How God could fail to convey His message?

[attofishpi]

Proof of my higher intelligence! As if a creator would only speak to you and your kind, sheesh! Quit sucking yourself!

And therein is why you will never know - like most - you haven't the humility to be granted the wisdom.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Proof of my higher intelligence! As if a creator would only speak to you and your kind, sheesh! Quit sucking yourself!

And therein is why you will never know - like most - you haven't the humility to be granted the wisdom.

You really do suck yourself, don't you?

Everyone watch out, atto is special, AND I DO MEAN SPECIAL! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge!

He actually believes he can speak 'for' his god!

[Arising_uk]

That there is an intelligent 'being' projecting our reality.

And what's projecting 'its'?

If the sage indicates more to me in relation to you i will advise.

What do you mean more!?

[thedoc]

This is wrong, there are a few of us who have reasonably good evidence that God exists, so these few do know that God exists.

What do you mean by 'God' when you say this?

Many years ago I had an experience that I could only attribute to the presence of the Holly Spirit, and I reasoned that if the Holy Spirit exists, then so does God, since the Holy Spirit is just one aspect of God.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge and atheism / theism pertains to faith

Croc of SHIT

Agnostic atheist : does not believe in God but is not absolutely certain

All agnostics are atheistic

Gnostic atheist : does not believe in God and is absolutely certain

Made up on the spot

Agnostic theist : does believe in God but is not absolutely certain

No such thing

Gnostic theist : does believe in God and is absolutely certain

A deluded moron

[thedoc]

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge and atheism / theism pertains to faith
Agnostic atheist : does not believe in God but is not absolutely certain
Gnostic atheist : does not believe in God and is absolutely certain
Agnostic theist : does believe in God but is not absolutely certain
Gnostic theist : does believe in God and is absolutely certain

However everyone is ultimately agnostic because no one knows for certain whether or not God exists
So gnostic theists and gnostic atheists are absolutely certain in their belief but not in their knowledge

This is wrong there are a few of us who have reasonably good evidence that God exists

There is no such thing as reasonably good evidence for the existence of God

I'm sorry for you, that you have had no experience that you will accept as evidence for the existence of God, but unbelievers will deny all evidence, in spite of the strength of that evidence.

[surreptitious57]

Are you are rational person?

I am both rational and irrational but I tend more towards the former

Would a rational person believe in or say anything that was not true?

Belief is an article of faith which requires no evidence or proof to justify it so is not something a rational person would reference

However they could say something that was not true but that could be because knowledge of the thing in question was ambiguous

What makes sense to you?

That which is demonstrably true but also something which I can understand to be demonstrably true as well

And whatever makes sense to you the rational person should the rest of us others accept it as the truth also?

Whether others wish to accept demonstrable truth or not is a matter for them not me as it is beyond my control

[surreptitious57]

I am sorry for you that you have had no experience that you will accept as evidence for the
existence of God but unbelievers will deny all evidence in spite of the strength of that evidence

I stopped believing in God when I was forty six but I do not actually care whether or not he exists
It makes absolutely no difference to me either way because which ever it is is beyond my control

[surreptitious57]

Many years ago I had an experience that I could only attribute to the presence of the Holy Spirit and I
reasoned that if the Holy Spirit exists then so does God since the Holy Spirit is just one aspect of God

Many years ago I had an experience that I could only attribute to the presence of the Holy Spirit when
it was really something else and something for which there is a perfectly rational explanation for also

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sorry for you, that you have had no experience that you will accept as evidence for the existence of God, but unbelievers will deny all evidence, in spite of the strength of that evidence.

That is true. Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with proof or evidence, or even the lack thereof. For clearly, there is lots of evidence for God, even if the Atheist is not wanting to accept any of it; and Atheism itself can never produce adequate evidence to warrant its ardent disbelief.

Why can't they see this themselves? After all, in any other subject matter they would catch their own illogic immediately. But they don't, because Atheism has everything to do with will.

As the axiom goes, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm sorry for you, that you have had no experience that you will accept as evidence for the existence of God, but unbelievers will deny all evidence, in spite of the strength of that evidence.

That is true. Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with proof or evidence, or even the lack thereof. For clearly, there is lots of evidence for God, even if the Atheist is not wanting to accept any of it; and Atheism itself can never produce adequate evidence to warrant its ardent disbelief.

Why can't they see this themselves? After all, in any other subject matter they would catch their own illogic immediately. But they don't, because Atheism has everything to do with will.

As the axiom goes, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

You are not fooling anyone with the persistence of this childish defence.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm sorry for you, that you have had no experience that you will accept as evidence for the existence of God, but unbelievers will deny all evidence, in spite of the strength of that evidence.

That is true. Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with proof or evidence, or even the lack thereof.

For clearly, there is lots of evidence for God, even if the Atheist is not wanting to accept any of it;
Sorry IC, but there is nothing that necessarily proves there is a god, there are only ever things that mere mortals attribute as those that their vision of god might be responsible. In other words, mere mortals don't have all the answers as to how all the things they understand that exist came to exist, so the default solution, is that they must be the hand of a god, it's easier that way, because in truth mankind is far too young to understand the truth of everything's existence, as the quest to know these things started thousands of years ago, probably many more. Individual humans live to what, 100 years if they are extremely lucky?

and Atheism itself can never produce adequate evidence to warrant its ardent disbelief.
Both sides equally can't prove either way. Yes, I've noticed you've used the word "evidence" throughout, but it's circumstantial and "circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference." --wikipedia--

Science would be absolutely nowhere if it relied on circumstantial evidence rather than direct.


Why can't they see this themselves? After all, in any other subject matter they would catch their own illogic immediately. But they don't, because Atheism has everything to do with will.

As the axiom goes, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
And fools only see what they 'want' to see, which is that which servers their purpose, that which suits them.

There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence of your gods existence. If so name it.

[Arising_uk]

Many years ago I had an experience that I could only attribute to the presence of the Holly Spirit, and I reasoned that if the Holy Spirit exists, then so does God, since the Holy Spirit is just one aspect of God.

But there are other explanations for such events? To me it seems as tho' you are just confirming what you believed already.

[surreptitious57]

For clearly there is lots of evidence for God

Two words in that sentence are entirely misplaced
Because there clearly is no evidence at all for God

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry IC, but there is nothing that necessarily proves there is a god, there are only ever things that mere mortals attribute as those that their vision of god might be responsible.

The fact that all human knowledge of the world is inductive means that there is no such thing as "necessary proof" for anything. There is only stronger or weaker evidence that a particular belief is rational or warranted. The question to be resolved is only how strong the evidence in this case is.

Both sides equally can't prove either way.

If by "prove" you mean by way of absolute certainty, the same is true of ANY belief a person can hold. But it's not equal. The reason it isn't is that whereas Theism looks for indicative evidence, Atheism has no evidence for its belief at all. The person who says, "I think there may be a God" can go looking for evidence; but how does an Atheist find evidence for the "nothing" in which He believes? So while this does not conclude the issue, it makes the Atheist's epistemological task much more difficult than anything the Theist would have to do.

Yes, I've noticed you've used the word "evidence" throughout, but it's circumstantial and "circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference." --wikipedia--

This is the problem with taking definitions off wikis: sometimes they're a bit of a hack. In this case, there is no such thing as empirical knowledge for which there is no need for "additional evidence or inference." The author of the definition is simply naive.

Science would be absolutely nowhere if it relied on circumstantial evidence rather than direct.

"Direct" what? "Direct evidence"? But Theism has that. Atheists won't accept it anyway.

As I trust you know, science is probabilistic, not absolute. It is an excellent thing: but we must not misunderstand what it is telling us. Contrary to popular delusion, it does not give us absolute certainties. It gives us instead higher-probability hypotheses, and helps us not rely on lower-probability ones. But it does not "prove" as such; it doesn't even pretend to. As such, all science is, in that sense "circumstantial" -- though I find that word inapt.

There is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence of your gods existence. If so name it.

As Descartes has demonstrated, there is no such thing as "incontrovertible evidence" of anything -- not even that the external or empirical world exists at all. To expect it outside of mathematics and such closed systems of symbols would simply be to betray a lack of understanding of how human knowledge actually works. We need to ask instead for what the relative strength of the evidence on each side is, and to weigh it for probability.