.

I believe I have a very secure argument against the impossibility of God as real.

However, I agree there is also room to argue God must be conditioned to time and space with the need to connect with its creations, thus contradict its absolutely independent claim.
However the exception is it is not applicable to the Spinoza's God which is indifferent to all.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't want to use the term but rather prefer to be not-a-theist.

Okay, "Not-A-Theist."

Then let's ask these clarification questions:
Is your Not-Theism based on evidence or merely not wanting there to be a God?
Is it reflective of a hostility against God, or merely a neutral lack of any view at all on the subject?
And are you trying to convince others, or merely speaking about yourself?
We'll see exactly what it consists of, from these three questions.

'Not-a-theist' means I have no association with theism at all, i.e. "what theists beliefs".

For example, if I am "not-a-communist" no matter how much I condemned the ideology, no one will call me "acommunist' or adopt 'acommunism'.
Just the same if I am "not-a-Christian" and critique Christianity, no one will call me "aChristian' or I am adopting 'achristianity'. Why is that you and other Christians don't labelled me "aChristian."

As such there is something weird in theists labelling those who are not theists as atheists, i.e. there is an ulterior motive are intended from the start to be pejorative and I don't want to have anything to do with the term 'atheist'. If others accept the term 'that is their business' but I will advise them not to.

I agree I am very anti-God where theists insist their God is very real especially when they want to kill me because their God permit them to do so with an incentive in paradise.
However I have to concede given the current psychological state of the majority, the idea of God [illusory] is a critical necessary for the majority to soothe their inherent cognitive dissonance. There are no more effective balms than theism. I also agree Christianity is the most optimal religion to soothe one's cognitive dissonance in contrast to THAT inherently evil religion that promise 72 virgins.

My point is wherever I critique the idea of God as an anti-God person, I do not want to be labelled 'atheist' but rather I prefer 'non-a-theist' or non-theists or anti-theism.

Dawkins is a scientist who must comply with the conditions of the scientific method. To him the idea of God cannot fulfil the conditions of the scientific method.

That's not what he says. He says there's evidence for God in Fine Tuning. And if he ever decided to say the words you're putting in his mouth, he'd still be wrong, of course.

Nope, Dawkins never said, there IS evidence for God but rather 'there MAY be evidence for God' and in his contexts he is a 6.9999999/7.0 agnostic where to him the existence of God is highly improbable as confirm by him in his book and in the videos you linked.

I said flew relied heavily on the Fine Tuning Argument as a part of the Argument from Design.

That's not what you said. It's what you've modified your position to right now.

What you said was that The AFD was the essence of his argument, and Flew was senile anyway. You were wrong both times, verifiably.

Flew did mention AFD in general but what is most critical to him to led him to be a Deist is the FTA.

So now you want to say that "scientific facts" are nothing more than "polished conjectures"?

I have been saying that all the time and in this thread plus 000s of times in this forum.
Show me scientific facts are at best NOT polished conjectures?

A "conjecture" is a hypothesis without required evidence.
Science is the probabilstic verification/falsification of hypotheses through a systematic method.

In other words 'polished hypotheses' or 'polished conjectures'.
A polished conjecture is a conjecture that is polished systematically with the required sufficient evidences that meet the scientific standard.

The term 'polished conjectures' is very necessary to prevent scientists from claiming their scientific facts as absolute and being arrogant to play God as Scientism. This was what the logical positivists tried to do and failed.

'it is impossible for a square-circle to be real' this is the same with 'it is impossible for God to exists as real'.

That's ridiculous.

"Square circle" is an oxymoron, which means a double term containing its own internal denial. God is a single word, and a concept that the vast majority of the human race recognize as cogent. Even if you don't believe God exists, it's not at all true to say there's any inherent contradiction in the term.

That is my point.
"Square circle" as real is an oxymoron
"God" as real is also an oxymoron.

In my argument I had demonstrated why the "claim of God as real" is similar to a square-circle and that is why the claim God exists had remained so contentious since it first emerged.
The idea of God is an illusion invented to soothe the terrible pains of cognitive dissonances driven from an existential crisis. That is why the main focus of theism is soteriological, i.e. salvation from hell with the hope of eternal life in heaven.

No page. No quotation.
You didn't read the book. I'll warrant you didn't read Flew's either. But if you want to prove me wrong, give the page and quotation. Otherwise, it's obvious I'm right.

I have read Chapter 4 of the Blackwell Guide and Flew's Book.
You can test me on the comprehension and if I failed I will stop posting in this forum. I will NOT impose on you but if you have intellectual balls you should stop posting here if I am right and you are wrong.

The default and onus is on you give me the points from the said books you introduced to support your arguments.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wish I could wake you up, but the "illusion" of objective reality is so perfectly executed (designed), and so utterly convincing that it causes most humans to be unknowingly relegated to deep levels of somnambulism (some deeper than others), which, in turn, perpetuates their problem.

Now, of course, in your inevitable blusterous response, you will unwittingly demonstrate to me the depth and degree of your own particular level of somnambulism.

And that's because the revealing of your own particular level of somnambulism will be proportional to how "cocksure" you are in your defense of your "God is an impossibility to be real" codswallop.

I am very confident of my "God is an impossibility to be real" because I know the idea of God is an illusion...

Right on que, just as expected.

So then, let me take a crack at suggesting where you are positioned in my little visual representation of the "ascending ladder of consciousness" in our universe...


Just ignore the written dialogue and focus on the image.

Now, of course, you are nowhere near the "basement rung" upon which humans such as KKK members or serial killers, etc., are positioned, for you seem to be awake enough to abhor the idea of hating or harming others.

That being said, you seem to be situated somewhere above the section titled "normal human consciousness," but beneath the proponents and seekers of the metaphysical (or "spiritual") aspect of reality (loosely denoted by the various religious symbols).

You are, however, inclined to reach up into the metaphysical level in your leaning toward Buddhism. But the brand of Buddhism to which you subscribe is more on the order of some kind of "secular formula" for achieving a happy life while on earth, and is nowhere near the upper realm (or "ceiling" rung) of the ladder.

Needless to say, your particular level of somnambulism will prevent you from comprehending any of this. And in your typical peacock display of your condescending superiority complex, you will simply label it as being nothing more than "noise" proposed by someone who is caught in the throes of an "existential crisis," which is pure and utter nonsense.

Again, Veritas, due to your position on the ascending ladder of consciousness, you are simply not conscious enough to understand where I am coming from.
_______

As I had stated before,
there are many who made similar claims which are more profound than yours but they know they had those altered states of consciousness from taking drugs, hallucinogens, had mental illness, brain damages, etc.

Those who had done years of meditations [spiritual] also have similar experiences but they are well aware these are merely experiences one should not cling on to.
Those who have had such experiences but with a high ego often turn up as Godmen to scam the vulnerable.

Do research on altered states of consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_s ... sciousness
and note the drawings produce therefrom you will not many are with those 'eyes' thingy in various forms and presentations, e.g.



Btw, I am not condemning your sort of altered states of consciousness outright. Rather I believe its wrong to associate such experiences to the conclusion God exists as real.

In fact I would recommend everyone to research to try to invoke such altered states of consciousness in the safest way, e.g. DMT, ayahuasca, other safe psychedelic hallucinogens, regular meditation [authentic], and other safe means plus accompanied with rational philosophical reasonings, neurosciences, neuro-pyschology and other advance knowledge to uplift one to an incremental level from the present level.

[Sculptor]

..atheists they truly R ...or...the stupidest KUNTS on the planet.

You never fail to make a complete arse of yourself.

R U certain?

In your world only theists abuse children (and R not stupid kunts)?

I did not say only theists abuse children.
All theism is child abuse; has a different meaning.
Try and use your brain.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't want to use the term but rather prefer to be not-a-theist.

Okay, "Not-A-Theist."

Then let's ask these clarification questions:
Is your Not-Theism based on evidence or merely not wanting there to be a God?
Is it reflective of a hostility against God, or merely a neutral lack of any view at all on the subject?
And are you trying to convince others, or merely speaking about yourself?
We'll see exactly what it consists of, from these three questions.

'Not-a-theist' means I have no association with theism at all, i.e. "what theists beliefs".

That's fine.

Same question: is your decision to be a Not-Theist based on evidence, or something else, like indifference, lack of exposure, or hostility to the idea?

As such there is something weird in theists labelling those who are not theists as atheists,

They don't.

"Atheist" is a label the Atheists proudly take to themselves. I've never met a Theist who calls people "Atheists" if they don't choose the term themselves. Theists tend to see everybody as potentially interested in Theism, at least until they're told otherwise.

As for the Islamists, they use the word "infidel," not "Atheist." And (as crazy a this is) their belief is that every person, including an Atheist, is born Islamic and then apostatizes. That's why they use the term "reversion to Islam," not "conversion."

I agree I am very anti-God where theists insist their God is very real

Oh. Then you're not a "Not-Theist" at all; you're an "Anti-Theist."

That's far more extreme. It means you have a non-evidentiary prejudice against God.

... especially when they want to kill me

Stay away from Islamic places, and that won't happen. But nobody sensible defends the Islamists.

Dawkins is a scientist who must comply with the conditions of the scientific method. To him the idea of God cannot fulfil the conditions of the scientific method.

That's not what he says. He says there's evidence for God in Fine Tuning. And if he ever decided to say the words you're putting in his mouth, he'd still be wrong, of course.

Nope, Dawkins never said, there IS evidence for God but rather 'there MAY be evidence for God'

You still don't know what "evidence" means.

But I already pointed that out, so I won't do so again here. Still, you should find out.

A polished conjecture is a conjecture that is polished systematically with the required sufficient evidences that meet the scientific standard.

So you are trying to use the word "conjecture" for "hypothesis," and "polished" for "evidentiary."

Nice trick. But no, I'm not buying it.

"Square circle" as real is an oxymoron
"God" as real is also an oxymoron.

Not possible. There's no analytic contradiction between the words "real" and "God." There is between "square" and "circle." Your claim here is smug, but over-self-confident and unwarranted. You're just assuming the conclusion you want to arrive at...you've done nothing to prove it.

No page. No quotation.
You didn't read the book. I'll warrant you didn't read Flew's either. But if you want to prove me wrong, give the page and quotation. Otherwise, it's obvious I'm right.

I have read Chapter 4 of the Blackwell Guide and Flew's Book.
You can test me...

That's exactly what I'm doing.

Quotation and page, please.

[seeds]

As I had stated before,
there are many who made similar claims which are more profound than yours...

My claim is that each human mind (including yours, Veritas) is imbued with the "seed-like" potential of evolving into a literal universe just like the one we are presently held within.

My claim is that the universe we are presently held within is the fully-evolved (fully-fruitioned) "adult" version of that which we are the "seeds" (embryos) of.

My claim is that we humans are the "familial" members (offspring/progeny) of the highest "species of being" in all of reality.

Now, of course, I may be wrong, but if you know of a claim that is more "profound" than that, then describe it for me, and site its source.

...but they know they had those altered states of consciousness from taking drugs, hallucinogens, had mental illness, brain damages, etc.

It is clear (to me, anyway) that your attenuated level of consciousness...

(i.e., the particular level and degree of somnambulism that you function at while on earth)

...is preventing you from understanding that "altered states of consciousness" (brought on for whatever reason) are precisely what is needed to "jar" (slap/shake) the human mind out of its initially "fixed" (programmed) state of consciousness.

I'm talking about (as mentioned earlier) the state (or level) of consciousness that humans need to function at in order for the utterly "strange reality" of this universe to seem "natural" and "logical" to us.

That's why such things as entheogens and hallucinogenics are generally deemed as being "bad" for us.

Why?

Because they cause us to question reality itself in such a way that we no longer "fit-in" with the cohesive "group consciousness" of humanity in general. And, more specifically, we begin to question the group consciousness (religion/mores/values/goals, etc.) of the particular society that we were initially born into.

Like I said earlier, "I wish I could wake you up."

But as the old proverb goes:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

_______

[attofishpi]

You never fail to make a complete arse of yourself.

R U certain?

In your world only theists abuse children (and R not stupid kunts)?

I did not say only theists abuse children.
All theism is child abuse; has a different meaning.

Really? I actually enjoyed being raised in a Catholic school upbringing, for one thing it taught me value in humility. Now that I know God exists, and that you and ALL atheists are wrong..well, not humble with my humility

Try and use your brain.

You should thank God yours currently remains human.

[Sculptor]

R U certain?

In your world only theists abuse children (and R not stupid kunts)?

I did not say only theists abuse children.
All theism is child abuse; has a different meaning.

Really? I actually enjoyed being raised in a Catholic school upbringing, for one thing it taught me value in humility. Now that I know God exists, and that you and ALL atheists are wrong..well, not humble with my humility

Try and use your brain.

You should thank God yours currently remains human.

Slaves are often unaware of their own servitude and consider their abuse normal.

[iambiguous]

Bottom line: No God, and all of these terrible things have to be endured as just a manifestation of an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence that, for each of us one by one, ends in oblivion.

Or, how about, yes, there is a God, and all of these terrible things that have to be endured are simply a necessary part of our temporary "gestation period," so to speak, within God's "cosmic womb" (the universe)?

Okay, how about that? Back again to believing it "in your head" versus actually being able to demonstrate that it is in fact true.

Please describe for me an example of a specific "demonstration" of whatever it might take to convince you that a higher intelligence is responsible for the creation of this universe.

Okay, let's go back to the example that IC ever and always wiggles out of responding to.

The difference between demonstrable proof that the Pope resides in the Vatican and demonstrable proof that "a higher intelligence is responsible for the creation of this universe."

And let's pin this down.

Do you believe this higher intelligence is attribable to a God, the God, your God? And, if so, does your own understanding of this God include omniscience and omnipotence? Just in case the discussion comes around to theodicy.

And then these parts:

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?

Well, first of all, I suggest that almost all of the vast number of "paths" that humans have proposed in the past, all have one thing in common, and that is they all stem from an inherent (intuitive/common sense) feeling that it is ludicrous to think that the unfathomable order of the universe is a product of chance.

Right. Here you are like all the rest of us, an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence in the gargantuan vastness of all there is daring to tell us what is or is not ludicrous regarding the existence of the existence of the universe itself.

As for chance, what "on Earth" does that even mean? What can you possibly know about the laws of nature themselves. Sure, I suppose it is possible that -- presto! -- matter just popped into existence by sheer chance. On the other hand, maybe your "higher intelligence" did too. So, do you by chance have any hard evidence to settle it once and for all.

Or, perhaps, do you believe what you do because, psychologically, it comforts and consoles you to believe what you want to believe is true about what, instead, may well be an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence given the "brute facticity" of all there is.

Though, yeah, there's always this...

Clearly, they came up with all sorts of silly concepts that seemed to make sense at the time, but were eventually abandoned. However, the mystery still remains, even to this day. So, we keep trying.

I'm all for trying. Especially here in a philosophy forum. But my own frame of mind still aims more toward actually demonstrating that what you do believe "in your head", all other rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Especially given that in regard to God and religion the stakes couldn't possibly be higher: morality here and now, immortality and salvation there and then.

Thus:

And secondly, you asked me: "...why yours?..."

To which I ask in return, do you even know what my concept of God actually entails?

Tell me. Then tell me how you close the gap between your "concept" of God and your capacity to demonstrate how all the rest of us ought to think about Him -- Her? It? -- as well.

Then the part where your concept of God revolves around, among other things...

...the existence of earthquakes, tsunamis, super-volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and the extinction events brought on by asteroids and comets and other "Heavenly bodies". Not to mention the AIDS and Covid 19 viruses, the bubonic plaque and hundreds and hundreds of terrible health afflictions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Same question: is your decision to be a Not-Theist based on evidence, or something else, like indifference, lack of exposure, or hostility to the idea?

My being a "non-a-theist" is based on rational arguments after being a theist for a very long time.

I have argued 'it is impossible for God to exists as real' because the root cause of theism is purely psychological.
You need to note those with the most intense experiences of a God are those who are mental cases, has brain damage, took drugs, and the likes, plus those who are long time meditators.

After a long time of research, I understand the neuroscientific and psychological basis why the majority of people has to be theists, thus my acceptance that they have no choice given their circumstance they have to believe in a God.

As such there is something weird in theists labelling those who are not theists as atheists,

They don't.

"Atheist" is a label the Atheists proudly take to themselves. I've never met a Theist who calls people "Atheists" if they don't choose the term themselves. Theists tend to see everybody as potentially interested in Theism, at least until they're told otherwise.

As for the Islamists, they use the word "infidel," not "Atheist." And (as crazy a this is) their belief is that every person, including an Atheist, is born Islamic and then apostatizes. That's why they use the term "reversion to Islam," not "conversion."

What?? you are that ignorant?
It is so common for theists to label those who do not believe in a god as 'atheists'. Some of them do not mind but many others like me do [note Dawkins denied in camera he is not an atheist].

I agree I am very anti-God where theists insist their God is very real

Oh. Then you're not a "Not-Theist" at all; you're an "Anti-Theist."

That's far more extreme. It means you have a non-evidentiary prejudice against God.

As I stated, I am 'not-a-theist' 'non-theist' 'anti-theist' anti-God [just like other "anti -"].
The bottom line is I will always provide rational argument for my stance as the above. See my point above.

That's not what he says. He says there's evidence for God in Fine Tuning. And if he ever decided to say the words you're putting in his mouth, he'd still be wrong, of course.

Nope, Dawkins never said, there IS evidence for God but rather 'there MAY be evidence for God'

You still don't know what "evidence" means.
But I already pointed that out, so I won't do so again here. Still, you should find out.

Point is the difference between 'there IS" and 'there may be .." and Dawkins "may be" denotes merely 6.9/7.8 or I believe is 0.0000001% probability God exists.

A polished conjecture is a conjecture that is polished systematically with the required sufficient evidences that meet the scientific standard.

So you are trying to use the word "conjecture" for "hypothesis," and "polished" for "evidentiary."
Nice trick. But no, I'm not buying it.

Yes, regardless of whatever the evidence, any scientific fact can be discarded upon new evidences and many scientific facts has been discarded since science emerged. As such there is a degree to tentative_ness to any scientific fact, thus to describe scientific facts as 'at best are merely polished conjectures' is valid taking into account the context they have comply with the scientific methods.

"Square circle" as real is an oxymoron
"God" as real is also an oxymoron.

Not possible. There's no analytic contradiction between the words "real" and "God." There is between "square" and "circle." Your claim here is smug, but over-self-confident and unwarranted. You're just assuming the conclusion you want to arrive at...you've done nothing to prove it.

What is 'real' is evidently real which is verifiable and justifiable empirically where being scientifically real being the most credible.

God is a psychological derivative which is impossible to be real but very critical for psychological resolutions.
It is just like beings invented by small children [invisible friends] or for small children e.g. Santa Claus.
Thus 'God is real' is an oxymoron.

No page. No quotation.
You didn't read the book. I'll warrant you didn't read Flew's either. But if you want to prove me wrong, give the page and quotation. Otherwise, it's obvious I'm right.

I have read Chapter 4 of the Blackwell Guide and Flew's Book.
You can test me...

That's exactly what I'm doing.
Quotation and page, please.

Asking me for Quotation and page that I don't agree with is not a test.

The default and onus is on you give me the points from the said books you introduced to support your arguments.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated before,
there are many who made similar claims which are more profound than yours...

My claim is that each human mind (including yours, Veritas) is imbued with the "seed-like" potential of evolving into a literal universe just like the one we are presently held within.

My claim is that the universe we are presently held within is the fully-evolved (fully-fruitioned) "adult" version of that which we are the "seeds" (embryos) of.

My claim is that we humans are the "familial" members (offspring/progeny) of the highest "species of being" in all of reality.

Now, of course, I may be wrong, but if you know of a claim that is more "profound" than that, then describe it for me, and site its source.

Your above is only in fantasy land, it cannot be realistic.

'Seed' wise, I have used the 'seed' metaphor for the moral potential which have not sprouted in many and for some it is merely a seedling.

I agree all human has the potential 'seed' for higher states of altered states of consciousness. Point is many has already sprouted it using drugs, hallucinogens, being mental cases, has brain damage or after a long time of effective meditations.

Note your 'eye' thingy is related the very common term 'Third EYE'.
Read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_eye
This is why the 'eye' thingy is so common within spirituality, the psychedelic and the mental-cases world.

...but they know they had those altered states of consciousness from taking drugs, hallucinogens, had mental illness, brain damages, etc.

It is clear (to me, anyway) that your attenuated level of consciousness...

(i.e., the particular level and degree of somnambulism that you function at while on earth)

...is preventing you from understanding that "altered states of consciousness" (brought on for whatever reason) are precisely what is needed to "jar" (slap/shake) the human mind out of its initially "fixed" (programmed) state of consciousness.

I'm talking about (as mentioned earlier) the state (or level) of consciousness that humans need to function at in order for the utterly "strange reality" of this universe to seem "natural" and "logical" to us.

That's why such things as entheogens and hallucinogenics are generally deemed as being "bad" for us.

Why?

Because they cause us to question reality itself in such a way that we no longer "fit-in" with the cohesive "group consciousness" of humanity in general. And, more specifically, we begin to question the group consciousness (religion/mores/values/goals, etc.) of the particular society that we were initially born into.

Like I said earlier, "I wish I could wake you up."

But as the old proverb goes:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

_______

"Wake me up"???
Note I have been meditating regularly for a very long time.
So I understand and have had experiences of altered states of consciousness and I recognize such as a type of consciousness which is different from normal consciousness, i.e. waking, sleep, dream, etc.

Re psychedelics, I stated we need to find fool proof safe ones that do not have addictive properties.
I would prefer to recommend regular meditation [proper and effective] and complementing it with safe-psychedelics.

Btw, you focus so much on this 'seed' and 'eye' thingy and worst identifying it with the existence of a God, but what is your point. How can you translate this for the well being of humanity in the future?

OTOH, I believe in the moral 'seed' potential which humanity should facilitates its sprouting in all [if not the majority] to strive to eliminate and prevent evil acts which to the extreme could exterminate the human species.

I argued, why you are so bent on this 'seed' and 'eye' thingy is for your selfish personal psychological resolution and to get approval from others to affirm your belief.