You're still in the dark. Why do I have goals? What does that confer? Happiness/purpose?

You contradicted yourself from your earlier statement that there is no purpose.

The whole debate hinges not on the actual existence of God, only the possible existence of God. — Pantagruel

The question was "does God exist". Possibility is not actuality.

Great. How can you prove it? — 3017amen

I am just going to quote what I said before:

Usually, "existence" denotes physical existence. To make the argument that God, or gods, do not exist as physical entities, I merely need to point out that they have no predictive value, and as such are not part of any theory about the physical world. Since the proper epistemic procedure for establishing what exists physically is the scientific method, that is all that is required to answer the question.

Of course, you could be using "existence" to refer to some other reality. But in that case, I argue that the proper epistemic procedure is a null hypothesis. Since non-physical reality can only be known a-priori, anything that can be known about it is deducible from a-priori knowledge. Therefore, all I need to point out is that there is no valid deduction of God, or gods, from a-priori principles. Since there is thus no good reason to assume God exist, the reasonable thing to conclude is that God doesn't exist. — Echarmion

There is no need to assert the non-existence of god, any more than I need to assert the non-existence of a magic turtle upon which the earth is built. The assertion is the claim that god or the magic turtle exists.
You do not understand atheism, nor the burden of proof. Further, you have a position of believing in something you cannot define which is nonsense. Its just nonsense that your religiosity has inoculated you against.
As long as you are focused on delivering your message, you will make no progress in discussion nor your view.

Therefore, all I need to point out is that there is no valid deduction of God


We agree. But you failed to discuss induction.

You do not understand atheism


Nope you're wrong. As soon as you make a proposition about a God's existence, you put yourself in a position of defending it. Your best bet is to say no-thing and walk away. Or say 'I don't know'.

This is another reason why positive Atheism is untenable of course.

Of course not. I established my criteria of epistemic adequacy and cumulative knowledge already. You're statement is just...flippant. — Pantagruel

Religious claims are no more sensible or plausible then what I proposed.

Since there is thus no good reason to assume God exist, the reasonable thing to conclude is that God doesn't exist — Echarmion

That is just Daniel Dennett's argument and I didn't find it convincing when he delivered it. Reasons for believing are ultimately contingent on the entire body of an individual's knowledge. If I find a good reason to believe it is sufficient for me. If Dan Dennett (and you) don't, then you speak for yourself.

You're still in the dark. Why do I have goals? — 3017amen

It's properties of your brain--ways that your brain works. The brain structure and function that amount to properties in question arose because of genetic mutations.

As soon as you make a proposition about a God's existence, you put yourself in a position of defending it. — 3017amen

Per what?

You do not understand the burden of proof.
If someone makes a claim, they are the ones that have to defend that claim. If someone is not convinced by the claim, they are not themselves making a claim.
Also, you are not engaging what I am saying. This is a dishonest way of trying to discuss something.
You do not have answers to all points being levelled at you, instead you are just cherry picking the parts you think you can counter-point and ignoring the rest. I mean, you didnt even quote an entire sentence to respond to in that last post.

We agree. But you failed to discuss induction. — 3017amen

I did refer to the scientific method, which is inductive. If you have a way to inductively reason about the non-physical, I'd like to hear it.

That is just Daniel Dennett's argument and I didn't find it convincing when he delivered it. Reasons for believing are ultimately contingent on the entire body of an individual's knowledge. If I find a good reason to believe it is sufficient for me. If Dan Dennett (and you) don't, then you speak for yourself. — Pantagruel

Right. But we can exchange reasons and debate them. It's not a matter of faith, after all. If you have an argument for God that you find convincing, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

Right. But we can exchange reasons and debate them. It's not a matter of faith, after all. If you have an argument for God that you find convincing, I'd be happy to take a look at it. — Echarmion

Based on the sum total of my experiences (which may not coincide with yours) I have sufficient evidence of connectivity which transcends the domain of ordinary scientific discourse. Trivially, neural networks operate by leveraging 'hidden dimensions' of connectivity also, so while this may not rise to the standard of scientific proof, it is evidence, nevertheless. And I certainly extend my hypothesis to include the strong possibility of there being forms of consciousness far more advanced and therefore toto caelo unlike ours. Possibly not limited in space and time like ours. And I conceive this to be 'close enough' to the most general form of the notion of God.

As was said, it all depends how you define "God," doesn't it?

The use of Soren Kierkegaard as your avatar is, in a number of ways, at odds with the argument you give regarding the necessary existence of God.

In his Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard moved away from the traditions of "proving" the existence of God in favor of framing the matter as how an individual learns what is true in the world. The proposition that an individual needs to "receive the condition" to see the truth is the opposite of arguing that everybody needs to recognize what is necessary by the evidence given to us all.

So the approach is similar to Pascal saying that the "scandal" is a better match to our human condition than other descriptions but goes further by declaring that only being conditioned in a certain way would make Pascal's thought sensible.

just Daniel Dennett's argument and I didn't find it convincing when he delivered it


Yep! That's the Atheist who wrote the infamous book " consciousness explained" of course.

Many agree he didn't explain it all. I read it and came to the same conclusion. Kind of what Einstein said in the OP about troubled Athiest's. The book was basically philosophical gibberish to justify nihilism and... .

That's the part of Atheism I feel sorry about...just another Religion. Besides, not that he was perfect, I would rather trust Einstein anyway LOL

use of Soren Kierkegaard as your avatar is, in a number of ways, at odds with the argument you give regarding the necessary existence of God.


Hey V. Yes I am a Christian Existentialist. And in many ways of course I agree with Kierkegaard. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God. In the OP I'm drawing distinctions between lower life-forms and higher consciousness... .

You scoffed at the sad state of atheists guttering in their confusion.

Sure... critiquing thier deficiencies would be a better characterization I think.

So, the matter of whether God exists or not is central to your focus. Whether what you put forward is a proof or not does not address the intent to dismiss arguments you do not agree with.
I don't know. Pick a lane.

soon as you make a proposition about a God's existence, you put yourself in a position of defending it.


Per the rules of a priori formal logic or propositional logic if you prefer.

drawing distinctions between lower life-forms and higher consciousness... . — 3017amen

It's properties of your brain--ways that your brain works. The brain structure and function that amount to properties in question arose because of genetic mutations.


Sorry don't take this the wrong way but it sounds like Daniel Dennett's philosophical gibberish all over again. It's far from describing the nature of consciousness viz. why human's have purpose and goals like Love or music or mathematics or anything of higher consciousness.

Although we might agree that it would be outside the purview of Darwinism LoL

I do think there has to be positive survival value to higher cognition. — Artemis

I think so too, but... Homo sapiens hunt and gather successfully (presumably using their higher cognition) but primates also forage successfully, without (apparently) having our higher cognition. Wolves and bears hunt and gather successfully with even less higher cognition. Primates are still here because enough of them avoided being eaten, and they didn't have higher cognition. So did we, with higher cognition.

Question: For a relatively long period of time (several hundred thousand years) we were hunter gatherers, doing much the same thing that other animals do. So, where do the higher cognitive skills come into play?

Well, tools come to mind. Other animals make tools, but nothing approaching the complexity of a carefully knapped piece of flint attached to a shaft and thrown. Fire? The early use of fire required skill and insight to use for beneficial results.

Wandering? Moving long distances required adaption over a relatively short period of time. Wandering people would encounter dangers they hadn't seen before, as well as new foods.

Primates haven't made many advances in the last million years; we have (for better and for worse). We would not have, had it not been for higher cognitive functioning (and maybe the opposable thumb, upright posture, ability to walk and run a long ways, etc.)

There is some interesting research that some primates are entering the stone age as far as using tools. Sorry, I cannot recall the source but it mentioned primates using spears to get fish out of the water. Ill see if I can find a link if you are interested.

Ha, you should know that I try not to dichotomize!!
One might could argue that the inferences for Deity which I've hinted at could be added criteria for negative Theology.

And I would be okay in taking a journey in that direction... However, I was keeping the focus on certain Existential phenomenon as it were.

I mean we haven't even talked about the so-called William James religious experiences that people have, and other things relative to psychology and consciousness...

Aside from that, in theory, if the Atheist is trying to use pure logic to defend their position that God doesn't exist, it would still be untenable no? We all know about the ontological argument...

Thats why “brainwashing” seems like such an accurate word when describing how people come to religion. — DingoJones

What would you like me to do with them? — 3017amen

People are no more "brainwashed" to believe a some deity or batch of deities than they are brainwashed into accepting the existing economic/political arrangement, or the basic method of bookkeeping. Brainwashing and learning amount to the same thing.

"Brainwashing" applies to situations where, under pressure, people are forced to adapt a contradictory view of the world. An example of this is "brainwashing" a captured enemy soldier so that he comes to think of his own country as an aggressor and his captors as victims. Children are not "brainwashed"; they are taught to believe what their parents believe.

Atheist parents tend to teach atheism to their children (usually - not always) and religious parents tend to teach their religion to their children (usually, not always). Whether their teaching is successful is another matter. Children are not born with anti-religious views, so teaching them religion normally has nothing to overcome. Same with teaching children to be atheists.

Per the rules of a priori formal logic or propositional logic if you prefer. — 3017amen

The conventions of logic don't actually have anything to do with ideas of "needing to defend" anything.

It's far from describing the nature of consciousness viz. why human's have purpose and goals like Love or music or mathematics or anything of higher consciousness. — 3017amen

It's not though. The only reason that those things exist is because it's stuff that brains can do, and natural processes can and did result in the formation of brains as they are. There's no additional "why" to it aside from that.

Dennett is an eliminative materialist by the way. I'm not an eliminativist.

If you are not interested in dichotomy, why pull the beard of your imagined opponents?
I like me some William James. One his virtues is that he tried to separate the arguments about authority from descriptions of what is the case.
Are you helping that cause?

That's a good question, probably has something to do with the human condition. Psychological bias, racism, you know, those kinds of things.

To that end, you think it's a pathology of sorts, or just human nature? — 3017amen

SophistiCat was asking a rhetorical question.

How about adding "history" to the list, along with "something to do with the human condition. Psychological bias, racism..." The United States isn't "naturally" a more religious country than France, and it is no accident that people of color are poorer than whites. Both the religiosity of Americans and the relative poverty of blacks are the result of a long history of specific religious teaching and economic practice.

The dominance of religion in a given population isn't the consequence of the "overwhelming truth of the religion"; its the consequence of intensive and long-lasting promotional activity. When the intensive and long-lasting promotional activity is withdrawn (especially during periods of rapid change) the number of adherents is likely to decrease.

One of the consequences of the US not having an established church is that every two bit (and $10) religious organization was free to promote its religious views. And they did -- from Anglicanism and Catholicism to Mormonism.

conventions of logic don't actually have anything to do with ideas of "needing to defend" anything


Are you sure.

1. God doesn't exist.

Atheism says that statement is true. Are you saying you can't defend that?