LordReed:


The point is that there is no evidence to present for the existence of a god, just like there is no evidence for the existence of elves and goblins. The certainty is about the same, which means although we can't be 100% certain, the lack of evidence is loud and telling.

joseph1013:

You understand it's not enough to just blurt out these assertions, right?

You've done extensive research that have not been peer reviewed, hence the rest of us mortals don't know about, isn't it? It's a given that such a research if validated would win you a Nobel.

LordReed:


The point is that there is no evidence to present for the existence of a god, just like there is no evidence for the existence of elves and goblins. The certainty is about the same, which means although we can't be 100% certain, the lack of evidence is loud and telling.

joseph1013:

You understand it's not enough to just blurt out these assertions, right?

You've done extensive research that have not been peer reviewed, hence the rest of us mortals don't know about, isn't it? It's a given that such a research if validated would win you a Nobel.

LordReed:


The point is that there is no evidence to present for the existence of a god, just like there is no evidence for the existence of elves and goblins. The certainty is about the same, which means although we can't be 100% certain, the lack of evidence is loud and telling.

vaxx:
This is not true, There is a whole host of evidence that supports the existence of God. While it’s difficult to prove or disprove the existence of God through material means( which ia not only the means of seeking truth), one can at least show that the possibility of God’s existence is highly probable. And that is what my created thread is trying to do.. The facts are laid out in front of you. And your decision to reject them due to its insuffienct materials proof had not make all other supporting evidence untrue.

However, maybe I’m biased, but when you look at everything, the possibility of God existing makes far, far, more sense then the possibility that He doesn’t exist.

joseph1013:

You've not said anything differently to what I just said.

The guy said he has some extensive research in his hands. The world should be expectant, right?

budaatum:

Could you imagine anyone sitting on the fence where goblins and elves are concerned? Most atheists however seem to buy into the notion that they need to believe gods don't exist when in fact, if they were to be honest, they'd either say they don't know, or they do know whether gods exist or not. Are they afraid, I wonder, that god might strike them down dead or something?!

LordReed:


LoL. There may be some elf believers out there, do not underestimate the power of delusion. LMAO!

I think I get why people say they don't know if a god exists or not because if you make a claim then you get to prove it. However in my mind there is a distinct difference between saying "I know a god doesn't exist" and "I see no evidence for a god so I am not convinced one exists". In the former case because of the lack of evidence one way or the other, the claim is hard to support but the later is well supported by the lack of evidence. The difference maybe tautological but I think the distinction needs to be made so people do not fall into making bad arguments.

LordReed:


If a god created the material universe and continues to interact with it, then it stands to reason that his activities would have measurable material impact. Please direct us to how we can measure God's material impact.

When I look at everything, the more I am convinced no god exists.

budaatum:

A distinction that needs to be made in one's own head? I disagree! I do not need to lie to myself about what I know. If I see no evidence for a thing existing, I have no reason not to say so, except to pander to the whims of others which is hardly a concern of mine.

Besides, good arguments will sound bad to those who disagree with one, as one constantly finds on here. Discussions about gods are devoid of objectivity, is what I find, and is unavoidable since it relates to subjective reality, with each of us claiming our subjective reality is objective reality! The fact that people use the word "belief" pretty much exposes this fact.

vaxx:
.

You are diving into measurement which absolutly is base on human subjectivity, I can choose one frame, and you can choose another. For example, using the empirical model, a 100-yard length of a football field is an example of evidence you are clearly looking for.. But, in fact, according to relativity, intervals of length are only well defined relative to our choice of reference frame. Such choice is a free, your choice of measurement in the football field is nothing but personal to both of us. You will have one length in your frame and another length in mine. We can only come up with length of the field as objective only if we agree to tailor our subjective choice of reference frame in the same way, e.g., we both adopt the frame of the football field.

The example i made here point out to the fact that we can treat something as objective only to the extent that we define and explicitly specify the subjective conditions under which it is defined or measured. Objectivity arises as the result of imposing common agreement on subjective choices in our definitions and procedures.

If you and i agree on common terms we will measure God material impact.


because you have not open your mind clear enough...

LordReed:


Well I don't know about you but I still reserve a ≥5% chance a god exists in a form humans have so far been unable to consider or discover. It is diminishing gradually (it used to be at 10%) but its there.

budaatum:

Good. Some honesty. I started with 0% and have found nothing whatsoever to make me veer from that despite an extensive search for gods.

LordReed:


LoL there is no reference frame you'll choose that negates the existence of the football field.

If your reference frame allows for te existence of imaginary beings then you are delusional.

vaxx:
This is because human ALREADY agree to go with such measurement. It is a consensus agreement.


This is weak you know, you have not provide a consensus agreement that the being we are talking about is imaginary .

LordReed:


You are the one with the weak argument, you provide no testable evidence and only seed doubt about everything. When you have solid testable evidence holla at me.

vaxx:
You don't dig it, don't you? Your testable arguments which is measurable had been explained and debunked as to why it is subjective in this kind of evidence.. What will you still called solid testable evidence,? i am waiting. Make sure it is impressive anyway.

My own solid testable evidence is everything we have ever seen, heard, touched, smelled, or otherwise experienced all point to God.

budaatum:

This would apply if I were intending to convince you that gods do not exist, which I am not. Same way I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to convince you gods existed if I felt they did. I wouldn't believe gods exist, I would know they existed, and if you don't know they did, I'd just pass you off as a deluded ignorant fool. After all, I'd hardly accept that I was the deluded ignorant fool and accept my existing god does not exist!

But the evidence has been peer reviewed. I after all reviewed it, or don't you consider me a peer? Unfortunately, personal bias gets in the way of reviewing such stuff. Gods are one area where the rules of objective reviews are not accepted. I can't train your mind to be objective I am afraid. But just consider what has happened to all the gods that exist no more. Did they stop existing, or did they die in the minds of those who believed they existed?

As I said, gods exist only in the minds of those in whom they have been created, so it would be irrational for me to try to convince anyone that what exists in their minds does not exist in reality. The evidence is however out there that all the gods that have ever existed are human creations, and everything the gods have been claimed to be responsible for, more suitable reasons now exist. You just have to approach it with the mind that allows you to realise that fact. There was a time, after all, when Aphrodite lifted up her hindlegs and women got pregnant, but nowadays, we know that sex has something to do with birth, and Aphrodite is more or less dead.

To me, a person who believes gods do not exist, is an agnostic, as in someone who does not know, which may suit some, but if you really want to get off the fence, clean out your mind and consider the evidence objectively.

LordReed:


Research that confirms an already subsisting observation is not really that impressive is it?

LordReed:


You are just making a baseless assertion. How does everything point to god when we can't even have a baseline measurement with which to compare? Meanwhile you keep calling everything subjective just so your imaginary god can have a semblance of existence. That my friend doesn't work because when you are done with your fantasies, you still have reality to deal with.

joseph1013:


You mistake your own subsisting observation for that of the rest of the world. A great many others on the planet don't share your view, and so many of them may be won over by the watertight extensive research.

You think it doesn't matter?

vaxx:
This is the issue with you guys, why is my assertion baseless? Is it because it does not comprehend with your current knowledge. And why dont you criticised it instead of the adjective word(baseless and imaginary ) It make more sense and logical if what i said is probe rather than simply flip.

Yes every true is subjective except what we want to make objective and that will be term as reality which is based on consensus agreement. The truth is always perceived by a subject, experienced by a subject. The subject, that is a human, is like a tint on the glass - the tint colors everything one looks at. This tint is comprised of one’s previous experiences, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, personality traits, emotional states, all the characteristics that comprise a person.

As long as a person is a person, objective perception is not an option unless what will unanimously agree to.

vaxx:

My own solid testable evidence is everything we have ever seen, heard, touched, smelled, or otherwise experienced all point to God.

LordReed:

Please direct us to how we can measure God's material impact.

joseph1013:

I don't like endless rhetoric. You said you've done extensive research and found out there's 100% certainty that there's no God. All I ask for is the evidence of your certainty that's above board. You'll be contributing greatly to our body of knowledge if you do.

Too much to ask?

joseph1013:
I don't like endless rhetoric. You said you've done extensive research and found out there's 100% certainty that there's no God. All I ask for is the evidence of your certainty that's above board. You'll be contributing greatly to our body of knowledge if you do.

Too much to ask?

budaatum:
Hopefully, you now see vaxx's point. I said that I am 100% certain.
I never said you need to be or that I wanted to convince you, and yet here you are asking me to provide you with evidence.
Is that not where the argument got to, which you disagreed with, and which made vaxx mention me?

Sorry, but I do not wish at this moment to contribute to anyone's knowledge. There are already numerous threads to that end, and they made an ounce of difference, one of them would already have done so. But if you are interested in a very interesting thread on the topic, please see this comprehensive and rather convincing one on the topic from a dedicated individual. When you get to the end, I might be more willing to show you that all gods only exist as figments of the imagination in the minds of those in whom they are created. Outside the minds, gods do not exist!

joseph1013:


The guy said he has some extensive research in his hands. The world should be expectant, right?

MuttleyLaff:

An example of the latter, is this very beautiful, very deep and profound post which I liked

1/ Is your gift of intelligence a figment of the imagination in your mind?
2/ Whats the source of your gift of intelligence?
3/ Are you 100% certain of the origination of your gift of intelligence?

LordReed:


LoL. Budaa be brutal! LoL!

vaxx:

Yes every true is subjective except what we want to make objective and that will be term as reality which is based on consensus agreement. The truth is always perceived by a subject, experienced by a subject.

budaatum:
To begin with, I do not have a "gift" of intelligence.

budaatum:
Whatever intelligence that I may have has been developed through hard work done by myself, so it's not a 'gift'.
As is written, "seek, and you shall find", and I am not one to allow the figments of my own imagination to blind me from learning, or, seeking wisdom, as is said

budaatum:
I hope you see how this makes your questions invalid, though for the third one, omitting the word "gift", I would claim that I am certain of the origin of my intelligence because you yourself testify to my having some level of intelligence, and have pointed to examples.
If I am not somewhat intelligent, according to you, you wouldn't claim I am, I think.

vaxx:
This is the issue with you guys, why is my assertion baseless?
Is it because it does not comprehend with your current knowledge.
And why dont you criticised it instead of the adjective word(baseless and imaginary )
It make more sense and logical if what i said is probe rather than simply flip.

Yes every true is subjective except what we want to make objective and that will be term as reality which is based on consensus agreement. The truth is always perceived by a subject, experienced by a subject. The subject, that is a human, is like a tint on the glass - the tint colors everything one looks at. This tint is comprised of one’s previous experiences, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, personality traits, emotional states, all the characteristics that comprise a person.

As long as a person is a person, objective perception is not an option unless what will unanimously agree to.

budaatum:
I disagree!
Every truth is not subjective!
One can't cook up nonsense in their head and claim it is the truth!

Here, for instance, is one person's cooked up in the head truth.

h t tps://youtu.be/JFZT_o8oYZQ

Would you agree that her 'truth' is the truth?

MuttleyLaff:

budaatum, wisdom, that you seek and finding, is a gift

MuttleyLaff:
Everyone has intellectual/mental capacity budaatum.
and yes budaatum, I testified that you intellectually argue and also intellectually discuss

MuttleyLaff:
1/ So, you believe, you are intelligent & you're certain of the origin of your intelligence because of the words & examples I made that you intelligently argue and intelligently discuss?

MuttleyLaff:
2/ Is your ability to acquire, apply and develop knowledge a figment of the imagination in your mind?

MuttleyLaff:

3/ Whats the source of your ability to acquire, apply and develop knowledge?

MuttleyLaff:
4/ Are you 100% certain of the origination of your ability to acquire, apply and develop knowledge?

MuttleyLaff:

5/ Whats the distinction between God, used in Genesis 3:5 and gods, used in Psalm 82:6 or John 10:34?