Not at all. They are merely theists who consider God to be supernatural. Correct. It merely proves that theists consider God to be supernatural. You are assuming I am an atheist, as in your worldview I must be. Meanwhile, still not a single attempt to post evidence that God exists.
Of course not. They're theists. It isn't exclusive. It is definitive, centrally characteristic - as per the dictionary definition of the word, which is where one finds definitive characteristics, by definition. So? Yep. But until then, it's easy - and at the rate the overt theists here are providing evidence for a real, not-a-mere-concept, god, it's going to be easy for a long time. - - - - There isn't any there. There wasn't the last five times you sent people snipe hunting in that direction, either.
All the overt Abrahamic theists posting here have used "argument" and "evidence" interchangeably, one time or another. Their wordfogging - the semi-literate incoherent shoveling of words that do not in context and collectively actually mean anything that can be held to reason - is consistent and characteristic.
Taking stock of this thread 660 posts in, I have to say that it's quite remarkable that the theists have spent virtually all their time talking about things other than evidence for God. Suppose that instead of asking for evidence for God, I had asked "Can you present what you consider to be good evidence that Donald Trump is a fool?" Or if I had asked "What's some good evidence that electrons are real?" Or even (using one of Jan's favorite comparisons) "What's some good evidence that love is real?" I would expect that participants in any of those threads would be able to jump in fairly quickly to provide evidence. For some questions, possible evidence would spring to mind almost immediately. Of course, it is possible that not everybody would agree on whether the evidence that was presented really supported the contention (e.g. that Trump is a fool), and a discussion could ensue. But that first hurdle - presenting some evidence - is a low one, easily cleared. Even for the question about love, we could immediately point to evidence, possibly from first-hand experience, but also from observations of other people's actions. Again, it is possible that some people might question the strength of the evidence that was presented, but there is little doubt that posters could offer up some evidence. And yet, when it comes to evidence for God, we have next to nothing, 660 posts into the thread. Moreover, we see the theists scrambling to find excuses not to present the evidence they claim they have easily to hand. It looks a lot like a desperate attempt to cover up an inability. Or perhaps the refusal to present the evidence comes from a place of fear - perhaps fear that the evidence will be dismissed or ridiculed. There is a lot of evidence of that, especially from Jan Ardena, who keeps insisting that, yes, evidence for God exists, but no, he won't present it because he fears that the evil atheists will reject whatever is presented. My own assessment is that Jan and Musika are keen to make excuses because, in fact, some of the other theists here (probably the ones who aren't doing theism "right", according to Jan and Musika) have already presented what is the best evidence for God: the fact of existence itself.(Kudos to those theists for your honesty in answering the question in good faith, as well as making an effort, neither of which Jan, in particular, has managed so far.) Jan and Musika probably realise they can't offer anything better, so they just pretend there is more and try to string the thread along. I think that the fact of existence itself probably is the best available evidence for God. Unfortunately, even the best just isn't that convincing, and therein lies the rub for dogmatic theists like Jan and Musika. With nothing better to offer, all they have left is the distraction game. Don't look at the evidence, please. Look at something else!
Jan has said repeatedly that anything by Bill Craig is as good as any other. He has also said repeatedly that it is up to us to go find it, and that he'll be happy with whatever we find. At the very least, he'll stop sating that. He will have to, as has been requested of him innumerable times, point us at something specific, something he likes and can defend. It's progress of a sort. More than I've seen in many pages of posts. I'll take it.
Except it's a tautology. It refers only to itself for confirmation. It's also unfalsifiable. A pretty good thing to use if you don't want anyone actually checking out your argument.
I will not post Bill Craig but here is perhaps the next best thing **** John Prytz The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked! Cosmologists have shown based on observational evidence that our Universe had a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago which is traditionally called the Big Bang event. Logic, or at least intuition dictates that this Big Bang event had a cause. There must have been some reason why the Universe came into existence. Theists however amend this logic to intuitively say, actually state, actually conclude that there was a reason for this act of creation. God did it. Alas, that conclusion doesn't arise of necessity from the premises. The Kalam Cosmological Argument as oft stated by theists, most notably William Lane Craig, is as follows. 1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2) Premise: The Universe began to exist. 3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause. If the argument stopped there, well all's well that ends well. Relatively few people would have problems with the cosmological argument as given above. But, and there is always a “but” to have to consider, theists like William Lane Craig immediately leap to one further conclusion. 4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God* because the entity behind the creation of the Universe had to have been itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, space-less, an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will. [To be quite honest, this is yet another pure leap into a philosophical God-of-the-gaps conclusion. If the cause is unknown, if there is a gap in our knowledge needing to be filled, the unknown must be God.] Allow me to amend the above slightly. 1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 1A) Firstly this is just an appeal to intuition and intuition isn't always a pure pathway to truth (i.e. - intuition states that the Sun goes around the Earth). There may indeed always be a cause for anything and everything that has or ever will come into existence, including whatever came into existence at the Big Bang event (the postulated beginning of our Universe), but that cause isn't always evident. Some quantum physicists would in fact claim that there are uncaused things (i.e. - radioactivity). 1B) Whatever cause in itself that has come into existence has, IMHO, thus resulted from a previous cause, which had a previous cause which had a previous cause and that chain can be extended as far back as you wish. Stated another way, there is no such thing as a First Cause. 1C) Whatever thing that came into existence came into existence from a previous thing(s) which existed and which in turn came into existence from a previous thing(s) which in turn came into existence from yet a previous thing and so on as far back as you wish to go. Stated another way, you can only bring something into existence from a previous something. You cannot bring a material something into existence from pure nothingness or from anything immaterial. 2) Premise: The Universe began to exist. 2A) I need note here that the "Universe" is defined as the sum total of all the bits and pieces that collectively make up the, or our, "Universe". The "Universe" is just the label we give to all of those bits and pieces (particles, atoms, molecules, dust, rocks, planets, stars, etc.) that came into existence in-the-beginning or later emerged into existence out of simpler states (i.e. – molecules from atoms). 2B) The assumption here is that our Universe is the be-all-and-end-all of the Cosmos**. While that may be the case, it's not necessarily so. Just because you came into existence doesn't mean that others don't also exist. Our Universe could be one of many. There could be parallel universes or even a postulated Multiverse or Megaverse - maybe. 3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause. 3A) The effect (resulting from the cause) of the Universe coming into existence or coming into being is called the Big Bang event, so the cause of the Universe (i.e. - the cause of the Big Bang event) was something prior to the Big Bang event. If the Universe had a cause then that cause was obviously pre-Universe or before the Big Bang event. 3B) That's where the cosmological buck has to stop since we can't observe or measure anything prior to the Big Bang event. 3C) In context all we can say is that our Universe came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang event and that the Big Bang event had a cause. That says nothing about the larger context as suggested in 2B. It could be that our Universe popped into existence from within a larger Cosmos just like a baby pops out of the womb at birth. 4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God. 4A) Nearly all theists state that the cause of the Universe was due to an omnipresent (all-present), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), all-loving, perfectly moral, and perfectly benevolent Almighty Being (i.e. - God). However these traits along with an entity who is itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, and space-less; an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will, aren't verified; aren't all mutually inclusive and logical, with many an inherent philosophical inconsistency as well as many being actually contradicted by Biblical chapter-and-verse passages (i.e. - God is hardly all-loving). 4B) But a supernatural deity with some or all of these traits is also a total fallacy even if for no other reason than that the Cosmos has to be eternal (temporally infinite) since as I noted above there can be no First Cause and because you can't, and not even God can, create something material from the immaterial. It's a logical contradiction to postulate the creation / existence of an absolute something from an absolute state of pure nothingness and even God has to conform to logic (i.e. - God can't create a spherical cube). If you can't create something from nothing then something has always existed. If the Cosmos is infinite or endlessly cyclic, an infinitely repeating causal loop where A causes B and B in turn causes A, then what need for a God? If therefore, as theists want, that the Cosmos is finite since infinities aren't possible (i.e. - they tend to throw spanners into theistic philosophies - see 4D), then God too is temporally finite, therefore had a beginning and therefore had a cause. That of course contradicts the concept of an eternal deity and raises the obvious question, what caused God? If God is eternal then God created the Cosmos and our Universe an infinite time ago which is clearly not the case. 4C) Since science can't explain or actually identify the "cause" that caused the existence of our Universe, on the grounds that the cause preceded the Big Bang event and thus this cause can't be observed or measured, theists step into the gap and conclude that God is that cause. This God-of-the-gaps conclusion is also a fallacy since there are numerous other alternatives. The cause of the Universe could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any deity or deities from any of the world's hundreds of creation mythologies. Maybe it was just a natural Big Crunch (a contracting universe) turning inside out at crunch time into a Big Bang; maybe an unknown and perhaps unknowable other natural cause we haven’t imagined yet; perhaps a quantum fluctuation; even perhaps (and this is my bias) a mortal, fallible, flesh-and-blood computer / software programmer fills the gap. God is only one hypothesis of many. 4D) Theists, even some cosmologists mistakenly say that there can't be an infinite Cosmos due to entropy (the state of useable energy available). An infinite Cosmos would have attained a state of maximum entropy an infinite time ago but that is not what we observe. I contend that at the moment of the Big Bang the clock was reset to time equals zero; the Universe was restored to original factory settings (including a state of minimum entropy). Consider this analogy. You only started ageing, started running down, and started increasing your entropy, at your conception. That's when your clock started. That state of conception was your original factory condition. What came before was irrelevant since as far as you are concerned, there was no before (although clearly there was). You had a cause therefore there was a state that existed before you. That cause was your parents and their state of entropy is an irrelevance as far as you (their child) is concerned at conception. So the Big Bang is analogous to your conception. What caused the Big Bang is analogous to your parents. The state of entropy before the Big Bang and before your conception is irrelevant to our Universe and your conception. * Your own personal version of God of course is The God of choice - of course. ** The Cosmos being all that ever was, is or ever will be. https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-debunked **** Sorry John Prytz's debunk did have the name Bill Craig in Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Jan, although I have you on Iggy have you a response about John Prytz trashing Bill Craig? Or perhaps a better example Bill Craig's evidence YOU can post? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't expect that Jan will ever post any actual evidence, not to this thread. Right now, he's sticking his bottom lip out, putting his hands on his hips and saying "shan't!" I expect him to keep pouting and not to budge. He thinks that's a win: not acceding to the unreasonable demands of the evil atheists. How dare those people ask him to cough up actual evidence. The nerve!
Agree. But I've put the knife to the one straw he has been clinging to. His talking points have gone from one to zero.
That's a fairly succinct dismissal of the Kalam cosmological argument. However, I ask that you do not discuss that further in this thread, since it is off topic. A philosophical argument - which is what the Kalam argument is - is not evidence, well not exactly. The argument attempts to show that God is a logical necessity, with the implication that whatever is logically necessary must exist in reality. But even if we were to discover that something is logically necessary, we'd still have to check by other means whether it was real. The reason is that the logical necessity follows from the truth of the premises that lead to the conclusion of the argument. The truth of the premises is not to be found in the argument itself. That can only be established in other ways. So, if the argument can be shown to be valid (which is doubtful, in the case of the Kalam argument) we could look for evidence at either end of the argument. Finding evidence for the truth of either the premises or the conclusion would establish the reality of God. Needless to say, neither kind of evidence has been presented in this thread.
Seriously? Seriously? not to this thread Seriously? Are you that optimistic that somewhat in the Universe there is a thread where Jan WOULD post evidence? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Shoot! You want to discuss with Bill. Is that what you're saying? You can always go to Bill's website and pose your questions. Either Bill, or one of his associates will get back to you. Very quickly I have found. Next! There are no ''favourite bits of evidence''. If you are too lazy to read what Bill says, that is not my problem. You act as though I made those 600 posts. Theists aren't the ones constantly trying to justify their theism. Theists accept that you have chosen to be without God. If a line is to be drawn, it is drawn at the point you try to force your delusion on to us. Next! I'm not asserting anything. Which is why I have put forward my source. Craig says it way more ''succinctly'' that I ever could. You can make it as small as you like mate. Blame that on JameR, having to respond to his novel size posts. I'm more comfortable giving myself a two line limit to my responses wherever possible. I have done. Check out Bill Craig's evidence for God. jan.
Just as I thought. The thread is a sham. You're not interested in evidence, only in self-justification. I have been down this road with you quite a few times over the years, and it always leads to the same place. You justifying your belief. So don't talk to me about wild goose chases. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And I have given you a whole source of information of what I regard as decent evidence. No it's not. Read above. And that's what I have done. I don't need to post an example. You need to check out my source, if your question is sincere. Yet another baseless assumption. I've no need to make excuses, or avoid anything you put forward James. jan.
So you think that is the cosmological argument as put forward by Craig? Look again. At least you accept it as my evidence. See, I knew all this ''you should present it'' was a load of balony. jan.
Maybe James has convinced himself that God is like any other object. Check out Bill Craigs evidence for God. jan.
And until that point, the best explanation of the evidence stands' If that is all we have as evidence, then evidence is what it is. Says you. A person who actively, and willingly denies and rejects God. jan.
You are appealing to people with the same mindset as your own. You are basically desperate for self-justification. You're the one who started the thread. You assume that that one needs external evidence to know that God Is. Why do you make this, and other assumptions about God and theism. Why do you persist in making them, when you have been told, a good many times, that's not how it goes? Why haven't you listened over the years to the reasons given, as to why it does not go like that? I'm inclined to believe you're not listening. That you have an agenda, which has nothing to do with God (as currently for you there is none). As for if I have evidence for God. Yes I have. And I have given you the source. Here it is again- check out Bill Craig. I think his evidence for God is pretty decent. Google - William Craig evidence for God. Then just stick to bits that are evidence for God. Maybe not. But your lack of acceptance does not allow you to accept who/what God is/means. So to dialoug with you on this subject is waste of time (based on past experience). So I'm coming with a different approach. That is my prerogative. I did. Read again. So why make the assumption that it could even be possible for something to exist outside of God? I doubt you have to be specific with Bill Craig. Don't worry about it then. So? My question still stands. Yes. Check out Bill Craigs evidence for God. Yes. Check out Bill Craigs evidence for God. Check out Bill Craigs evidence for God. Yes. Check out Bill Craigs evedence for God. ''Again''? Yes, from an atheist perspective. I.E. denial and rejection of God. Hardly a good basis for the discussion of what is a serious topic. We're gonna need to purge that intention, or at least develop the ability to put it on hold, while we discuss. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
