But that's because you don't know what science is. Of course there are assumptions, and they're usually known to be, and offered as, assumptions. — Michael Ossipoff

In fairness, they're often hidden, disguised as "axioms", when they are just assumptions; guesswork. Worse, we base further reasoning on these axioms, creating a house of cards, ready to fall as soon as the initial guess (axiom) proves unreliable. :meh: Assumptions on which we rely for further reasoning are, by far, the most dangerous sort of assumptions. All we need to do, to really drop ourselves in it, is to forget (even briefly) that our reasoning is based on sand. Then we're doomed. :smile:

The metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have or need any assumption — Michael Ossipoff

I'm sorry, but I haven't followed every word you've written here. :blush: You have a metaphysics that doesn't have or need assumptions? What is this miracle of philosophy? If you don't want to repeat yourself (understandable :up: ) perhaps you could point me to the post(s) where your description lies? Thanks.

what is the basis of what we hold as true based on science in 2018, is any different than what was held as true based on science in 1718, 1818, 1918 ?

The history of science is a long series of incorrect propositions held as true, until surpassed as a new truth.

This in no way diminishes the actual work of science, or mans ability to use reason to explain and understand the universe.

It is a reminder and caution to those who elevate science over its purpose to a religion. And outside of fact or reason, by faith alone believe it can and will answer all human questions. Both the physical, as designed to do, and the metaphysical, by returning them to the physical.

My point was that we shouldn't be expecting religion to deliver accurate facts about reality. That's the job of science.

Religion's job is to help us manage our relationship with reality. This is something very different. Religion should be judged by whether it helps people build a positive relationship with this place we find ourselves in. — Jake

This is, or should be, what this thread's about. Religion is a spiritual matter. It has a sort of spiritual logic, although I shouldn't call it that. It's a bit misleading to refer to logic when I really mean to say that spiritual matters have their own internal consistency. Yes, that's a better way of putting it. :smile:

Just as various posters here have been saying to one another "you misunderstand what science is", it is reasonable to say to those who are debating the Objective existence of God - a pointless enterprise if I ever saw one - you misunderstand what religion/spirituality is. It has almost nothing in common with science. It does not deal in facts, and it does not deal in incontrovertible physical evidence or repeatable experiments. It deals in aspirations and beliefs. As Jake says (above) it "helps us manage our relationship with reality". It has great merit for many humans. I has no logical justification. It is a complement to science. It is not compulsory: use it if you wish, but not if you don't. :up: :smile:

So personally, I would advise direct observation of reality, as free from thought as possible. — Jake

Zen is about as close as you'll get with this. There's too much nonconscious stuff going on as we perceive reality for us to set it all aside. We cannot help but interpret what our senses send us. :confused:

It is a reminder and caution to those who elevate science over its purpose to a religion. And outside of fact or reason, by faith alone believe it can and will answer all human questions. — Rank Amateur

Thanks for putting this so clearly. :up: :smile:

"What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?

Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.

But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself. — Michael Ossipoff

You have yet to speak for yourself.

These aren't atheist definitions of God we are putting forth, that would be inconsistent with being an atheist! How can anyone define something for which they have no evidence that it exists? They are theists definitions of God. If you have a different one then show us and stop going around in circles.

The burden is upon those that claim such a thing exists to define it.

I have asked you numerous times to define the God that we are rejecting without reason, and you can't do it.

The fact is that every notion of God is either contradictory or just a label for something else for which we know that exists, like trees, statues and the universe.

When are you going to define the God that we are so unreasonable to reject the existence of?

The history of science is a long series of incorrect propositions held as true, until surpassed as a new truth. — Rank Amateur

Exactly. When we are wrong, we admit it. Has any religion ever admitted that they were wrong, or have people simply come to reject that for which there is no evidence (like the Norse and Greek gods)?

This in no way diminishes the actual work of science, or mans ability to use reason to explain and understand the universe.

It is a reminder and caution to those who elevate science over its purpose to a religion. And outside of fact or reason, by faith alone believe it can and will answer all human questions. Both the physical, as designed to do, and the metaphysical, by returning them to the physical. — Rank Amateur

I didn't just give up and say I have faith that science will answer those questions. I showed the reasons why science can answer those questions and religion hasn't. So you're really just ignoring what I said, without any argument against, and just repeating yourself. You are the one relying on faith when you just ignore things that are said so that you can keep on saying the same thing over and over again.

It is a reminder that we need evidence and experimentation to prove anything. No one has provided either for the existence of God, so how can you blame science for that?

Religion is a spiritual matter. It has a sort of spiritual logic, although I shouldn't call it that. — Pattern-chaser

Why not? If love works in helping a person enhance their life, it's logical to love. If a belief works in the same way, again logical.

it is reasonable to say to those who are debating the Objective existence of God - a pointless enterprise if I ever saw one - you misunderstand what religion/spirituality is. — Pattern-chaser

All philosophy forums seem to suffer from the rampant misconception that religion is primarily a matter of ideological assertions. Many posters aren't even interested in understanding religion, they just want something to debunk and religious assertions seem like an easy target.

you misunderstand what religion/spirituality is. It has almost nothing in common with science. It does not deal in facts — Pattern-chaser

In fairness to the critics, religion often does claim to be dealing in facts, so the confusion can be understandable and reasonable. Understandable, but not very sophisticated. However, we might keep in mind that many posters (most?) are young men, and nobody is born knowing everything about everything.

It (religion) is not compulsory: use it if you wish, but not if you don't. — Pattern-chaser

No, that's wrong. If these posters don't start singing tearful tunes to Baby Jesus pretty soon we're just going to have burn them at the stake and move on. I don't have all day for this you know. :smile:

I didn't just give up and say I have faith that science will answer those questions. I showed the reasons why science can answer those questions and religion hasn't. So you're really just ignoring what I said, without any argument against, and just repeating yourself. You are the one relying on faith when you just ignore things that are said so that you can keep on saying the same thing over and over again. — Harry Hindu

We are working on different definitions. I have never said it is not reasonable to believe science will not answer every question. As I will say it is reasonable to believe in a non contingent or necessary being is. But while each is reasonable we both make a leap of faith to believe as true and act accordingly as a matter of our world view that future beliefs of our respective religions is in fact true. That trust, while reasonable, if a belief based on faith.

What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it? — MountainDwarf

Religion has no purpose in of itself. The invention of religion is as natural as our human psyche, since we always attribute abstract explanations when there are no obvious answers found. We are a pattern seeking species that fill in blanks where there's nothing in between the known. This is how religion starts to grow and the less knowledge we have about how the world and us as humans work, the more prone to inventing religious patterns and answers we are. Over the course of history, those ideas gets corrupted by the power hunger of people of power and converted into hierarchical power structures to steer the population in a certain direction, bad or otherwise.

Essentially, religion is a form of control, that has roots in our pattern seeking way of thinking about the things we lack knowledge of.

On top of that, the spiritual part has to do with comfort, we get comfort in having a "higher power" that watches over us, we get comfort in the idea of authority guiding us. It comes out of the deep rooted comfort in our relation to our parents, all appeal to authority comes from this dynamic between parent and children and it demands a strong mind to turn away from that comfort. This comfort also exist in the moral teachings of religion, we also find comfort in having a list of rules to follow in a world seemingly without rules.

There has also been research into IQ and religious belief. Now I hope that in this forum, people will understand that this is not about being condescending, but there's a pattern of low intelligence connected to religious belief and when looking at how we act out in the world, as said, it demands a strong mind to be free of the comfort and the driving forces that pushes us out towards religious belief and patterns. People with lower IQ tend to follow authority more, they do not question the world around them and therefor are more easily manipulated into religious belief. Standing in front of the total chaos of knowledge, conflicting ideas, the unknowns of the world and universe is a very scary thing to do and it demands that people have the mental capacity and strength to actually think in new ways, to combine many conflicting perspectives to find a more rational truth etc.

Religion is comfort, it's a sense of guidance, but through that a tool of power for many different types of people.

The other aspect is the emotional aspect. There are people who have reasonably high IQ who are still believers in a certain religion. I can only argue that this is because of the comfort as an emotional aspect. They have two parts of themselves; the scared comfort seeking emotional self and the rational and thinking self, separerad. Whenever they think and feel about their own personal and subjective morals and feelings they act out and think through that inner comfort-seeking self while when working on complex things and ideas they project an external self to handle that separately. It becomes a shield of their inner self. A person who has a strong sense of how their inner self works, who understands themselves deeply, who find comfort in themselves, are rarely religious.

Now I know that all of this sounds condescending, but there are so much research pointing in a very specific direction for these questions that it's not rational to ignore them. Apologetics usually turn to arguments that's about the importance of religion in people's life, that for some it's essential for their mental well-being and that's hard to argue against, but my opinion is that because we do not have a replacement for that comfort in atheism, we do not yet have a way to open the door to atheism in a comforting way. For religious people who seek comfort, seek answers to life, the world and universe; the void in atheism is pure darkness for them. Many atheists see light in the process of learning new knowledge, in the process of asking questions and the search for true answers, but for those who find that to be a mental burden, it's pure terror for them to open that door.

This is why most arguments for atheism fail when trying to open the eyes of someone religious; they do not look at the core of why religious belief exist, only the irrationality of that belief. The irrational is only the surface level of a cognitive process that demands respect because we respect people and even if I don't think religion demands respect, the people needs to be respected. Their need for comfort is essential for their well being and respecting that is essential in order to give well being to people in a world without religion.

We are working on different definitions. I have never said it is not reasonable to believe science will not answer every question. As I will say it is reasonable to believe in a non contingent or necessary being is. — Rank Amateur

But it isn't reasonable to believe that. It isn't reasonable to believe that because believing that requires you to believe in another being that created the other in order to be consistent. It also adds a lot more complexity that isn't necessary to explain existence of the universe. Where does this being exist in relation to us?

But while each is reasonable we both make a leap of faith to believe as true and act accordingly as a matter of our world view that future beliefs of our respective religions is in fact true. That trust, while reasonable, if a belief based on faith. — Rank Amateur

You seem to be conflating religious faith with inductive reasoning. If you don't know the difference, I can't really engage in a reasonable conversation with you.

Happy to end here as well

What point are you making here? I agree with both sentences, but don't understand how they relate to what I wrote:

An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position.
— Pattern-chaser

The person who asserts the [non-]existence of God goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaching a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position. — Pattern-chaser

The point is as I wrote, that the claim is meaningless. Either side may or may not be a faith position. Simply asserting the existence of God may not be a faith position if there's nothing behind it. For example, if you were brought up in a culture where there was no concept of God and then one day a trusted friend said to you, "God exists." You might say something like, "Uh, okay. Tell me more." But he just leaves it at that and says nothing else about it. Then the next day you run into an atheist who says, "God is dead." And you're like, "Oh crap, I just found out it existed!" In this scenario you're not occupying a faith position, right?

A religion cannot be comprised of a simple notion such as that God exists. A religion is comprised of various elements, some more essential than others, which offer meaning. In the above scenario, the concept of God is basically meaningless to you.

A person who asserts the [non-]existence of God may reach that conclusion by examining the theists narrative. Are there elements in the Bible that are inconsistent with known facts, for instance? Yes. Again, if someone just made the claim that "God exists" and nothing else, they would pretty much be ignored.

"The metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have or need any assumption" — Michael Ossipoff


I'm sorry, but I haven't followed every word you've written here. :blush: You have a metaphysics that doesn't have or need assumptions? — Pattern-chaser

Yes.

What is this miracle of philosophy?

Admittedly, people don't like giving up assumptions.

If you don't want to repeat yourself (understandable :up: ) perhaps you could point me to the post(s) where your description lies? Thanks.

I've finally caught onto the desirability of saving some of my posts in Word. So I'll just find a good example there, and paste it into this conversation.

Michael Ossipoff



4 hours ago
Reply
Options[/quote]

I think you may be having trouble separating the concepts of spirituality and religion.
— praxis

Me too. I see no significant difference between the two. — Pattern-chaser

As Jake says (above) it [religion] "helps us manage our relationship with reality." — Pattern-chaser

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Jake has agreed that religion is superfluous to the project of 're-establishing a psychic connection with reality', a connection that was lost by "thought” or rather being “lost in thought.” I wouldn’t describe the situation that way but agree with the general idea. I believe a project of this kind could accurately be described as being spiritual in nature.

There are various methods for achieving this 're-establishment', some very old, like meditation, certain kinds of breathing techniques, psychedelics, and some very new, like electrical brain stimulation, but they're all about the same thing, which is deactivating the DMN (default mode network). I've previously mentioned the DMN in this topic. The DMN is active when lost in thought and is responsible for our sense of self, self-narrative, and the like. Deactivation of the DMN has various benefits like reducing existential anxiety and addiction issues.

So in this way we can have spirituality without religion. I don't think that I need to argue that there can be religion without spirituality. Most people know that there've been contrived religions or false religious leaders who've used systems of meaning to manipulate and take advantage of naive followers.

To summarize, spirituality is essentially about transcendence or "re-establishing a psychic connection with reality" and religion is about fulfilling our natural desire for meaning (shared values, purpose, etc.) and basically amounts to tribalism. Like any other natural desire such as hunger or thirst, our desire for meaning is part of a successful evolutionary survival strategy.

First two premises that we all agree on:
.
1. We find ourselves in the experience of a life in which we’re physical animals in a physical universe.
.
2. Uncontroversially, there are abstract implications, in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.
I claim no other “reality” or “existence” for them.
.
By “implication”, I mean the implying of one proposition by another. By “abstract implication”, I mean the implication of one hypothetical proposition by another hypothetical proposition.
.
So there are also infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with the many consistent configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions.
.
Among that infinity of complex hypothetical logical systems, there’s one that, with suitable naming of its things and propositions, fits the description of your experience in this life.
.
I call that your “hypothetical life-experience-story”. As a hypothetical logical system, it timelessly is/was there, in the limited sense that I said that there are abstract implications.
.
There’s no reason to believe that your life and experience are other than that hypothetical logical system that I call your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Just as I claim no “existence” or “reality” for abstract implications, so I claim no “existence” or “reality” for the complex systems of them, including your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Each of the infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things is quite entirely separate, independent and isolated from anything else in the describable realm, including the other such logical systems.
.
Each neither has nor needs any reality or existence in any context other than its own local inter-referring context.
----------------------------
Any “fact” in this physical world implies and corresponds to an implication.
.
“There’s a traffic-roundabout at the intersection of 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, you’ll encounter, there, a traffic-roundabout.”
---------------------------
Every “fact” in this physical world can be regarded as a proposition that is at least part of the antecedent of some implications, and is the consequent of other implications.
.
For example:
.
A set of hypothetical physical quantity-values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a “physical hypothesis, theory or law) together comprise the antecedent of a hypothetical implication.
.
…except that one of those hypothetical physical quantity-values can be taken as the consequent of that implication.
.
A true mathematical theorem is an implication whose antecedent includes at least a set of mathematical axioms.
---------------------------
Instead of one world of “Is”…
.
…infinitely-many worlds of “If”.
.
We’re used to declarative, indicative, grammar because it’s convenient. But conditional grammar better describes our physical world. We tend to unduly believe our grammar.
--------------------------
You, as the protagonist of your hypothetical life-experience-story, are complementary with your experiences and surroundings in that story. You and they comprise the two complementary parts of that hypothetical story.
.
By definition that story is about your experience. It’s for you, and you’re central to it. It wouldn’t be an experience-story without you. So I suggest that Consciousness is primary in the describable realm, or at least in its own part(s) of it.
.
That’s why I say that you’re the reason why you’re in a life. It has nothing to do with your parents, who were only part of the overall physical mechanism in the context of this physical world. Of course consistency in your story requires that there be evidence of a physical mechanism for the origin of the physical animal that you are.
.
Among the infinity of hypothetical life-experience-stories, there timelessly is one with you as protagonist. That protagonist, with his inclinations and predispositions, his “Will to Life”, is why you’re in a life.
.
The requirement for an experience-story is that it be consistent. …because there are no such things as inconsistent facts, even abstract ones.
.
Obviously a person’s experience isn’t just about logic and mathematics. But your story’s requirement for consistency requires that the physical events and things in the physical world that you experience are consistent. That inevitably brings logic into your story.
.
And of course, if you closely examine the physical world and is workings, then the mathematical relations in the physical world will be part of your experience. …as they also are when you read about what physicists have found by such close examinations of sthe physical world and its workings.
.
There have been times when new physical observations seemed inconsistent with existing physical laws. Again and again, newly discovered physical laws showed a consistent system of which the previously seemingly-inconsistent observations are part. But of course there remain physical observations that still aren’t explained by currently-known physical law. Previous experience suggests that those observations, too, at least potentially, will be encompassed by new physics.
.
Likely, physical explanations consisting of physical things and laws that, themselves, will later be explained by newly-discovered physical things and laws, will be an endless open-ended process…at least until such time as, maybe, further examination will be thwarted by inaccessibly small regions, large regions, or high energies. …even though that open-ended explanation is there in principle.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Zen is about as close as you'll get with this. There's too much nonconscious stuff going on as we perceive reality for us to set it all aside. We cannot help but interpret what our senses send us. — Pattern-chaser

Ok, fair enough. I would agree that a failure of many commentaries, including a number of my own, is to oversimplify the subject to "thought vs. non-thought". It's likely more useful to compare the situation to the volume controls on my TV, which range from 0-100.

"What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?

.
Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.

.
But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
You have yet to speak for yourself.

.
Harry wants me to promote a religion here. Sorry, Harry. No.
.
(…but my comments about my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them, are available throughout these forums, in various other threads.)
.
I’m visiting this thread only to comment on what Atheists are trying to say. …what they mean.

These aren't atheist definitions of God we are putting forth

.
Wrong. It becomes your definition too, when you choose it and adopt it.
.
You’ve chosen and adopted the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists’ God as your own One-True-God to devotedly, fanatically, loudly and never-endingly disbelieve in.
.

How can anyone define something for which they have no evidence that it exists?

.
Good question. Then don’t.
.
No one here would say that you should believe anything that you don’t know of reason to believe.
[/quote]
.
They are theists definitions of God.
[/quote]
.
…some Theists’ definition. (singular, not plural) …and now your definition too, because you’ve adopted it.
.

If you have a different one then show us and stop going around in circles.

.,
Definition? For one thing (as I’ve told you many times) I don’t usually use the word “God”, because it has anthropomorphic implications.
.
But there are Theists who agree with me, and who do use that word. There are two reasons why I won’t post a definition to this thread:
.
1. My purpose in these Atheist threads isn’t to promote a religion to you. It’s merely to show others that you aren’t clear about what you mean.
.
2. Words, definitions, descriptions are as inapplicable to the matter of the nature and character of Reality as a whole, as are proof, assertion and argument.
.
Anyone claiming to say something meaningful about that has the burden of proof to show that he is doing so.
.
What you Atheists are so loudly pursuing is a silly tempest-in-a-teapot between two Fundamenalist Biblical-Literalist factions: Atheists and Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist Theists.

.

The burden is upon those that claim such a thing exists to define it.

.
1. You have devout faith that all that is, is definable and describable. I commend you for your faith.
.
2. Anyway, the word “exist” is metaphysically undefined. And anyway, there are Theists (including me), who suggest that, even if “exist” meant anything, it would only apply to describable things.
.
3. And, aside from all that, the matter of God, or of the character and nature of Reality or What-Is, isn’t a matter for claims. …or assertions, arguments or proof.
.
So I, and whatever other Theists agree with me, make no claims about the matter.

.

I have asked you numerous times to define the God that we are rejecting without reason, and you can't do it.

.
:D
It’s for you to define the God that you’re rejecting.
.
You always seem to be speaking of the God of the Fundamenalists Biblical-Literalists, but nearly all aggressive Atheists seem to fervently and devoutly believe that what you’re saying applies to whatever anyone does, or could ever, mean when saying “God”.

.

The fact is that every notion of God is either contradictory or just a label for something else for which we know that exists, like trees, statues and the universe.

.
:D See what I mean? (in the paragraph directly above the quote above this line). Thank you for exemplifying it.
.
You’re glibly speaking of “every notion of God”, with the astounding conceit of believing that you know every notion of God, or that what you’re saying applies to every notion of God.
.
Anyway, arguably, “notion of” only applies to what is knowable. How sure are you that God is knowable?
.

When are you going to define the God that we are so unreasonable to reject the existence of?

.
It’s for you, not me, to say what you’re talking about.
.
It’s for you to be specific about what God or Gods you’re “rejecting the existence of”.
.
But I’ve already said that, haven’t I. We wouldn’t want to keep “going around in circles”, would we.
.
So do everyone a favor, and stop embarrassing yourself, and find different topic to discuss.
.
Michael Ossipoff

It’s for you to define the God that you’re rejecting. — Michael Ossipoff

Ok. For example, let's say that I make the claim that humpalumps exist. According to you, it would be up to you to define humpalumps, not me, in order to reject their existence. Good luck with that. Don't embarrass yourself in trying to define humpalumps and rejecting their existence because you'd only be rejecting YOUR definition, not mine.

The person who asserts the [non-]existence of God goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaching a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position. Only the agnostic position can be logically justified. — Pattern-chaser

That's not true, because there are exceptions, as I have mentioned, and I have demonstrated one such exception, logically and justifiably, here in this very discussion.

Maybe what you say here is different from what you really mean. Maybe what you really mean is something along the lines that the person who asserts the nonexistence of God, as per any conception whatsoever, goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaches a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position.

Would you not take a position of strong atheism, instead of agnosticism, if you found that the conception of the God under consideration entails a contradiction?

”It’s for you to define the God that you’re rejecting.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Ok. For example, let's say that I make the claim that humpalumps exist.

.
I’ll assume that you’re referring to people who claim and argue about the existence of God.
.
Theists who believe as I do don’t make claims in those matters. It isn’t a matter for claims, assertions, argument, or proof. It isn’t a debate-issue (except to aggressive Atheists, and the Theists from whom they borrow their version of God).
.
How many times is it necessary to say that?
.

According to you, it would be up to you to define humpalumps

.
Again I’ll assume that you’re referring to your (not my) existence-issue.
.
You’re still asserting your belief that God is describable and definable.
.

, not me, in order to reject their existence.

.
Yes, so that people will know what you’re saying, you’d need to state what you’re rejecting the existence of.
.
Quite aside from all that, suppose one Theist took the time to explain his version of Theism to you. Suppose you refuted it. Now that would add up to two Theisms that you’ve refuted: His, and your usual Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist belief that you so fervently and loudly express your disbelief in. You still won’t have supported your claim that all Theisms lack evidence or any justification for faith.
.
What, do you want me to define every Theism for you?
.
Michael Ossipoff

I’ll assume that you’re referring to people who claim and argue about the existence of God. — Michael Ossipoff

No, I'm only talking about Humpalumps. Do you believe in their existence? You should. They created the universe. Humpalumps are also indesribable and undefinable.

It wouldn't, but unfortunately most theists don't believe in "a god" but "the (one) true god/s." I'm open to a god/s but not of any human invention.

Then Harry is an asserter and claimer about Humpalumps, making him more like the usual Literalist than like anyone that I agree with...who aren't claimers or asserters.

Harry likewise believes in the antrhopmorphic notion of creation, further distancing him from anyone that I agree with.

Congratulations, Harry--You're a Humpalump Fundamentalist.

Those would be my objections to Harry's Humpalump religon--not the indescribability or indefinability of the Humpalumps that he believes in.

Odd though, because people with Harry's other Fundamentalist beliefs and tendencies would typically have a lot to say about describing and defining their deity, and would take any opportunity to do so.

Michael Ossipoff

You still won’t have supported your claim that all Theisms lack evidence or any justification for faith.

What, do you want me to define every Theism for you? — Michael Ossipoff

Wait. Are you sure he has actually claimed that? Because I haven't seen him claim that, and you did a similar thing with me, and in that case it was a straw man.

How about this? To the best of my knowledge, all theisms of which I have examined enough to reach the conclusion that they're lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief are indeed lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief.

Now it's on you to either present an exception, that is, present a case of theism with evidence strong enough to warrant belief, or, alternatively, accept the situation as it is.

You still won’t have supported your claim that all Theisms lack evidence or any justification for faith.

What, do you want me to define every Theism for you? — Michael Ossipoff


Wait. Are you sure he has actually claimed that? Because you did a similar thing with me, and it was a straw man.

How about this? To best of my knowledge, all theisms of which I have examined enough to reach the conclusion that they're lacking evidence are indeed evidence.

Now it's on you to either present an exception or accept the situation as it is. — S

I take your word for that, and accept the situation as you describe it: To the best of your knowledge, all the Theisms that you know of are ones for which you aren't aware of evidence. ...and for which you likewise aren't aware of any other justification for faith.

Michael Ossipoff

I take your word for that, and accept the situation as you describe it: To the best of your knowledge, all the Theisms that you know of are ones for which you aren't aware of evidence. ...and for which you likewise aren't aware of any other justification for faith. — Michael Ossipoff

Okay, so I predicted that response which kind of misses the point, and I tried to avoid it by altering the wording in an edit. So please see the edited version.

The point being that, under the assumption that there's an exception of which I'm not aware, and of which you are aware, it's on you to present it, not on me to refute all possible variations of theism. If Harry has claimed what you have said he has claimed, then yes, I agree with you that he has that burden, but not otherwise.

You should be able to quote him saying that, if he has said what you claim.

God is a creature that promotes great and rigorous distinctions. What is good belongs to God and must be sorted from the bad in order to secure witnesses, courtiers and courtesans, mercenaries, representatives, lucre, prestige and all that other good stuff.

I doubt very much that God, if such a being exists, would have much to do with human wants and reasoning. We're just apes that evolved on one little rock in a vast cosmos. Why would God be anything like us, or care whether we argued for it's existence?