ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
But surely you understand that the things that are most likely true should be true no matter who you are speaking to. If you are personally convinced of something, it says nothing whatsoever about that thing's truth value - just that you believe it is true. The only things that have real, measurable truth value are things that can be objectively assessed based on merit. Just because something is true "to you" doesn't mean anything other than it is most likely false.If I have sufficient reason to believe it is true, this is another belief (supporting) the first belief (in God). It is sense of analysis. But I am also that which is determining 'what makes for sufficient reason.' I may not be 'all alone' in this, but ultimately, I am the decision maker, for 'my beliefs.'
You could, but you haven't tried. Refusing to accept your burden of proof on the grounds that you assert other people won't accept your reasoning is just an excuse.So, if I present data that says, I / you exist, and deem that sufficient reason for demonstrating that God's existence is true. That may not be enough. Let us pretend it is not. Thus, I could then present umpteen hundred other bits of data, all of which could be met with, "doesn't sufficiently demonstrate, within (my) reason, that God exists.
That's a false dichotomy. It is sufficient to say "there is no evidence of God" if no evidence has ever been presented in spite of hundreds of years of trying. It is not sufficient to say "because my supposition has not been proven false, it is therefore true". That's completely different logic.I apologize that you have not seen any evidence that works for you. And is about best I can offer at this point of discussion.
My supposition that the physical world is illusion is entirely valid unless you can present evidence of proof. Since none has so far been presented without being easily refuted or demonstrated to be a logical fallacy, my supposition is valid.
In other words, "there is no evidence of God because no evidence has ever been found" means the same as "there is no X because there is no X". Your argument, on the other hand, is "X is true because you have not disproven X".
No, I didn't. Your statement was very plain:Sorry you read my statements with that implication.
"Theist is belief in God's existence, God's attributes, God's influence on Self / Reality. Confidence in that. Based on knowledge. Derived from Trust, Reason, Experience and exploration of beliefs."
You quite clearly defined belief in God as requiring "confidence, knowledge, trust, reason and experience".
Which was in response to this:I got this from: "It just requires you not to believe something at face value without sufficient reason."
"An atheist is willfully lacking in all of this, unable to go down that road to Trust and Reason, because the position 'lack of belief' demands as much."
Also, you re-wrote my response like this:
"(Atheism) It just requires you not to believe something at face value without sufficient reason."
You were dishonestly claiming that I was talking about atheism, which I wasn't. I was talking about lack of belief. If you still refuse to understand, here's the exchange in full, without your creative editing:
"An atheist is willfully lacking in all of this, unable to go down that road to Trust and Reason, because the position 'lack of belief' demands as much."
"No, it doesn't. It just requires you not to believe something at face value without sufficient reason."
Now, I shouldn't have to teach you basic language skills for you to see and understand exactly what I was addressing.
Not only did you not address it, you altered it to make it seem as if I had made a claim I never made, then formulated a straw man of the very argument you altered. I never once said "atheism is a requirement".I have. I squarely addressed the point made.
No, it doesn't. It puts you nowhere, since "physical world doesn't objectively exist" is an empty, meaningless claim that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on any kind of meaningful discussion.Whining? LOL.
My standards for evidence seem as high as any, and considering I keep harping on 'physical world doesn't objectively exist,' I would say that puts me ahead of the curve.
My nextdoor neighbour exists. I have met them personally, I see the result of them personally mowing their lawn, they get their mail wrongly delivered to my house, I hear him shouting at his kids through the living room wall, I hear his car drive away to work every morning, he sends me birthday cards, I occasionally talk to him on the phone or over the fence about the council, he came to a barbecue of mine once.Tell me your standard of evidence, and if you wish to put forth, "objective" as a standard, please do your absolute best to cite example(s) of said evidence. Ones you are fairly sure I cannot not shoot down with logic / reason. In so doing, I will be glad to provide equal or greater evidence for beliefs that Spirit world / reality exists. And that God is Creator of that world, aka Creator of who I really am.
Then your beliefs cannot be assessed as being objectively true.I cannot demonstrate objectivity in said beliefs.
Then your definition of real is meaningless, and your logic ultimately useless.Don't think you can either with the physical. Verifiable will come from you, your experience. Perhaps terms like "real" and "factual" may need to be discussed / agreed upon before anything moves forward. Real to me is non-physical.