For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.

phlogisitician:

And I gave you one. Is there anything else you'd like to know about him?

Right now, you have a question to post ratio of about 1:100. Can't we speed things up a bit? How about a list of, say, 10 questions you have?

Plus the 299 other posts in this thread expanding on that answer and the answers to your two other previous questions. Have you forgotten those?

There's no proof in science, either, so we needn't worry too much about a lack of absolute proof.

Unlike you, I am happy to admit to reasonable doubt. You're the one claiming certainty here, aren't you?

I guess so. It's a good thing I did, seeing as you don't seem to be able to remember it for more than a few seconds at a time, judging by your endless requests for me to repeat it.

No. You also asked two other questions, if I recall correctly. And in amongst the 300 posts, I answered those ones too. Read back if you're interested.

Anything else?

So you best you can do is to say my attitude is dishonest? Really?

That is, you can't point to any actual examples of where I've knowingly told a lie, which would be the usual definition of dishonesty.

What, exactly, does it mean to have a dishonest attitude? That's quite a novel concept. Please explain it for me.

Obviously, a proof of omniscience or omnipotence is impossible. I don't have the resources to verify such things; to have them I'd need to be omnipotent and/or omniscient myself.

However...

Look around you at the big wide wonderful universe you inhabit. The God who created all that must have been damn powerful, if not actually omnopotent, wouldn't you say?

And to observe the whole universe at once requires quite good eyesight, wouldn't you say?

 

phlogisitician:

What would you prefer? We have to use some pronoun. Do you think "it" is more appropriate than "he"? If so, explain why.

You've been uppity all through this thread, including in your latest reply, so don't bother talking to me about uppity.

Moreover, I answered the Epicurean question earlier in the thread. Don't you remember?

See below for more on this.

You're attempting to erect a straw man. I never made those arguments, and you know it. Shame on you.

When have you ever expressed doubt in your claim that there are no gods?

Go on, show me your doubt.

Nonsense. Of course I can know that. More on this later.

Merely expressing your disagreement is fairly pointless. You have pointed out no flaws in my claims. I already know you disagree. But it seems you have no rational basis on which you disagree. Which says a lot about how dogmatic your stance is, and how unreasoned.

 

A brief search of common definition of God on the internet reveals a number of definitions that I am happy to go with. In particular, by definition God is supernatural.

For example:

God:

1. a Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force
3. the Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
4. the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
5. the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
6. a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

---

God, as creator of nature, is by definition supernatural.

 

phlogistician:

No.

There is general agreement among people that God is supernatural. And that agreement is reflected in various dictionary definitions.

If you have any evidence or basis for arguing that God is not supernatural, feel free to present it.

No. It's a definition. If you can find any dictionary that claims God is natural, I might start to take you seriously.

What did you not understand when I wrote that the definitions I quoted correspond to my personal definitions?

I'm flattered that you find my personal opinions to be grand.

If you have any questions, please ask them.

I recall you repeatedly stating that you lack belief in gods - not simply that you lack faith.

Not that you're in any position to form a belief either way, given you're apparently incapable of defining the term "god" in any way, by your own admission.

But let's see. Now you're changing your tune and saying that there might be gods, even though you lack a belief that there are gods? Is that correct?

If I had lied about anything, you would be able to quote the lie and reference the post where the lie appeared. But you can't.

 

phlogisitican:

What was the rest of what I said? This looks like quote mining.

We can clear this up right here.

Are you now saying that gods exist? Yes or no?
Are you now saying that gods might exist? Yes or no?

You seem to avoid direct questions, so it's difficult to know where you stand on these issues. Hopefully, you can answer this time.

And I gave you 6 or 7 more just a few posts ago.

No. It appears you're trying dishonestly to re-write history. You may be able to bullshit some people who came to this thread late, but you're certainly not going to bullshit me about what I wrote and what I didn't change my mind about.

Resorting to lies is a sure sign you're losing something. Wouldn't you say?

It's sure kept you busy for 300 posts. And you haven't found any dishonesty yet.

I would have thought you'd have more than 3 questions about God. I would have thought you could do a lot better than this in attempting to catch me out in a lie. Instead, what do we get? Just page after repetitious page of a strained attempt to rewrite history.

 

I didn't think you'd answer simple yes/no questions put to you, phlogistician.

Wiggle wiggle, squirm squirm phlogistician.

It looks like this thread has been turned on its head. We have phlogisitician the dishonest athiest.

 

phlogisitician:

I found the source of the quote from me that you are referring to. It's in post #304:

phlogistician: There was no doubt expressed in your definition. Such as starting with 'I feel', or 'The folllowing things have led me to believe'.

James R: When have you ever expressed doubt in your claim that there are no gods? Go on, show me your doubt.

---
I repeat: show me your doubt! Can you, or can't you, answer the following simple questions honestly?

1. Are you now saying that gods exist? Yes or no?
2. Are you now saying that gods might exist? Yes or no?

Obviously, if you avoid answering these questions, or if both answers are "no" then your claim must surely be that no gods exist.

 

In other words: no, phlogistician can't answer two simple questions honestly.

Ho hum.

As I said in my previous post, by failing to answer those two questions, you nailed your own coffin. Nothing more needs to be said.

If I had lied anywhere in this thread, you would be able to quoet the relevant post and demonstrate the lie. But you can't.