Off-topic posts from the "Evidence that God is real" thread

[Jan Ardena]

One day you'll surprise us, Jan. I await that day with eagerness.

So you’re not going to give your opinion on the evidence, I take it?

Jan.

 

[billvon]

No I’ve put forward the source.
Let me know what you think.

I think your source supports genocide, thinks gays cannot be moral, and believes in evolution.

If you are putting forward that source for what you believe in, then you support genocide, think gays cannot be moral, and believe in evolution.

Simple.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I think your source supports genocide, thinks gays cannot be moral, and believes in evolution.

If you are putting forward that source for what you believe in, then you support genocide, think gays cannot be moral, and believe in evolution.

Simple.

What does this have to with the OP?

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

Observe - and note the odd inability to find the right word or keep the grammar together, the consistently weird ESL-like choice of words and structures that don't actually make sense, the consistent pattern of making less sense to someone reading carefully than to someone casually skimming.
- - -
oA theist:
The ones laid out by Bill Craig.
What is the evidence that he puts forth that you agree with?
All of them.
William Craig has asserted that the Earth is hollow.
So, you are perfectly comfortable with backing that assertion as evidence for God, are you?
Is that part of the evidence?
No?
So wtf?
- - -
In the light of that exchange:

The OP asks us to put forward what we think is good evidence that God is real. That’s exactly what I’ve done.

It is not reasonable to believe this is an honest posting. Lying to themselves, or us, or an imagined audience of casual readers, is the only remotely plausible set of inferences.

And in that light, the following tactical maneuvers (all from very recent posting, not the hundreds of archived and similar here) indicate consciousness, self awareness:

I’ve said nothing about science types, and what I have remarked about the psychology of atheists in this thread, has not been disparaging.
- - - - -
I’ve put forward what I think is good evidence, and all some of you have done is moan and whine because you have to make a little effort.
I don’t really care to try and prove it, anymore than you would care to try and disprove it.
But why ask for evidence, when for you, in your current condition, there can never be?
That’s what it is about. It is about burying anything that could remind you of God.
Why don’t you just admit it, instead of carrying on with this charade?
I’ve set all of them as decent evidence, so take you pick.
I’m more interested in hearing what you have to say about it, and God in general. There’s no requests for theists to specifically discuss why they think God is real, while the atheists just sit back and reject and deny.
It doesn’t work. It never had done, and it never will as long as we stick to this anal format.
Will do as soon as someone wants to actually discuss. Unfortunately this thread seems to be populated with the usual defensive atheists, who do not know, or more importantly, want to know squat about God, or theism, only defending their worldview.
I have done, via a source Bill Craig.
I’m not going to start writing it out, and am waiting to see if there are any discussions worth having.
Why? Just read anything he regards as evidence, then post or not, why you think it isn’t.

Giving this kind of post the "benefit of the doubt" enables the destruction of discussion in good faith, which is its apparent tactic in pursuit of its most solidly indicated agenda.

The only interesting feature of the posts by these guys in these threads is this:

The overt Abrahamic theists posting in science forums are - all of them, consistently - deeply and fundamentally dishonest in their posting. Their posts are dishonorable, unethical, and presented in bad faith. Their role is independent of their content.

And that is an interesting topic. Anything else involving them has become complicity.
- - - -

But you may think he doesn’t have evidence, and I may think differently

Or maybe not, or maybe the other way around, or whatever, eh?

Or maybe what these guys are doing here is something else entirely, part of something they and their fellow fundies are doing in the world generally, and its political parallels are not coincidental.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Observe - and note the odd inability to find the right word or keep the grammar together, the consistently weird ESL-like choice of words and structures that don't actually make sense, the consistent pattern of making less sense to someone reading carefully than to someone casually skimming.
- - -
oA theist:
The ones laid out by Bill Craig.
What is the evidence that he puts forth that you agree with?
All of them.
William Craig has asserted that the Earth is hollow.
So, you are perfectly comfortable with backing that assertion as evidence for God, are you?
Is that part of the evidence?
No?
So wtf?
- - -
In the light of that exchange:

Because putting forward evidence of God, hollow earth, and homophobia are all related.
Aren’t they?

It is not reasonable to believe this is an honest posting. Lying to themselves, or us, or an imagined audience of casual readers, is the only remotely plausible set of inferences.

Is this how you reason about God?
Make stuff up in your mind, that suits your current feeling, then convince yourself it undeniably correct?

And in that light, the following tactical maneuvers (all from very recent posting, not the hundreds of archived and similar here) indicate consciousness, self awareness:

Huh!

The rest of your post seems to be some kind of fantasy you have in you head. Not that the whole post didn’t have the same kind of feel. The first part was just a little more intelligible.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

Because putting forward evidence of God, hollow earth, and homophobia are all related.
Aren’t they?

They are, in Craig's writings.
That should be irrelevant here, of course, since Craig is not present.

Is this how you reason about God?

Not yet - such reasoning requires evidence, etc, posted on this thread.

Make stuff up in your mind, that suits your current feeling, then convince yourself it undeniably correct?

You could try posting honestly and in good faith. Then, if I were to continue to describe your posts as dishonest, you could post declarative sentences and direct accusations instead of accountability-dodging bad faith questions.

 

[Jan Ardena]

They are, in Craig's writings.

That’s not what a I asked.

Are they part of WCL argument for evidence of God?

Not yet - such reasoning requires evidence, etc, posted on this thread.

Not if you stay true to form, and try to make things that fit your worldview, true.

You could try posting honestly and in good faith.

You should respond to threads as ifyou don’t know the person you’re discussing with, and try to stop controlling both sides of the discussion. You’re always wrong.

Then, if I were to continue to describe your posts as dishonest, you could post declarative sentences and direct accusations instead of accountability-dodging bad faith questions.

You’d just be carrying on the trend of fooling yourself.
What is wrong with you?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

“The Underlying Intention”

Sorry, did I look like I was hiding something? Have I been too subtle?

You lack conviction. You talk like you believe in God, but you don't have confidence in your belief except to yourself.

Which is what I've been asserting all along: your beliefs are internal - that they have no communication with the outside world - believer or non-believer-alike.

That must have been hard to admit.

 

[DaveC426913]

You should respond to threads as ifyou don’t know the person you’re discussing with,

Ah but we do. We know the you that you have chosen to present here, and that is all that matters. You could be the Pope in real life; it only matters how you comport yourself here.

You argue in bad faith.

 

[billvon]

What does this have to with the OP?

Q: All or any of which arguments, Jan?
Jan: The ones laid out by Bill Craig.

You have said you adhere to the arguments laid out by Bill Craig. Bill Craig supports genocide, thinks gays cannot be moral, and believes in evolution.

Let's see if I can make this any simpler.

Joe: "I think genocide is great! It was in the Bible. And God is a man! And of course he exists; if everything exists, he exists too!"
Jan: "I believe Joe's arguments. All of them. If you have any questions about it, refer to what he says."

Simple conclusion; Jan supports genocide. Supported by Jan's own words.

If you need this made any simpler, I will see if I can do it with one syllable words.

 

[Michael 345]

If you need this made any simpler, I will see if I can do it with one syllable words.

You might also need the crayon font

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sorry, did I look like I was hiding something?

Yes.

You lack conviction. You talk like you believe in God, but you don't have confidence in your belief except to yourself.

An atheist perspective on God, theism, or theists. Cracks me up.

Which is what I've been asserting all along: your beliefs are internal - that they have no communication with the outside world - believer or non-believer-alike.

That must have been hard to admit.

I actually prefer when you are like this, rather than pretending to like science, and believing that you are a reasonable, logical person.
You just seem to flow better.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Q: All or any of which arguments, Jan?
Jan: The ones laid out by Bill Craig.

You have said you adhere to the arguments laid out by Bill Craig. Bill Craig supports genocide, thinks gays cannot be moral, and believes in evolution.

Let's see if I can make this any simpler.

Joe: "I think genocide is great! It was in the Bible. And God is a man! And of course he exists; if everything exists, he exists too!"
Jan: "I believe Joe's arguments. All of them. If you have any questions about it, refer to what he says."

Simple conclusion; Jan supports genocide. Supported by Jan's own words.

If you need this made any simpler, I will see if I can do it with one syllable words.

I think you need to make it simpler. So calm down, take a deep breath, and think carefully about what you’re going to say.

How is, homosexuality, genocide, and hollow earth, related to the theme of this thread?

Do you think you can answer that for anyone who is not a desperate atheist willing to pull at any straw.

Thanks in advance.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's kind of painful to read almost anything Bill Craig writes.

Check out this logic:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

So, how does Bill rationalize premise #2? His words: "I don't see any reason to think that in the absence of God, human morality is objective."

So, with his specific reason in place of the generalization, we get this:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. I don't see any reason why moral values would be objective without God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

In other words, he begs the question. He uses the basic faulty logic of assuming his conclusion in his premise. He is literally saying 'It seems to be so because it seems to make sense to me'.

Note that this is not evidence, this is simply a belief he's stating. It just happens to have a grade school level flaw in it.

Other arguments he holds have the exact same question-begging error.


To cut him a break, I've re-written his argument to make it valid:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. I don't see any reason why moral values would be objective without God.
3. Therefore, I don't see any reason why God doesn't exist.

So how do you determine if something is objectively morally good, or objectively morally bad? IOW what is your reference point?

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

"They are, in Craig's writings."
That’s not what a I asked.

Yes, it is. It is a direct answer of your question.
Note the comma. Unfamiliar as the concept may be, other people write for meaning.

Are they part of WCL argument for evidence of God?

For the reality of God.
Yes.

You should respond to threads as ifyou don’t know the person you’re discussing with, and try to stop controlling both sides of the discussion.

I do. I base everything on the posts right here.
Yours, for example, are obviously dishonest and posted in bad faith, and have been for years over thousands of posts. Who you are, how you came to abuse these forums in that way, and so forth, hasn't come up.
This isn't a discussion, with you. You aren't on a "side", here.

How is, homosexuality, genocide, and hollow earth, related to the theme of this thread?

We don't know.
You linked to Bill Craig, and declared all his arguments and evidence relevant here. You didn't say how.

You mean you don't know either?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.

1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being.
3. The universe is a contingent thing.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being.

(II) God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

1. The universe began to exist.
2. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a transcendent cause.
3. Therefore the universe has a transcendent cause.

(III) God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world.

1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, God exists.

(IV) God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

(V) God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.

1. If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist.
2. But intentional states of consciousness do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

(V) God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

1. Objective more values and duties exist.
2. But if God did not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

(VII) The very possibility of God's existence implies that God exists.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.

(VIII) God can be personally known and experienced.

Can you point out where homosexuality, genocide, and hollow earth are mentioned,!or implied?

Thanks in advance.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

Can you point out where homosexuality, genocide, and hollow earth are mentioned,!or implied?

If you look closely, you will notice that the author you linked there is named "Yazata". My source for Craig's arguments and evidence is named "Craig". It's the source you provided, remember?

 

[Jan Ardena]

We don't know..

You should inform Bilvon cause he really thinks he’s on to something.

Jan

 

[iceaura]

You should inform Bilvon cause he really thinks he’s on to something.

Bilvon says he doesn't know either. He keeps asking you - that's what a question mark means in honest posting, if you have forgotten.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you look closely, you will notice that the author you linked there is named "Yazata". My source for Craig's arguments and evidence is named "Craig". It's the source you provided, remember?

Yes. I used Yazata’s collection WLC quotes on evidence for God.

That is basically all of Craig’s arguments for God’s existence (basically).

What of it?

Jan.