₦airaland Forum

adeoba1975:
who the hell is SAS?

If you want to start a discussion about special forces and don't know who the SAS are, you're on the wrong track. The SAS (Special Air Service) are the first special forces in history. They have their orgin in covert operations in occupied Nazi Europe.

The big difference between the SAS type special forces and the US special forces is that US special force rely far more on superior fire power and support. SAS can operate in the field for months without support from home.

sas

mrlawng:
@nferyn

Is your government practicing true democracy?

Difficult to answer. I would say that up to a certain level we have a democratic society. Actually more democratic than most so called democratic societies, but still, the process of representation (with this I mean how you get from the needs, opinions and wants of the population to policy) inevitably leads to a distortion between (I'll use french here because I can't find the appropriate english words) le pays reel (the real country, how it is on the ground) and le pays léGAL (the legal country, how it is represented in it's institutions).

Now why do I think it is more democratic than most countries (here I explicitely want to compare with the US):
1. reasonable level of subsidiarity (although incomplete) and division of powers/authority between the levels of governance (local, regional, national). Taxation levels and our social security system ensure that there is a fair level of redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. All schools receive equal funding, as this is not depending on the tax base of a certain community
2. every citizen is obliged to vote, even if it's only by showing up at the voting booth (this ensures a real representation of the lower classes)
3. election day is always on a sunday (ensuring that employers cannot pressure their employees not to vote)
4. we have a proportional representation (both left and right wing are represented in parliament)
5. money cannot buy you elections: all parties are financed by the state according to their level of representation. Soft money (campaign contributions of any kind) are illegal. Election propaganda spending is capped.

I could ad a few more, but these are the most important. Unfortunately, even that does not prevent the overall level of stupidity, bigotry and ignorance to show up in the ellection results

Gwaine:
@nferyn,

You should understand that you'll go round in circles because your presentations
are not helping your arguments at all - and only when I apply the same rule of
your own logic that it suddenly becomes inconvenient - yes? Please.

1. I didn't apply that logic to the case of light. My formulation was incorrect and you used that fact to juxtapose it against (part of) my argument
2. My argument has 2 possible conclusions, not one. Focussing on only one presents a strawman of my argument. You imply that I take a position that I'm not taking. My argument does not end in the conclusion that God doesn't exist, but rather that [b]either [/b]God doesn't exist [b]or [/b]he does not posses these attributes.
This is the logic I was referring to, not "How does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence of an entity?", but rather A contradiction of premisses invalidates [b]either [/b]the premisses [b]or [/b]the conclusion

Gwaine:
What you accuse me of conveniently focusing on ('only one part of the argument')
shows that you don't understand logic at all, or at best you persuade me that you
really do not.

Your persuasion here doesn't hold water. I can put the argument in a formal logical construct, if you would prefer that.

Gwaine:
If you know it does not apply all through, why use it in the first place?

You have no clue, have you? It does apply, only your misrepresentation doesn't.

Gwaine:
I've held that I'm not the one applying logic, and if you hold onto that, all well and
good - I'll use it in just precisely the way you formulate your arguments.

You were the one saying that Seun's statement was illogical, not me.

Gwaine:
Sorry to notice that KAG didn't even address your remarks, but that's not my loss - at the
very least, I was making reference to what you said and didn't see the need for
KAG to have tried to slice my piece without realising that the verbatim quotes were
yours and not mine.

He/she pointed out the flaw in this sentence Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes, for the rest he/she correctly substantiated my main argument and that [/i]had absolutely nothing to do with that quote.

Gwaine:
I still stand by what I stated - Seun's contribution is illogical, and I wait to see
how he counters that.

You just made that assertion, why don't you substantiate it.

Gwaine:
Now then, if 'the logic still holds', I take it that by your own use of your logic, the
question of the "attributes" (or whatever else you choose to edit it to mean) of
"light" shows that, if the properties/attributes contradict each other, your light
does not exist - yes? That's why I've consistently asked that you look closer at
the application of what you call "logic": the basic question I've been asking is -

"How does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence of an entity?"

Repetition ad nauseam. I did not make such a claim. No matter how many times you're going to repeat that that's my argument, it is not

Gwaine:
If you keep telling me that the contradiction of attributes of an entity denies its
exstence, then for fairness sake be willing to apply that rational thought to [i]your
own example of the case in light - if that's rational at all.

I do not make such a claim.

Gwaine:
How have I misapplied this or conveniently held on to "only one part of the argument" when you keep
presenting the same logic over and over again and now even saying that "the logic
still holds"? - what am I to do with that, if you feel it is only convenient to be applied
to one side of the argument that best suits you?

You're being disingenious here. The argument contains bot the either [/b]and the [b]or [/b]part, not only one.

Gwaine:
Good to know that you're consistent with "evil exists" - but does that negate the
existence of God? You really don't know what you're saying, nferyn.

Maybe not in the strawman you make of my argument. [b]I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT A CONTRADICTION IN THE ATTRIBUTES OF A PHENOMENON NEGATES ITS EXISTENCE

Gwaine:
Let me help you a bit more with your assumptions again with the example you gave about the
case of light: be reminded that we're here dealing with 'attributes', so if darkness
exists, how does that affect the properties/characteristics/attributes of light?

You don't seem to succeed in constructing a proper argument here. What exactly are you trying to say?

Gwaine:
Please slow down and before you rush a reply, think through your statements
carefully. What exactly is your supposition? So far, there have been mixtures I
can't accept out of hand in your replies - it seems to me that you're trying ever
so hard to establish that "the attributes of God are contradictory", [quotation
marks are mine now as I'm not quoting you verbatim just here] and on that basis
you reject the existence of God - did I read you right?

You really don't need to be so condescending and you're not reading me right.
1. It was not the argument I was making
2. I only reject the existence of the Judeo-Christian God on the properties ascribed to him by those who call themselves Christians. Maybe you can answer that one: Does God have the attributes omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence?

Gwaine:
As for the definition of the supernatural - I thought it was attempted in simple
form in one of my earlier replies?

You mean this:

The supernatural is what is not easily detected by the natural

It's just another God-of-the-gaps definition: whatever we can currently not ascribe to natural causes must be, by definition be supernatural. This is fluid and completely unfalsifiable, it might as well not exist and even if it did it's existence is inconsequential.

Gwaine:
@KAG,

Sorry to chime in here and hijack the discussion with KAG, but the misrepresentation of my arguments is going a little too far here

Gwaine:
I'm sorry to say that you're not reading the logical sequence of our argument.
If anyone is having a weird inference, it's the gentleman who supposes that
the attributes of light contradict each other - and then my simple question to
him was: "how does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence?

It doesn't automatically. It either invalidates the presmisses or it of invalidates the conclusion. Either God doesn't exist or he doesn't have these attributes simultaneously. That has been my argument all along and you conveniently focus on only one part of the argument.

Gwaine:
The suggestion of the logic was not mine - it was his; and if anything at all,
you should have seen that clearly.

Not exactly. You stated that Seun's contribution was illogical. It wasn't.

Gwaine:
At the end of the day, I made clear that
I did not necessarily agree with him and the only reason why I used what
he called logic was to amicably show him that his logic was weak and thus
untenable in its application.

The logic still holds. Either the attributes are false (omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience) or the conclusion is false (God exists).

Gwaine:
Trying to slice my post is hilarious - at least you
ought to have seen that I was quoting him verbatim; and your agreeing
with him is even more surprising because you're bending the rules as well.

I don't know which rules you're referring to. KAG didn't even address my remark but rather focussed on the contradictory nature of the Judeo-Christian God.

Gwaine:
Anyone is welcome to apply whatever logic they so please, but mark well:
they should not be so convoluted as to spiral out of context. Evil exists in
the world, but the logic you're all happy-clappy to apply is quaint because
you're making evil one of the attributes of God.

I don't make it an attribute of God. The argument is that evil is impossible if God possesses the attributes omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence simultaneously. Evil exists, thus either God does not exist or he doesn't posses these attributes.

Gwaine:
How you manage to do that
is beyond me. Darkness is a phenomenon that exists but does not constitute
the attributes or properties of light - are you then saying that light does not
exist because darkness is real? Just because evil is real does not negate
the existence of God as far as evil is not one of His attributes - that's why
the "square-circle" concept comes closer home to you than anyone would
suppose it does to my rejoinders.

Once more, it's you that assume that I imply evil to be an attribute of God. That was not my argument.

If you apply the same argument to light you will come to the conclusion that my formulation was not comprehensive and too analogous. Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes is an incorrect formulation. I shouldn't have used the word attributes, as it doesn't apply to this case. I'm sorry if my knowledge of physics is too limited to be precise enough.

The only reason we're at this point in the discussion is the fact that you found Seun's argument not to be logical, which is incorrect. Can we get back on topic and look at what exactly the supernatural is?

Gwaine:
@nferyn,

You're not really contributing to the issue in a way that can help you.
Perhaps it's convenient for you to state that you're incapable of faith,
not because it goes against your nature, but because you simply do
NOT want to believe, and that's that.

You don't have control over what you believe. If you think you have, you're deluding yourself.

Gwaine:
You have actually contradicted yourself in this recycled escapist idea
of skeptism. How does contradiction equate denial of God's existence?
Let me even apply some logic to help your argument:

It's funny that you call my ideas escapist. Believing in a God because one cannot face the cold hard fact that we cease to exist after death is far more escapist than accepting that reality.

Gwaine:
Do you deny the existence of anything at all just because of some
perceived contradiction? Now, a moment ago, you stated that:

"Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes
contradict each other."

Granted. Question: just because the particle and wave characteristics
contradict each other, does that provide the grounds for denying that
a phenomenon known as "light" exists? Does contradiction translate
into denial?

The logic you see as conveniently applicable in your case against faith
in God seems to have been altogether forgotten in a matter of hours.

This only shows that our understanding of the phenomenon is limited. It shows that attributing both characteristics to the phenomenon does not adequately capture it's essence. Now, as to the existence of God, it only shows that either God does not exist or he does not have these attributes. If the Judeo-Christian God has these attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence), he does not exist. If he exists, he does not have these attributes. That's a simple application of logic and does not depend on what I or anyone else believes.

Gwaine:
@nferyn,

You see why you have a problem that will last a lifetime? You're trying
ever so hard to reduce God into a test tube by thinking He is "falsifiable".

If something isn't falsifiable, it's meaningless. It can be whatever you say it is and there's no way to determine the validity of your claims.

Gwaine:
I'll provide you this one thing - the one attribute you need is faith - for
that is the only way to know Him. If you reject that and instead ask that
the one requirement He asks be thrown out, then you're the one under
spotlight.

I'm incapable of faith. It goes against my very nature. I cannot believe insomething without evidence.

Gwaine:
How does the question of contradiction equate denial of God's existence?

If you didn't see that there's little point arguing. It's impossible for something to be red and green at the same time in the same configuration. If God is all powerfull and all knowing while evil exist, he cannot be all good. Either he does not possess these attributes or he does not exist. Simple logic.

Gwaine:
Even you as a man can contradict yourself in matters of character traits -
and when you do, would that be grounds enough to deny your existence?

Obviously, but I cannot be 2 meters tall and 1.5 meters tall at the same time. God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent at the same time while evil exists in the world.

Gwaine:
It's of very little consequence that anyone tries to find contradiction in the
attributes of God - what is the essential question is: how does that deny
His existence?

Either that or he does not posses these attributes. There is no other outcome to that dilemma

ToyM28:
M a christian nd i believe in d existence of God. But for an atheist to claim that GOd doesnt exist outrightly, without even conider his existence, 2 me is outright proud and ignorant. How can one be sure that God deosnt exist, dere is evidence that points to the existence and non existence of God, it all depends on Faith. So if someone, opens deir mouth and balantly tells me that God doesnt exist without an iota of doubt in his or her mind, i'll conceive that person as a fool.

It all depends on what you call a claim that God doesn't exist. To make such a claim, you must know the properties of said God and only then can you determine the existence of that God. I cannot claim that a supernatural being does not exist a priori (as it is impossible to prove a negative), but when specific attributes of that God are described, that God can be falsified by investigating these attributes.

When one claims that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent all at once while evil exists in this world, then one can logically deduce that that God does not exist because he contedicts himself. That doesn't say anything about a God with other properties, though.

Drusilla,

No objection here. What I meant to say is that a strong civil society emmanates from an existing middle class. A classical example is the trade unions who's initial organisation, even though their purposes was the defense of the interests of the lower classes, was populated by people from the middle class.

Drusilla: Without a civil society, the "middle class" have no reason to want anybody else to obtain to their level. It is just a threat to their status.

Actually, the civil society is usually an expression of the needs, ambitions and values of the middle class. The problem is that Nigeria doesn't have much of a middle class.

@Gwaine
Thanks for attempting to explain the supernatural. It's obvious that I can neither detect nor understand the supernatural because I do not have a spirit, I do not have a conscience that is incorporeal. My mind and conscience are a direct result of my neurological state, i.e. the electro-chemical reactions in my central nervous system.

Maybe the supernatural is only applicable to those who believe in it or, as sociologists would put it, when something is perceived to be real, it is real in it's consequences

Literacy alone wouldn't solve the problem. You need a strong, vibrant middle class as well. people need to have something at stake in the electoral process, if the outcome has little effect on you, you won't feel involved.

@ Gwaine
Maybe you can give a operational definition of the supernatural. Only when I actually know what the supernatural is, can I determine whether or not it exists.

As for the rest of your post, I really don't know what you're getting at. Maybe you can explain why my arguments are fallacious. Assertion is not the same as evidence.

syrup:
nferyn,

There's nothing prudent about a position that tries to hold that everything must be natural where clearly there are phenomena that cannot be explicated by naturalistic terms, or they would long ago have been so explicated. You keep saying that you have no idea what I'm talking about simply because you have no idea of what "spirituality" and "the supernatural" are. "We don't know" is more respectable for the skeptic to admit than an outright denial about what exists. If everything is to be communicated by the language of natural science, why has it been ever so perplexing for the natural scientist to explain the supernatural even when he cannot deny it?

The supernatural explanation is not explanation but rather a categorisation of what we don't understand. If no causal connections can be established, it does not explain anything. But once again, please define the supernatural precisely in such a manner that it can be distinguished from the natural. What are the defining characteristics of the supernatural?

syrup:
"I AM THAT I AM" has been explained - and it is not void of information, unless you just want to hold on to that notion because you still will come back to tell me you don't understand what I am talking about.

It has not been explained. If you say that it means that God is what he says he is, than please tell me how you can establish what God says.

syrup:
Seun's reasoning is not logical - how do you accuse someone who doesn't exist?

Do you know what logic is? It is not a test do determine truth, only a tool to connect premisses to conclusions.
One of the premisses was Gods existence. Under that assumption he exposed a contradiction in the nature of God, the conflicting attributes of omnipotence and omnibenevolence, nothing more. This is perfectly logical.

syrup:
For the accusation to have any value is to suggest that such a being exists, albeit Seun finds him to be "horrible". And if you insist his reasoning is logical by deducing qualities of God out of His characteristics, you perhaps might care enough to tell me how it is possible to deduce qualities of a being who you believe to not exist?

To determine the truthfulness of a claim, you can look for internal contradictions in the context. If you find these contradictions, it exposes the lack of validity of the caim in the first place.

syrup:
There again, it's more a matter of quality than of outright denial of His existence. Or, you might have to come back with a denial of His existence where you cannot possibly talk about His qualities and characteristics. It just doesn't operate both ways: it's either He does not exist and thus describing Him as "horrible" then does not arise; or He actually exists but you don't like to believe in Him.

So you cannot reason logically from a premisse if you don't believe in it in the first place. That's weird reasoning.

syrup:
Now I'm surprised that you'd confirm my suspicion that anything (and perhaps everything) must be subjected to the natural faculties. Then it is not in my place to explain what the supernatural is to a person who will see no more than the natural. Whether or not you understand the concepts of spirit and spirituality, you cannot demand that supernatural phenomena be submitted to natural laws, or you would have been able to provide an explanation for what you still don't have answers to.

Declaring something supernatural doen't make it supernatural, only positive evidence of the supernatural nature of that phenomenon is sufficient to conclude something like that. Obviously, this would imply:
* a clear definition of the supernatural
* a causal connection between said phenomenon and supernatural agency
Neither have been provided, all we have is ignorance

syrup:
What I'm getting at is this: there are issues that are clearly inexplicable by "natural" deductions - they lie outside the natural laws.

There is no evidence of such phenomena.

syrup:
Let me offer you two examples outside my Christian position: levitation and telekinesis.

Neither levitation, nor telekinesis have been established in a controlled experiment. Those phenomena vanish the moment they're scrutinised.

syrup:
Natural scientists have not been able to explain the "natural laws" of levitation because it is not subject to the physical law of gravity.

Obviously, it has not been observed under controlled circumstances, so an explanation is not even necesary

syrup:
To deny that levitation is a real phenomenon outside the explanations of natural science is to assume a weak position.

Why? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No evidence is forthcoming. Mind you, I'm not even talking about an explanation, only the phenomenon

syrup:
Again, how do you scientifically explain "mind-reading" - telling the thoughts of someone else?

Why would I need to explain something that has not been established as a truthful phenomenon? What exactly is mind-reading?

syrup:
Please don't even try to explain it away under the excuse that science is growing up to explain that. What scientific laws exist to explain these phenomena?

I don't need to. As far as mind-reading is concerned, I could hypothesise, but then I need to have a clear definition of mind reading.

syrup:
These are just a few examples outside my Christian principles, for Christianity does not deny their reality.

I do, at least in their implicit context, but maybe you can be a little more precise so that I might explicitely deny or accept them.

syrup:
They may not be very strong examples unlike more involving events in the paranormal and spiritism; but what I have just attempted is to make you understand that if everything is to be explained by natural faculties, why is it taking forever for you, at least, to explain these issues "naturally"?

I provisionally (that is untill you define them in a precise enough manner) reject these phenomena to exist. be more precise and I might accept or deny them.

syrup:
That's why I agree with you that "we don't know" is a more respectable response from the skeptic than to demand that everything be subjugated to the natural faculty.

We don't know is always provisional. There are few phenomena that cannot be studied further. The only thing we have to determine the validity of any claim are our natural faculties or do you care to propose another method to study those phenomena?

syrup:
Supra-natural phenomena are not explained naturally, otherwise you would have been able to provide an explanation by the deductions of natural science for what lies outside its purview.

Why? Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes contradict each other. Is light now all of a sudden [u]supra-natural[/y] because we have not been able to fully comprehend the nature of it ?

syrup:
@nferyn,
Until you come up with something new, this would be a meaningless exercise for both of us. You're going round again and again, so I'll try and make things a bit easier.

Well, so are you. I guess we don't have a shared language when it comes to communicating about these issues.

syrup:
Granted that you now see the issue with 4get_me was not about definition of God, but about atheism. Even so, what you hold to be atheism is not shared by many atheists, and that's why I suggested that the goalpost shifting you see in theism is actually closer home with atheism. As far as I'm concerned, there was no strawman in his reply just before you left off, because he actually showed how atheists themselves are the ones defining the concept of atheism that differ from yours.

Obviously, my definition of atheism will not be shared by all atheists, just as your definition of christianity won't be shared by all christians. Ethymologically, atheism is quite clear, it is the absence of God belief. Undere that umbrella, many positions can be taken (among them strong, weak, gnostic or agnostic atheism). It's not because some people don't agree with the meaning of a word that the meaning changes. Just as it's not because the Ugandan Lord's Resistance Army claim to be Christian that they are.

syrup:
Then, I've stated that God is spoken of in other religions than Christianity, but if the claims in those religious movements do not hold true, I do not deny the fact of the religion in question, but I don't anchore my faith there. If in my experience I find the claims of God contrary to His declarative "I AM THAT I AM", then I would have no basis to believe in Him. Example: He says He is good and blesses those who seek Him by faith. If I find Him to be 'evil' instead of 'good' even after having followed that requirement, then it stands to reason that I find to my shock He is "horrible". This does not presuppose a denial of His existence, but rather a concern about His quality.

I'm not denying you your religious perspective, only that the statement I am that I am [/i]is void of information.

syrup:
What you might have been enquiring in my response to Seun's post is about existence; but I'd corrected that while it apparently seems so, it is more a matter of qualities acribed to Him.

OK. It was maybe not your intention to talk about the existence of God, but you clearly made that a point of your post.

syrup:
How do you accuse a non-existent being if not somehow presupposing that He exists? There are two statements in my reply to his: the first is an attempt to show that his assertions are not substantiated by his accusations; the second is to the effect that his claims do not justify the non-existence of God. What then? The first is about the qualities ascribed to God to make it easy to allege that evil is to be found in Him, thus suggesting that He is "horrible". Just because there are statements about (non)existence of God does not mean that the central concern about qualities ascribed to Him should lose their significance.

I may possibly not understand what you're getting at, but Seun's reasoning was perfectly logical, deducting qualities of God out his characteristics. That doesn't give them any value outside of the initial assumptions though.

syrup:
Shared communication goes both ways, and you just cannot demand that spiritual/supernatural issues be explicated otherwise than by terms of spirituality; otherwise it no longer becomes spiritual.

Then define spirituality and spiritual terminology because I have no idea what you're talking about.

syrup:
Think about it: I don't understand everything about science, but that does not make scientific realities non-existent: and for me to deny them simply because the scientist is not using spiritual terminologies is to fall victim to the same thing you're doing.

No it isn't. I just don't grasp spirituality. Defining it would already go a long way.

syrup:
The supernatural is not inferior to the natural, and the natural scientist who insists that the supernatural should cower under naturalistic terminologies is playing chief over an issue he knows nothing about.

I don't even know what supernatural is. If it is that what does not follow natural laws, then you are, by definition, making it inscutible. What else can we use but our (natural) faculties to study anything.

syrup:
Good that you're not denying the supernatural - and what does that mean to you?

I'm not denying it a priori, but nothing can be said about it, it is totally inconsequential.

syrup:
Even then, I'm not projecting - I know a lot of skeptics who feel uncomfortable with their own positions and I alluded to that in general terms. If you don't fall within that delineation, no need to react as though you do.

It was us having this conversation, so naturally, I assumed you were implying me, if not, why bring it up in the first place?

syrup:
Second, I don't know what to make out from your position. On the one hand, you're not denying the supernatural; and on the other hand you want to defend a skeptic who denies it ("He rejects the claim of that phenomenon being supernatural". If the "many dimensions of reality that are hard for us humans to detect or understand" are "not any less natural", why is it taking the scientific world forever to determine, detect and explicate them?

We are mortal, limited beings with a limited capacity. Our knowledge grows, but we will never be all knowing. It must be said though that most of what once thought to be of supernatural origin, is now well within the grasp of science and can easily be explained through scientific means. We no longer believe e.g. lightning to be coming from (an) angry god(s).

syrup:
Lastly, you come back to the same excuse you've always held as a lifesaver in issues like this (and that is a little frail by now). I'm not "closing off an area of investigation to natural enquiry by definition" - simply because you don't understand the supernatural is by no means grounds for you to think that it must be a "[i]natural enquiry by definition". If the supernatural is simply natural by definition, why does it continue to perplex the scientific community who by now ought to have detected it as such?

I have no clue what you're getting at. Can you be more precise?

syrup:
You don't determine everything about the realities of all phenomena on just naturalistic explications - to do so is untenable; and to insist that it is so will only lead to denial where the enquirer is himself asked to explain what undeniably exists.

Can you be more precise. It's not because a phenomenon exists and we don't have an explanation yet, that the answer must be: it's supernatural. We don't know would suffice and is a much more prudent position.

syrup:
nferyn,

First, I don't read you giving up on the debate in the other thread with 4get_me simply on the premise that there was no adequate definition of God. The definition of God was not the issue - you rather gave up after he put you on proper grounds for a balanced discourse on the definition of atheism, to the effect that the same goalposts you pressumed are and have many times shifted as to what really is atheism.

Excuse me my french, but his is bull. I have always clearly stated what atheism is. Dictionary definitions don't change that fact, neither do accusations of revisionism. I have not even once shifted my goalposts regarding atheism. When someone continuously uses a definition you don't subscribe to and uses that definition to discuss your position, he's putting up a strawman and I'm tired of defending strawmen.
I grant you that I didn't really discuss the God concept with 4get_me in detail, it must have been with other people.

syrup:
Then, of course, for me personally as a Christian, I'd just say that God is who He says He is - the "I AM THAT I AM." Besides that, I know no other way of describing (rather than 'defining') Him. This may seem preposterous to you, and I really don't mind that. The issue is that when people try to define/describe Him in other ways than who and what He says He is, then there's bound to be grounds for differing opinions.

How do you know that was God speaking in the first place? I also am that I am, everybody and everything is.

syrup:
So, point there - the accusation that I'm as guilty as Seun, because I don't see evil 'to be found in Him' as he supposed. The only difference is not about my positive claims, but that if my experience does not attest to the claims I read of about who and what God has revealed of Himself in the Bible, then I'd have no reason at all to believe.

I don't understand.

syrup:
God is spoken of in other religions, and I haven't found those claims about God to hold true in most of the questions I've asked - and that's the reason why I don't hold to those claims. So, I'd rather we keep things in proper perspectives and understand here that between Seun and me, the issue is not about the existence or non-existence of God, but rather about the qualities ascribed to Him - "both good and evil", or otherwise "horrible".

Isn't

syrup:
There is a holy God, and just by asserting that "A holy God doesn't exist" does not make it true. Your lack of belief in a holy God does not make Him less likely to exist.

talking about the (non-)existence of God?

syrup:
I've asked that you make it simple for yourself - it is not 'evidence' that you need, but a clear statement of what you really are attuned to: unbelief. I'm sorry to state it so, but when you say that "Evidence is what is found in the natural world", you're actually saying the same thing that brings you closer to my presuppositions about your claims. We don't deny or shy away from "evidence" - the problem is that the evidence presented are often decried by those asking for them.

Evidence needs to based in a shared area of communication, otherwise it is meaningless. You may talk about a bloorg, but without a demarcation of what a bloorg is and what isn't, it's impossible to say anything meaningful about that bloorg. In that regard, most of the evidence presented by theists is based on an a priori acceptance of theistic claims. Hardly a shared space of communication.

syrup:
That is why I said earlier that to deny the supernatural (as opposed to what is natural) is to be irrational about what actually falls within reality.

I'm not denying it,I would just want to see a clear definition of the supernatural that would make it tangible. I don't deny the fact that there are many things we don't understand yet or that there are things that science cannot yet explain, but that doesn't make those phenomena super-natural, it only makes them (yet) without explanation. Mind you, most of these phenomena crumble under close scrutiny.

syrup:
So many skeptics have difficulty believing in God, but an honest skeptic is not one to deny supernatural phenomena even though he may not be able to explain its nature. It is not 'evidence' you need, but an "interpretation" of the evidence for the supernatural. Unfortunately, these evidences are only denied by skeptics who feel uncomfortable with their own position.

You're projecting. I don't feel uncomfortable about my position

syrup:
Let me state it simply: a skeptic who denies the supernatural is denying what falls within reality. So, if you're prescribing that all realities be merely on the natural plane, you're trying to hold a very narrow view of what is beyond the natural.

No, he doesn't. He rejects the claim of that phenomenon being supernatural. Even though there are many dimensions of reality that are hard for us humans to detect or understand, these dimension are not any less natural.

syrup:
That's why the concepts of spirituality and the supernatural make no sense to you - and just because you don't understand them does not mean they don't exist. Concisely, it shouldn't be difficult to understand what 'supernatural' is - that which is outside the natural realm and not subject to natural laws.

Now you're just closing off an area of investigation to natural enquiry by definition. What by definition is not subject to natural laws cannot be investigated and thus is inscrutible, no truth claims can ever be established for such a thing, less you devaluate the meaning of truth.

syrup:
Second, you're quite an apprentice atheist - neither here nor there. An atheist who knows what he's talking about does not go about with probability in cases of absolutes, thus your use of "either. . .or" is as horrible as your assertions. There is a holy God, and just by asserting that "A holy God doesn't exist" does not make it true. Your lack of belief in a holy God does not make Him less likely to exist.

You're guilty of exactly the same thing you're accusing Seun of. You asert without the evidence to back it up, the only difference is that you make positive claims about the existence of God. Positive claims require evidence.

syrup:
@nferyn,

You haven't added anything to the point nor actually answered my questions, which is not surprising because that's the narrow and convenient backdoor escapist theories atheists appeal to. Make it simple for yourself - you don't believe in God because you don't want to; not because there's no evidence for the supernatural. I've read your inputs in other threads about the issue, but when guys like 4get_me took you up on the weakness of your arguments, you did the right thing back then to recognise the fact that atheists do not have proof for their own assertions.

Please define those narrow and escapist theories atheists appeal to. You're just asserting something you do not have evidence for.
I don't believe in God because I have no reason to. Belief is not something one can just summon at will. It is a condition based on prior knowledge/experiences/exposure.
As long as theists are not precise in their definition of God and can change the meaning of their God concept as they see fit, it's no use debating as the goalposts are shifting. That's the reason I gave up on debating 4get_me. If you make your God specific and we'll have a starting point for a debate.

syrup:
It's easy: what you pedantically call 'evidence' is an appeal to some form of limited tool - perhaps more suited to the field of natural science and mathematical determinations.

Evidence is what is found in the natural world and is the only thing people with different metaphysical outlooks can agree upon (except maybe for logic, but then concepts neeed to be defined precisely). If you go beyond that you're just asserting again and make it impossible to falsify your claims.

syrup:
What you have to understand is that when philosophers try to explain everything about reality by mathematical or scientific methodolgies, they are missing the point, because spiritual issues are not scientifically determined.

Define spiritual. That concept does not have any meaning as long as it's not defined

syrup:
When people ask for 'evidence' for the supernatural, they should be willing to apply spiritual laws and language to what lies outside the natural.

Please be precise. I have no idea what you're talking about

syrup:
If that is denied by philosophers who want to cajole everything into the natural, then it is not religious people who are ignorant - it is rather the skeptic that is quite ignorant of these issues because he denies the reality of the supernatural simply on the basis of his lack of an understanding of spiritual phenomena.

For the sake of argument, left's just call the spiritual pink unicorn[/i]s. If you don't define [i]pink unicorns in such a way that they can be distinguished from non-pink and/or non-unicorns, it's not use talking about them, as the object of discussion can be anything you want it to be. So, please define spiritual and supernatural

syrup:
I don't see you as an ignorant skeptic, but to go that way would be highly suggestive of just wanting to deny the reality of the supernatural - which would be very surprising indeed.

Please give a precise definition of the supernatural, as the concept is meaningless to me.

syrup:
@nferyn, you're trying ever so hard to wax philosophical at things you cannot understand nor explain.
You'd have to convince me that belief in God was the invention of the devil; and then you'd have to prove to me that the devil is real. Then you'd still have to prove the reality of the consequences of your own belief.

That's exactly the point. It's rather idiotic to make any claims about the existence of deities without evidence to back it up. There's no evidence for the existence of God, only conjecture

The most evil invention the devil ever came up with was the belief in God
or maybe not
if people believe something to be real, it is real in it's consequences

Actually, I'm flattered. Never knew I was famous