I would say, as far as theists hurts themselves with their zealotry, atheists, deep down and psychoactively, desire a deep and meaningful subjective existence that transcends all understanding (e.g. eternity or infinitude), but that's just personal speculation.

Art, music, carnal knowledge, sensory knowledge etc are non intellectual means to knowledge about the world. — EnPassant

Oooo wweee, you just introduced the aesthetic mode of existence.

But the theist doesn't simply want you to regard his argument as reasonable enough to be taken into account, he wants to convert you completely. — Merkwurdichliebe

Which may be a key difference between a theist and an atheist. I can't speak for all atheists, there are undoubtedly those who have hate towards religion which drives them, but for most atheists, it's not about converting theists to become atheists, it's about questioning why to use that framework for the understanding of the world and universe. If the theist tries to convert me I would not really try to convert them back, I'm simply asking the "why" to everything. It's also the constant "why" that define atheists. It's never "why - because this" it's "why? - because this - why? - because this - why?" to infinity. There are no final answers, only questions and living with constant questions is daunting for many people. Which means it's daunting for theists that others ask them the "why" to their beliefs. I understand where belief is coming from, I could go through the psychological science of it and it wouldn't matter to a theist since accepting the questions is enough to shake the foundation of existence for them. This makes a fundamental difference; I can accept theists having their personal ideas of the universe but will question them if they put that conviction into the world as "truths" without any rational reasoning or evidence provided that survive the scrutiny all other truth claims in the world needs. A Theist, however, has a hard time accepting there even to be ideas that don't follow their personal belief, since that would be to accept questioning of their belief to be a valid perspective.

I would say, as far as theists hurts themselves with their zealotry, atheists, deep down and psychoactively desire a deep and meaningful subjective existence that transcends all understanding (e.g. eternity or infinitude), but that's just personal speculation. — Merkwurdichliebe

Zealotry on both sides is negative, I say both sides because people like Dawkins can get very zealous too.

I think both sides should be able to agree that the truth is the most important thing and work together towards that.

it's not about converting theists to become atheists, it's about questioning why to use that framework for the understanding of the world and universe. — Christoffer

I argue this is exactly the point. Your failure to convert is an offense to everything they believe, and this is exactly how they betray their faith - by relying on another to confirm it. Instead of budging you, he conforms to your terms , your framework, to convince you. And, then he doubles down.

I think both sides should be able to agree that the truth is the most important thing and work together towards that. — Devans99

Well, if it helps, I believe in miracles, after-all Trump is president, unfortunately or not.

The necessity to attach belief to atheism only seems like a way to undermine what it's about through rhetoric. I would argue that if theists were even interested in understanding the atheistic perspective, belief should be left out of the terminology for defining it. — Christoffer

Belief can not be left out of the analysis so long as BOTH sides of the God debate have faith in the qualifications of their chosen authority to deliver meaningful statements regarding the issue being addressed in the God debate, the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere (a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner).

Your making the classic mistake which defines atheism. You start with the agreed upon fact that reason is very useful at human scale, and then leap from that fact to the wild speculation that therefore reason is therefore qualified to analyze issues at ANY scale.

That wild speculation may be true. But you can't prove it. And like the vast majority of atheists haven't even tried to prove it.

I can't prove your wild speculation is untrue, nobody can to my knowledge. But there are compelling arguments which a real person of reason would be eager to inspect.

There have been many millions of species on Earth over many millions of years. Most of these species have some remarkable ability which allows them to thrive in their niche. But in no case, not one, has their ability been unlimited. In each case for every species, their ability is typically limited to what is needed for survival in their niche. Thus, it's entirely reasonable, indeed compelling, to argue that human ability is also limited. That is, it's very very likely that there are aspects of reality which we will NEVER understand, just as your dog will never understand the Internet no matter how hard or how long he might try to.

Another logical failure which plagues atheism (and humanity more generally) is that we compare ourselves to animals, and conclude from that comparison that we are very intelligent (conveniently ignoring that we have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats). But when it comes to the God debate, that is a useless comparison. The proper procedure in the God debate is to compare our ability to the nature of all reality, for that is the scope of God theories.

The primary obstacle for both theists and atheists to understanding any of this is that those on both sides have typically attached their personal identity to whatever ideology they are clinging to. Once one defines oneself as the "saved people" or the "smart people" the path of reason is typically lost to them, and they are reduced to ideologists chanting their dogmas over and over again in the hope that someone will validate the self flattering personal identity which they've come to cherish.

For evidence of this, just read the God threads on this forum. Observe how emotional they typically are. That emotion is all about personal identity, and has very little to do with the actual topic under discussion.

For further evidence, consider what would happen if all screen names were removed from the forum so that it became impossible to tell who said what, and all that was left were ideas. The forum would collapse in about two weeks, because the real reason that we are here (hey, look at me, I'm smart!) would no longer be achievable.

This makes a fundamental difference; I can accept theists having their personal ideas of the universe but will question them if they put that conviction into the world as "truths" without any rational reasoning or evidence provided that survive the scrutiny all other truth claims in the world needs. A Theist, however, has a hard time accepting there even to be ideas that don't follow their personal belief, since that would be to accept questioning of their belief to be a valid perspective. — Christoffer

Your analysis is on point.

That is, it's very very likely that there are aspects of reality which we will NEVER understand, just as your dog will never understand the Internet no matter how hard or how long he might try to. — Jake

Marvellous post Jake. You make short work of what I'm trying to say here, namely that the problem involves knowledge and what kinds of knowledge are valid and what their limitations are.

I can accept theists having their personal ideas of the universe but will question them if they put that conviction into the world as "truths" without any rational reasoning or evidence provided that survive the scrutiny all other truth claims in the world needs. — Christoffer

I agree, but the problem is how to define 'rational' and 'evidence' and what kinds of arguments are acceptable. People have a hard time reading from the same page.

Humanity has been in existential crisis for maybe 4,000-15,000 years of recorded history, and we don't understand much more than we did when we began to record ourselves trying to understand ourselves and our environment. A territory is a human concept. A map is a human concept. It all seems sort of like painting a moustache on a painting of a unicorn and saying "I finally figured it out". — whollyrolling

If you're talking in plain English, and are following the analogy that I made, then for you to claim that the map doesn't exist is for you to claim that the concept of God doesn't exist. Is that what you're claiming? Or are you talking past me? If the former, then that still requires an explanation, and the above isn't it. If the latter, then I'm not interested. You digress and are not very clear.

The subject of the thread is not whether God exists, it is about the discourse between theists and atheists and I have answered that; they cannot agree on the definition of reasonable argument. — EnPassant

You don't need to correct a mistake I haven't made. I know what the topic of this discussion is about. But I'm addressing the multiple bare assertions that you've made in this discussion, and that that's unreasonable does not require any agreement for it to be unreasonable. For it to be unreasonable, it just has to fail to meet a reasonable standard, and a bare assertion is a fallacy, which is faulty reasoning, so by definition it cannot be reasonable.

Granted, I have made assertions but I have made them purely as suggestions. Namely, that knowledge can be attained through non intellectual means. If this, in principle, is true - which it is - why should atheists scoff when theists assert that they have knowledge through non intellectual means? Art, music, carnal knowledge, sensory knowledge etc are non intellectual means to knowledge about the world. — EnPassant

That's fine, but not if you want to do philosophy, so you need to make your mind up. You can't have your cake and eat it.

You may also consider the difference between pure knowledge and images of knowledge because this has a lot to do with the way humans know things. For example, consider x^2 for x over a given range. That is an abstract, mathematical concept. Now consider a graph, on paper, of x^2. The graph is a physical image of the mathematical concept. So, consider this carefully because much human knowledge is by way of image rather than direct knowledge; metaphor as opposed to pure knowledge. This is what art and myth are and much science makes use of this kind of imagery (in science it is called a model). — EnPassant

The bottom line is, if you're doing philosophy, then you can't get away with bare assertions. It's as simple as that. No one can force you to do or believe anything against your will, but if you cannot reasonably support your bare assertions, then they can be simply and rightly dismissed.

We are going around in circles because you apparently find this too difficult to accept.

The bottom line is, if you're doing philosophy, then you can't get away with bare assertions. — S

Look, I made those statements simply by way of paraphrasing what theists say. Namely, that there is direct knowledge. The thread is not about trying to prove God's existence it is about how people discuss this issue and why discussion is problematic. That is what I'm discussing. You keep trying to draw me into secondary discussions about God's existence which is a distraction. You should also be aware that I was asked where I stand on the issue of God's existence* and I answered that so I was answering a question not making an assertion for discussion.


*Post 568 "By the way...what exactly is your position on the question?"

How are you doing? My life is going great, made the best candle ever last night. I wish we could post pictures here. It's a 5 layered in blue whale candle for the receptionist at the Recovery Innovations main office here in Riverside Ca. I'm taking them about 8 candles and 8 of my best soaps for outpatients & staff.

Anyway, yes, everything is explained by God and everything else has a cause with God as the underlying substrate. (or Substrate if you prefer).

God is Fully Actualized
Miracles are things inspiring awe and wonder, so not all miracles violate the laws of nature. Some conform to the uniform way things work. Some do not. God is self-explaining, but not self causing. Causes make what was only potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and was never merely potential and so needs no prior cause. Peace, Dennis

I agree that many miracles are consistent with the order of nature. Some are not. God is self-explaining, not self causing. Causes make what was potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and so was never potential and in need of being actualized. Peace, Dennis

These are copy and pastes of Dr. Dennis Polis (contributor here Dfpolis) in a conversation with a naturalist. Sometimes I copy and paste both parts, but don't have them here.

The direct evidence of God is the witness of God.

Hi, your friends are deeply religious and you're an "atheist" but how deep does the denial of the deity claim go?

Yes, the so called "obnoxious atheists"

There really isnt a depth when you deny something. I say "There is no God" the same way I would say "There is no milk". Are you religious?

That said, religion was born in our cave years to explain natural phenomenons (storms, winds, etc) and since we were pretty ignorant in our caves, we decided it was the Gods. — Dagny

The Vedas go against this notion.

Exactly, no depth, but you're glorifying the quality of devotion your friends have, rightly so. I'm the deepest religious person you'll ever come across, the most religious in the history of mankind. Why? Because I was given a Holy Cross on a mountain when I was born.

Here's a picture of my Dad/The USA giving it to me, less than 1/2 way down the page.

In case you didn't notice, I was taking a stab at you before.https://riversandlands.org/mt-rubidoux-peak-campaign-2018/mt-rubidoux-history/

but I am simply pointing out that no one knows if God(s) exists. — Maureen

If I may have the floor for a couple of seconds. First of all, am new to the site so bare with me and my knowledge of the philosophical world and its theories. I am fond of easy words as they are simple and honest. The more we look for words the more we will lose our chain of thoughts, that's my philosophy.

When it comes to the existence of God we have to point out few simple things and by the way this goes for everyone, believers and nonbelievers. By the way there is nothing in between.

1.) Not everything can be proven scientifically. Since is based on facts and facts are not as limited as science have discovered so far. How much is enough for someone depends on the capacity of the acceptance of that idea.

2.) God's scriptures will never be fully decoded by humans. A word of God is equal to thousands or probably more of different variations of its actual meanings by yet again we could be short.

3.) Understand what is all known, if you don't , then you are loosing the grounds for asking the questions of unknowns.

4.) There is a whole universe that is beyond our comprehension. The more we know the more we will have questions. Our knowledge is limited by every mean and possibility. The more since revels the more there is to be reveled.

5.) We are finite and God is infinite. If you have a different thought then you are not pointing to the God but someone else. God is Infinite by all means that if you are a believer. Now again this can be assessed easily by all believers. But for those who don't believe, the term of infinity, shouldn't mean anything at all, if it does then only the supreme will have that capacity.

We all worship and believe in someone or something in a manner that we tend not to label it as being a believer just by being not drugged to the Q.A of the idea. This instinct of worship is there in all humans. Those who believe are as much as in doubt as those who don't believe after all they all have the same DNA. The only strength of beliefs is the existence of a relationship with God. God is not defined but simply understood, therefore there is no such mechanism of what type of obedience can satisfy him at all. The more we drill into this idea the more we get into an argument with our mind if he should be worshiped at all?

In a relationship, the principle is that both parties have some knowledge about each other, which makes it easier for the human mind to accept and follow. In relationship with God and a human being, our mind can obtain very limited. This it leads to the idea of his existence, his oneness, his power and other attributes.

We humans simply do not (perhaps, cannot) know if any gods exist...or if none exist.

Some of us are willing to acknowledge that simple fact.

Some of us, however, are so averse to acknowledging it...that pretenses are invented to pretend that one CAN KNOW a god exists...by means other than KNOWING it.

Anyone pretending to KNOW a god exists (or that no gods exist) by KNOWLEDGE that is little more than vague "feelings that a god exists (does not exist)"...is playing a game with him/herself.

We do not know.

Attempting to pretend any of us knows by tortuously mangling the meaning of KNOW...is beneath anyone who wants to discuss things in a philosophy forum.

Look, I made those statements simply by way of paraphrasing what theists say. Namely, that there is direct knowledge. The thread is not about trying to prove God's existence it is about how people discuss this issue and why discussion is problematic. That is what I'm discussing. You keep trying to draw me into secondary discussions about God's existence which is a distraction. You should also be aware that I was asked where I stand on the issue of God's existence* and I answered that so I was answering a question not making an assertion for discussion.


*Post 568 "By the way...what exactly is your position on the question?" — EnPassant

The topic is reflected in the title, "Why do atheists ask for evidence of God, when there is clearly no such evidence?". You can't get away from that. Bare assertions are no such evidence. Bare assertions about direct knowledge are no such evidence. Bare assertions that truth comes from God are no such evidence. Bare assertions about a vision of God reflecting the true reality are no such evidence. These are bare assertions that you've made, and there's no denying it. You've made them in response to me, and I did not ask you that question, and you did not qualify these bare assertions by prefixing them with, "I believe...", or, "I think...". You just asserted them in a matter-of-fact style, with no accompanying support.

Since the issue of whether or not there is any such evidence clearly relates to the title question, and is clearly going to come up, it makes no sense to try to dismiss my objections as off topic. You're the one who is further from the topic than I am. I've never even mentioned proof.

Do you have anything you propose as such evidence or not?

Bare assertions that truth comes from God are no such evidence. — S

Like I said I was answering a question that was put to me. It was an aside from the subject of the thread but people kept asking questions and I answered them but only because I was asked. I did not offer assertions as arguments for God's existence but as responses to questions.

Like I said I was answering a question that was put to me. It was an aside from the subject of the thread but people kept asking questions and I answered them but only because I was asked. I did not offer assertions as arguments for God's existence but as responses to questions. — EnPassant

So then don't lecture me about what is and is not the topic, when you're the one who has veered off course.

And your excuse is unacceptable. The evidence is right here in this discussion. Here is an example:

There are plenty of people who understand the arguments, yet are not convinced by them. Try again, or retract your claim.
— S

Do they understand them? Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God. — EnPassant

Here, we were talking about an argument, and you just made a bunch of bare assertions. You didn't bother to qualify them as beliefs, you said them in a matter-of-fact manner. And they strongly suggest that you think that you see the world as it really is, and that this vision includes God. Well, this topic is about evidence, not what you think you see, but can provide no evidence to support. This is not an appropriate setting to share beliefs on the same footing as delusions, and then prove yourself either unwilling or unable to defend them. Is that what you think a philosophy forum is for?

Have you learnt a lesson from this about appropriate and inappropriate ways to reply in a philosophical discussion of this nature? If you say things like that on a forum such as this, you can bet your bottom dollar that you'll be called out for the things you say and expected to back them up.

Here is another, even clearer, example:

And I hate vague religious-sounding talk with little or no clear meaning. The way I see it, it's your responsibility to be clear, not my responsibility to keep asking what the heck you're talking about.
— S

The intellect cannot discern spiritual truth. Truth must come to us from God. The world is filled with human patterns. These patterns are not ultimately real, they are ephemeral. The true pattern of the world is spiritual. Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.

Intellectual debates are an attempt to translate spiritual truth into the atheist's terms because that seems to be the only way atheists will see things. — EnPassant

Totally inappropriate. Do not do this if you aren't willing or able to back up what you assert. It's no different than if I were to just assert that the moon is made of cheese or that the world is held up by a giant turtle.

And they strongly suggest that you think that you see the world as it really is, and that this vision includes God. — S

As I say, I was drawn into an off topic discussion and it went on a bit but I am not obliged to continue an off topic discussion just because I was drawn into it with questions; questions that demanded the statements I made. You are the one who was off topic when asking me those questions. I have no objection to being asked questions but answering them does not oblige me any further.

Here is your question:

There are plenty of people who understand the arguments, yet are not convinced by them. Try again, or retract your claim. — EnPassant

Here is my answer:

Do they understand them? Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God. — EnPassant

That was an off topic aside and you are the one who asked the questions. The fact that I answered it does not oblige me to continue with a discussion that is off topic.

Some of us, however, are so averse to acknowledging it...that pretences are invented to pretend that one CAN KNOW a god exists...by means other than KNOWING it. — Frank Apisa

That depends on what you mean by 'KNOWING'. Do you mean arriving at knowledge of God through intellectual means or by direct means? As I said, we can know things by non intellectual means. We can know how if feels to be simply through awareness of our being. We don't have to mentalize endlessly to know that we are. We just know. First we know, then we can intellectually argue 'I am' and thereafter understand intellectually that we are.

Anyone pretending to KNOW a god exists (or that no gods exist) by KNOWLEDGE that is little more than vague "feelings that a god exists (does not exist)"...is playing a game with him/herself. — Frank Apisa

Why do you say 'vague'?

Attempting to pretend any of us knows by tortuously mangling the meaning of KNOW...is beneath anyone who wants to discuss things in a philosophy forum. — Frank Apisa

Mangling what meaning of 'know'? The abstract meaning? As in knowledge obtained by deduction? It need not be a question of mangling anything, it only needs to be a different kind of knowing.

— EnPassant

EnPassant...you seem an intelligent fellow.

Get your error. Get your rationalization.

You can go far if you drop the pretense.

Honestly.

You either KNOW gods exist...or you do not.

Having those feelings (vague or not so vague) is NOT a substitute for KNOWING.

There are people right here in this forum who claim to KNOW there are no gods.

There are people here who claim to KNOW there is at least one.

It is pitiful to see intelligent people playing these kinds of games.

It is okay to acknowledge that you do not KNOW if any gods exist...on any plane or in any way.

It will not harm you.

Do it.

Just do it.

It is direct evidence only for the witness. To another person, that witness would actually need to be God itself if he were to factor as direct evidence.

You can go far if you drop the pretense. — Frank Apisa

Well, I'm not putting up a pretence, honestly. I will answer your questions but I really don't feel like getting into another 'prove God' discussion. They become interminable.

You either KNOW gods exist...or you do not. — Frank Apisa

Yes, I know God exists. But I am 'deluded' right? But if the Dawkinsian accusation is made against me it must be backed up; ole Richard has to prove I have some screws loose. But how can it be that otherwise perfectly normal people are deluded? I'm afraid 'deluded' is not an argument.

Having those feelings (vague or not so vague) is NOT a substitute for KNOWING. — Frank Apisa

It is a different kind of knowing. And not mere feelings. What if someone told you they can see and hear God? Doubly deluded no doubt, lol.

It is okay to acknowledge that you do not KNOW if any gods exist...on any plane or in any way. — Frank Apisa

I don't know in the way I know 2 + 2 = 4. I know in the way that I know 'I am'. I did not figure out that I am, I just seem to be. I think I'm right...

I meant in a universal sense in the way Dr. William Craig shares in his debates with God haters, "The direct witness of the Holy Spirit."

Do you honestly believe the Creator of the universe, the ongoing source for all reality has a problem with informing everyone He exists? Of course not. I sin, and when I do I don't think about God but I know God still exists because I'm a rational featherless biped.