Atheism or No Intelligence Allowed

[Subduction Zone]

I proved God sufficiently at the end of the post. Identity can't exist without perfect judgment defining it, and that perfect judgment can only be God's.

LOL! No, you only made a rather nonsensical claim that you did not justify. This is why theists get laughed at so often when they debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is incomplete. Many respectfull and valid theists say:

"I am the theist because I want so, however, there is no scientific proof for God yet."

That is fine, but that is an irrational belief. Simply replace "God" with "Bigfoot" and see how silly that argument is.

 

[ChristineM]

If Theists have the burden to present proofs, then Atheists have the burden to listen to those proofs attentively. In my experience, Atheists tend to be stubborn, no matter how clear the signs and proof is, they will deny.

So can you provide a proof. That's a real verifyable proof. And before you answer i should check out the relevant definition of proof... Note, opinion is not proof

 

[Subduction Zone]

That God sees you, and that you can't exist without that vision. Who you are and his vision are linked, that remembering who you are, well remind you of his vision, which will remind you of the perfect absolute judge.

Again, empty nonsensical claims will not win a debate. You implied that there was proof. Are you going to provide any or just spew homilies?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So can you provide a proof. That's a real verifyable proof. And before you answer i should check out the relevant definition of proof... Note, opinion is not proof

It seems that he thinks that he already has.

 

[Link]

So can you provide a proof. That's a real verifyable proof. And before you answer i should check out the relevant definition of proof... Note, opinion is not proof

Yes, a reminder is a proof if it points to something you know for certain about yourself that proves God. The reminder is that you and God's vision are intertwined, that you can't be who you are without his vision defining you and hence, by remembering this about yourself, you remember his vision and know he exists.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, a reminder is a proof if it points to something you know for certain about yourself that proves God. The reminder is that you and God's vision are intertwined, that you can't be who you are without his vision defining you and hence, by remembering this about yourself, you remember his vision and know he exists.

Wrong. That is opinion.

 

[Link]

There are long versions of this argument I've tried. In my experience, keeping it short and simple, is best. I can talk about it from endless angles and proofs, that, who we are and his vision are linked, and it's impossible for anything to have identity without God's vision giving it identity.

If we want to go the elaboration, then let's do it. But again, you will have to pay attention, and not complain about the long proofs of that premise, that is anyways, self-evident in itself.

 

[Link]

Wrong. That is opinion.

It's not wrong, it's reality. The fact that nothing can define who we are but the perfect judge is a self-evident fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, a reminder is a proof if it points to something you know for certain about yourself that proves God. The reminder is that you and God's vision are intertwined, that you can't be who you are without his vision defining you and hence, by remembering this about yourself, you remember his vision and know he exists.

Convincing yourself does not constitute a proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not wrong, it's reality. The fact that nothing can define who we are but the perfect judge is a self-evident fact.

Hmm, this is the first time that I have seen someone use the term "Self-evident" to mean unsupportable.

 

[ChristineM]

It's not wrong, it's reality. The fact that nothing can define who we are but the perfect judge is a self-evident fact.

That cannot be indipendentely verified so is completely useless to anyone else

 

[Link]

Convincing yourself does not constitute a proof.

And you being unconvinced doesn't do away with it being a proof.

So how are we going to settle this, who is wrong here, the believer presenting a proof (or not) or the non-believer has ignored to attentively receive it or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are long versions of this argument I've tried. In my experience, keeping it short and simple, is best. I can talk about it from endless angles and proofs, that, who we are and his vision are linked, and it's impossible for anything to have identity without God's vision giving it identity.

If we want to go the elaboration, then let's do it. But again, you will have to pay attention, and not complain about the long proofs of that premise, that is anyways, self-evident in itself.

Maybe you should lower your hopes and try to see if you can just find some evidence of God. I have seen far too many people that do not understand either proof or evidence.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Dr. Richard Dawkins in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed said:
"I am atheist because there is no proof that God exists."
First of all, it is incomplete. Let us read between the lines:
"I am atheist because there is no [globally accepted] proof that God exists and I want
to be atheist." He would demonstrate an un-emotional reason to be an atheist
if he would say: "I am atheist because there is [non-debunked] proof that God
does not exist."

But in the end, Richard Dawkins could have said the exact same thing about "no proof" for any fantastical thing from literature, historical accounts or storytelling, and YOU wouldn't bat an eye. For example - leprechauns, wendigo, bigfoot, mermaids, dragons (the fire-breathing kind, mind you), fairies, gremlins, nymphs, gods of various objects (a god of war, goddess of love) etc. etc. etc. You don't believe in those things, even though there have been accounts, stories, and literature about them for hundreds (if not thousands in some cases) of years. But as soon as it is your God under scrutiny, you go absolutely bonkers, when the evidence (or lack thereof) is no better or worse. Why is that?

 

[Link]

That cannot be indipendentely verified so is completely useless to anyone else

Yes it can. You can think about it and although it's self-evident, there are in fact, countless proofs for it and reminders that can show it being true and reminding you how clear you know this fact.

 

[Link]

Maybe you should lower your hopes and try to see if you can just find some evidence of God. I have seen far too many people that do not understand either proof or evidence.

His vision and who we are are intertwined. I can show this from many angles. It's impossible for our identity to exist without his vision defining us. I can show this from many angles, but it's self-evident. If you were interested, you would ask if I can elaborate and prove it aside from it being self-evident.

I can remind you how it's impossible that any but the absolute being vision define us. It's impossible for even the exalted chosen holy kings who witness us and our deeds as accurately and close to God's vision as possible for creation to do, to define us, as well, so let alone our minds that are mislead.

 

[questfortruth]

That is fine, but that is an irrational belief. Simply replace "God" with "Bigfoot" and see how silly that argument is.

Check this for irrationality: the electron is the particle and the wave same time.

Friends, the final text of the thread would be:

Dr. Richard Dawkins in a religious movie [Expelled: No Intelligence
Allowed] said something like this: ``I am atheist because there is no
proof that God exists." I believe it is incomplete, so, let me try to read
between the lines: ``I am atheist because there is no [globally accepted]
proof that God exists and I want to be atheist." Many respectful and valid
theists say: ``I am the theist because I want so, however, there is no
scientific proof for God yet." Richard would demonstrate an un-emotional
reason to be an atheist if he would say: ``I am atheist because there
is [non-debunked] proof that God does not exist."

 

[osgart]

The only way logic is any good is when you have knowns to deal with. Otherwise you are relying on your own perspective.

The only way to know a God is to prove it philosophically. You have to take all known evidences and determine a likelihood that you can prove from evidence that such an entity exists.

If you claim that God operates in the world, then you need evidence that everyone can't deny.

So what are your knowns that are your basis for knowing God exists? Then your logic from those knowns?

 

[Link]

The only way logic is any good is when you have knowns to deal with. Otherwise you are relying on your own perspective.

The only way to know a God is to prove it philosophically. You have to take all known evidences and determine a likelihood that you can prove from evidence that such an entity exists.

If you claim that God operates in the world, then you need evidence that everyone can't deny.

So what are your knowns that are your basis for knowing God exists? Then your logic from those knowns?

His vision and who we are are intertwined, it's impossible for who we are to have an accurate existence other then in his vision.