A question for believers, is God a gas?

[SnailyBoy]

Not really - you’ve failed to explain love, how it’s experienced and how you can prove it exists.

 

You believe the fact that it’s not an extraordinary claim to say you love someone evidences that you love your wife.

 

No, we agreed what love was, a strong feeling of affection.

 

You accepted that me loving my wife wasn't an extraordinary claim, so ordinary evidence would suffice to prove it.

 

I provided you with a written statement as evidence.

 

What more do you want?

[Guest makapaka]

No, we agreed what love was, a strong feeling of affection.

 

You accepted that me loving my wife wasn't an extraordinary claim, so ordinary evidence would suffice to prove it.

 

I provided you with a written statement as evidence.

 

What more do you want?

 

How do I know you’re not lying.

 

What if i make a written statement that you don’t love your wife. How will you prove it?

[SnailyBoy]

Oh dear- you have done exactly what I stated before.

 

When unable to provide an answer, like many atheists, you run on to something that you all think is right 'up your street'.

 

I proved we can use other than science to prove something- accepted.[/Quote]

 

Yes we're back, you didn't prove anything with your maths logic. As I said earlier what if maths is innate and is the natural science of the Universe?

 

I also mentioned logic- I did not say I had to prove to you the existence of a supernatural being using logic- as I did not feel the need to (which does not mean I cannot).

 

I then stated, since you asked me to use logic to do so- I rightly mentioned and then asked, I can use my logic and account for it- can you account for yours??

 

You agreed we live in the same reality, we have access to the same logic, the same self evident truths. Demonstrate how your exposure to logic is different to mine.

 

]I need you to account for your logic before this goes any further- because how can you trust your mind> may be its why you keep asking Q after Q after Q and use red herrings.

 

Once again you agreed we live in the same reality, see above.

 

Under your world view, being atheistic and naturalist, can you give me a reason for your logic- so I can at least know we are on the same page.

 

So while you run and look up answers from your handbook/google or guides, I will take a deserved break.

 

See above

 

Atheism isn't a worldview, it's a response to the claim that a god exists.

Edited March 3, 2018 by SnailyBoy

[Baz1]

Yes we're back, you didn't prove anything with your maths logic. As I said earlier what if maths is innate and is the natural science of the Universe?

 

Err, yes I did.

 

I proved you did not need science to answer that question.

And why/how would maths be innate under your worldview- how do you account for this under a blind, non rational physical process?

 

You agreed we live in the same reality, we have access to the same logic. Demonstrate how yours is different to mine.

 

Yes- but I can account for my logic- you cannot or have yet failed to answer it (I won't hold my breath).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a worldview, it's a response to the claim that a god exists.

 

No- the atheism accounted today, which is this so called New Atheism, is based on various beliefs and used to determine your worldview.

 

You use science (even with your inability to fully understand it) to make decisions which you feel or felt are the only way to truth.

 

You also have a naturalistic approach to the world, which is very particular under atheism.

 

This naturalistic worldview, that only physical things exist, matter and there is nothing outside of this, is where you all fail miserably.

 

To cut it short, and may be where I will leave it, is that the very foundation you use (EVIDENCE) for something like God, is illogical in your worldview.

 

Because you and I both have or assume to have rational faculties- the ability to reason! But how do you explain your rational faculties under atheism?

 

You believe (as most atheists do) all phenomena can be explained via physical stuff- and you believe there is no supernatural.

 

But physical stuff is just blind and non rational- so how does rationality come from non rationality???

 

This is my last point and the reason it is long, is that you have something to go back and look at. Hopefully other people reading this will understand my point, if theists, as we can account for our rationality.

 

But as an atheist, you are stumped my friend.

 

So you have no right to ask for evidence when the very thing you ask for, (evidence, proof) assumes your ability to reason.

 

Something you cannot account for under atheism.

[SnailyBoy]

No- the atheism accounted today, which is this so called New Atheism, is based on various beliefs and used to determine your worldview.

 

You use science (even with your inability to fully understand it) to make decisions which you feel or felt are the only way to truth.

 

You also have a naturalistic approach to the world, which is very particular under atheism.

 

This naturalistic worldview, that only physical things exist, matter and there is nothing outside of this, is where you all fail miserably.

 

To cut it short, and may be where I will leave it, is that the very foundation you use (EVIDENCE) for something like God, is illogical in your worldview.

 

Because you and I both have or assume to have rational faculties- the ability to reason! But how do you explain your rational faculties under atheism?

 

You believe (as most atheists do) all phenomena can be explained via physical stuff- and you believe there is no supernatural.

 

But physical stuff is just blind and non rational- so how does rationality come from non rationality???

 

This is my last point and the reason it is long, is that you have something to go back and look at. Hopefully other people reading this will understand my point, if theists, as we can account for our rationality.

 

But as an atheist, you are stumped my friend.

 

So you have no right to ask for evidence when the very thing you ask for, (evidence, proof) assumes your ability to reason.

 

Something you cannot account for under atheism.

 

So it all boils down presuppositional apologetics.

 

I presuppose that logic came from universe creating pixies. Now account for your ability to reason.

Edited March 3, 2018 by SnailyBoy

[Anna B]

We could MRI his brain when he looks at his wife and see if the areas 'light up' that we would expect to light up when somebody looks at someone they love.

 

We could also possibly measure levels of neurotransmitters.

 

That proves his brain is active, but it is not necessarily a measure of love. Surely all feelings and emotions are impossible to measure empirically, yet they undoubtedly exist.

I (or at least scientists,) can also point to the specific area of my brain that lights up when stimulated by thoughts of God and spiritual things,

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2018 at 18:03 ----------

 

No, we agreed what love was, a strong feeling of affection.

 

You accepted that me loving my wife wasn't an extraordinary claim, so ordinary evidence would suffice to prove it.

 

I provided you with a written statement as evidence.

 

What more do you want?

 

'I believe in God.' That's my written statement, nor is it an extraordinary claim, (more people world wide believe in a God than don't.) Does that make it evidence?

Edited March 3, 2018 by Anna B

[lottiecass]

Just read your post 144 baz, you are mistaken with new atheism, atheism still means the same as it did in roman times,ask any atheist its nonbelief in gods.

[SnailyBoy]

That proves his brain is active, but it is not necessarily a measure of love. Surely all feelings and emotions are impossible to measure empirically, yet they undoubtedly exist.

I (or at least scientists,) can also point to the specific area of my brain that lights up when stimulated by thoughts of God and spiritual things,

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2018 at 18:03 ----------

 

 

'I believe in God.' That's my written statement, nor is it an extraordinary claim, (more people world wide believe in a God than don't.) Does that make it evidence?

 

It's evidence you believe.

 

If you were to say a God exists, that would be an extraordinary claim and should require extraordinary evidence.

 

The number of people that believe something doesn't necessarily make it true. That's a logical fallacy - argument from popularity.

[Robin-H]

That proves his brain is active, but it is not necessarily a measure of love. Surely all feelings and emotions are impossible to measure empirically, yet they undoubtedly exist.

I (or at least scientists,) can also point to the specific area of my brain that lights up when stimulated by thoughts of God and spiritual things,

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2018 at 18:03 ----------

 

 

'I believe in God.' That's my written statement, nor is it an extraordinary claim, (more people world wide believe in a God than don't.) Does that make it evidence?

 

You are confusing evidence that you believe in God with actual evidence of God.

[Baz1]

So it all boils down presuppositional apologetics.

 

I presuppose that logic came from universe creating pixies. Now account for your ability to reason.

 

Nope, still looks like you are finding this whole thing beyond your comprehension.

 

I think it may be time to draw a line as you will only go way off and dig yourself a bigger hole.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2018 at 19:02 ----------

 

Just read your post 144 baz, you are mistaken with new atheism, atheism still means the same as it did in roman times,ask any atheist its nonbelief in gods.

 

I think you misunderstood- atheism or old atheism (if you take people like Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche) were at least honest.

 

He believed in NO GOD, no VALUES, no PURPOSE etc.

 

But this so called 'new atheism' is hypocritical - you try to jutify reason, or values, or morals etc under some pretext that under naturalism, this can be explained.

 

But it can't- so you guys use all sorts of terminology or new 'methods' under scientism, to try and prove things.