Posts by John

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

The persistence of evil. There's no compelling enough reason that an Almighty and all-loving god would tolerate the persistence of evil, natural or caused by free-willed agents.

I mean any individual can only be subject to a finite amount of evil in its temporal lifetime.

And why does god need that humans (again, mediators) explain to other humans why god tolerates evil? Why can't he clearly tell that to everyone, directly?

Are you talking about the God's will or the existence of God?

Why someone choosing to speak through mediators implies its non existence?

The god of the bible doesn't necessarily demands my reason, but clearly demands my faith, or my belief in unsubstantiated claims.

As I said this is just an interpretation. A very crazy interpretation.

Actually, it demands that I chose faith over reason, should both be in conflict.

My position is that is impossible to faith and reason to be in conflict. If they are it means your faith or/and your reason are wrong.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

It begs to be answered why would the god of christianity - heck, ANY god - would require mediation in its dealings with the human beings that the divinity supposedly caused to exist.

No man is an island. But what kind of mediation do you mean?

It begs to be answered why would a deity create lifeforms and gift them with extraordinary intelligence, and then demand that they relate to him by faith.

This is a very strict concept of God. I accept the Catholic concept that states reason is the first requirement (preambula fidei).

It begs to be answered why a god that portrays itself as all-powerful and the apex of love would allow the existence and persistence of evil in any form.

The moral evil is done by free conscious agents. The only problem is natural evil. But there's some explanations about it (necessary and temporary evil to get eternal greater good).

It begs to be answered why such an Almighty and loving god would value his reputation more than the endless suffering of the creatures he supposedly caused to exist.

This is a JW concept (sovereignty).

Turns out that life makes a lot more sense (albeit is much less heart-warming) when god is removed from the equation.

Why? How do you know that?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

If there any observations in the OP that you think are contradicted by evidence be sure to let me know.

Well you seem to call scientific or empirical evidence as "objective fact". This is pure nonsense.

You seem to talk about a very strict concept of God. A Sola Scriptura pentecostal/calvinist concept of God.

You seem to apply scientific evidence to refute a philosophical system (theism). This is scientism.

These are basically the problems in your OP.

Your whole metaphysical position is a mess.

as opposed to your generic apologetics.

My position is not generic. I only defend the Catholic concept of God. Other concepts of God are very contradictory and incomplete IMHO.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Do you mean the scientific evidence? Do you mean philosophical objectivity? Or objectivism?

The answers to those questions are all in the OP

No. They are not.

What you mean by an "objective fact"?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

All of those claims are contradicted by objective facts that are available to all. I set out a number of those inconvenient facts in my OP.

What you mean by "objective fact"? Do you mean the scientific evidence? Do you mean philosophical objectivity? Or objectivism?

You have a very poor understanding about epistemology.

Everything in the OP, and what I have written in this thread since, applies perfectly to Jehovah of the bible.
The bible makes a lot of specific claims about Jehovah, his nature and his works.

And you are right! The concept of Jehovah is a caricature of the concept of God.

You're always beating a Sola Scriptura/JW/Pentecostal concept of God.

When you ask theists difficult questions they always want to change the subject.

You are changing the subject. Sometimes you talk about a very strict concept of God and sometimes you talk about theism as a whole.

What subject are you talking about?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

And neither should God be measured by your rules of evidence because God is not physical. - fm

The difference is that I offer objective evidence against theism. - cofty

A follower of scientism can't accept something is not physical.

Ironically they accept several axioms in mathematics and science. Axioms are metaphysical postulates and are the building blocks of the scientific method.

It's a very contradictory position.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Scientism is also an interesting topic. Science has its limitations but there is nothing in my OP that could even remotely be associated with "scientism".

Your arguments always are centered in scientific evidence. Even in non scientific subjects. This is scientism/positivism.

The truth is you're a follower of scientism (in denial). And scientism is a philosophical position, in fact a metaphysical position.

I would like to see your position about the St. Anselm's ontological argument.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Again here we go back to anecdotal evidence. Personal experiences are worthless.

Scientism detected.

Scientism is a metaphysical interpretation of the scientific method.

Why do you think the scientific method is a universal tool? Personal opinion?

The scientific method can't be properly applied to rare events (origin of life or origin of consciousness) and subjectivity.

Your view is self contradictory. It's just like someone realizing a hammer really works and deciding it can be used to brush the teeth and comb the hair. Wtf?

496