If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[remez]

People can be wrong. Being wrong doesn't make someone a fool. Religion is a powerful presence/meme. Its not something that can just be dropped.

People like labels. Labels give them control. I think "god" is a label that works like that for lots of people. They apply it to their experiences so that they can claim to understand what doesn't make any sense otherwise. They don't know what's really in the bottle but if they put "god" on the bottle maybe it makes them feel like whatever is inside is something they understand.

Most of the people who use this label in my experience don't really care about proof because the proof is in how they feel, not what they know. It's all about being in communion with the great woo, and there will never be any proof for the woo because the woo is beyond proof.

Seriously. I would have thought you two would have caught my attempt. Not Steve….obviously…..he couldn’t even respond on the same emotion he presented.

Here is the deal…..Steve’s comment “Needing or voicing a proof implies doubt.” was completely self-refuting. I was simply trying to goad him to defend his emotion which would have affirmed my comment. When he responded, he had already lost the emotion he was emoting about with the comment. Attempt abated. He probably wouldn't have gotten it anyway. It was worth the try.

Now regarding labels….seriously Moogley. Go back to YOUR other thread where hypocritically you’re actually guilty of that very thing. I challenged you on it and you didn’t even have the courage to get out of your cuddle huddle and step up to the line of scrimmage.

I completely doubt (see skeptic at heart) that you missed it. But in case you forgot I’ll bump it AGAIN.

 

[steve_bank]

People can be wrong. Being wrong doesn't make someone a fool. Religion is a powerful presence/meme. Its not something that can just be dropped.

People like labels. Labels give them control. I think "god" is a label that works like that for lots of people. They apply it to their experiences so that they can claim to understand what doesn't make any sense otherwise. They don't know what's really in the bottle but if they put "god" on the bottle maybe it makes them feel like whatever is inside is something they understand.

Most of the people who use this label in my experience don't really care about proof because the proof is in how they feel, not what they know. It's all about being in communion with the great woo, and there will never be any proof for the woo because the woo is beyond proof.

Seriously. I would have thought you two would have caught my attempt. Not Steve….obviously…..he couldn’t even respond on the same emotion he presented.

Here is the deal…..Steve’s comment “Needing or voicing a proof implies doubt.” was completely self-refuting. I was simply trying to goad him to defend his emotion which would have affirmed my comment. When he responded, he had already lost the emotion he was emoting about with the comment. Attempt abated. He probably wouldn't have gotten it anyway. It was worth the try.

Now regarding labels….seriously Moogley. Go back to YOUR other thread where hypocritically you’re actually guilty of that very thing. I challenged you on it and you didn’t even have the courage to get out of your cuddle huddle and step up to the line of scrimmage.

I completely doubt (see skeptic at heart) that you missed it. But in case you forgot I’ll bump it AGAIN.

Obviously. However you fail to realize I consider you to be arguing over unicorns and flying dragons. There is mothing for you to win in argument over a god.

You might just as well be arguing the Lord Of The Rings or the Wizard Of Oz are real.

 

[remez]

Seriously. I would have thought you two would have caught my attempt. Not Steve….obviously…..he couldn’t even respond on the same emotion he presented.

Here is the deal…..Steve’s comment “Needing or voicing a proof implies doubt.” was completely self-refuting. I was simply trying to goad him to defend his emotion which would have affirmed my comment. When he responded, he had already lost the emotion he was emoting about with the comment. Attempt abated. He probably wouldn't have gotten it anyway. It was worth the try.

Now regarding labels….seriously Moogley. Go back to YOUR other thread where hypocritically you’re actually guilty of that very thing. I challenged you on it and you didn’t even have the courage to get out of your cuddle huddle and step up to the line of scrimmage.

I completely doubt (see skeptic at heart) that you missed it. But in case you forgot I’ll bump it AGAIN.

Obviously. However you fail to realize I consider you to be arguing over unicorns and flying dragons. There is mothing for you to win in argument over a god.

You might just as well be arguing the Lord Of The Rings or the Wizard Of Oz are real.

This has nothing to do with your new disconnected response above.

Earlier I was trying to playfully goad you into a self-defeating gotcha.
I took my playfulness too far by calling you a fool.
I do apologize for that.

 

[steve_bank]

Seriously. I would have thought you two would have caught my attempt. Not Steve….obviously…..he couldn’t even respond on the same emotion he presented.

Here is the deal…..Steve’s comment “Needing or voicing a proof implies doubt.” was completely self-refuting. I was simply trying to goad him to defend his emotion which would have affirmed my comment. When he responded, he had already lost the emotion he was emoting about with the comment. Attempt abated. He probably wouldn't have gotten it anyway. It was worth the try.

Now regarding labels….seriously Moogley. Go back to YOUR other thread where hypocritically you’re actually guilty of that very thing. I challenged you on it and you didn’t even have the courage to get out of your cuddle huddle and step up to the line of scrimmage.

I completely doubt (see skeptic at heart) that you missed it. But in case you forgot I’ll bump it AGAIN.

Obviously. However you fail to realize I consider you to be arguing over unicorns and flying dragons. There is mothing for you to win in argument over a god.

You might just as well be arguing the Lord Of The Rings or the Wizard Of Oz are real.

This has nothing to do with your new disconnected response above.

Earlier I was trying to playfully goad you into a self-defeating gotcha.
I took my playfulness too far by calling you a fool.
I do apologize for that.

Are we having fun yet?

 

[Lion IRC]

Truth's a dog must to kennel...

 

[DBT]

Faith is not necessarily a matter of truth. More a matter epistemic luck or probability. Some faith based beliefs being highly unlikely to be true.

 

[skepticalbip]

Some faith based beliefs being highly unlikely to be true.

More than unlikely. Pure logic dictates that most are definitely false since different faiths are mutually exclusive so if one were true then the others must be false. The question is if any one of the many faiths is true... this is unlikely.

 

[Rhea]

Just for the record, when other atheists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there’s a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the theist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Just for the record, when other atheists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there’s a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the theist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like.

Exactly. It's like making an observation in cultural anthropology. I'm certainly curious about people's reasons. Generally I find that they aren't scientifically curious or aren't good at seeing contradictions in their reasoning, or both.

 

[remez]

Just for the record, when other atheists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there’s a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the theist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like.

How can you be asking “how” we believe what we do
and
at the same time assert that no NEW evidence has been provided?

Because that infers that evidence and reason has been provided to you. The “how” has been provided to you. And you rejected it.
So
The issue becomes this….were your reasons for rejection as good as the reason provided.

I can’t reason whether you were reasonable or not because I don’t know what evidence and reason you rejected and if your reasons were any good.

All I call reason is that your certainty that God does not exist is not true just because you reason it is. How do I know you are being reasonable?

 

[steve_bank]

Just for the record, when other atheists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there’s a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the theist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like.

How can you be asking “how” we believe what we do
and
at the same time assert that no NEW evidence has been provided?

Because that infers that evidence and reason has been provided to you. The “how” has been provided to you. And you rejected it.
So
The issue becomes this….were your reasons for rejection as good as the reason provided.

I can’t reason whether you were reasonable or not because I don’t know what evidence and reason you rejected and if your reasons were any good.

All I call reason is that your certainty that God does not exist is not true just because you reason it is. How do I know you are being reasonable?

Per sonly I always try and keep an open mind. What I say is that I have seen or heard no evidence that supports the claim of god of any kind. As posed the question of a god can not be disproven.

Sam goes for ghosts.

From modern psychology and history we can say gods, demons, myths are a reflection of us humans. God was created in the image of he male patriarch of ancient Hebrews.

Greek gods reflected human attributes.

 

[skepticalbip]

Just for the record, when other atheists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there’s a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the theist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like.

How can you be asking “how” we believe what we do
and
at the same time assert that no NEW evidence has been provided?

Because that infers that evidence and reason has been provided to you. The “how” has been provided to you. And you rejected it.
So
The issue becomes this….were your reasons for rejection as good as the reason provided.

I can’t reason whether you were reasonable or not because I don’t know what evidence and reason you rejected and if your reasons were any good.

All I call reason is that your certainty that God does not exist is not true just because you reason it is. How do I know you are being reasonable?

I have yet to see any evidence given for some god. I have, however, seen a lot of reasons given for people believing that there is some god. The primary reason given is that there is some event that they don't understand or can't explain... "therefore god". The other major reason I have seen given is that someone told them it was so... "therefore god".

The first case is not evidence of a god... It is evidence of lack of knowledge or understanding (god of the gaps). The second case is not evidence of a god... It is evidence that someone else believes (arbitrary authority).

 

[Keith&Co.]

How can you be asking “how” we believe what we do and at the same time assert that no NEW evidence has been provided?

Because that infers that evidence and reason has been provided to you. The “how” has been provided to you.

But the 'evidence' provided either
1) works equally well for Allah, Zeus, IPU, the Flying Pasta Monster, and Santa Claus, so we're still left wondering "how would you use THAT to believe in Jesus?"
2) involves a willful deception, either on the part of the theist, or an authority figure that lied to them, such as Dr. Dino claiming the half-life of carbon-14 exposes the lie of the geologic column. So, if they offer a stunnungly obvious lie as the "how," we're still left wondering "how would you use THAT to believe in Jesus?"

So, no. You haven't answered the question, just begged it. And done that by offering evidence thst isn't really evidence, isn't new evidence, or is an ancient PRATT.

Same as if you are in your 17th year teaching English to high school students. On the day the book reports are due, Timothy L. doesn't hand one in. He needs more time. You ask why you should give him more time.
He says his dog ate the report. This may be the first time Tim made this claim, but it's not new, not convincing, and not acceptable as an answer for 'why more time?' It's still the due date, and he still owes you a report.

 

[remez]

Just for the record, when other atheists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there’s a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the theist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like.

How can you be asking “how” we believe what we do
and
at the same time assert that no NEW evidence has been provided?

Because that infers that evidence and reason has been provided to you. The “how” has been provided to you. And you rejected it.
So
The issue becomes this….were your reasons for rejection as good as the reason provided.

I can’t reason whether you were reasonable or not because I don’t know what evidence and reason you rejected and if your reasons were any good.

All I call reason is that your certainty that God does not exist is not true just because you reason it is. How do I know you are being reasonable?

....
The first case is not evidence of a god... It is evidence of lack of knowledge or understanding (god of the gaps).......

The first cause is philosophical argument that is supported by philosophy and science. In order to determine the validity of your reasoning what precisely is it we don’t know that leads you to assert gotg? Secondly, I’m not asserting absolute certainly. I’m asserting I have seen nothing more reasonable as the first cause so I hold it to be a justified belief absent any reasonable defeater. Sound familiar?

It is evidence that someone else believes (arbitrary authority).

As written I agree with you.

 

[remez]

How can you be asking “how” we believe what we do and at the same time assert that no NEW evidence has been provided?

Because that infers that evidence and reason has been provided to you. The “how” has been provided to you.

But the 'evidence' provided either
1) works equally well for Allah, Zeus, IPU, the Flying Pasta Monster, and Santa Claus, so we're still left wondering "how would you use THAT to believe in Jesus?"

Like Rhea you are giving me your assessment of some unmentioned evidence. I can’t determine if your assessment of that evidence is reasonable if you don’t provide the evidence.

2) involves a willful deception, either on the part of the theist, or an authority figure that lied to them, such as Dr. Dino claiming the half-life of carbon-14 exposes the lie of the geologic column. So, if they offer a stunnungly obvious lie as the "how," we're still left wondering "how would you use THAT to believe in Jesus?"

Your rejection is more reasonable than the provided reasoning.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Like Rhea you are giving me your assessment of some unmentioned evidence. I can’t determine if your assessment of that evidence is reasonable if you don’t provide the evidence.

So far, it's all the evidence i have ever seen, offered for one or another deity, for the possibility of deities, or for the certainty of creationism (thus a deity). In my experience they all suffer from one or both of those two fatal errors.

But why would i offer fstal evidence for a god i do not believe in? You might accuse me of only selecting the worst arguments to prove my point.

It would actually make more sense for you to offer some evidence you find convincing, and see if, for once, it stands up to scrutiny.

But then, you'll attack my understanding of the evidence that was offered, and move the argument one remove away from my point. And you will restate my point but erroneously, reducing the exchange to a spiral of me attempting to correct your missatating of my position, my argument, or my point, spiraling further and further from your god, or your evidence for it, as usual.

It's your thing.

For example, this thread asks about WHY YOU (THEISTS) NEED EVIDENCE, and you've changed it to arguing about the evidence.

So, meh.

 

[skepticalbip]

....
The first case is not evidence of a god... It is evidence of lack of knowledge or understanding (god of the gaps).......

The first cause is philosophical argument that is supported by philosophy and science.

I agree that the idea of a god is a philosophical argument... Those who try to argue god on a scientific, evidence based basis are out of their element. However, assuming there was a first cause is assuming your conclusion (a logical fallacy). Then, philosophy does not find truths but presents arguments that other philosophers dispute. Your assumption of a first cause (god) may have some support from some philosophers but certainly not all... there is certainly no evidence that I know of. Belief in a god is faith and faith is belief without evidence.

In order to determine the validity of your reasoning what precisely is it we don’t know that leads you to assert gotg?

We don't know if the universe had a beginning or not.
We don't know the exact mechanism of how life begin.
We don't know why a loved one died.
We don't know how that stain on the wall came to resemble the Virgin Mary or a burnt mark on a grilled cheese sandwich looks somewhat like Jesus.
etc.
etc.
There is a hell of a lot that we know we don't know. Probably much more that we don't yet know that we don't know.

Secondly, I’m not asserting absolute certainly. I’m asserting I have seen nothing more reasonable as the first cause so I hold it to be a justified belief absent any reasonable defeater. Sound familiar?

A good start but you are again assuming your conclusion that there was a first cause (god). Science certainly does not know that the universe began. Even though it is a popular idea among some in science, it is a minority idea. If it did began, was it a rebound from a previous collapse, a quantum fluctuation, etc.? The reality is that we don't know. To take that 'we don't know' and assume it means evidence for or proof of GOD is exactly what is meant by gotg.

It is evidence that someone else believes (arbitrary authority).

As written I agree with you.

 

[steve_bank]

We have not heard the causation argument in a long time.

 

[James Brown]

I’m not asserting absolute certainly. I’m asserting I have seen nothing more reasonable as the first cause so I hold it to be a justified belief absent any reasonable defeater.

This is not a reasonable stance, and I think that it's a stance that you wouldn't take in other, more mundane aspects of life. Let me rephrase:

"I'm not asserting absolute certainly [that my house is haunted with ghosts.] I’m asserting I have seen nothing more reasonable as [to what's making those noises I hear in my attic] so I hold it to be a justified belief absent any reasonable defeater."

Would you find that a reasonable position?

 

[Tigers!]

Just for the record, when other atheists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there’s a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the theist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like.

Amazing my thoughts exactly (with appropriate modifications.)

Just for the record, when other theists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there is not a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the atheist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like?