GOD IS DEAD

The trouble is that most theists do claim to know that there is a God of some sort...........The atheist argument that there is no evidence for God is a different sort of "know". I "know" that God does not exist in the same way that we arguably both "know" that Loki does not exist.We cannot prove that Loki does not exist. In fact via evidence based discovery we cannot know anything with 100% certainty. We can however have a degree of certainty that the term "know" applies in all but the most pointlessly exacting philosophical of contexts.

Your insistence on confusing and conflating the term "know" with some sort of philosophical 100% certainty and the more common every day usage of the term "know" with respect to things we are certain of to all practical intents and purposes is misguided at best and dishonest at worst.I don't claim to know that God does not exist. I just deem it to be so objectively unlikely that the term "know" is as close to my level of certainty as it is possible to be in everyday language. Philosophically I accept that God, Apollo and any other deity that you or I imagine or create up on the spot might exist but so what? Well when you say Know do you mean 100% certainty? Or just an everyday sort of "know"? Yes well believing the unbelievable on the basis of deeply personal, highly susceptible to delusion, experience is always an option. The whole point of evidence based conclusions is to embrace the fact that we are both non-omniscient and deeply susceptible to personal subjective delusion. The whole point of evidence based investigation is to reach reliable objective conclusions despite these very human attributes. If I invent a God now you do not knowif this god actually exists or not. Zig Zog has just revealed himself to me. He is the god of silly names. I think I have just invented Zig Zog but maybe I am misinterpreting direct revelation from a higher being. Maybe I am too stubbornly atheistic to accept the touch of Zig Zog's gaze and am assuming that I made him up when he is in fact very very real. You cannot prove or know that Zig Zog does not exist. If Zig Zog knocked on your door to give you your secret silly magic name where would you be? Is this a reason to believe Zig Zog exists? It sounds ridiculous and as though I am taking te piss but seriously, what is the difference in principle? What argument applies to the God you might have direct experience of but does not apply to the one that I might have unwittingly experienced? Philosophically I accept the possible existence of God. But philosophically I also accept the possible existence of Zig Zog. I accept the two equally. Both are equally stupid and unlikely conclusions based on all the available evidence. Have you seen the recent thread by Beretta and others regarding the evidence for design? (Evidence for Design - Is there any?) The ID contingent can come up with nothing but (to paraphrase) "it looks designed to me and I don't like any of the alternatives no matter what evidence they may have in their favour". Seriously the argument for design is all but non-existant. The thing that you fail to comprehend is that so do I. An incredible, unbelievably awesome, undeniable natural miracle.

When it comes to wholly subjectively derived "knowledge" one mans falsehood is another mans indisputable fact. And there is no way to distinguish between the two. Unless evidence based objective investigation is introduced..... Why not? Why is Zig Zog any less likely to exist than God? The only way you can claim any more evidence for God than Zig Zog is to resort to non-subjective evidence. And when that happens God tends to do rather badly. This term is meaningless unless you ca define "justified". You obviously think that your certainty in God is "justified". I think it is utterly "unjustified". There is no way to distinguish between the two without, yet again, resorting to objective evidence based investigation. Well I would argue that nothing is certain in the philosophical 100% knowledge sense. Not without faith. Not by any evidence based conclusion. Evidence cannot "prove" anything. In everyday parlance I would agree that you do indeed "know" these things. However this knowledge is based on objective independently verifiable evidence. Your knowledge of God however most definitely is not.
Your knowledge of God is no more founded than a potential knowledge of Zig Zog.
What exactly is the difference? Why is one justified, as far as you are concerned, and the other evidently stupid? What is the difference specifically?

It seems that your argument is based on the sacrifice and selflessnes that your "knowlede" of God induces. You seem to equate this with evidence for God that does not apply to Zig Zog, the FSM, the PU or ay other such entities. Is that correct?My argument is that any belief in any entities for which the "evidence" is purely subjective is utterly worthless in terms of reliability of conclusion.Therefore beliefs in any such entity are, objectively, equally absurd. Pink unicorn, Zig Zog or God.To claim that if such a belief causes sacrifice, denial and hardship then it is somehow more worthwhile in terms of it's veracity is completely nonsensical.All this does is demonstrate the depth of the delusion.Believing with absolute conviction that the mighty Zig Zog requires one to individually pluck each and every hair from ones body and then wear this as a permanent undergarment, and then undertaking this painful task, no more suggests that Zig Zog actually exists than living a "good Christian life" suggests that God actually exists.All it demonstrates is that people really do believe their delusion to be true. I don't doubt that they do. The lack of meaningful or reliable evidence for God remains the same as that for PU or Zig Zog regardles of any strength of belief.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I would say objective verifiable evidence makes a theory viable This is your whole point and one which I fundamentally disagree with. If the objective evidence for God, PU or Zig Zog are all completely absent then there is no more reason to belive that God exists than PU or ZZ. This is my position. It is a different topic but there really is no scientific evidence for God. There are interpretations of evidence derived from philosophical standpoints but there is no predicted tested evidence or discovery. None exists. I have asked for it repeatedly and never been presented with any. No we do not. I exprienced ZZ and "chose" to interpret this as me making up a God for the sake of argument.
You experienced God and "chose" to interpret this as subjective evidence of his genuine existence.
Either one of us could have potentially gone the other way.
The whole concept of JTB is utterly and completely reliant on a subjective agreement as to what is justified. There are people who experience God and believe that he tells them to kill people. Is this JTB? There are millions who absoluetely believe in Hindu Gods. Is this JTB? I experience ZZ and dismiss this as an imaginary God. Is this JTB? You choose to interpret your subjective experience as evidence for God. Is this JTB? How are all of these different.One mans justifeid belief is another mans delusional insanity. Unless we resort to objective evidence there can be no agreement as to the criteria for "justifiable" It was a misunderstnding. I try not to debate with myelf as I usually lose You happen to be correct that ZZ means nothing to me. But then again nor does your God.
If I did radically change my life on the basis of what I beleieved ZZ required of me would that add any weight at all to the likelihood of his existence? Surely not? Would it not just suggest I was a bit mental? If by virtue of my personal charisma (I wish....) I managed to convince a whole society to follow the teachings of ZZ would that make his existence more "real"? Surely not. Differences in people's behaviour (which seems to be what you are talking about) tell us nothing about the veracity of Gods existence. They simply tell us the depth of people's belief at any given time in a specific cultural context. People have died for Apollo and Vishnu. Maybe one day people will die for ZZ. People believe in (or have believed in) Apollo and Vishnu. Maybe one day people will believe in ZZ. Apollo and Vishnu are both historically prevalent. One day ZZ may be so. It is unknown whether or not Apollo or Vishnu are ideas. ZZ may be more than an idea. You only have the word of a atheist that ZZ was a conjured up idea rather than direct revelation. Surely that is not a subjective judgement worth trusting????!!!!! All you have done is show that the Christian concept of God is most prevalent within the culture that we both happen to currently inhabit. Vishna meets all the criteria you specify in another contemporary culture. Apollo meets all the criteria in a historical context. ZZ (or another God as yet unknown) could well meet all these criteria in a future context. History teaches us that Gods come and go. There was a point in history where the same comparison you make between God and ZZ could have been made between the Christian God and Apollo. By your definitions this would have resulted in the conclusion that Apollo was the 'real' god and that God was equivelent to little more than ZZ.
Baed on this what is to say ZZ (or some other God) will not overtake your God in all the criteria you specify at some point in the future? It's not just your God though is it? I can apply your reasoning to any contemporary God.
We could apply your reasoning against the idea of the Christian God at any point in history before the Christian God was the prevalent belief.
This suggests that one day ZZ (or another God) could be the prevalent God. Not really. You have twisted logic to effectively say little more then "Lots of people genuinely believe in my God. This makes it more real/true than a God which very few or no-one actually believes in".KEY POINT
Your whole argument is little more than a philosophically dressed up assertion that the objectively verifiable number of people who demonstrate that they really do believe in the existence of God is somehow evidence for the subjective belief that you all superficially share. You are trying to sneak in physical evidence based reasoning to unjustifiably support subjective belief. If anything this is an indirect admission that you too consider objective verifiable evidence as a necessary requirement for a meaningful position on this topic. Backing a particular God on numbers alone is a dangerous game. If the currency of the gods is number of believers then your God may be a rich God now but he was a poor god once and he could be so again............The cult of ZZ is coming Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But Huntard I have been recruiting and far more people now believe in Zig Zog than Trask.Therefore the existence of Zig Zog is more true

Your whole argument boils down to "Lots of people genuinely believe in my God. This demonstartes that it is more "true" than your made up Gods"But this has several problems.1) Every God was at one time the "new God on the block". Apollo was once more worshipped than the Christian God. By your argument this was at that time "justified true belief" for all the reasons that you attribute to your God now. Thus "justified true belief" is negated unless we are to give equal credence to Apollo and all the other Gods that preceded, or are contemporary (e.g. Hindu Gods), to your God.2) Your use of believers in terms of numbers and strength of belief is an attempt to sneak in objective verifiable evidence as some sort of "evidence" for God's existence. But this in itself is an admission that subjective belief is unreliable. Why does it matter how many people believe if the personal, subjective evidence for God is in itself reliable?3) When you say that many people have given their lives (or whatever) for God is it really the same God? How do you know? If I ask a million Christians "Does your God damn homosexuals to eternal damnation" (for example) then would the resulting two groups defineitely be considering the same God? If you ask enough questions I think you will find that each theist has a God whose perecived attributes are unique to the attitudes of each believer. More evidence that God only exists in the mind of the believer and not in any osrt of even remotely objective reality.Your argument sounds superficially philosophically valid but at root you are saying nothing more than the tired old assertion that belief (in enough numbers) is somehow in itself evidence for the existence of God. Take away the pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo and all that is left is this well trodden and repeatedly refuted argument.

Objective? Impartially derived? Please.........
Every argument you have made could be twisted to apply to any god. Historical, Hindu, "made up" etc. etc. But you apply it only to your God on the baseless assumption that we must somehow give your God and your God alone some sort of benefit of the doubt. Why must we assume that God is any less made up than the IPU? In terms of objective evidence the two are entirely equal. Well change this sentance to read:"This means that God is ONLY unprovable to not exist BECAUSE it is made up. Google "vacuous truth", or "vacuous statements in logic"And you have the same problem with God except for the fact that you have previously implied that numbers and strength of belief make some sort of difference to God's status as compared to the IPU. They do not for all of the reason pointed out previously. They are entirely equivelent unless you can show that God is not made up!!! That is the point.
For your argument to hold any water at all we must first assume that God is not made up and that all other gods necessarily are. This is a false, illogical and unjustified starting point for any honest debate. By the same logic we are equally uncertain whether Apollo, Vishnu or the IPU exist.
The only difference between your God and any of these that you have suggested are as a result of you assuming that your God is not made up as well. Otherwise everything that you are saying can equally be applied to any other gods or god. Including the IPU.How do you know that IPU or Zig Zog or any other god anyone cares to name or create are actually made up and not the product of misinterpreted or misplaced divine revelation? You cannot "know" any more than I can "know" that your relationship with God is wholly delusional. It was not my intention to slip these in unfairly. My point was a historical one. From my point of view ALL gods are made-up gods and as history progresses one made-up god supercedes another in terms of predominant belief. Your God is just another made up God in a long line of made up Gods. Apollo, Thor et al came before. The IPU or an equivelent "made up" god could well be next. The arguments you made in favour of your God previously would have applied to other gods from times gone past and could just as readily be applied to different "made-up" gods at some point in the future. That was the point. I don't think that you need to know anything beyond the fact that they had large numbers of believers of very strong conviction. But the comparisons you choose to make are selectively derived to support your argument.
The key thing that is irrefutably identical about all of these deities and gods, whether they be historical, from other contemporary cultures or "made up" is that their existence or otherwise is unprovable and therefore, strictly speaking, unknown. The same argument that you are applying to your God could ultimately be made for any other god.Implying that we must assume that your God exists until we can disprove this whilst assuming that all other gods do not exist unless we can prove that they do is a blatantly baseless position.The obvious conclusion, and one that is entirely consistent with all of the objective evidence is that ALL gods are equally unevidenced and are thus all equally "made up".

Exactly the same can be said of any other god. Historical, contemporary other culture or "made up". Logic? What logic? You are claiming knowledge that you cannot logically have.You are declaring that you can differentiate in terms of truthfulness between delusion that is being interpreted as revelation and revelation that is being interpreted as possible delusion. In the absence of objective evidence no such differentiation is logically possible.What if the IPU does exist? What if the IPU is a mischievous god who reveals himself only to those who are most cynical at the very point that they are demonstrating their cynicism regarding all forms of godliness by arguing with theists? A god with a sense of humour sitting there wetting himself at the idea that his revelation at the right moment supports the denial of his actual existence. A god with an ironic sense of mischief? There is just no getting around the fact that the Christian faith is full of delusion promoting proclamations - "Blessed are those who believe but do not see" etc. etc. - which are loaded with spin to support faith based false positive arguments regarding the existence of God. 1. None of the differences you describe objectively support the veracity of your god's existence beyond that of any other god. They are differences for the sake of difference alone with no relevance or even significance to the relative veracity of any one god existing over any other.
2. You have to assume that your God is more than vacuously true for this point to have any relevance. You have provided no viable basis on which to make this assumption. Your entire argument, although dressed up in philosophical clothing, simply amounts to the declaration that the non-existence of God cannot be proven or demonstrated. As has been discussed the same can be said of any historical god, any Hindu god and frankly any "made up" god. In terms of objective evidence they are all equally unfounded.You have then gone on to suggest that your god should be given some sort of special dispensation whereby the default position should be to assume his existence. Why every single historical god or contemporary Hindu god (for example) is also not deserving of this special dispensation is something that you have failed to even begin to address.
You have given reasons as to why you consider it the case that your god should be considered in a more positive light than "made up" gods. However these reasons have been found wanting.1) Meaning: It is true that the IPU, FSM or Zig Zog have little or no meaning to people's lives. However this was also true of the Christian God at the time of Apollo. Historically every god must at some point be a "made up" god that has no relevance or meaning to peoples lives. Every "made up" god has the potential to be the "New God on the Block" at some point in the future. And every established god was at one point a "made up" god.2) Vacuous ness: You apparently "know" that the IPU is "made up" with 100% certainty. How can you know this? It is impossible to differentiate delusion interpreted as revelation from actual revelation. Likewise it is impossible to differentiate revelation interpreted as potential delusion from potential delusion interpreted correctly. If a god really did reveal himself to me and I choose to interpret this as me inventing gods how can you possibly know that the god in question does not actually exist? You cannot. No more than I can "know" that you are deluded regarding your God.3) Equivalence: Apollo, Thor, Zig Zog, IPU etc. etc. etc All have differences with your God. They all have differences with each other. However none of the differences you have stated have any bearing at all on the objective likelihood of the veracity of their respective existence. The fundamentally key way in which they are all however equivalent is in the fact that it is ultimately and equally impossible to disprove the existence of any one of them. In the only way that matters in relation to this debate they are all very much equivalent.CONCLUSION
There is no reason to give your god any special dispensation from positive objective evidence based conclusions. Thus your God is equally as unlikely as any other. Historical gods, contemporary gods from other cultures or even "made up" gods. All are equally unevidenced. All are equally untenable.The cult of Zig Zog lives on

You said that last time..... Nobody knows if Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Vishnu, IPU or Zig Zog exists. Not to mention a literally infinite amount of other possible such entities. They are all equally unevidenced. They are all equally unlikely. I would say ALL gods are unbelievable by simple examination. Logic? All you have demonstrated is personal incredulity. Not logic.
You can no more know that Apollo, Thor, the IPU or Zig Zog are "just fashioned by men" than you can do God.
The fact that you think the existence of God is "logical" whilst at the same time insisting that all other potential creators/deities are "illogical" despite the objective evidence for all of them being equally non-existent suggests that what you mean by "logical" is nothing more than a euphemism for 'personally believable to you'. A Hindu would disagree with your "logic". An ancient Greek would disagree with your "logic". A Zig Zoggian would disagree with your logic.Your "logic" is nothing more than personal incredulity with pseudo-philosophical knobs on.That which is personally believable to you is not the same as being logical. That of which you are personally incredulous is not, by definition alone, illogical. You need to make that distinction. 1. There is no more reason to think any one god is any more or less made up than any other god. This too is self evident if you do not start from the baseless position of assuming that you are somehow privy to knowledge of the "one true God"
2. As already explained they are all utterly equivalent in the only way that matters in terms of this debate. They are all equally unevidenced. The existence or otherwise of each and every one is equally unprovable. What non-equivalences are you claiming make any difference to this indisputable fact? I have never said that I know that they are all made up. I have said that they are all equally unlikely.
To claim that your God and your God alone exists whilst denying the possible existence of all other gods is a prime example illogical theism. And so will Thor and Apollo and Vishnu and Zeus and Odin and IPU and Zig Zog and .... and .... and ... ad infinitumWHY SHOULD YOUR GOD GET SPECIAL DISPENSATION FROM EVIDENCE BASED CONCLUSIONS WHILST DENYING ALL OTHER GODS THIS SAME PRIVELIGE?This baseless assumption is the very height of arrogance and ignorance. Present your evidence in the appropriate forum and we will discuss it there. You arguments will be shown to be inadequate of that I have no doubt. You are quite right that atheist protest will remove nothing. Evidence based investigation however almost certainly will.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Actually no they are not. Evidence based investigation requires more than mere logic and deductive reasoning in order to form conclusions that can be considered in any way reliable. And reliable conclusions regarding nature must be the aim of anything that can truly be called science. This point is absolutely key to the entire EvC debate.PURE LOGIC
In the case of pure logic a reliable conclusion can be formed by deduction alone based on a true premise. In such cases the conclusion must logically follow from the premise and no extra information is required to ensure this.EVIDENCE BASED INVESTIGATION - THE PROBLEM
However evidence based investigation is a very different beast. It is a fact that when undertaking any evidence based investigation we can never know whether or not we have all of the relevant evidence. In practical terms we can in fact be pretty sure that we actually do not have all of the relevant physical evidence available. Thus even with the application of appropriate logic we cannot have full confidence in our conclusions. Add to this the inherent human inclination to misapply logic to reach subjectively desirable conclusions and I am sure that you can see the problem that we face with regard to necessarily incomplete physical evidence and deductive logic alone. So what is the solution to this problem?HYPOTHESES - THE SOLUTION
If incomplete physical evidence and deductive, potentially subjectively applied, logic do not ensure reliable conclusions how can we tackle this problem to ensure that we form the most reliable conclusions possible? We can test our conclusions against that which they purport to describe. In other words we can form hypotheses and test these against nature itself. Thus we maximise both the reliability and objectivity of our conclusions by continually pitting them against the very truths of nature that we hope to uncover.PREDICTION
How do we undertake such tests? We make predictions derived from our tentative "conclusions" (i.e. hypotheses). Hypotheses which are themselves formed by applying deductive logic to incomplete physical evidence. If our predictions are demonstrated to be correct then we can have increased confidence in our conclusions. If our predictions are found wanting then our hypothesis is refuted. Depending on the nature of the investigation and the likelihood of the prediction being true we can assess how much such verification increases our confidence in a theory. Thus specific measurable prediction is the absolute gold standard of scientific verification. Because it is so damned unlikely to match prediction by chance.THE CREATIONIST/IDIST ISSUE
When creationist/IDists insist that their interpretations are equally as valid as tested scientific conclusions, or when they claim that deductive logic as applied to physical evidence alone is a valid method of drawing scientific conclusions, they omit at least half of the scientific method. In doing so they miss the whole point of scientific investigation.Without testing evidence based conclusions against nature itself, without the formation and testing of hypotheses, conclusions can never be rendered reliable. Conclusions cannot be separated from subjectively derived false logic being applied to incomplete evidence. In short such conclusions can never be considered scientifically valid.Despite repeatedly asserting the validity of their methods in terms of logic and despite continually claiming that their conclusions are equally as reliable as those of true science the one thing I can guarantee is that creationists/IDists will make no efforts to form hypotheses or test their conclusions in any scientifically valid way.No predictions are made. No tests are undertaken. No discoveries result.CONCLUSION
Deductive, and potentially subjectively flawed, logic as applied to necessarily incomplete physical evidence cannot produce reliable conclusions. To render conclusions reliable by any truly scientific standard hypotheses must be formed, predictions made and tests undertaken.
Conclusions derived from deductive logic and interpretation alone are therefore both unreliable and unscientific.Anyone who claims otherwise either does not understand the nature of scientific conclusions or has a philosophically derived position that they do not wish to be subjected to the exacting standards of truly scientific evaluation.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well I am afraid that it is not at all scientifically valid and therefore not "as valid a conclusion as any principle could ever be" as you claim.As demonstrated in Message 264 deductive logic, even if applied adequately, to necessarily incomplete evidence fails to result in conclusions that have either been filtered for subjective bias or rendered reliable by any scientific measure.Until you address the whole issue of tested conclusions the whole principle upon which you found your argument remains in doubt.

When you do get round to answering this I suggest that you might want to give examples of other areas of scientific investigation where you would consider untested conclusions borne of incomplete evidence and subjective deduction alone to be reliable?Medicine?
Solid state phsyics?
Genetics?Would you put your life in the hands of a conclusion that has not been empirically tested but merely derived from deductive logic?If not why would we lower the standards of scienctific evidence with regard to the most challenging questions of all?

On what basis do you conclude that "nothingness" must necessarily be stable?I suggest to you that this in itself is a philosophical, rather than an evidentially supported, position.

You are asserting that something cannot come from nothing as inarguable fact. I am merely interrogating the assumptions that are implicit in this assertion. Namely the assumption that nothingness is stable rather than unstable. Why should it be so? Is the statement that "something cannot come from nothing" not philosophical rather than evidential in nature?We have no empiriacl knowledge regarding the nature of "nothingness". The closest approximation that we do have, the vacuum of space, whilst admittedly a very far from perfect approximation does indicate that common-sense notions of nothingness and stability may well be very lacking. Obvious? Axiomatic? In the same way that "a simple observation of reality and existence" suggets that:

The Earth is flat

The sun goes around the Earth

Heavier objects fall at a faster rate than lighter ones

Solid objects are made of solid particles rather than particles that are overwhelmingly predominantly empty space

That the mass of an object is unaffected by the velocity at which it travels

That a clock at the top of a mountain would progress at exactly the same rate as an equally accurate identical clock at the bottom of a mountain

That the empty vacuum of space does not have particles popping in and out of existence continually

​

By "obvious" and "axiomatic" you seem to mean little more than common-sensical. But all of the above common-sense assumptions have been considered "obvious" or even "axiomatic" facts previously and yet we can now repeatedly demonstrate them all to be false.

​

If science teaches us anything it is that common sense is an unreliable tool borne of limited human perception and not to be relied upon.

​

I have never witnessed true nothingness and nor have you. Simply asserting statements about such things is not evidence. Your statements are philosophical at best and borne of demonstrably unreliable common sense at worst.

​

If it (anything)exists it was always there in some form forever or something eternal in character and nature set it in motion, given the characteristics of all things we are aware of at present. You can easily dismiss my argument as philosophy and set it aside by giving me another alternative. If you cannot it stands as it has for thousands and thousands and thousands of years as a valid principle, axiomatic in character.

​

To concept of eternity is also philosophical as we have no physical evidence that any such thing necessarily exists. Certainly not in the sense that you seem to use the term anyway.

​

So in summary:

​

Your "something cannot come from nothing" assumption appears to be derived from common sense which is demonstrably unreliable regarding conclusions that relate to the physical universe.

Your insistence on eternity is an unevidenced concept derived from philosophical bias.

Your overarching methodology of deductive reasoning as applied to necesarily incomplete evidence has been thoroughly demonstrated to be totally unreliable and wholly lacking as a valid method of investigation. See Message 264.

​

This is an assertion I have already dimissed as illogical and unwarrented. Actaully you are exacally backwards, its physics that does not apply in the science of origins of reality and properties. It can only explain its properties, then logic and the science of deductive reasoning takes over at that point.

​

You keep on claiming this despite a full refutation of this position having been fully provided. I would be interested to see your response to Message 264 if you are able to muster one. Thus far you have repeatedly promised a response but as yet provided none.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.