John_Mann

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 1,225 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by John_Mann

• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Nine ways in which the claims of Christianity just seem unlikely:

  1 - The brutal competition for survival
  2 - Mass extinctions
  3 - "Nature red in tooth and claw"

  Non sequitur statements. These statements doesn't lead to the initial conclusion (Christianity is unlikely).

  Christianity says the physical world is ruled by impersonal natural laws.

  Christianity says only the immortal soul is directly and metaphysically created by God in His image (Original Justice). The nature of this immortal soul is temporarily broken (Original Sin).

  4 - Lack of clear bible prophecy

  5 - The complete ordinariness of the bible

  6 - The moral failings of scripture

  Axiomatic statements. Acceptance its not necessary.

  7 - The credulity that is required to believe in miracles

  You must stop to talk in a pejorative way about faith because you use faith too (every time when you accept an axiom).

  8 - An earth perfectly designed to randomly kill millions of its inhabitants

  Non sequitur.

  9 - The confirmation bias that is required to believe in answered prayer

  Axiomatic statement.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  HiIt is clear that you prefer throwing around silly labels than holding a rational conversation John. Pity.

  Labels are definitions and definitions are necessary in a rational conversation.

  The labels or definitions in our rational conversation:

  # God: as defined in the St. Anselm's ontological argument.

  # Axiom: metaphysical statement taken to be true through pure faith.

  # John_Mann: Catholic.

  # Cofty: Atheist and follower of Scientism.

  # Cofty and JM: both accept the scientific method. Both accept the heuristic method.

  Do you accept these definitions/labels?
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Just some sensible, rational observations

  I'm using the most simple and logically sound argument to God that I know.

  You must accept the simplicity and logical soundness of the St. Anselm's ontological argument.

  Don't you?

  that would help a reasonable person

  Like a person who believes in the metaphysical Atheism and Scientism (logically flawed as a carpet)?

  understand why the world does not coincide with the claims that christians make.

  Where's this "why". You haven't shown nothing than Atheism and Scientism.

  I'm not asking for statistics or formal arguments.

  Wow!

  I've told you that many times already

  When? All you do is always demand for scientific evidences to anything.

  My rule of thumb is as follows -

  Rule of thumb is the popular name to the heuristic method. It's the first time you're mentioning a method beyond the scientific method (which is metaphysical because is built upon several axioms).

  BTW the heuristic method is metaphysical too. Just saying...

  If you can't explain your argument to your aged grandmother you don't really have anything to say.

  The St. Anselm's ontological argument is understandable to any grandmother.

  BTW almost every grandmother I know is a theist. Because people tend to be more wise in the old age.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  My OP does not ask for any scientific evidence at all.

  In your OP:

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

  If not scientific evidence so what kind of evidence do you mean?

  It is a series of nine simple, reasonable, testable observations.

  There are some subjective observations in your OP.

  How can we test your subjective claims?

  By the way I am trying to mostly ignore Perry when he spouts pseudoscience. IMO it's demeaning to do otherwise.

  I can say that I don't agree with the premises used by Perry.

  But I agree with his conclusion about the existence and identity of God.

  For me he's right with wrong reasons.

  In the most significant topic of humankind Perry is right and you're plainly wrong, cofty.

  
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Not a single word of my OP depends on "scientism".

  This is simply not true because you are always demanding scientific evidence.

  Asking for scientific evidences in a metaphysical topic like the concept of God is exactly what followers of Scientism do.

  You're a follower of Scientism in denial.

  You're a follower of two flawed metaphysical positions: Atheism and Scientism.

  Atheism while being a metaphysical position (where the only axiom is the very conclusion) denies the existence of metaphysical beings. This is pure non sense.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Throwing silly labels around is just another way of avoiding the challenges of the OP. Page 21 now.

  It's not a silly label, is a verifiable fact. Just compare your position with the definition of Scientism.

  Actually you're now projecting your own denial to me. I already answered, line by line, your OP. You can say you don't agree with my answers but you can't say I'd avoided your OP.

  Denial is the most basic mechanism of defense in a deluded mind. Denial is followed by projection.

  You're a follower of Scientism, cofty.
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Still off on irrelevant philosophical tangents. The OP is about 9 simple observations. Nothing you have said since begins to address them.

  Interesting, I thought your denial was only restricted to the fact that you are a follower of Scientism.
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Like I said, one that is not bound by anything, nor good, nor evil, nor his nature.

  This means a very unstable being, right?

  Stability is greater than instability.

  Such being doesn't appeal to you (or me, for that matter), but it meets St. Anselm's axiom criteria.

  No way.

  Your logic is flawed and you know that.

  The Christian concept of God meets the St. Anselm's criteria but your defined being not.

  they are greater to you in the physical realm, but who's to say about the metaphysical domain?

  Because there are necessary truths that are the same in all possible worlds, physical and metaphysical.

  And the metaphysical is accessible.

  You are the one saying the metaphysical world/realm/domain is not accessible or/and inexistent.

  I say the metaphysical realm is more accessible than the physical realm actually. Your consciousness is metaphysical.
  
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Can god change his nature?

  No.

  Can he be evil?

  No.

  Does he give himself that choice?

  No.

  How do you know?

  Several independent sources.

  But in this case I'm just using the first axiom from St. Anselm's ontological argument.

  Stability is greater than instability, remember?

  Was he evil in the past?

  No.

  Has he regreted it?

  No.

  That is, if we go by your flawed logic.

  I'm following the St. Anselm's ontological argument.

  The St. Anselm's ontological argument is a logical argument.

  Please use logic to prove his logical argument is flawed. I challenge you.

  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Flexibility is greater than inflexibility

  Flexibility it's not "bound by nothing".

  Choice is greater than no choice.

  You don't need to be" bound by nothing" in order to have choice.