What would Atheists consider adequate proof of God?

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

You've reached meta-meta-metaphysics. I think it's time you kept your end of the bargain and suspended your disbelief about my meta(singular)physics as I have suspended my disbelief about your proposed metaphysics, which ironically aren't incongruous.

Where did I say that I hadn't already suspended said disbelief?

Anyway, it's time to reach meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-metaphysics...

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

Where did I say that I hadn't already suspended said disbelief?

Anyway, it's time to reach meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-metaphysics...

It's always the same equation, consciousness is the primary medium in which the (any) universe exists. That consciousness, which contains everything (omnipresence) including all knowledge (omniscience) and holds the laws of physics in place (omnipotence), and which can be interpreted as an individual ego (the Son or Holy Spirit [or where prophets get their "Holy" words from in Judaism and Islam]), is God.

This is something that you yourself can verify by using the tools available to you: your consciousness and your senses.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

It's always the same equation, consciousness is the primary medium in which the (any) universe exists. That consciousness, which contains everything (omnipresence) including all knowledge (omniscience) and holds the laws of physics in place (omnipotence), and which can be interpreted as an individual ego (the Son or Holy Spirit [or where prophets get their "Holy" words from in Judaism and Islam]), is God.

So God only exists within consciousness? Awesome. I agree. Insofar as God exists, it is entirely within one's consciousness.

The laws of physics, on the other hand, exist independently of us.

The ways we describe the laws of physics (i.e. our physical theories) exist within consciousness. The laws themselves though, not the concepts used to represent them, exist independently.

God probably does not exist in that same realm.

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

This is something that you yourself can verify by using the tools available to you: your consciousness and your senses.

If by consciousness you mean rationality, and by senses you mean empirical observation, then yes, it appears we agree on yet another fact.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

So God only exists within consciousness? Awesome. I agree. Insofar as God exists, it is entirely within one's consciousness.

The laws of physics, on the other hand, exist independently of us.

The ways we describe the laws of physics (i.e. our physical theories) exist within consciousness. The laws themselves though, not the concepts used to represent them, exist independently.

God probably does not exist in that same realm.



If by consciousness you mean rationality, and by senses you mean empirical observation, then yes, it appears we agree on yet another fact.

Your consciousness exists within God's consciousness as well as the other way around, and there is no human being in existence or ever in existence that can establish that the laws of physics exist independent of consciousness.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Your consciousness exists within God's consciousness as well as the other way around

I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure that you can't have a set both entirely encompass another set, yet simultaneously be a part of that same set.

Unless maybe the two sets are equal.

But you did say "consciousness is the primary medium in which the (any) universe exists."

"In which" has certain implications.

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

and there is no human being in existence or ever in existence that can establish that the laws of physics exist independent of consciousness.

Same with God then.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure that you can't have a set both entirely encompass another set, yet simultaneously be a part of that same set.

Unless maybe the two sets are equal.

But you did say "consciousness is the primary medium in which the (any) universe exists."

"In which" has certain implications.



Same with God then.

This is where faith comes in. Have faith in what I'm saying in your whole reality may inverse in on itself.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

This is where faith comes in. Have faith in what I'm saying in your whole reality may inverse in on itself.

And why do you have faith in God and not so much in the rainbow-pissing dragon?

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

And why do you have faith in God and not so much in the rainbow-pissing dragon?

Logic.

[gadzooks]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Logic.

That's not an answer.

That's, to use a term that might appeal to you, a mere meta-answer.

You're telling me the tool that you used to figure out how your idea of God is more likely to be the case than my hypothetical eight-armed dragon, not how you actually figured it out.

That's like if I asked you for directions on how to get to some landmark that only you know about, and you responded with "Map."

[adrieann]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

That's not an answer.

That's, to use a term that might appeal to you, a mere meta-answer.

You're telling me the tool that you used to figure out how your idea of God is more likely to be the case than my hypothetical eight-armed dragon, not how you actually figured it out.

That's like if I asked you for directions on how to get to some landmark that only you know about, and you responded with "Map."

You beat him gadzooks.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by gadzooks

That's not an answer.

That's, to use a term that might appeal to you, a mere meta-answer.

You're telling me the tool that you used to figure out how your idea of God is more likely to be the case than my hypothetical eight-armed dragon, not how you actually figured it out.

That's like if I asked you for directions on how to get to some landmark that only you know about, and you responded with "Map."

More like me explaining to you that there is a landmark to get to, and there are maps to get there, but you refuse the existence of such a landmark by saying "Just because the map says it's there doesn't mean it's actually there" and then refuse to follow the map to verify its existence for yourself.

Originally Posted by adrieann

You beat him gadzooks.

Beat me at what?

[Rust]

^ You're right. Nobody "beat" you. You'll be back repeating the same awful, refuted, arguments in no time.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

^ You're right. Nobody "beat" you. You'll be back repeating the same awful, refuted, arguments in no time.

I'm waiting for you atheists to stop arguing about the existence of God and instead start searching for the existence of God.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

I'm waiting for you atheists to stop arguing about the existence of God and instead start searching for the existence of God.

I'm waiting for you theists to stop assuming you know what atheists have or haven't done just because they don't accept your atrocious claims as fact.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

I'm waiting for you theists to stop assuming you know what atheists have or haven't done just because they don't accept your atrocious claims as fact.

Were you baptized as a baby?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Were you baptized as a baby?

Yes. What lame point are you trying to make now?

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yes. What lame point are you trying to make now?

Were you raised in a certain faith?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Were you raised in a certain faith?

Yes. Catholicism. Could you speed this process up? I don't imagine your point will be worth the tortute of answering your dumb questions one by one.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yes. Catholicism. Could you speed this process up? I don't imagine your point will be worth the tortute of answering your dumb questions one by one.

So you are a confirmed Catholic who has simply lost faith and are not a true atheist. I think one day the Spirit will (re)enter your life and you should be open to that possibility.

[DirtySanchez]

I find that every atheist I've ever had the misfortune of meeting was just as self righteous blind and zealous as any religious nut. You can't prove God exists but you can't disprove it either. I consider myself religious but not in a blind way that discounts science and thinks the earth is only 5000 years old.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

So you are a confirmed Catholic who has simply lost faith and are not a true atheist. I think one day the Spirit will (re)enter your life and you should be open to that possibility.

What? How am I not a "true atheist" merely because I was raised Catholic? Did you even read the nonsense you just wrote?

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

What? How am I not a "true atheist" merely because I was raised Catholic? Did you even read the nonsense you just wrote?

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it states that once you've been baptized (and especially if you've been confirmed) you are forever a member of the mystical body of Christ (the true Catholic Church), and furthermore one of your duties as a Catholic is to pursue the truth with ALL of your faculties (meaning logic and reason are not to be ignored). Essentially that means that since you were baptized and confirmed and are pursuing the truth (even if your pursuit has temporarily led you away from God) to the best of your ability, you are still a Catholic, just a non-practicing one.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it states that once you've been baptized (and especially if you've been confirmed) you are forever a member of the mystical body of Christ (the true Catholic Church), and furthermore one of your duties as a Catholic is to pursue the truth with ALL of your faculties (meaning logic and reason are not to be ignored). Essentially that means that since you were baptized and confirmed and are pursuing the truth (even if your pursuit has temporarily led you away from God) to the best of your ability, you are still a Catholic, just a non-practicing one.

Except, the dogma of the Catholic church is completely inconsequential in determining whether I am truly atheist or not. The Catholic church doesn't determine my position, I do. What you're arguing there refers to what the Catholic church considers from their point of view. Who gives a flying fuck about their point of view?

My philosophical/theological position is that of atheism.

That's ignoring the process of excommunication, the process of disassociation with the Catholic church, or the rejection of the holy spirit which is explicitly described in the bible as an unforgivable sin.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Except, the dogma of the Catholic church is completely inconsequential in determining whether I am truly atheist or not. The Catholic church doesn't determine my position, I do. What you're arguing there refers to what the Catholic church considers from their point of view. Who gives a flying fuck about their point of view?

My philosophical/theological position is that of atheism.

That's ignoring the process of excommunication, the process of disassociation with the Catholic church, or the rejection of the holy spirit which is explicitly described in the bible as an unforgivable sin.

What I'm telling you is that genuine pursuit of the Truth is not an unforgivable sin if it leads you away from God, but is actually a part of your duty as a Catholic. But now you've changed this discussion from your genuine pursuit of the Truth to out-right rejection of the Holy Spirit. So which is it, does the Holy Spirit not exist according to your pursuits of the Truth, or did you reject its existence in your life?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

What I'm telling you is that genuine pursuit of the Truth is not an unforgivable sin if it leads you away from God, but is actually a part of your duty as a Catholic. But now you've changed this discussion from your genuine pursuit of the Truth to out-right rejection of the Holy Spirit. So which is it, does the Holy Spirit not exist according to your pursuits of the Truth, or did you reject its existence in your life?

Who cares if genuine pursuit of the truth is an unforgivable sin or not? What does that have to do with anything? I don't care what you or the Catholic church call a sin, much less whether you forgive me or not. I'm correcting your claim that I was not truly an atheist. That's ridiculous. I am. The Catholic church doesn't decide whether I am an atheist, I do. I am an atheist.

As for your atrocious red-herring, rejection of the holy spirit is not limited to claiming that the Holy Spirit does not exist. You can claim it exists (or could exist) and still reject it. In fact, the proper sin is blaspheming against the holy spirit, which is a broader term than just saying it doesn't exist.

But again, this is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether I'm an atheist or not. I am.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Who cares if genuine pursuit of the truth is an unforgivable sin or not? What does that have to do with anything? I don't care what you or the Catholic church call a sin, much less whether you forgive me or not. I'm correcting your claim that I was not truly an atheist. That's ridiculous. I am. The Catholic church doesn't decide whether I am an atheist, I do. I am an atheist.

As for your atrocious red-herring, rejection of the holy spirit is not limited to claiming that the Holy Spirit does not exist. You can claim it exists (or could exist) and still reject it. In fact, the proper sin is blaspheming against the holy spirit, which is a broader term than just saying it doesn't exist.

But again, this is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether I'm an atheist or not. I am.

I'll state it again, ignorance of the Holy Spirit on a personal and not theoretical level, is not a sin, despite the fact that you are calling this blasphemous. That means if your genuine pursuits of the Truth have not led you to the Spirit (or anything that could be construed as such), you are not at fault for lacking faith. If however you have come across something or other which could be interpreted as the Holy Spirit in your pursuit of the Truth, and you have chosen to reject it as a fundamental part of the Truth, that is blasphemy.

So are you a blasphemer or have you not come across anything that could be construed as the Holy Spirit?

[Rust]

Yeah, repeating your red-herring changes nothing. What does any part of that tripe have to do with the fact that I am an atheist? Nothing.

I don't care if according to the Catholic church I can still be considered Catholic or not. It's inconsequential. It has nothing to do with what my position is, which is something I determine, not you or they.

Anything else?

[DirtySanchez]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

I'll state it again, ignorance of the Holy Spirit on a personal and not theoretical level, is not a sin, despite the fact that you are calling this blasphemous. That means if your genuine pursuits of the Truth have not led you to the Spirit (or anything that could be construed as such), you are not at fault for lacking faith. If however you have come across something or other which could be interpreted as the Holy Spirit in your pursuit of the Truth, and you have chosen to reject it as a fundamental part of the Truth, that is blasphemy.

So are you a blasphemer or have you not come across anything that could be construed as the Holy Spirit?

I'm a Christian but you are the type who gives religion a bad name. I disagree with RUST on virtually everything but if the man calls himself an atheist I'm inclined to believe he's an atheist. Atheism is not believing in any higher power. RUST fits that. Stop being retarded.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yeah, repeating your red-herring changes nothing. What does any part of that tripe have to do with the fact that I am an atheist? Nothing.

I don't care if according to the Catholic church I can still be considered Catholic or not. It's inconsequential. It has nothing to do with what my position is, which is something I determine, not you or they.

Anything else?

This is no longer about you declaring yourself an atheist or not, but rather what the foundations of your atheism are.

[mizled]

Too papist;Didn't read
-
On a more topical note - can a blind man ever truly see the kingdom of heaven?

A) There is no heaven.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

This is no longer about you declaring yourself an atheist or not, but rather what the foundations of your atheism are.

The foundations of my atheism have nothing to do with Catholic dogma, and whether I have blasphemed against the holy spirit...

The foundations of my atheism are sound: There is no evidence supporting the existence of a god, I have no compelling reason to believe in a god that lacks evidence, ergo I don't believe in gods.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

The foundations of my atheism have nothing to do with Catholic dogma, and whether I have blasphemed against the holy spirit...

The foundations of my atheism are sound: There is no evidence supporting the existence of a god, I have no compelling reason to believe in a god that lacks evidence, ergo I don't believe in gods.

Maybe if you opened your mind and heart up to the Holy Spirit you would find evidence supporting the existence of God.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Maybe if you opened your mind and heart up to the Holy Spirit you would find evidence supporting the existence of God.

Which goes back to the very beginning of the discussion:

"[You need to] stop assuming you know what atheists have or haven't done just because they don't accept your atrocious claims as fact."

[DirtySanchez]

Originally Posted by Rust

The foundations of my atheism have nothing to do with Catholic dogma, and whether I have blasphemed against the holy spirit...

The foundations of my atheism are sound: There is no evidence supporting the existence of a god, I have no compelling reason to believe in a god that lacks evidence, ergo I don't believe in gods.

Your blind atheism is no better than religious zealouts.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Which goes back to the very beginning of the discussion:

"[You need to] stop assuming you know what atheists have or haven't done just because they don't accept your atrocious claims as fact."

I didn't assume anything, you just stated outright that you have no evidence to support a belief in God, which means you haven't experienced any phenomenon which could be equated with the Holy Spirit. That's not to say you haven't entertained the possibility of the Holy Spirit's existence, but you haven't made it more than just an abstraction or you would have your evidence.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

I didn't assume anything, you just stated outright that you have no evidence to support a belief in God, which means you haven't experienced any phenomenon which could be equated with the Holy Spirit. That's not to say you haven't entertained the possibility of the Holy Spirit's existence, but you haven't made it more than just an abstraction or you would have your evidence.

Bullshit. You assumed that I haven't "opened [my] mind and heart up to the Holy Spirit" since you cite that as the course to take, in order to "find evidence supporting the existence of God". In fact, the claim that I haven't made it more than just an abstraction or I would have had that evidence is not only circular logic, but reiterates that same assumption. Don't back-peddle now that your assumptions have caught up to you.

So again, you were asking what 'the foundations of [my] atheism are'. I told you, and they are sound. Do you have anything to refute these foundations or not?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by DirtySanchez

Your blind atheism is no better than religious zealouts.

Yeah, you're a poor imitation of JFLC. We get it.

[DirtySanchez]

Originally Posted by Rust

Yeah, you're a poor imitation of JFLC. We get it.

Dont ever compare me to that faggot JFLC again.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

Bullshit. You assumed that I haven't "opened [my] mind and heart up to the Holy Spirit" since you cite that as the course to take, in order to "find evidence supporting the existence of God". Don't back-peddle now that your assumptions have caught up to you.

So again, you were asking what 'the foundations of [my] atheism are'. I told you, and they are sound. Do you have anything to refute these foundations or not?

I am telling you to gather evidence for God by opening your heart and your mind to the Holy Spirit, until you have evidence.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

I am telling you to gather evidence for God by opening your heart and your mind to the Holy Spirit, until you have evidence.

So what you're saying is that you can't find any faults in the foundations for my atheism?