The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Elioenai26]

You have provided nothing to date that would require your "God" to be anything "bigger" than a product of human imagination.

That would also explain why you cannot apprehend it by reason alone, and that you cannot provide empirical evidence for its existence.

"There's no reason, in theory, why god's presence couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The only reason that believers claim that god "can't" be detected in this way is because god isn't detected, and so a vast and intricate rationale has to be devised to explain this vast, loving, eternal, all-powerful "something" which is, in every external, objective respect, indistinguishable from nothing." - NMS

Elio, I think you have exposed the Achilles heel of theism. Yours in particular.

Those atheists you were referring to weren't being dishonest, were they?

Since all of the above comes from the mind of one who maintains that there is insufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, I cannot take you seriously.

I know that means absolutely nothing to you and you could care less if I take you seriously or not, so I am sure you will not care if I choose not to answer you.

 

[Elioenai26]

So, what is this evidence?

No evidence will be given to you. At least not from me.

 

[Elioenai26]

You mean these arguments are able to convince the already convinced? No dispute from me. You should carry them there, then.


Only if you redefine "convince".

Ah, another variation of the argument from squirrels.

Another explanation? The above is not an explanation - it´s an assertion.
Indeed, that wouldn´t be an explanation either.
However, "mind depends on matter" is at least observable here in this universe, whereas "matter depends on mind" is just an exceptional claim with no evidence behind it.

I wish I could honestly return this compliment.
That´s right: I don´t believe that (I´m "too smart" to use a term like "ultimate" in such a context, anyway)... and I am too intelligent to fill the gap in my knowledge with an equally incredulous and non-explanatory assertion, e.g. "Goddidit".
Plus I am "too smart" to fall for one of your favourite tactics: Hiding your inability to defend your assertions behind attacking strawmen.

Have you taken lessons in rhethorics and demagoguery recently?

Do you have anything else to contribute to this thread of significance, or is this it?

 

[Davian]

No evidence will be given to you. At least not from me.

I asked, what was this evidence that you speak of here in reference to these "dishonest atheists", that justified your use of that particular adjective, in post #822.

Retract the statement if you cannot substantiate it.

 

[Davian]

You have provided nothing to date that would require your "God" to be anything "bigger" than a product of human imagination.

That would also explain why you cannot apprehend it by reason alone, and that you cannot provide empirical evidence for its existence.

"There's no reason, in theory, why god's presence couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The only reason that believers claim that god "can't" be detected in this way is because god isn't detected, and so a vast and intricate rationale has to be devised to explain this vast, loving, eternal, all-powerful "something" which is, in every external, objective respect, indistinguishable from nothing." - NMS

Elio, I think you have exposed the Achilles heel of theism. Yours in particular.

Those atheists you were referring to weren't being dishonest, were they?

Since all of the above comes from the mind of one who maintains that there is insufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, I cannot take you seriously.

To clarify, I should say that I have seen insufficient evidence to reach a decision about the historicity of Jesus.

I know that means absolutely nothing to you and you could care less if I take you seriously or not, so I am sure you will not care if I choose not to answer you.

That, in itself, answers the question quite clearly.

 

[Elioenai26]

I asked, what was this evidence that you speak of here in reference to these "dishonest atheists", that justified your use of that particular adjective, in post #822.

Retract the statement if you cannot substantiate it.

I can substantiate it, but I will refrain from doing so publicly. I will send you a private message if you would like me to.

 

[Elioenai26]

To clarify, I should say that I have seen insufficient evidence to reach a decision about the historicity of Jesus.

That tells me enough to be able to make the decision that presenting evidence for the existence of God to you at this time would not be expedient.

 

[quatona]

Do you have anything else to contribute to this thread of significance, or is this it?

No, this was merely the response to your particular post that I quoted and responded to (as I think was obvious from the way I responded).
If you want to see my other 43 contributions to this thread I think the search function will help.

Of course, the significance of a thread topic/post (or lack thereof) can be a severe limitation to the significance of the responses...

 

[Davian]

I can substantiate it, but I will refrain from doing so publicly. I will send you a private message if you would like me to.

You made the statement publicly, you substantiate it publicly.

 

[Elioenai26]

You made the statement publicly, you substantiate it publicly.

No thank you. I will refrain.

 

[Davian]

That tells me enough to be able to make the decision that presenting evidence for the existence of God to you at this time would not be expedient.

Which implies that you have evidence, and you were going to present it, but in light of this information you are not going to.

Pull the other one. It has bells on.

 

[Elioenai26]

Which implies that you have evidence, and you were going to present it, but in light of this information you are not going to.

Pull the other one. It has bells on.

 

[Tnmusicman]

But there is evidence. Life here on earth. That is kind of the whole point. We have a large amount of empirical evidence for life. We have no empirical evidence for gods. I think you're trying to exclude the fact of life here on earth but that does not work. It is the major piece of evidence we have that gives us reason to believe there might be life on other planets. You can't just dismiss it and then try to point to our stance as being different on two different topics.

You're not paying attention. I said there is NO EVIDENCE OF ALIEN LIFE. Or, call it life on other planets if it suits you. You seem to be missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying there's no possibility of life on other planets. This whole thing started because of trying to point out that SOME atheists will say " I believe there is evidence for life on other planets due to mathmatical probability" (NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE) Since there is ZERO evidence of life on a planet other than earth one cannot say that is sufficient evidence. The fact there is life here on earth says nothing of the conditions for life on other planets.

At this point it doesn't matter that there is no empirical evidence for God. The point is if one is going to say "life on earth is enough for me to claim "justified belief" of life on other planets" but turn around and say " there is no empirical evidence for God therefore no reason to think He exists" is somewhat of a contradiction. Mind you, I'm not talking about whether or not God actually exists but some atheists tend to claim there is no evidence for God (just as there is no evidence of life ON OTHER PLANETS) so it's silly to believe in a God but then have no problem believing life exists on other planets no matter how improbable that might be.

 

[Davian]

God's existence is self evident to me the same way it is self evident to me that I am a human and not a robot.

What if you were a robot capable of self-deception? How would you know?

Are you capable of self-deception?

 

[Truth Matters]

Yep, TN.
There is a double standard. Biological life on this planet is no more evidence for life elsewhere than Mack trucks on this planet is evidence for Mack trucks on another planet.

There is a very specific design criteria that must be met for each to develop. In fact, biological life has for greater specified complexity than the Mack truck. The chances of life self-assembling Naturally is infinitesimally small (essentially zero). Twice in the same Universe is incomprehensible.

Further, the atheist is begging the question by presuming No God exists, yet man exists. He has no evidence that is true.
He has no more basis to believe no God exists than he does to believe life exists where there is no evidence of life.

 

[Elioenai26]

What if you were a robot capable of self-deception? How would you know?

Are you capable of self-deception?

 

[Elioenai26]

Yep, TN.
There is a double standard. Biological life on this planet is no more evidence for life elsewhere than Mack trucks on this planet is evidence for Mack trucks on another planet.

There is a very specific design criteria that must be met for each to develop. In fact, biological life has for greater specified complexity than the Mack truck. The chances of life self-assembling Naturally is infinitesimally small (essentially zero). Twice in the same Universe is incomprehensible.

Further, the atheist is begging the question by presuming No God exists, yet man exists. He has no evidence that is true.
He has no more basis to believe no God exists than he does to believe life exists where there is no evidence of life.

 

[JGG]

Yep, TN.
There is a double standard. Biological life on this planet is no more evidence for life elsewhere than Mack trucks on this planet is evidence for Mack trucks on another planet.

There is a very specific design criteria that must be met for each to develop. In fact, biological life has for greater specified complexity than the Mack truck. The chances of life self-assembling Naturally is infinitesimally small (essentially zero). Twice in the same Universe is incomprehensible.

Further, the atheist is begging the question by presuming No God exists, yet man exists. He has no evidence that is true.
He has no more basis to believe no God exists than he does to believe life exists where there is no evidence of life.

Has an atheist here claimed that no god(s) exist? I assume that your position is that there is no form of life anywhere else in the cosmos?

 

[Illuminaughty]

I said look into the life of Christ, not various schools of thought in Christianity.

At the accounts of his life presented in the Bible ? I've spent a good deal of time reading the Bible. That was the first book I went to when I got the bug to search for religious and philosophical truth. I wasn't brought up by regular Church goers but I still got a bit of the teachings handed down. Christmas being about Jesus and how you need to love God and be a good person and such. Coming from that upbringing the Bible was the most sensible place to start.

Look into the life of Christ and what He taught not what men today say about Him.

I have looked into what the authors of the New Testament said about his life and teaching. I even checked out a lot of the earlier non-canonical stuff both orthodox (Church Fathers) and heterodox.

For did not Christ, after asking His disciples who people said He was, not ask the disciples themselves?

Possibly. The Gospels portray that. I question if they were even authored by first hand witnesses though.

What was Peter's confession?

According to the author of Gospel of Matthew Peter said : “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” According to the author of the Gospel of Thomas Peter answered: "You are like a just messenger."

 

[Davian]

I see that this *is* a game for you.