Yes, I know God exists. But I am 'deluded' right? — EnPassant

Your belief is on the same footing as a delusion if there's no way to distinguish between your belief and a delusion. That's an epistemological problem. Are you interested in epistemology at all?

The stories are not 'invented'. They are, by the implicit argument of theism, given by revelation. Instead of insisting they are invented you should be debating whether religion is inspired by revelation. — EnPassant

And here's yet another example. So what was this all about then? Funny how you've changed your tune after being subjected to rational scrutiny. You suddenly want to back out.

But that is just it. People begin throwing out neurobiological explanations for the source of morality, and then we proceed to discuss it. And it isn't going well for those who put all their eggs in that basket. — Merkwurdichliebe

It could have been a more productive discussion, but then began the whining about inadequacy, and things were taken out of context. Instead of talking about what we know through science about the source of morality, it became an opportunity to attack the limits of science. Yawn.

I have learnt that it would probably be better for me to just look for answers myself instead of trying to get somewhere through a discussion on a philosophy forum. Sometimes I forget this. Books are often more sensible and more knowledgeable than people on the internet.

Yes, but Terrapin and S have no argument after I introduced that article (Intentionality and “free-will” from a neurodevelopmental perspective), in which it is asserted that morality cannot be adequately explained from a neuro developmental perspective. So, now they are scrambling to save their wet paper bag full of irrattional opinions by vomitting out a bunch of confused rhetorical nonsense.

Lol. But, I would never ignore S. I have too much fun watching him get dizzy when I'm running philosophical circles around him. — Merkwurdichliebe

What do you mean I "have no argument"? No argument against what? I don't need to argue against something that misses the point. I already explained that the relevant topic is the source of morality (which is crystal clear from the title: just scroll to the top of the page), not simply morality. And I already explained that I am not in disagreement with either yours or the other one's claims about "inadequacy", now that you've bothered to actually clarify what you mean.

And I'm glad you haven't ignored me, because your bluster is quite amusing.

Yes, so long as one feels one has "The Answer", whether theist or atheist, there is really no need for an investigation, so the process degrades in to a competitive ideological shouting match. — Jake

From an outside perspective, it looks like you have characterised investigations which do not reach exactly the same conclusions as you have reached as "ideological shouting". The irony is that that itself seems more ideological than investigative, especially when you decide to simply block out or dismiss these critical outside perspectives.

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.

As method, then, reliance on ordinary language is wrong. — tim wood

And what's your argument for that? Just because you've surrounded what I quoted above with text, that doesn't mean that you've actually supported it.

I give ordinary language priority because it makes the most sense in the bigger picture. It's appropriate to say that the Empire State building doesn't exist if we're playing a secluded language game where saying something like that, which is absurd on the face of it, is a rule of the language game. But what use is that outside of a little community of self-important know-it-alls? At the end of the day, the Empire State building is still there. It clearly exists. All you would've succeeded in doing is using the language differently, unusually, in a way which will raise eyebrows and require an explanation, whereas I don't have that issue because I choose to talk like a normal person and am not a willing participant in language games which I judge to be a foolish waste of time.

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?

I wouldn’t say “nonscientific disciplines,” whatever that is. I used the term “soft sciences.”

The source of morals must include culture. Neurobiology is an incomplete or ‘inadequate’ source. — praxis

'Incomplete' is a better word, and this was never denied. You read too much into my comments if you actually thought that I was denying that.

I read yesterday that someone wrote a plugin that can help you ignore such people. I predict that it will be wildly popular. — praxis

That's okay. You can take cheap shots at me. I have quite thick skin. This just means that you can't act like you have the moral high ground without being a hypocrite.

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.

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.

No, I'm just saying that there is an enormously undefined grey area in which ordinary language operates, and it is a sort of cop-out, philosophically speaking. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yet you haven't been able to provide an example, upon request, relating to the topic of discussion, where my method has caused a problem.

If the process eventually leads us to the understanding that we have no idea what we're talking about, that could be useful information that could be acted on in a productive manner. — Jake

That isn't where the process leads, that's where you're trying to lead us.

What's the alternative? Sticking your head in the sand? Well, who's stopping you?

The question we are considering is whether or not neurobiology can adequately explain the source of morality without supplemental explanations from nonscientific disciplines. — Merkwurdichliebe

That was not the original question. This discussion about adequacy stemmed from a later comment by praxis, and he was never clear on what criteria he was going by, so we had a situation where I thought that it was good enough to have a meaningful discussion, and to get somewhere productive, whereas he was making it out to be some big problem just because it isn't perfect or complete or something along those lines, and then you jumped in on his side of the argument.

Why are we even discussing this tangent? Isn't it interesting enough to discuss what we know about the source of morality, in answer to the opening post? It's about what neuroscience can explain, not what it can't. It's like some people are just looking for an argument.

I think that was your point. The evidence, here, is a bunch of shit done by neuro-biologists.

In the article, some academically active neurobiologists basically admit that neuro-biology cannot adequately explain morality without supplemental explanations from nonscientific disciplines.

On one hand, if their evidence (which they thoroughly reference in their article) is sufficient for the claim to be correct, then neurobiology cannot adequately explain morality, like they claim. On the other hand, if we say that the evidence provided by these scientists is insufficient, then it doesn't matter what neurobiology says about anything, since any evidence a neurobiologist provides (e.g. a reference to a clinical study) to support any claim is inherently insufficient; and in this case, neurobiology cannot adequately explain morality.

Either way, neurobiology cannot adequately explain morality. — Merkwurdichliebe

This was supposed to be about the source of morality, remember? There was never any claim, as far as I'm aware, that neurobiology can adequately explain morality. And if there was, it would be off topic. It can definitely provide insightful information on the source of morality, and those who are saying that this isn't adequate are just coming across as unappreciative and obstructive.

How about:

You want herpes.

Or

The empire state building does not exist on the moon. — Merkwurdichliebe

What's the supposed problem? I know what they ordinarily mean, which is explained by my previous reply to you, and I would rightly answer that, no, I do not want herpes, and yes, the Empire State building does not exist on the moon. The second one is a little ambiguous, but I'm assuming that you're talking about the location of the Empire State building, which is how I think the statement would be most commonly interpreted. It exists, but it is not on the moon, it is on Earth.

Are you doing that philosophy-type thing of making a problem over nothing?

The map doesn't exist either. — whollyrolling

Please explain. :brow:

Does 'wildly controversial' mean they won't fit into the primitive rationale of materialism? That is too bad. — EnPassant

No, it doesn't mean that. Google the words if you're not sure what they mean.

Why are controversial ideas not compelling to a 'reasonable person'? — EnPassant

That wasn't my full objection. My full objection was that it was not only wildly controversial, but a set of bare assertions. And it should be obvious why that would not be compelling to a reasonable person. You would first need to provide supporting arguments for your bare assertions, which you haven't done, and also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so they'd have to be damn good arguments. Given that you've failed to meet this burden in spite of repeated requests, you've been failing at philosophy.

As I keep saying, a large part of the problem is that materialists often think they have a monopoly on what is rational; scientism. If these people can't accept that rationality extends beyond science there is no talking to them.

That is the answer to the first post in this thread: there is no agreement on what is rational because the materialists insist on an abbreviated definition of rationality and anything outside it is 'nonsense'. — EnPassant

I know you have an axe to grind with "materialism" and "scientism", but that has nothing whatsoever to do with me or my objection, so you aren't dealing with the problem by attacking these positions. I am just applying a basic standard expected in philosophical discourse, which is different from preaching. Here you are expected to provide actual support for your assertions, especially if they are wildly controversial, which assertions along the lines that truth comes from God most certainly are.

If you don't like this standard expected of you, then this is not the place for you. And philosophy is not the academic discipline for you.

Precisely. I am missing the point.

While you are still looking for it and you'll never find it, because it is like trying to look at your eyes or reach the horizon. All you will accomplish is tiring yourself out.
Whereas if you were aware, it would come in to place all on its own. — Shamshir

That's some lovely poetry there, but I'm more interested in the actual topic, which is about evidence for God, which isn't about evidence for an abstract object like a circle, because that isn't what God is. If that is what God is, then there would be no controversy, and there wouldn't be any atheists asking for evidence of God.

Your problem is that you confuse something else for God, like the classic mistake of confusing the map for the territory, or you perhaps do this deliberately so that you can claim that God exists, but you don't like my criticism that by doing that, you would have trivialised the claim and missed the point of what the debate is about, so you dismiss my criticism.

We sceptics are asking for evidence of the territory, and you are telling us that the map exists. We aren't asking about the map. If, say, the map is a map of Atlantis, then we are clearly being reasonable by asking for evidence of the territory. And the concept of God is like a map of Atlantis.

Not in the least, but you are by indicating that we are talking about those who would lie about love. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I indicated no such thing. You clearly don't know what I'm talking about, and I'm losing enthusiasm to correct your misunderstandings, so I think I'll just let it be and go find something else to do.

Herein lies the difference.

I say, I can draw a circle and I can draw a circle because a circle exists. If a circle does not exist, I cannot draw it. I cannot think of it and I cannot make any concepts of it, because it does not exist.

What you say is that you can think of pink elephants, you can even draw one - but you do not see any pink elephants. They are nowhere to be found! Hence they are not evident.

I agree, it is not evident. Neither is the sculpture, before it is sculpted. — Shamshir

No one is arguing over the existence of an abstract object, or whatever you want to call things like a circle. Abstract objects can't create the universe or do anything which could be thought of as being godlike. You're still missing the point.

I asked a question. You did not answer. — Shamshir

Of course I didn't. It was a loaded question. I addressed the problem with your question and your reasoning prior to it.

Maybe. Maybe not. — Shamshir

There's no maybe about it. It's as nonsensical as saying that a cat is a seagull, and that you do not separate the two.

Then conceptualize over what you cannot imagine and what doesn't exist, if you may. — Shamshir

You aren't making any sense. The distinction between sound and the concept of sound is clear. Sound is what I actually hear. I don't hear the concept.

The object is the filling. The concept of the object is its outline. I explained that, didn't I? — Shamshir

You made a vague metaphor instead of clearly and directly addressing my criticism.

But since there is no proof I would say there is only a burden to provide a compelling argument. — EnPassant

Which you haven't done. You've just produced a number of wildly controversial bare assertions. No reasonable person would find that compelling.

I play no tricks. I merely asked a question. — Shamshir

No, you presented an argument, and I explained the problem with it.

What I have done is removed the separation. — Shamshir

Which is a nonsensical thing to do.

The concept of sound is sound itself. — Shamshir

No it isn't.

Even if I should separate, as you do - the concept of the object exists mutually with the object — Shamshir

You haven't demonstrated that there's an "object", which in this case would be the actual existence of God.

How did your love one know you loved him or her?
How do you know you are loved by the other?
Someone had to do something to indicate it.
If you do not see that something as a work or deed then — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You've switched to past-tense. That's moving the goalposts.

And indications of love are not love itself. I shouldn't have to keep repeating that my point is to do with love, and the distinction between love and shows, acts, expressions, indications, displays, etc. Are you trying to muddy the waters or what?

I'm here to address the question of the thread which is why the argument cannot be decided using an intellect that is earthbound and limited by all kinds of tautologies. The answer is that the intellect is not up to the task. — EnPassant

Then the reasonable conclusion would be agnosticism.

The stories are not 'invented'. They are, by the implicit argument of theism, given by revelation. — EnPassant

Hahahaha.

Instead of insisting they are invented you should be debating whether religion is inspired by revelation. — EnPassant

There's nothing to debate. Look up Hitchen's razor.

Yes, there are extreme examples that are obvious, but I'm talking about the more subtle examples that aren't so clearly weird. On the other hand, attributing ordinary language to a matter of common sense puts too much emphasis on subjectivity. I am asking what criterion we can use, which will account for the subtle examples that lie in the grey area between ordinary and weird, yet, while reigning in the arbitrary subjective determinations. — Merkwurdichliebe

Give an example.

Ok, but what other means do we have to find truth? The intellect has failed. If the intellect could discern truth it would have done so a long time ago. No matter what philosophers say it can be dismantled by clever arguments. Philosophy is like a bunch of viruses constantly mutating and devouring each other. Philosophies change like fashions on the catwalk. If our puny intellects cannot discern truth - and they have failed miserably* - what should we do?

* Except when it comes to the primitive truths of materialism and science. But these truths are too basic to resolve ontological questions. — EnPassant

Once again, I wonder why you're here if that's what you think. If we don't know enough, then we should just accept that we don't know enough, not invent fantastical stories to fill the gaps in our knowledge.

Pascal's argument, according to Anselm's separation of necessity and contingency, would not be applicable to the Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster for the reason that this deity has no strong ground to justify its necessity - I suppose we can agree to that? maybe? — SethRy

The message that I'm getting from you is that we should forget about your original argument and focus on a different argument about necessity and contingency. Or, if not a different argument, then a part of the argument you referred to which you never even mentioned originally.

I don't agree with your handling of this, but hey ho. The next step would be for you to elaborate, and then I can test whether, like last time, the same reasoning can be applied in the case of, for example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or some other ridiculous invention.

I just thought that was sarcasm. — SethRy

What? His comment? I'm not sure he's even capable of sarcasm. I thought it was just another uncritical back patting.

The possibility of something, refers to something.
If it does not exist, it would be nothing.
How do you refer to nothing? — Shamshir

You're playing a trick with language, also known as sophism.

The particular something in this case would be a concept, more specifically God. No one is arguing over the existence of the concept, so if that was all you were getting at, then you've missed the point. What's being argued over is whether this concept has an actual referent. You haven't demonstrated that it does.

The first cause is timeless; beyond causality, needs no creating. The tenses past, present and future do not apply; the first cause just IS. — Devans99

And is made of spaghetti.

So in summary, I am sticking to my guns about a first cause, a start of time etc. — Devans99

Now there's a surprise.

...and I have a good justification for doing so. — Devans99

I believe that you believe you do.

Before the discovery of gold, gold existed, though it was not evident.
Now by the same characteristics, I say God exists - because it is possible. — Shamshir

That simply doesn't follow.

French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that evidence for God is clear to the people who are willing to believe, not because it is mutually exclusive, but because your perspective is changed when you are absorbed into tradition and belief. Whereas the evidence is also vague enough for the people who do not believe, will not understand.
— SethRy

Interesting. Considered and thoughtful. :up: :smile: — Pattern-chaser

Sometimes I wonder whether you do the opposite to me on purpose. I analyse the argument, think about it critically, and offer up criticism. You just smile and offer vague praise.

Truth must come to us from God. — EnPassant

That just looks like preaching now. You can't just assume things like that. Maybe this is the wrong forum for you.

Yes, and without them, the one you love would not know it. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

False. I'll just repeat what I said and leave it at that. That would be a weak love if it depended on superficial shows of affection. My love is known regardless. Our love for each other is stronger than that.

If I could, I would not have asked for examples. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yet you do so just below. :brow:

So you would not show someone you loved that was hungry your love with some food. Ok.

Or if your child was shivering in bed, you would not show your love by putting a blanket on him. Ok. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

No, that's an interpretation miles off from what I meant. I didn't mean to suggest anything of the sort. There is some degree of ambiguity here, and that's what has caused this misunderstanding, so it would've been better if you had've been clearer with your meaning before expecting answers.

I thought that you were talking of things like hugging, giving someone flowers, saying "I love you", and so on, and so forth. Those are just some of the typical expressions of love. These acts are not a true means of determining whether or not someone loves another. Love comes from the heart, not by acts. The acts are just expressions of love, not love itself.

Of course there are things that I would do, and that I do do, because I love another, but that is beside my point. My point is that I already love another, and so for that reason, I don't need to do anything to love another. Showing love is just that: it shows love. And acts which signify love or caring are just that. There is a distinction between this and the actual loving or caring.

A father can love his child, even if he lost parenting rights and never came into contact with his child again, and thus could not cuddle his child or put a blanket around his child or cook his child dinner, and so on, and so forth.

Asking me what I would do misses the point. There are things which I would do, like give my mum a hug, for example. But I don't need to do so. That would be a weak love if it depended on superficial shows of affection. My mum knows that I love her regardless. Our love for each other is stronger than that.

So love can be real love even to those who reject yours.

Tell us how that would work, let's say with one you love and who does not love you back.

How would you show that love in a way that was not stalking like? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Love isn't something that needs to be shown, except if you're seeking to let the other person know. It's just something you're in. And displays of love can be made in innumerable creative (or not so creative) ways without being stalker-like. I don't think I need to give examples, so I won't. I'm sure you're capable of thinking some up yourself.

They're fictional characters,
— S

Yes I know.

What do you think of the ideology that those who are too indoctrinated to recognize that truth follow?

Is it a moral ideology or an immoral one? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

It depends how self-aware they are. If they can become self-aware enough to see it for what it is, I say that they should abandon it.