Maybe you could judge as I am sure that you would not bring your personal views into accessing any debate..heck if we cant trust you Jan who can we trust. Alex
“Algorithm”, this information has obviously come from a mind source, as opposed to popping into existence via natural processes. Anyway go on. I wouldn’t use the term “vague”, as it gives the impression of uncertainty, unclarity, and wishy-washy kind of impression. It is anything but that. It is clear precise, uncomplicated, and user friendly. The devotion of God that I give, is the very reason why theists believe in God, and atheists deny and reject God, due to their lack of, and disbelief , in God. My definition begins to define the greatness of God, over foolishness, and speculation. It forces atheists to actually discuss God, or become unhinged, and extremely defensive, to the point of blatant evasion. You misunderstand. An atheist cannot believe in God, anymore than a blindfolded person can see. The explicit atheist, in order to defend his position, has to deny, and reject God, so that he can validate his position. When an atheist finally transitions to theist, it is like taking off the blindfold. I used to use blindness as a metaphor, but I think “blindfold”, is a much more accurate way of describing the atheist position. What do you reckon? You’ve got to admit, it is pretty obvious. Then again, God is pretty obvious. If only these guys would remove their blindfolds.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don’t question science. I question the idea of common ancestry. It not that uncommon. I realise it must be uncomfortable, because it forces atheists to confront their denial and rejection of God. But we have to get things out in the open, not keep them bottled up. They’re already at a disadvantage with the blindfold.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So you run? Why not respond? Let’s see what’s under the hood.
Denial. Stop running. Take part in the discussion. Explain how you know there is no evidence of God. Look at op, then respond to it.
Aw! You must really hate God, calling Him names like that. I bet you’ve got one of those extra snuggly blindfolds, the kind that makes being blindfolded worthwhile. You’re delusional Paddo. The majority of the forum are atheist, which means they have a lack of belief, or a disbelief in God, just like you. They’re bound to agree with your sentiment. Duh!!! But it doesn’t mean you’re right. So stop making excuses and actually try and partake in the discussion of “If God is real, how would you know”. Do you think you could do that? I can see how it is you have come to accept fanciful ideas as scientific fact.
While I certainly believe wegs like Teroko, are at least honest, unlike the charlatan that you obviously are, they are still believers and to some extent biased. Any anyway, like I said, there is no winner and not even any contest. The decision is made. Darwinism, and the theory of evolution are fact...nothing you want to say or lie about will change that in the greater scheme of things. God/s at best is a mythical superfluous entity, and not needed, as science has done, and is doing that job. Your continued boring banging on about Atheists is a sham. Science has decreed all I have said, including Darwinism to be factual. Theist s in general are probably nice people, the same as those that prefer the evidence supporting the science that revokes your inane claims are nice people. It is only the lies and redefining nonsense and trolling that sets you apart from the crowd and those that can be referred to as normal like both theists and science acceptors. In summing, the science and the scientific method, find god/s, the supernatural in general, and the paranormal to simply be unscientific concepts, and have made the need for such claims to be superfluous. That's the story, and that won't change. That includes of course the creationists denial of Darwinism and the theory of evolution, which started this failed shemozzle of a crusade against science. Science won't change or be invalidated by some fool on a science forum. Perhaps it's about time we all leave Jan to his preaching up in his pulpit...He is in the fringes, and lacks the balls to crash the science sections. and anyway is achieving SFA either in the greater scheme of things or here. Let him talk to himself, he is afterall, the only one listening Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And afterall, the best that can be said for this continued childish outbursts and preaching by Jan is illustrated in the following..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A river in Eygpt so what. Are you making fun of my near cripple state..that is despicable.. I can't help needing a wheelchair most days and can hardly walk let alone run and you choose to make fun of that...this is a new low for you Jan. I just assumed there is no evidence because as you must recall I have asked you for evidence so many times and you have never offered any evidence..I assumed that you being into god as a hobby that if you had no evidence well there just isn't any...that's right isn't it? you don't have any evidence..do you? I have responded once isn't that enough? Do you expect me to quote the post number? Well I am not going back just to prove you are wrong yet again..look once I would have and for no other reason than to say "look I am right" but you being wrong just so often makes showing you are wrong rather ordinary and common place..it's like these regular crushings that are dished out to you..you seemed to be addicted to the constant humiliation...either that or you enjoy the attention..look at me look at me...I am getting crushed...do you drive a red sports car with flames on the side? It is disappointing to have you mock my mobility issues but to find you do not read my posts is almost..but not quiet... a crushing blow. Anyways why do you think god is not real? I thought you believed there was a God.. what's your game Jan. Alex
So what are you here for? Are you getting paid for this crusade? Or is it the simply mythical notion, that you believe you'll get rewarded in the next life? Do they reward outright charlatans and liars? On the other matter, we also have plenty of theists here and elsewhere that are sensible and reasonable enough to recognise that Darwinism and the theory of evolution are fact...The Paleontologist from your own link, Mary something or other.She had to stand and cop the nonsensical criticism from like minded charlatans like yourself, but stuck to her guns. No one wins here Jan.The science applicable has deemed the facts and the associated theories. Whether they offend your sensibilities, is neither here nor there.
But Jan is not just some fool he is a very special fool. You do know that ID is the cutting edge of science Paddo ..just how many Nobles have gone to ID scientists? I Must look that up. Alex
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Serious question? Or trolling again Jan? Answer anyway is of explaining the universe/space/time at least back to t+10-43 seconds, and the reasonable educated speculation back further. No god/s needed, no magical spaghetti monster.
ID, iow ..... God is a physicist ..... a scientist ..... the proof is all around. Science is the ONE true religion, with God our abstract teacher of science. A divine scientist in a mathematical world without gods. How ironic.
I like watching the Atheist Expeience on YouTube.. I have watched so many it could be over fifty maybe one hundred. I know , or at least I hope, most believers are more rational than the callers but they really are a pathetic bunch. However you get callers ring in saying the have proof of God, so you get excited but so far no evidence of God but heaps of evidence that there are some loons out there... I like that Matt guy..he chews them up and spits them out..and he knows religion or at least christianity, well one branch of the thousands of branches of christianity, as he was going to be a pastor until he did the unthinkable and questioned...needless to say if you ask rational questions and address them rationally you won't remain a believer. Alex
Jan Ardena: Not necessarily. If I were to find evidence of an evil God, for instance, that would not correspond to what I'd want God to be, but if the evidence was good then I'd still be obliged to accept it. Just like you think you believe in God now, you mean? Yes, it fits right in with your definition of God. But everything could be evidence of something else, instead. The only thing your definition of God adds to "everything" is an unproven transcendental cause. Having established the existence of "everything" you still have some work to do to show that your trascendental cause exists. In other words, the existence of everything is indisputably consistent with your definition of God, but it does not justify your claim that you know your God exists. Just before, you claimed that you know that God is real because everything exists and you defined God to be the transcendental cause of everything. You and I both agree that "everything" exists ("everything" here being the observed physical universe). But defining God to be the transcendental cause of everything neither proves that everything has a cause, nor proves that the cause was transcendental. You regularly say you know your God (as defined) exists, but you can never explain how you know or deduce that. I know something about how people define God. Some of them are able to point to what kinds of evidence they see for God. I assume that if I saw the kind of evidence that would prove their God, as defined, then I would accept that their God exists. I don't reject all definitions. Some definitions don't take us very far. Some of them are circular. Some are nonsensical. Some are logically inconsistent. Some are fine. I don't think such a silly thing. However, your history of posts about your God on this forum makes me suspect that you think to define something means to assert it is true, especially when it comes to your God. You spend a lot of your time here telling people to "start with THE definition of God" (by which you mean your preferred definition), then you more or less say God must exist because you defined him in such a way that he must exist. But you haven't defined God in such a way that he/she/it must necessarily exist. You just assume that it exists as you define it. I do have an idea of what God is "supposed to" be.
Does it seem strange to you that atheists are able to talk coherently about God - even your version of God, as you define it - without having any concept of it? What if there's no God to have a relationship with? What if that relationship you think you have is a delusion? So, why don't you answer your own question of the thread, Jan? If God is real, how do you know? So faith is just hope - wishful thinking under a different name? It doesn't follow that just because you hope they'll be okay, there must be a "something" or a "someone" you're trusting.
If an atheist cannot believe in God, how is it that an atheist can "transition to theist"? And how is it that atheists can be former theists?
By ceasing you deny and reject God. Only an atheist can conclude there is no God. Otherwise there is no such sentiment.
But how is that possible? You told me that no atheist can ever believe in God, because their atheism stops it from happening. Nah. When theists conclude there is (probably) no God, that's when they become atheists.
My point is, you are deciding what the evidence should be. I do believe in God, naturally. A lot of atheists say that the reason they left religion, and became atheist, was due to science. They say things like, when they asked questions, most probably about origins, and the A+E account, they were left wanting. Then they heard about the theory of evolution, and Kazzam -allah-kaboo, it all became clear. That is a clear indication that they didn’t believe in God, but thought religious life, was a good way to live. Having found the intellectual stability in Darwinism, they could now be themselves, and express their true position. Come out of the closet. So to speak. Atheists get caught up in religion. They think religion and theism are the same thing. So it follows that they were theists, because they were religious. But that is simply not the case. Religion is basically a set of rules, laid out for its adherents to follow. Ultimately becoming fluent in their expression of that particular religion. These rules lay out the foundation of every aspect of their life. While it applies to theists, it also applies to a whole host of lifestyles, which are not based on theism? That something else is also God. The alternative ultimately ends up being illogical assertions. The origin of everything has to be, by definition, distinct from everything. No different to a watchmaker must be distinct from the watch. It is absurd to conclude that the watch formed itself, or that the watch came together by natural processes, or that the watch evolved from a common ancestor. The conclusion of that has to have come about by adding ideas that cannot be experienced. Like adding inordinate lengths of time, to complete the process. This is an outrageous violation of Occam’s Razor. It is more honest to assume an intelligent cause. There are things that don’t have to be proven. They just logically follow on. I personally don’t use terms like “my God”, or “your God”. I just say God, because God just Is. There is a difference in knowing the chemical properties of water, and knowing that water quenches your thirst. Knowing God Is, is like the quenching of thirst, over knowing the chemical properties of everything. The confusion doesn’t lie in whether or not God exists. It lies in what is the nature of God, and why it is called “God”. God can just be a force, because “a force” is within God’s attributes. It just means that you don’t believe God has a personality, or is capable of being anything more than a force. We also agree that with existence, there is also nonexistence. Meaning that if something exists, it can also not exist, and will eventually not exist. Which is why the “does God exist” question is a loaded one. Everything obviously exists, and will eventually not exist. It is a sound logical inference, that if some type of agency brought everything into existence, the agent must be distinct from the effect. That is why it is deemed transcendental. The only other alternatives are that some aspect of everything is everlasting, or somehow it managed to bring itself in. Which basically defaults to being everlasting. Of the two, a transcendent cause is a more plausible account, IMO of course. Hopefully this response will explain. But those people do not rely on the evidences they cite, to aid their belief. They simply enter into the world of skeptics, to show that even in your world there are good reasons to believe in God. That’s not how we use definitions. As a theist, I have an idea of the object of my belief. I can define it. I’m not say I’ve defined it, therefore it exists. What you are attempting to do, is change the way we use definitions, so that we think we can’t define God. If there is no definition of God, then we can insert anything. In this way the theists explanatory power, is compromised, whereas the atheist explanatory powers appears to have increased. Especially as they can now add their definitions to the pot. But the reality is, the definition of God has to be the transcendental origin of everything, which is why we believe, and not believe, in God. While I do prefer it, I don’t use it because I prefer it. What are we talking about, if not that definition of God? Atheist cannot define God, but that does not mean that theists can’t. Essentially they want their cake and eat it too. I would like to hear that.
They can’t, anymore than a blindfolded person can see. If I am A, I can’t be B at the same time. I know I don’t have to explain that to you. Such a “theist”, would be an atheist, or more than likely, an agnostic atheist. Because you can’t logically conclude there is no transcendental origin of everything, without violating Occam’s Razor. So their beef would be with the nature of God, not the existence of God.
