Technically speaking, everyone is agnostic

[Archaeopteryx]

You will have to research the matter.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are both free and available at the click of a mouse button. Begin there.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I'm well aware of both. However, you're the one asking the question, not me. Until you can provide a description of the sort of God you want me to form a preference about, I cannot form a preference.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Surely you do not want me to believe that you do not care about such a matter of supreme importance as whether or not God exists?

Why is it a matter of supreme importance? This is why you need to provide a description of the sort of God you want us to form a preference about. If it is Pascal's God, then it is indeed a matter of supreme importance because one's soul depends upon faith in such a God. If, however, it is an apathetic God who couldn't care less about human souls, then it is no longer a matter of supreme importance.

In short: Without a sufficiently detailed description of the deity, how can one know whether it is supremely important, much less preferable, to believe in that deity?

 

[Elioenai26]

That does not make sense. For example, how does the concept of "sin" work if the ToE is accurate?

Please reference the works of those more qualified than I who do not see the ToE and the biblical concept of sin as mutually exclusive and incompatible/irreconcilable. I do not want to get too far off topic by talking here about ToE.

Do you think the ToE is accurate?

The "ToE" can be understood in several different ways. So your question is vague and as such, I will refrain from answering. This is not the thread for in depth discussion regarding ToE anyway.

Just who's interpretation of which bible are we talking about?

The most widely used and most current edition of the Old Testament used by Biblical scholars is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) and the most widely used and most current edition of the New Testament is the NA28 (Nestle-Aland) Novum Testamentum Graece, Standard 28th edition published by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (the German Bible Society).

Most critical passages in said texts are uncontroversial and undisputed regarding their interpretation. Of course some passages are interpreted differently and this is predominately determined by one's ability to exegete said texts.

The existence of numerous and oftentimes patently erroneous interpretations of said texts does not mean there is not one right interpretation regarding a portion of the text, but simply that there are many people who are wrong about their interpretations. Not unlike the fact that there are several different interpretations/opinions/views regarding certain aspects of quantum physics. This variance does not mean that there is no right and accurate description or interpretation of the various aspects and inner workings related to quantum physics, but rather, that some are simply wrong and that to be determined by further study which will hopefully lead to a better understanding of the disputed aspects of that field of study.

So when you ask: "Who's interpretation?"

I would simply respond by saying that one must read the texts for themselves honestly, openly, and as objectively as is humanly possible.

 

[Eudaimonist]

All of that is well and good.

But it is still not an answer to the question.

Yes, it is. It's just not the answer you wanted. I cannot answer you in any other way and give you an authentic reply.

But do you honestly want me and everyone here to believe you actually do not care whether God exists or not?

Yes.

You see, this is nothing more than apatheism.

I don't mind being called an apatheist, but it may be more helpful for you to view it a bit like the Serenity Prayer, which is Stoic in attitude:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

I have desires, as I had explained, but my desires have to do with:

1) A desire to know reality for what it is
2) A desire to act appropriately in reality

Surely you do not want me to believe that you do not care about such a matter of supreme importance as whether or not God exists?

This may be a matter of supreme importance to you, but it isn't one to me. I don't take the possibility of God's existence seriously. It would be like being concerned that Zeus or Cthulhu exists.

As I had said, though, I do want to know reality for what it is, and that includes whether or not it has deities. However, that doesn't mean I either want deities to exist or not. It means only that I want reliable knowledge.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm well aware of both. However, you're the one asking the question, not me. Until you can provide a description of the sort of God you want me to form a preference about, I cannot form a preference.

Then don't.

I am not going to do your homework for you. That is your responsibility, not mine.

I have told you ad nauseum what Christian apologists and philosophers mean when they use the word "God" with a capital "G".

Refer to those posts.

 

[Illuminaughty]

What about those folks who "experience" in the mystical sense the unity of Oneness with an underlining power that reaches into everything in existence? For those folks, it's not a "belief" that they hold. It's something that they actually experience as their reality in life.

Having an experience of being one with the universe is evidence of the human ability to have an experience with that specific feeling quality. To go beyond that and interpret the experience as implying the existence of a being called "God" takes one away from the relatively more certain knowledge of direct experience and into the realm of speculation. It certainly appears to me that people interpret similar experiences of that nature in a varity of differnt ways as well. I've had experiences of oneness and yet I don't believe in a God for example. A Buddhist, Atheist materialist, a Wiccan and a Christian having the same experience might interpret it's meaning in radically different ways. On those grounds I don't think the simple experience of a feeling of oneness can be taken as conclusive evidence of God. It's certainly worth taking into consideration and pondering though I would think.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then don't.

I am not going to do your homework for you. That is your responsibility, not mine.

I have told you ad nauseum what Christian apologists and philosophers mean when they use the word "God" with a capital "G".

Refer to those posts.

From recollection, you've given various shallow descriptions of what being the greatest conceivable being entails, but nothing of sufficient detail to expect a person to form an informed preference either way.

The question "Would you prefer the greatest conceivable being to exist or not to exist?" rings somewhat hollow compared to the question of "Would you prefer the Biblical God to exist or not to exist?" This is an instance in which specificity can help to fine tune a person's preferences. Instead, you've latched onto the most non-specific definition you could possibly find.

 

[Davian]

Please reference the works of those more qualified than I who do not see the ToE and the biblical concept of sin as mutually exclusive and incompatible/irreconcilable. I do not want to get too far off topic by talking here about ToE.

The "ToE" can be understood in several different ways. So your question is vague and as such, I will refrain from answering. This is not the thread for in depth discussion regarding ToE anyway.

No, "evolution" can be understood in several different ways. The theory of evolution (ToE) is science, and I do not recall seeing anywhere that it allowed for intervention by and of deities.

I asked for your opinion. As you said a few pages ago, your evasion is noted.

The most widely used and most current edition of the Old Testament used by Biblical scholars is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) and the most widely used and most current edition of the New Testament is the NA28 (Nestle-Aland) Novum Testamentum Graece, Standard 28th edition published by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (the German Bible Society).

Most critical passages in said texts are uncontroversial and undisputed regarding their interpretation. Of course some passages are interpreted differently and this is predominately determined by one's ability to exegete said texts.

The existence of numerous and oftentimes patently erroneous interpretations of said texts does not mean there is not one right interpretation regarding a portion of the text, but simply that there are many people who are wrong about their interpretations. Not unlike the fact that there are several different interpretations/opinions/views regarding certain aspects of quantum physics. This variance does not mean that there is no right and accurate description or interpretation of the various aspects and inner workings related to quantum physics, but rather, that some are simply wrong and that to be determined by further study which will hopefully lead to a better understanding of the disputed aspects of that field of study.

So when you ask: "Who's interpretation?"

I would simply respond by saying that one must read the texts for themselves honestly, openly, and as objectively as is humanly possible.

I have done that. My interpretation is that there is nothing to them, other than ancient people trying to explain the world around them, with undertones of being a means of controlling the populace.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca, Roman philosopher (c. 3 BCE - 65 CE)

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, it is. It's just not the answer you wanted. I cannot answer you in any other way and give you an authentic reply.



Yes.



I don't mind being called an apatheist, but it may be more helpful for you to view it a bit like the Serenity Prayer, which is Stoic in attitude:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

I have desires, as I had explained, but my desires have to do with:

1) A desire to know reality for what it is
2) A desire to act appropriately in reality



This may be a matter of supreme importance to you, but it isn't one to me. I don't take the possibility of God's existence seriously. It would be like being concerned that Zeus or Cthulhu exists.

As I had said, though, I do want to know reality for what it is, and that includes whether or not it has deities. However, that doesn't mean I either want deities to exist or not. It means only that I want reliable knowledge.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If I may zoom in on something you said and get clarification...

"As I had said, though, I do want to know reality for what it is, and that includes whether or not it has deities."

When I asked you if you wanted me to believe you do not care whether God exists or not, you said:

"Yes."

So on one hand, you do not care whether God exists or not, and on the other you do want to know if God exists.

Tell me how this is not a contradiction.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, "evolution" can be understood in several different ways. The theory of evolution (ToE) is science, and I do not recall seeing anywhere that it allowed for intervention by and of deities.

Ok, so you do not recall.

That seems like evidence of your limited knowledge and or memory recall. Either way, it is kind of off topic.

I asked for your opinion. As you said a few pages ago, your evasion is noted.

There is an area designed for discussion regarding ToE. Post there and if I feel it to be important, I will promise to reply and not be evasive as you have accused me of being.

I have done that. My interpretation is that there is nothing to them, other than ancient people trying to explain the world around them, with undertones of being a means of controlling the populace.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca, Roman philosopher (c. 3 BCE - 65 CE)

Thank you for sharing your views with us. They are noted.

Anything else?

 

[Davian]

Ok, so you do not recall.

That seems like evidence of your limited knowledge and or memory recall. Either way, it is kind of off topic.

lol. If there was any science that allowed for the intervention by deities, we would't be having this conversation.

And it was on topic, as part of rifling through which "God" was the subject of your hypotheticals.

There is an area designed for discussion regarding ToE. Post there and if I feel it to be important, I will promise to reply and not be evasive as you have accused me of being.

Covering your evasion with more evasion - it was just a yes or no question. Does not WLC accept evolutionary theory?

Thank you for sharing your views with us. They are noted.

Anything else?

I would ask that of you, but then, I think I already know that answer...

 

[Elioenai26]

From recollection, you've given various shallow descriptions of what being the greatest conceivable being entails, but nothing of sufficient detail to expect a person to form an informed preference either way.

The question "Would you prefer the greatest conceivable being to exist or not to exist?" rings somewhat hollow compared to the question of "Would you prefer the Biblical God to exist or not to exist?" This is an instance in which specificity can help to fine tune a person's preferences. Instead, you've latched onto the most non-specific definition you could possibly find.

When I use the word "God", I am referring to the Greatest Conceivable Being i.e the Highest Good or Summum Bonum. Being even more specific I then add to that concept the God as revealed in the Bible i.e. God Almighty, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God and Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I.e., the God of the Bible.

Nowhere have I ever used to word "God" to refer to any other being. That is why I always capitalize the word so that you can understand what I am talking about.

Read the Bible, read the work of every philosopher who has spoken on the subject for the last thousand years. Do your homework, do your research.

You act as if you do not know what the word "God" means when people on a Christian philosophy forum use the word.

If you do not understand what we mean when we say God, then trying to devise clever arguments and rebuttals against the Christian position is like trying to do advanced Calculus without knowing what addition and subtraction is.

 

[Elioenai26]

lol. If there was any science that allowed for the intervention by deities, we would't be having this conversation.

Thank you for sharing your views with us here. They are noted.

And it was on topic, as part of rifling through which "God" was the subject of your hypotheticals.

Ok. Once again, your views are noted. Thank you.

Covering your evasion with more evasion - it was just a yes or no question. Does not WLC accept evolutionary theory?

I do not really care what he accepts or rejects regarding evolutionary theory. My position allows me to be open to wherever the evidence leads. I can change my views according to the demands of evidence. I am not bound to one view or the other for the Words of God make no demand that I believe or disbelieve in ToE.

I would ask that of you, but then, I think I already know that answer...

Ok. Anything else?

 

[Elioenai26]

Why is it a matter of supreme importance? This is why you need to provide a description of the sort of God you want us to form a preference about. If it is Pascal's God, then it is indeed a matter of supreme importance because one's soul depends upon faith in such a God. If, however, it is an apathetic God who couldn't care less about human souls, then it is no longer a matter of supreme importance.

In short: Without a sufficiently detailed description of the deity, how can one know whether it is supremely important, much less preferable, to believe in that deity?

Atheist philosophers like Sartre and Camus, just to name two, are among those who have thought very seriously about the implications of God's existence and admit that the existence of God makes a tremendous difference for man and is of inconceivable importance.

Belief in the existence of God has enormous implications on your views of life, humanity, morality, and destiny. The question: 'Does God exist?' is arguably the most important question that one will ever ask because as I have already stated numerous times, the answer to this question affects how one views reality, morality, ethics, values, and life’s decisions.

American philosopher and author Mortimer Adler once stated: “More consequences for thought and action follow the affirmation or denial of God than from answering any other basic question.”[1]Mortimer Adler, Great Books of the Western World (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), p. 561.

God, by definition, would be the very locus or source of reality, the very source of our life, the very source of the cosmos, the very source of all that is, the very REASON for life itself and logically it follows that if God exists, that learning about God and communicating with Him would be the single most important and meaningful endeavor a human could ever engage in.

This simply is not contestable.

Now someone may say: "Well I disagree, God is not important to me at all, I do not care at all about whether He exists or not."

But it is worth nothing that their view is not actually a rebuttal against what has been stated about the supreme importance of God's existence, but rather, it is simply their personal opinion of where God fits in their list of priorities.

There are some who seek to live a life of apathy with regards to God, but what these people cannot legitimately say is that God's existence is not of supreme importance when it comes to humans and how they relate and view the world in which they live. At most they can say that they personally do not care, and even then, I would be hesitant to believe the words of such a person....

For if such a one were posting here, then it is obvious that they DO CARE, at least care enough to register to become a member of a Christian forum and spend their time posting in the various sub forums here.




​

 

[Lovely Jar]

I'd think that would be true once the individual is old enough to understand the concept of religion, deity, etc...
Otherwise, technically speaking, I'd say everyone is born without any knowledge of a higher power or God as understood in human terms. Meaning, everyone is first born atheist.

Considering the state of the world and it being mainly occupied by those who hold faith in a creative force concerned with their welfare, coerced to do their bidding through prayer, ritual, worship, etc... technically speaking, what has religion done for the world so far?
Made it better? Or worse?

Since no one really knows if a god exists or not isn't everyone, technically, agnostic? Some religious people claim to know that a god exists but they can never demonstrate how they know. They just believe. Most atheists claim there is no evidence for a god (not "I know with 100% certainty there is no god.")
So, basically, no one really knows hence agnosticism. Right?

 

[crimsonleaf]

Hello crimsonleaf

I understand and comprehend the difference between "evidence" and "proof" thank you.

Good, because so many who hold your position do not.

I'm not asking for proof.

I will happily, willingly even, examine any credible scientific or factually reliable evidence that anyone has to present me. If it is sound I will accept it.

However to compel me of the existence of the god as depicted in the writings by the bronze age hebrew tribes of the middle east, it would require (at very least) the type of credible evidence provided in Elio's murder suspect scenario.

Ah well, there we have a problem. Because the evidence I would provide would be described by you under a number of headings: subjective; self-delusional; wishful thinking etc.

As someone who used to spend many hours debating with Christians from my (then) atheist position, I can assure you that every argument you use is straight from Atheism 101, and is designed not to counter Christian claims, but to rubbish them. But let's give it a go: I see God in everything, from the dew on a misty morning to a blazing sunset, a raging hurricane and everything in between. I see God when I see a baby growing in the womb, or when someone tries to explain how DNA "evolved" from a series of ultimately fortunate accidents from a position where nothing once existed. I see God when I realise that the vast majority of the population seek him, in whatever form they understand. And mostly I see God when I see His enemies trying to convince others that He doesn't exist.

Now, you will claim that everything I see comes under one of the headings I supplied above. I would have said the same too. But I was not seeking God when He changed me. I was as shocked as you will be if He touches you. And that feeling is inexplicable.

A fact many theists fail to understand is I do not need evidence for my position.

The lack of any factually reliable evidence for the existence of god is in itself, evidence for my position.

I know. I would have agreed. However, a blind man may argue that colour doesn't exist with the same degree of credibility. Yet here you are on a Christian forum, seeking the company of Christians, debating the God you don't believe in. Have you ever wondered why, and examined the quality of your motives? Do you do it because you want to destroy the sincerely held beliefs of others? Do you do it to show your superiority in debate? Do you do it because you wish none of us existed?

Can you come up with any ethically sound and intrinsically good motive for what you're doing?

Your actions are either the actions of someone inherently destructive, or of someone wanting to be convinced. Which are you?

My position is akin to the atooth fairiests position, or the aunicornists position.
What type evidence would you expect them to provide to support their positions???

Not really. five sevenths or more of the entire world's population aren't drawn to believe in the tooth fairy or unicorns. In fact, all but the children and the mentally enfeebled understand that the tooth fairy is a human construct, designed to inject a little fantasy into the lives of their children. Many Christians refuse to play that game, or the Santa game, preferring to stick to their own perceived truths involving the supernatural.

My position is not a choice. It is the theists precarious position that creates mine.

But for the record, If you want to label me, I prefer "seeker."

I can't see that Christians have created your position. That's like saying you have to teach your children to do bad things. Your position is one you have chosen to adhere to, but overall it seems fairly unnecessarily destructive.

You ask for evidence which can be examined to the same degree that the scenario one evidence can be examined to. But your own evidence is either entirely lacking or non-existent. You believe that the universe is without purpose, was started by no one, and that everything that exists came from nothing. Or you believe it was all already there and spontaneously rearranged itself into what we have now. Has anyone observed these events? Has anyone got a credible explanation for these events. And I mean as credible as the evidence you demand from me about God?

It only seems fair that if you're going to pit non-God against God that the evidence for both sides of the argument should be provided, yet you have none and try to push the burden of proof onto us. Fine. I haven't come to your atheist forum with my claims. You've come to a Christian forum with yours. So you have to show us why we should entertain your arguments when no evidence for your belief is forthcoming.

You you will possibly also say that you have no belief to uphold; that you have a lack of belief and therefore no position to argue.

But if that were the case you wouldn't be here, would you?

So if you intend being labelled as a "seeker" (and I have no desire to label you either way), then start genuinely seeking. If you lose the presupposition that God doesn't exist and listen with an open mind then you may hear Him.

But a genuine seeker doesn't start from the position that what he's looking for doesn't exist. That would be foolish.

 

[Elioenai26]

Good, because so many who hold your position do not.



Ah well, there we have a problem. Because the evidence I would provide would be described by you under a number of headings: subjective; self-delusional; wishful thinking etc.

As someone who used to spend many hours debating with Christians from my (then) atheist position, I can assure you that every argument you use is straight from Atheism 101, and is designed not to counter Christian claims, but to rubbish them. But let's give it a go: I see God in everything, from the dew on a misty morning to a blazing sunset, a raging hurricane and everything in between. I see God when I see a baby growing in the womb, or when someone tries to explain how DNA "evolved" from a series of ultimately fortunate accidents from a position where nothing once existed. I see God when I realise that the vast majority of the population seek him, in whatever form they understand. And mostly I see God when I see His enemies trying to convince others that He doesn't exist.

Now, you will claim that everything I see comes under one of the headings I supplied above. I would have said the same too. But I was not seeking God when He changed me. I was as shocked as you will be if He touches you. And that feeling is inexplicable.



I know. I would have agreed. However, a blind man may argue that colour doesn't exist with the same degree of credibility. Yet here you are on a Christian forum, seeking the company of Christians, debating the God you don't believe in. Have you ever wondered why, and examined the quality of your motives? Do you do it because you want to destroy the sincerely held beliefs of others? Do you do it to show your superiority in debate? Do you do it because you wish none of us existed?

Can you come up with any ethically sound and intrinsically good motive for what you're doing?

Your actions are either the actions of someone inherently destructive, or of someone wanting to be convinced. Which are you?



Not really. five sevenths or more of the entire world's population aren't drawn to believe in the tooth fairy or unicorns. In fact, all but the children and the mentally enfeebled understand that the tooth fairy is a human construct, designed to inject a little fantasy into the lives of their children. Many Christians refuse to play that game, or the Santa game, preferring to stick to their own perceived truths involving the supernatural.



I can't see that Christians have created your position. That's like saying you have to teach your children to do bad things. Your position is one you have chosen to adhere to, but overall it seems fairly unnecessarily destructive.

You ask for evidence which can be examined to the same degree that the scenario one evidence can be examined to. But your own evidence is either entirely lacking or non-existent. You believe that the universe is without purpose, was started by no one, and that everything that exists came from nothing. Or you believe it was all already there and spontaneously rearranged itself into what we have now. Has anyone observed these events? Has anyone got a credible explanation for these events. And I mean as credible as the evidence you demand from me about God?

It only seems fair that if you're going to pit non-God against God that the evidence for both sides of the argument should be provided, yet you have none and try to push the burden of proof onto us. Fine. I haven't come to your atheist forum with my claims. You've come to a Christian forum with yours. So you have to show us why we should entertain your arguments when no evidence for your belief is forthcoming.

You you will possibly also say that you have no belief to uphold; that you have a lack of belief and therefore no position to argue.

But if that were the case you wouldn't be here, would you?

So if you intend being labelled as a "seeker" (and I have no desire to label you either way), then start genuinely seeking. If you lose the presupposition that God doesn't exist and listen with an open mind then you may hear Him.

But a genuine seeker doesn't start from the position that what he's looking for doesn't exist. That would be foolish.

My dear brother!

What remarkable insight!

What stunning clarity with which you write and convey your thoughts!

I believe you are breath of fresh air to this forum which had begun to stagnate.

I agree with what you have said and hope that those here who are honestly seeking truth will be encouraged by your words. You speak as one who can sympathize with those who are currently atheists and I appreciate your candor and your transparency.

Us Christians here have much we can learn from you!

Please keep posting here!

 

[Cearbhall]

I see God when I realise that the vast majority of the population seek him, in whatever form they understand.

Though I'm untouched by most of your post, I appreciate your inclusive language here and the tolerance that it indicates.

Yet here you are on a Christian forum, seeking the company of Christians, debating the God you don't believe in. Have you ever wondered why, and examined the quality of your motives? Do you do it because you want to destroy the sincerely held beliefs of others? Do you do it to show your superiority in debate? Do you do it because you wish none of us existed?

Can you come up with any ethically sound and intrinsically good motive for what you're doing?

Your actions are either the actions of someone inherently destructive, or of someone wanting to be convinced. Which are you?

At least you didn't say "Might it be because, deep down, you know we're right?" I thought that's where this was going, so thanks for pleasantly surprising me.

I can't speak for Sectio Aurea, but I have contemplated my motives before and posted about them in threads that were dedicated to that question. My main reasons are to understand the thought process of a variety of Christians (because I'm human and it's always possible to be more tolerant and understanding), to hopefully help other people be more tolerant of non-theist viewpoints, and to make myself better able to argue against the Christian influence over politics in my country. I'm not out to convert anyone.

 

[dlamberth]

And mostly I see God when I see His enemies trying to convince others that He doesn't exist.

Good post. This is the only thing I'd like to comment on and that's because I reject the idea that God has enemies. He loves us all, regardless of what we Human's may think about Him. For those who see themselves as denyers of God, that does not make them enemies of God.

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes He does. He would not be God if He did not. Continue....



Being "convinced" of something's existence is largely dependent upon one's perception of the entity in question as well as one's motives, desires, wishes, preconceptions etc. etc.

Two people can look at the same lines of evidence and develop two very different theories or explanations for said evidence.

I look at the universe and see that it is the work of an Awesome Creator, you look at it and see it as whatever you see it as.

Ultimately only you can answer specifically the question as to why you are unconvinced that God exists.

Only sometimes is the evidence open to interpretation. Most of the time, an 'interpretation' is simply a bogus conclusion. 1 + 1 = 2, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and vaccines don't cause autism. Sometimes, the evidence unambiguously supports once conclusion.

You may well believe that a child's smile proves God exists, but sadly that doesn't constitute valid logic. Sometimes, your interpretation of the evidence is simply wrong. This is what I believe to be the case with your five points: despite your claim, they do not actually demonstrate God exists.

It is very germane. If I present evidence to support my claim that God exists and the whole time you do not really want to view the world as one which owes its existence to God, this desire of yours is going to influence the way you perceive the evidence.

Like it or not, no person and I do mean NO PERSON, atheist or theist is wholly free from bias and we, as Blaise Pascal once so eloquently put it tend to almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. (de l'Art de persuader ("On the Art of Persuasion"), written 1658; published posthumously.)

Everyone is biased in certain ways and everyone wants the world to be a certain way at the end of the day.

The Christian is either right or wrong....eventhough he may have certain preconceived ideas about reality.

So my friend you see, your motives, your desires, your intentions, your wishes, your wants are very germane to the discussion because they are the things by which you will "filter" the evidence given to you.

No one is able to be completely objective regarding this matter because we all, by our very nature and upbringing have developed over time certain preconceptions about reality.

This is not debatable.

I'm a trained scientist, and I'm fully aware of psychological biases - as well as how to counter them. Conclusions can be confidently wrought, and biases and preconceptions can be suppressed in favour of cold logic and reason. Humans are endowed with the gift of a rational mind. We can anticipate and counter out biases - it's not for nothing clinical trials are double blind. We are capable of rational conversation, of talking as adults about our beliefs and ideas. Confident conclusions can be made - the Earth is round, regardless of any biases or interpretations of evidence.

You're right that I'd rather the god of the Bible to be non-existent, but your subsequent psychoanalysis is naive.

The question is:

What is the world actually like? Is it the handiwork of a Creator God, or is it the effects of random, blind, purposeless, "forces".....

An interesting question with an interesting answer. The world is mysterious, yes, but there are answers. Not everything can be dismissed with "Ah, we all have biases, so no conclusion can be wrought".

In theory, I could supply you with a myriad of different pieces of evidence and arguments for God's existence, but if you are unwilling to follow the evidence where it leads, I am only supplying you more material for misinterpretation.

And you seem utterly convinced that I am unwilling to follow the evidence, seemingly based only on your observation that I'd prefer a world without the god of the Bible. If you think a person's entire philosophical outlook and methodology can be deduced from that fact alone, you're mistaken.

I never said that Wiccan Child, you are misquoting me, which is another minus for you. It is an evasion. You know very well I never said God exists because Christians are full of love. In fact I know many professed Christians who are anything but full of love.

Don't be so melodramatic. It's called hyperbole ('rhetorical emphasis by exaggeration').

I see now you have no real case against what I have said.

But to be charitable, I will simply refer you back to the question you have as of yet, failed to answer:

"Do you want the proposition: 'God exists', to be true?"

Even more specifically:

"Do you want the proposition: 'The God of the Bible exists', to be a true proposition?"

Yes or no?

No.

Please, tell me what conclusions you draw from this. I think I already know, but I'm not one to put words in peoples' mouths, nor thoughts in their heads.