How to prove God exists.

[Pachomius]

Well, Michael has not as yet replied to my post addressed to him, inviting him to tell me his comments on my idea of what is evidence.

You see, dear readers, it is a waste of time to interact with atheists here, they are into endless repetitious chanting of their mantra,* no evidence, no evidence, no evidence; but all the time they do not ever write anything at all as to indicate some genuine thinking from their part - what they do all the time is to take refuge in self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, even though they might put forth a veneer of some shallow erudition, but always in the service of more confusion and more evasion and more, yes, self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism.

So, now dear theists and also deists, we who know God exists, please let us work together to concur on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

Let us not be lured into vain shop window display of wasteful and non-relevant erudition and to no purpose in the way of knowing the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence, and that existence cannot be taken seriously at all unless man has a full grasp of an integrated account of by which nothing is left to an “I don't know” attitude.

That is what atheist scientists do, they always end their investigation of the universe with an "I [they] don't know” at the end, when the question that follows logically is: and "What or who is in charge and on what ground is the charge founded on?"

Dear fellow God knowers, read the ANNEX as follows below, for your orientation in your contributions to our common undertaking to come to a concurred on concept of what is evidence, for atheists have only this one valid objection against God: but it just exposes their again total shallow-ness in their phoney kind of thinking, by which they conclude that they just don't see any evidence for God existing.


*Better order from eBay a hand model of the Tibetan Buddhist prayer wheel, it has a handle like the bell of a street ice cream push cart vendor, just roll the rotor cylinder barrel on a table or even on the wall.




ANNEX
Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing.

For example, investigators notice the presence of human sperm in the anus of a deceased human male subject, and they put in their notepad:

Evidence of sex act with another human male, scil., sperm in anus.

Babies, our nose in our face, the sun in the day sky and the moon in the night sky, and the stones, and rivers, and mighty oceans, and everything that we see and we live in and move in and have our existence, they are all things which are evidence for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

DNA is also one of my samples of evidence and it fits my definition of evidence.

[End of ANNEX from Pachomius]

 

[Radrook]

Thomas Aquinas is rolling in his grave.

BIG GRAVE!

 

[Radrook]

Very good, that is a general definition of evidence. It is a a beginning. The problem is that since it is so general it does not tell you why there is no evidence for ID. I am sure that you still lack that understanding. And since you seem to like science, and you are trying to make a scientific argument how about trying to use scientific evidence?

ETA: Perhaps you could read my sig and try to understand it. Your sig is a quote from Einstein that does not support the claim that he was not an atheist. Of course to understand that you would need to understand what an atheist is. Though you seem to hate atheists you don't really know what atheism is in the first place.

I don't hate atheists, I just disagree with their atheist view.

About Einstein, I understand perfectly where he stood in reference to God and it wasn't your atheism.
Evidence? Self inflicted-blindness prevents atheists from either seeing it or acknowledging it.

 

[AV1611VET]

An agnostic is an atheist without a backbone.

 

[Gene2memE]

What's been presented here has essentially been the teleological and ontological argument, with a few diversions into subsidiary and related topics, such as fine tuning, the argument from nature, argument from metaphysical necessity, argument from contingency, ect, ect.

However, they've been presented in such a fashion that I think they may more successfully argue against their conclusions than for it.

I feel that if there was a creator deity, and that if such a deity required faith in them for the salvation of the intelligent beings they created, then such a being would not allow arguments for their existence to be so incompetently formed.

There's almost nothing presented in this thread that the readers wouldn't have been better served by reading Aquinas.

I think Pachomius provided an excellent summary of his/her efforts:

what they do all the time is to take refuge in self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, even though they might put forth a veneer of some shallow erudition, but always in the service of more confusion and more evasion and more, yes, self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism.

It's all there - the odd syntax, the circularity and repition, the churlish tone, the insults, the general obtuseness.

If I wasn't on the other team, this would have started me that way.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, Michael has not as yet replied to my post addressed to him, inviting him to tell me his comments on my idea of what is evidence.

You see, dear readers, it is a waste of time to interact with atheists here, they are into endless repetitious chanting of their mantra,* no evidence, no evidence, no evidence; but all the time they do not ever write anything at all as to indicate some genuine thinking from their part - what they do all the time is to take refuge in self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, even though they might put forth a veneer of some shallow erudition, but always in the service of more confusion and more evasion and more, yes, self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism.

So, now dear theists and also deists, we who know God exists, please let us work together to concur on what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.

Let us not be lured into vain shop window display of wasteful and non-relevant erudition and to no purpose in the way of knowing the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence, and that existence cannot be taken seriously at all unless man has a full grasp of an integrated account of by which nothing is left to an “I don't know” attitude.

That is what atheist scientists do, they always end their investigation of the universe with an "I [they] don't know” at the end, when the question that follows logically is: and "What or who is in charge and on what ground is the charge founded on?"

Dear fellow God knowers, read the ANNEX as follows below, for your orientation in your contributions to our common undertaking to come to a concurred on concept of what is evidence, for atheists have only this one valid objection against God: but it just exposes their again total shallow-ness in their phoney kind of thinking, by which they conclude that they just don't see any evidence for God existing.


*Better order from eBay a hand model of the Tibetan Buddhist prayer wheel, it has a handle like the bell of a street ice cream push cart vendor, just roll the rotor cylinder barrel on a table or even on the wall.




ANNEX
Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing.

For example, investigators notice the presence of human sperm in the anus of a deceased human male subject, and they put in their notepad:

Evidence of sex act with another human male, scil., sperm in anus.

Babies, our nose in our face, the sun in the day sky and the moon in the night sky, and the stones, and rivers, and mighty oceans, and everything that we see and we live in and move in and have our existence, they are all things which are evidence for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

DNA is also one of my samples of evidence and it fits my definition of evidence.

[End of ANNEX from Pachomius]

In regards to evidence to support the OP, maybe tomorrow?

 

[Michael]

Wow, you really can't stand to be in a conversation where you aren't choosing the topic being discussed.

I love how you just ignored the whole appeal to authority fallacy problem.

 

[Michael]

Dear Michael, thanks a lot for your interaction.

Now, let us explain we two to each other what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how does evidence hit its target.

That does tend to be a key issue. The term 'evidence' seems to mean many different things to many different individuals.

As I said before to atheists here and to all stripes of theists, evidence is:

[Start of quote from Pachomius]

Evidence is anything at all, in our mind (the conceptual realm) and/or in the concrete world of everyday's things, events, people, babies, etc., you get the idea (the objectival realm), by which we humans infer to the certainty of existence of another thing.

Well, technically evidence can be anything from gravitational lensing patterns, to pretty much anything and everything observed in nature. The problem is that observations might have multiple potential "causes" and therefore some amount of subjectivity will always apply to that term.

Babies, our nose in our face, the sun in the day sky and the moon in the night sky, and the stones, and rivers, and mighty oceans, and everything that we see and we live in and move in and have our existence, they are all things which are evidence for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

This however is a great example of that subjectivity problem i mentioned earlier. While you and I might observe evidence of God's existence is everything we observe, our *different* opinions about whether or not this physical universe even has a 'beginning' is highly debatable. Usually some form of subjectively *interpretation* goes along with the observation in question.

DNA is also one of my samples of evidence and it fits my definition of evidence.

Well, you start by why your "hypothesis" of 'intelligent' design might 'predict'. For instance, you could "predict" that an intelligently designed form of life, would have the ability to self replicate using ordinary materials, self 'heal', capable of supporting consciousness, capable of adapting to various water bearing environments, etc.

That's usually how a "hypothesis" is supported in science. You use your hypothesis to make 'predictions' about the world around you. Unfortunately in this case about everything you might try to 'predict' is already a "postdiction' because it already exists.

That's actually not a deal breaker in science either however. That's how "dark energy" came to be inserted into BB theory in fact.

IMO this discussion comes down to one's individual definition of evidence, and the fact that any given observation might have multiple subjective 'interpretations'. No matter how you go about it, there will necessarily be some subjective bias involved, particularly when discussing hypothetical ideas. Even empirical observations like 'gravity' can have multiple mathematical and conceptual "explanations" to choose from. For instance Newton treated gravity as a force, whereas Einstein described gravity as a geometric indentation around objects with mass. QM definitions of gravity are based on defining gravity as force again, with carrier particle called a graviton. These are different ways of describing and conceptualizing gravity. We might all agree that gravity exists, but we may each interpret the evidence differently.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear all readers of this thread, I am so glad this morning because this Christianforums.com has a very useful versatile search engine; here, I just found my post where I mention from Webster about what is epistemology, which it delivers (courtesy of google) in very concise and precise and relevant focus, on my thread here, on How to prove God exists.

Search Results for Query: webster

1. Post
How to prove God exists.

...against God? First, what is epistemology? Here, from Webster, is the super brief but very instructive definition of epistemology: Click on...

"Definition of EPISTEMOLOGY

“The study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity.” - Courtesy of google

See next post from me.

Thanks to you guys: founders, owners, and operators of this website and forum.


ANNEX
Post by: Pachomius, Feb 12, 2017 in forum: Physical & Life Sciences

Showing results 1 to 1 of 1

Feb 12, 2017 #1196 Pachomius
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-prove-god-exists.7984394/page-60#post-70844101

Dear all readers of this thread, I have not read the posts here since I was last here yesterday morning.

But I like to share with readers here of all religious and/or non-religious stripes, and also humans here who are hostile or not hostile to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The atheist posters here are the ones I see to be hostile to God.

Loudmouth self-labels himself here as an agnostic; in terms of generics, he is in doubt in regard to God exists or not, but in actual acts and words he is hostile to God.

So, I know for a certainty that all atheists here and together with Loudmouth who self-labels himself as agnostic, they are all hostile to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Their number one ‘argument’ against God is to make fun of God - and period, because they don’t really have any arguments against God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And most important, aside from making fun of God owing to their emotional hostility to God, they also engage in what I call negative epistemology against God.

What is negative epistemology against God?

First, what is epistemology?

Here, from Webster, is the super brief but very instructive definition of epistemology:

Click on the link as follows,

Definition of EPISTEMOLOGY

“The study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity.”

So, dear readers here, can you already know by extrapolating in a way from Webster, what I mean by the negative epistemology against God, on the part of atheists and one Loudmouth who identifies himself as an agnostic but in acts and in words, also imbued with the hostility of atheists against God?

Here is how I would draft the meaning of negative epistemology against God, as I see it in atheists and one agnostic, Loudmouth:

“It is the studious effort to infect with obfuscation and obscurantism the knowledge of God in oneself, the atheist, and also in others so that no genuine knowledge of God existing will be harbored in the atheist’ heart and mind."

That includes also Loudmouth who though self-identifying as an agnostic, a human who is in doubt about God existing or not, but in acts and in words, an atheist.

Now, I will go and read the new posts from since yesterday, and see what Loudmouth is into, in regard to his understanding of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
Pachomius, Feb 12, 2017 #1196

[End of ANNEX]

 

[HitchSlap]

Dear all readers of this thread, I am so glad this morning because this Christianforums.com has a very useful versatile search engine; here, I just found my post where I mention from Webster about what is epistemology, which it delivers (courtesy of google) in very concise and precise and relevant focus, on my thread here, on How to prove God exists.

Search Results for Query: webster

1. Post
How to prove God exists.

...against God? First, what is epistemology? Here, from Webster, is the super brief but very instructive definition of epistemology: Click on...

"Definition of EPISTEMOLOGY

“The study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity.” - Courtesy of google

See next post from me.

Thanks to you guys: founders, owners, and operators of this website and forum.


ANNEX
Post by: Pachomius, Feb 12, 2017 in forum: Physical & Life Sciences

Showing results 1 to 1 of 1

Feb 12, 2017 #1196 Pachomius

Dear all readers of this thread, I have not read the posts here since I was last here yesterday morning.

But I like to share with readers here of all religious and/or non-religious stripes, and also humans here who are hostile or not hostile to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

The atheist posters here are the ones I see to be hostile to God.

Loudmouth self-labels himself here as an agnostic; in terms of generics, he is in doubt in regard to God exists or not, but in actual acts and words he is hostile to God.

So, I know for a certainty that all atheists here and together with Loudmouth who self-labels himself as agnostic, they are all hostile to God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Their number one ‘argument’ against God is to make fun of God - and period, because they don’t really have any arguments against God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator cause of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

And most important, aside from making fun of God owing to their emotional hostility to God, they also engage in what I call negative epistemology against God.

What is negative epistemology against God?

First, what is epistemology?

Here, from Webster, is the super brief but very instructive definition of epistemology:

Click on the link as follows,

Definition of EPISTEMOLOGY

“The study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity.”

So, dear readers here, can you already know by extrapolating in a way from Webster, what I mean by the negative epistemology against God, on the part of atheists and one Loudmouth who identifies himself as an agnostic but in acts and in words, also imbued with the hostility of atheists against God?

Here is how I would draft the meaning of negative epistemology against God, as I see it in atheists and one agnostic, Loudmouth:

“It is the studious effort to infect with obfuscation and obscurantism the knowledge of God in oneself, the atheist, and also in others so that no genuine knowledge of God existing will be harbored in the atheist’ heart and mind."

That includes also Loudmouth who though self-identifying as an agnostic, a human who is in doubt about God existing or not, but in acts and in words, an atheist.

Now, I will go and read the new posts from since yesterday, and see what Loudmouth is into, in regard to his understanding of what is evidence, what is the target of evidence, and how evidence hits its target.
Pachomius, Feb 12, 2017 #1196

[End of ANNEX]

Your opinion is duly noted. Now how about the evidence part. Will that be coming soon? Maybe tomorrow?

 

[Pachomius]

Dear readers here all of you, with the internet it is so easy and quick to do research, take for example my search for what I might consider an explanation of generically, what is thinking, so I just enter the word thinking in the search box of google, and it returns, see ANNEX - and my idea is that the explanation of what is thinking, as gathered from google hits, it shows me that atheists don’t do any thinking at all that justifies the meaning of thinking, in them atheists, at all, errh not at all completely.

You see, I have said nth times that atheists including persons who call themselves agnostics but in acts and in words they are pure wool dyed all red, atheists, like for example, well never mind... okay, all atheists here interacting with me, they don’t really think.

But they are studiously into self-obfuscation and self-obscurantism, so that they can always have a way out of anything that they say in regard to anything at all by which they can and will be later on be tied down as evidence to have admitted something at all, which logically exposes them as accepting the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause and operator case of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

See my next post.

ANNEX
Google: thinking
About 1,010,000,000 results (0.58 seconds)

Search Results
1.
the process of using one's mind to consider or reason about something.

"they have done some thinking about welfare reform"

o a person's ideas or opinions.

"his thinking is reflected in his later autobiography"

synonyms:

reasoning, logic, idea(s), theory, line of thought, philosophy, beliefs; More

opinion(s), view(s), thoughts, position, judgment, assessment, evaluation

"the thinking behind the campaign"

o archaic

thoughts; meditations.

plural noun: thinkings

adjective

adjective: thinking

1. 1.

using thought or rational judgment; intelligent.

"he seemed to be a thinking man"

synonyms:

intelligent, sensible, reasonable, rational; More

logical, analytical;

thoughtful, reflective, meditative, contemplative, pensive, shrewd, philosophical, sagacious

"he seemed a thinking man"

antonyms:

stupid, irrational

think

THiNGk/

verb

gerund or present participle: thinking

1. 1.

have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something.

"she thought that nothing would be the same again"

synonyms:

believe, be of the opinion, be of the view, be under the impression; More

expect, imagine, anticipate;

surmise, suppose, conjecture, guess, fancy;

conclude, determine, reason;

informalreckon, figure;

formalopine

"I think he's gone home"

deem, judge, hold, reckon, consider, presume, estimate;

regard (as), view (as)

"his family was thought to be enormously rich"

o used in questions to express anger or surprise.

"What do you think you're doing?"

o used in speech to reduce the force of a statement or opinion, or to politely suggest or refuse something.

"I thought we could go out for a meal"

1. 2.

direct one's mind toward someone or something; use one's mind actively to form connected ideas.

"he was thinking about Colin"

synonyms:

ponder, reflect, deliberate, consider, meditate, contemplate, muse, ruminate, be lost in thought, be in a brown study, brood; More

concentrate, brainstorm, rack one's brains;

put on one's thinking cap, sleep on it;

formalcogitate

"Jack thought for a moment"

o take into account or consideration when deciding on a possible action.

"you can live how you like, but there's the children to think about"

o consider the possibility or advantages of (a course of action).

"he was thinking of becoming a zoologist"

o have a particular mental attitude or approach.

"he thought like a general"

o have a particular opinion of.

"I think of him as a friend"

o call something to mind; remember.

"lemon thyme is a natural pair with any chicken dish you can think of"

synonyms:

recall, remember, recollect, call to mind, think back to

"she thought of all the visits she had made to her father"

o imagine (an actual or possible situation).

"think of being paid a salary to hunt big game!"

synonyms:

imagine, picture, visualize, envisage, consider; More

dream about, fantasize about

"she forced herself to think of how he must be feeling"

o expect.

"I never thought we'd raise so much money"

o concentrate on imagining what it would be like to be in (a position or role).

"she tried to think herself into the part of Peter's fiancée"

Origin


Old English thencan, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch and German denken .

Translate thinking to

Use over time for: thinking


Translations, word origin, and more definitions

Feedback

Images for thinking







More images for thinkingReport images

Thought - Wikipedia

Thought - Wikipedia

Thought refers to ideas or arrangements of ideas that are the result of the process of thinking.

Portal:Thinking - Wikipedia

Portal - Wikipedia:Thinking

Thinking can refer to the act of producing thoughts or the process of producing thoughts. In spite of the fact that thought is a fundamental human activity familiar to everyone, there is no generally accepted agreement as to what thought is or how it is created.

Thinking Synonyms, Thinking Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

www.thesaurus.com/browse/thinking

Synonyms for thinking at Thesaurus.com with free online thesaurus, antonyms, and definitions. Dictionary and Word of the Day.

Thinking | Definition of Thinking by Merriam-Webster

Dictionary and Thesaurus | Merriam-Websterthinking

Define thinking: the action of using your mind to produce ideas, decisions, memories, etc. : the activity of thinking about… — thinking in a sentence.
Just What The Hell
Were The Kings
Thinking?


Deadspin · 4 hours ago

More for thinking

Thinking | Define Thinking at Dictionary.com

www.dictionary.com/browse/thinking

Thinking definition, rational; reasoning: People are thinking animals. See more.

thinking Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/thinking

thinking meaning, definition, what is thinking: the activity of using your mind to consider something: . Learn more.

Foundation for Critical Thinking

https://www.criticalthinking.org/

Providing a forum and resources about Socratic questioning, higher order thinking, and critical thinking. Organizer of conferences and publisher of books and ...

Defining Critical Thinking - Foundation for Critical Thinking

www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself. Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years.

Searches related to thinking

thinking in psychology

thinking meaning

:thinking: twitch

types of thinking

thinking twitch emote

thinking thesaurus

what is thinking process

what is thinking skills


12345678910 Next

[End of ANNEX]

 

[bhsmte]

Dear readers, will today be the big day for evidence to support the OP?

 

[HitchSlap]

Dear readers, will today be the big day for evidence to support the OP?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Wow, you really can't stand to be in a conversation where you aren't choosing the topic being discussed.

I don't think he can help it; it's a monomania.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

..The knower of God claims to be certain God exists, the igknower claims to not be ever certain that God exists.

Theists and deists are knowers of God existing, igknowers are deniers of God existing.

Oh good grief...

Claiming "to not be ever certain that God exists" is not the same as being a "denier of God existing".

If you're going to define your own words, your really need to know what you mean by them.

Just sayin'.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't think he can help it; it's a monomania.

You could ask him what his favorite color is and he would somehow relate it to his pet theory. Kinda fascinating, the level of obscession.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear readers here, everyone at all, the internet search is a very good means of polling, polling as in and with Gallup or Pew, by us ordinary citizenry of the world but curious to know what the world thinks on an issue.

You see, I am wondering what the world or how the world opines on “theists are anti epistemology,” and “atheists are anti epistemology.”

So I entered the two phrases into google, and you know what, see ANNEX below; it seems that crudely but still very revealing, the world holds atheists to be more anti epistemology than theists.

Now I will go and see what Michael has for me in the way of comments on my statements about evidence: what is it, what is its target, and how it hits its target/



ANNEX
Google: theists are anti epistemology
About 628,000 results (0.48 seconds)

Search Results

The Epistemology of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/

Apr 23, 1997 - Contemporary epistemology of religion may conveniently be treated as a .... Theistic philosophers may, of course, grant evidentialism and even grant its ... in that the former is vulnerable to probabilistic counter-arguments.

Religious Epistemology | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

www.iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/

And, of course, all of these theistic claims are widely and enthusiastically disputed by ... The Rational Stance; Objections to Reformed Epistemology .... The second strategy is to argue against the first premise, the claim that belief in God is ...

Antitheism - Wikipedia

Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAntitheism

Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is the opposition to theism. The term has had a range of ... Evangelical atheism · Humanism · League of Militant Atheists · Materialism · Militant atheism · Naturalism (philosophy) · New atheism · Post-theism ...

Reformed epistemology - Wikipedia

Calvinism - Wikipediaepistemology

In the philosophy of religion, reformed epistemology is a school in philosophical thought ... Plantinga's reformed epistemology includes two arguments against classical ... This connection between the truth value of theism and its positive epistemic status suggests to some that the goal of showing theistic belief to be externally ...

Anti-Epistemology | Crucial Considerations - a science, philosophy ...

crucialconsiderations.org/rationality/anti-epistemology/

Nov 2, 2014 - Sometimes Anti-Epistemology is understood as the general process of covering and obscuring knowledge. .... Theism and Expert Knowledge.

Anti-Theism or Pro-Atheism? - Patheos

www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/07/anti-theism-or-pro-atheism/

Jul 26, 2009 - While anti-theists are indeed a subset of atheists and do not speak for all ... epistemic, and moral forms of tyranny which would stifle freedom of ...

Atheism and the necessity of anti-theism for social justice

www.patheos.com/blogs/.../atheism-and-the-necessity-of-anti-theism-for-social-justice...

Nov 24, 2014 - In fact, the difference between atheism and anti-theism is not one of kind, ..... Thus, it stands to reason that we should want an epistemological ...

Philosophy of Religion 10: Anti-theistic arguments | Logic Matters

www.logicmatters.net/2008/04/09/philosophy-of-religion-10-anti-theistic-arguments/

Apr 9, 2008 - In Chapter 6, Murray and Rea turn to “Anti-theistic arguments”. But, at this stage in the game, in what sense does the atheist need anti-theistic ...

Anti-Realism, Theism and the Conditional Fallacy - jstor

Anti-Realism, Theism and the Conditional Fallacy on JSTOR

by B Brogaard - ‎2005 - ‎Cited by 10 - ‎Related articles

realist is to be a theist.' Anti-realism (AR) in this context is the epistemic analysis of truth that says,. (AR) necessarily, a statement is true if and only if it would be ...

[PDF]A Survey Of Christian Epistemology - Presuppositionalism 101

https://presupp101.files.wordpress.com/.../van-til-a-survey-of-christian-epistemology....

In Calvinism the issue between theistic and non-theistic epistemology came to the clearest and ..... but the anti-Christian presuppositions at the base of them. 7.

Searches related to theists are anti epistemology

reformed epistemology definition

what is a properly basic belief

reformed epistemology apologetics

epistemology and god

reformed epistemology and presuppositionalism

according to morris the principle of belief conservation refutes the evidentialist principle

according to morris source skepticism questions

reformed epistemology criticism


12345678910 Next

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Google: atheists are anti epistemology
About 1,400,000 results (0.44 seconds)

Search Results

The Philosopher's Beard: Why I am not an atheist

www.philosophersbeard.org/2014/04/why-i-am-not-atheist.html

Apr 24, 2014 - I am as embarrassed by the New Atheists as many Christians are .... And it is an impoverished, even anti-intellectual epistemology within which ...

Atheism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/

It is not clear that arguments against atheism that appeal to faith have any prescriptive ... Given developments in modern epistemology and Rowe's argument, ...

Atheism and the necessity of anti-theism for social justice

www.patheos.com/blogs/.../atheism-and-the-necessity-of-anti-theism-for-social-justice...

Nov 24, 2014 - In fact, the difference between atheism and anti-theism is not one of kind, ..... Thus, it stands to reason that we should want an epistemological ...

Can you justify atheism from an epistemological perspective? - Quora

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-justify-atheism-from-an-epistemological-perspective

Jul 22, 2015 - Yes. Atheism is the honest statement, "I do not believe in a god." A lack of belief ... The majority of the arguments I have heard for and against God are inductive as opposed to deductive. In an inductive argument the claiment ...

Atheism and epistemology - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_epistemology

Jul 12, 2016 - A common and legitimate criticism of the atheist worldview is that ... against theists, they often employ lax evidential standards instead of ...

Anti-Epistemology - Why we hold onto certain beliefs that aren't true ...

subredditsatheism/.../antiepistemology_why_we_hold_onto_certain_belie...

r/atheism · Anti-Epistemology - Why we hold onto certain beliefs that aren't true, and how that negatively impacts our ability to evaluate truth elsewhere · u/lnfinity ...

Criticism of atheism - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism

Criticism of atheism is criticism of the concepts, validity, or impact of atheism, including associated political and social implications. Criticisms include positions based on the history of science, findings in the natural sciences, theistic apologetic arguments, arguments pertaining to ethics and morality, the effects of atheism on the .... T.J. Mawson makes a case against atheism by citing some lines of evidence ...

Antitheism - Wikipedia

Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAntitheism

Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is the opposition to theism. The term has had a range of ... Pantheism is not atheism, for it asserts that there is a god; but it is anti-theism, for it denies that ... Evangelical atheism · Humanism · League of Militant Atheists · Materialism · Militant atheism · Naturalism (philosophy) · New atheism ...

What is the difference between atheists and anti-theists? | CARM ...

https://carm.org/what-is-the-difference-between-atheists-and-anti-theists

Jun 30, 2014 - Atheists, in one way or another, personally deny or seriously doubt the existence of God. Anti-Theists are overtly hostile to the idea of God and ...

Sam Harris.org Reader Forum | Epistemology of Atheism

Epistemology of Atheism

Sep 23, 2007 - 16 posts - ‎7 authors

Let us consider four epistemological variants of atheism as .... It's a splendid argument against a dim philosophical rube who attempts to make a ...

Searches related to atheists are anti epistemology

atheist philosophy quotes

philosophical atheism definition

atheist philosophers and their arguments

agnosticism philosophy definition

atheist arguments against the existence of god

atheism philosophy pdf

classical arguments against the existence of god

20 arguments against god


12345678910 Next


[End of ANNEX]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anything that ignores compelling evidence and prefers to reach illogical conclusions instead due to personal preferences.

Sounds like creationism and all its incarnations.

 

[Gene2memE]

Argument by dictionary AND argument by hyperlink.

Convinced me - although not in the way the poster might have intended.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Michael, thanks for your comments on evidence, that is very good, but not good enough from the standpoint of the default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.


Let us we two do this exercise, asking each other by turns a question, so that we will focus on reality instead of verbosity to no purpose, but just to cater to our vanity that we are so deep into what, vacuity.


Okay, I will ask you this question, Are babies components of the default status of things in the totality of reality which is existence? that means do babies exist at all, just like the nose in or face?



Okay, dear readers all of you, let us sit back and witness with what and how Michael, a fellow theist here, reacts to my question.




See you guys all tomorrow.