I suppose we need one of these.

Edit (20-02-2014): maybe a more positive title will make some difference?

I presuppose the opposite such as that empiricism is not a useful way to learn more about the world? I don't. I observe that empiricism is a way to learn about the world that imposes itself forcefully ...

Finally, I've found the problem. But not with religion, but rather with ersicism..
Look, if you even hallucinate, and fancy odd&weird, and if even that stuff "does not exist" -- it DOES still exist - as your perception, as your hallucination, no doubt.
For a record, I hardly remember myself hallucinating about some God, ok?

Why exactly should we assume something to be real without the tiniest shred of evidence? If your god existed but would be undetectable by not interacting with anything, it would be indistinguishable from empty space.

He's DARK MATTER!:lol:

We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.

Oy vey! Do you really feel kicked around?

...... still waiting for proof that there is "A GOD".

All I've seen so far is a fog of words designed to avoid answering that basic question.

...... still waiting for proof that there is "A GOD".

All I've seen so far is a fog of words designed to avoid answering that basic question.

You know, as well as I, that it's just as impossible to prove the existence of God as it is to disprove the existence of God.

That said, I am absolutely positive there is a God, for my faith in Him requires no proof.

I suggest you ask your simple question again at a more appropriate moment.......one split second after you leave the world of the living, & if you can ask it, your answer will become abundantly obvious.

If you can't, well you figure it out.

Faith in God requires no proof, & those that have it are endowed by the Creator with a personal & everlasting awareness of Him.

Believers in Him share this awareness.

If you have no faith you refuse to accept the faith we (all mankind) are all born with, then unfortunately you will be in a perpetual state of self-imposed perplexity.

One way or the other though .................................................. God will always love you (us).

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2013-11-30, 22:34:16We needed a thread here that I, personally, won't have much to do with-- same as the ones on the D&D. I know without even looking how the thread is going to run, so why bother? Threads like this exist so atheists can kick believers around, and FOR NO OTHER REASON.Just because you are religious doesn't mean a non-believe is kicking you around by expressing their opinion. I think bible thumpers take things way to personally for no reason. Atheist don't seem to be affected by religious folks craming their point of view down their throats. Or maybe not as often?

My long view of mjm is that he doesn't qualify as a Bible thumper. Show me where he's gotten on a soapbox to berate folks like you and me.

Most of the D&D posting on religion is blather, no matter the source. I've done my share, but I really don't care what people hold as sacred or profane. People who know me in the flesh know about my views on religion, and they leave me along about them, as I leave them alone with theirs.

I don't know you, but guess that you don't berate people in your life who hold different views.

...... still waiting for proof that there is "A GOD".

All I've seen so far is a fog of words designed to avoid answering that basic question.

You know, as well as I, that it's just as impossible to prove the existence of God as it is to disprove the existence of God.

Well I can use a better word/phrase than proof in the following:

"I'm still waiting to hear what evidence exists that there is A GOD "

Everyone that believes must have had evidence of some kind to have come to that belief.

So what was it - somebody ---- anybody?

Well I can use a better word/phrase than proof in the following:

"I'm still waiting to hear what evidence exists that there is A GOD "

Everyone that believes must have had evidence of some kind to have come to that belief.

So what was it - somebody ---- anybody?

What kind of evidence do you mean? As I have argued before, if you insist on empirical evidence, your demand actually presupposes unempirical things, e.g. existence of beliefs and belief in the value of evidence. In which case your demand is begging the question. But if you really mean unempirical evidence, then define the unempirical scope of your metaphysics, so it would be clear what kind of evidence you allow.

Maybe "anything" works better, this time.

What type of evidence?

The evidence that led people to their belief of course. It's not up to me to double guess what that might have been.

What type of evidence?

The evidence that led people to their belief of course. It's not up to me to double guess what that might have been.

This is a much better way to phrase your question. Still, the word "belief" makes it less than perfect. When e.g. scientists are led by evidence, is the result a "belief"? The way "I believe" is colloquially used in English makes it often synonymous with "I suppose". Evidence surely leads to stronger conclusions than this.

Okay, to answer the question, the evidence is experiential. Which means it's perception for all practical purposes. Experiential evidence is most convincing for one who has it, but most difficult to convey for outsiders. To someone with unsympathetic attitude it's also futile to try to communicate it, but to give an idea about it, there are recurrent experiences, inexplicable by any materialist or atheist theory, that over time become impossible to deny and require a straightforward acknowledgement in the name of honesty to oneself, if not for any other reason.

Another evidence is logic. In nature, in the mind, and in metaphysics there are no empty spots, no gaps. This is why atomism as an ontological stance never made sense to me. By atomism I mean the belief or theory that everything is made of particles and compounds of particles. It's implicit in primary school physics course. Naturally the question arises, what is between the particles? Atomism doesn't answer this. Moreover, the usual well-known problems with ontological dualism are multiplied with atomism, because there are not just two kinds of particles, but more, and there are numerous particles wandering about randomly.

This ontological problem can be solved with continuum theories, best by means of the concept of spirit. Different from particled matter, spirit leaves no gaps in reality, and this corresponds perfectly to what is experienced in external nature and in the mind. This can be called philosophical or logical evidence for spirit. Physicists are looking for a unified theory, and when they find it, the result will be the concept of spirit.

Besides the concept of spirit, there are the logical distinctions of appearance and reality, accident and essence, particular and universal, object and subject, which all lead to God as a logical conclusion, if the enquiry is intense enough.

So, the strongest evidence is experiential, which combines several aspects of experience. The second kind of evidence is intellectual, logical. There's more evidence, such as testimony and scriptural authority, but these stir up more controversy than solve anything, and they have had no role to play in my own convictions, so I won't say anything about these, unless specifically asked.

On the nature of conversion, I have earlier recommended a good English bildungsroman "Of Human Bondage" by W.S. Maugham. Conversion is a coincidence or accumulation of multiple events (psychological and/or physical) that impel one to a substantial revision of convictions. It works in both directions. Who hasn't gone through it has next to nothing relevant to say on this. A single piece of evidence may not look like much, but several kinds of evidence coinciding or accumulating over time will lead to clarification of convictions, sometimes also to conversion.

Some people don't accept a "nothing" as an answer.

Some people don't accept a "nothing" as an answer.

Which kind of nothing do you mean? I don't accept the nothing of the gaps.

That's what I said.

Right. And that's what I don't accept. To you there's no difference between "have not detected yet" and "does not exist". Both are nothing to you.

To me there's a big difference if something doesn't exist or I have somehow missed it. The first is really nothing. The other is something I don't know about, but what can be figured out. This kind of difference.

To you there's no difference between "have not detected yet" and "does not exist". Both are nothing to you.

No. The second is nothing. And, for me, it's an acceptable answer.
The difference is that, for you, it's an unacceptable answer; something must be there.

To you there's no difference between "have not detected yet" and "does not exist". Both are nothing to you.

No. The second is nothing. And, for me, it's an acceptable answer.
The difference is that, for you, it's an unacceptable answer; something must be there.

Here's my last try to explain this simple thing to you: A gap is not nothing. A gap is a gap.

You have heard of god of the gaps, right? You are making use of nothing of the gaps. I don't accept either of these.

I know "god of the gaps", which is what you use. "Nothing of the gaps" is news to me.
But I think it's all clear now, and string's question seems to have been answered (do you agree, string?). I thank your for this.

Gentlemen, this is "The Problem with Religion" thread. Discussing God is relegated to "The Problem with Atheism" thread.
Slightly blasphemous from my part, but He will understand.

The Catholics are waiting for the Protestants... do they appear or may I go to the next Whisky bar?

Buddhists discussing with Shintoists, Islam discussing with... well.. I don't know... with me?

Speaking seriously, theists are not, in any way, alike. And I'm sure that theists have much more to discuss between themselves than against atheists.
Keep on discussing atheist matters is to give them an importance they don't have.

Speaking seriously, theists are not, in any way, alike. And I'm sure that theists have much more to discuss between themselves than against atheists.

This is quite true. Re-reading myself here, I see that I have been wasting many words to make the simple point that atheists are not contributing anything to the discussion, because they are talking past the topic and failing to make some basic relevant distinctions. Nothing has changed since the first of my posts in this thread, except that it's become clearer that they are doing this deliberately.

Tempest in a teapot. For a new location things are normal on the religion/atheist front.

Re-reading

OK. Let's sum it up:
string asks: why?
You explain nicely with a fair amount of philosophy.
I sum it up as: "Some people don't accept a 'nothing' as an answer'."
You and me wander in circles just to confirm what I said, which confirms what you said.
Nice agreement. Quite productive. Why complain?

Religion = Faith, & Faith = Religion.

The problem with religion is those that have it feel, because of the incessant prodding of those that posses a total absence of it, feel the obligation to explain it when actually it isn't necessary at all.

I'm too occupied with my own salvation, to give a rats ass about theirs, or what they think they know, but don't.