Present Evidence Here II

[cabinetmaker]

I cannot agree with this statement.



This proves that the God of the Bible is even worse than a jerk:
What the Bible's God is really like

I cannot agree with this either.  It is based on a presupposition that is false.  Any idea what that might be?

[Baruch]

"They did not run the test with unicorns or aliens or astrology.  They did run for people experiancing a religious experience.  And got a repeatable result."

It is called confirmation bias.  Perhaps unintentional.  I you poll cats, 9/10 cats agree that dogs are horrible.  See, that is what you get when you cherry pick the sample.

My experience is my own, it is not based on hearsay, opinion, authority etc.  I experience G-d all the time, because my eyes are open to a more correct definition, something only a few share.  Most people are not mystics (which is a matter of adjusted perspective, not magic tricks).

[Unbeliever]

I cannot agree with this either.  It is based on a presupposition that is false.  Any idea what that might be?

You didn't even look at the page I posted, did you?

[trdsf]

They did not run the test with unicorns or aliens or astrology.  They did run for people experiancing a religious experience.  And got a repeatable result.

They also didn't run the test on any divine power.  They ran it on people who believed in a divine power.  That's two completely different things.

If you cannot rule something out after a test then more and different testing is required.

Wrong.  You need something to test first.  Otherwise you spend the rest of your life trying to rule out unicorns and leprechauns.

Yes, you probably can.  But that still doesn't mean that people who are experiencing God in this test are not truly experiencing God.

Nor does it mean they are.  And if I can reproduce the same effect in a non-religious way, that actually goes a long way towards explaining it as a strictly physical phenomenon.

Unless, of course, you want to identify me as a god.

I'd be flattered, of course, but I'd have to decline.

False.  Sometimes you run and experiment and get a result that you did not anticipate.  It gives you hint that there is something else going on that requires further research.  You have long ago reached a conclusion that God does not exist.  Therefore, all your arguments are predicated on that mind set.  I look at this data and see a result that was not anticipated and ask what explains that result.  OF the two of us, I am the one actually open to following the evidence.

I love how all of a sudden because I'm the one who actually follows the evidence, I'm not the one following the evidence.

You have results that have perfectly understandable physical explanations.  You are the one trying to force an unwarranted interpretation on them.  If you really believed what you just typed here, you would say, "Huh, this is a peculiar result, let's do some further research with believers in other religions, and with non-believers, and see if this genuinely is something inexplicable, or is a common feature of human mentality."  No, instead you want to leap straight to "LOOK LOOK IT COULD BE GOD!" and despite having it patiently explained to you why you can't do that, you keep doing it anyway.

This is the stage where you have become a hypocrite.

No evidence says there is a god.  Therefore I have no reason to think there is one.  Show me the evidence, and I'll be happy to say, "Well, fuck me sideways, I was wrong."

You are in no way, shape or form following evidence.  You are in pursuit of your pre-existing opinion, and are not afraid to twist any interpretation, misuse any method to get there.  I have twisted nothing.

Frankly sir (or madam, I don't know which), you owe me an apology for that smear.

Yes, at some point any discussion regarding God is going to come down to a statement of faith.  Your faith is that God does not exist.  I contend that it is a statement of faith given that we DO NOT know all that there is to know.  Our understanding of the universe around us is constantly evolving.

Wrong.  I don't "have faith that no gods exist" (correcting you thereâ€"I promise you, I'm just as atheistic towards Krishna, Thor and Ahura Mazda as I am towards Jehovah).  I have no evidence to accept the proposition that any exist in the first place.  A distinct but important difference.

You also ignore the fact that our understanding of the universe continually explains that which used to be explained by divine intervention.  At no point in our evolving understanding of the universe has the data ever said, "here is where a miracle happened".

Funny thing about university professors, a lot of their friends are university professors.  Even from other departments.  He did not offer the proof as his own but included the information in his presentation.  You will also note that I stated that it is a mathematical proof.  This makes sense as proofs only exist in math.  Now, since math is frequently used to model the physical, it can be applied to the universe.  It has been some time, but I recall a program on The Science Channel that was discussing extra dimensional and how it related to the universe.  The orthogonality of the dimensions makes ones head hurt when trying to understand how you can four dimensions and they are all are right angles to each other.  12 at all right angles?  Very difficult to understand.  The fact that we can't easily understand these concepts does not mean they are not true.  As it relates to God, you failed to answer my question.  IF (This requires you to use your imagination now) there exists a being that exists in 13 dimensions, what properties would that being have and how would we test for it?

Another couple errors here.  For one thing, even I can do math in 12 dimensions.  I don't have to be able to envision it to do it.  It's a pain in the ass because you have 12 axes of rotation, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing.

And, predictably, you're begging the question again.  What evidence do we have that there is a god of any sort in the N+1th dimension?  You keep jumping to "there's (maybe) a god in there!" without first demonstrating a good reason one even exists in the first place.

I don't know and I don't care what properties a 13-dimensional god has.  Without some evidentiary reason to suppose one exists in the first place, there's no reason to even speculate on where it might be hiding.  If you really want me to speculate on where a god might be hiding, you're going to first need to demonstrate one exists.  I refuse to chase black cats in a coal cellar that contains no black cats.

[Mike Cl]

The proof of God is not in the physical world.  I think the reason for that is confoundingly simple.  "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€"and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€" 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."  Knowledge will not save a person, faith does.  You can't really have faith in that which can proven and tested.  Understanding God requires the ability to acknowledge that there is more to the universe than we can perceive with our senses.

What a wonderful catch-22.  Can't have faith in that which can be proven--and faith is delivered by the grace of god.  In order to be saved one needs to simply be blindly obedient to somebody who has been given faith through grace.  Why doesn't this wonderful god just give grace to everybody? 

[Blackleaf]

The proof of God is not in the physical world.  I think the reason for that is confoundingly simple.  "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€"and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ€" 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."  Knowledge will not save a person, faith does.  You can't really have faith in that which can proven and tested.  Understanding God requires the ability to acknowledge that there is more to the universe than we can perceive with our senses.

Yes. I am well aware of this doctrine. Funny how knowledge has been the enemy of God since the first few chapters of Genesis, when Adam and Eve doomed the whole world by obtaining knowledge from a magic fruit.

[Blackleaf]

Also, what about all of those times God did show himself? Moses, all of the prophets, everyone who witnessed the miracles of Jesus, Saul/Paul, and others all saw proof of God. Yet in the modern age, where cameras are readily available to capture such evidence, God has gone into hiding.

[Hakurei Reimu]

You are assuming the conclusion to define the debate.  No debate is possible when you open with a fallacy.

How is that "assuming a conclusion"? What I meant was you need to be able to distinguish between this god-thing of yours and a fiction like Gandalf.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Hey, Blackleaf, fuck you!

Hi, Zen! You still not reading this forum? Glad to hear it!

Here's a text that I posted earlier, in answer to your previous sock:
1. We know Blackleaf. We know he's not usually like how he presented himself in that thread. Everyone can be immature at times, and even I'm not exception. You, however, seemed to only show an immature side, even after being dumped in the troll bin.

2. You are not in a race to acquire a high post-count. You had plenty of time to compose yourself and think about how you might come across, create thoughtful, composed content, and research your subject matter, especially on "race realism" because we will fact-check you. It's always useful to have your ducks in a row when you make a contentious claim. Something to carry forward to the next board you join.

3. You had a chance to redeem yourself after you were put in Purgatory. You spoiled that chance by acting like an immature brat instead of taking your punishment like a grown man and working to prove your worth in that small channel we provide specifically for that opportunity. For a member of a 'superior race,' you have done very little to live up to that.

4. We've granted amnesty for banned members before. We've always been disappointed. So, yeah, no second chances here, I'm afraid. (Actually, that might have been on stardestroyer.net â€" it was a while ago.)

[Unbeliever]

Hey wanker, I thought you were leaving and not coming back. I also see in another thread where you say you're not a sock puppet. Obviously you can't stop lying, it's in your blood.

[Hakurei Reimu]

^What's this about not being a sock?

I tried to be mature at first, but then Bitchleaf came to the thread to stir up drama.

Oh, believe me, the drama was already happening.

Well, okay, my points where a bit flawed, but banning me over that though?

You were banned over sock-puppet accounts, not that. And "a bit"?

Well, it was like a 0.1% chance that they would let me out of purgatory, I mean, if they wouldn't let other members out of there, what makes you think they'll let a white supremacist out?

You didn't even try. Granted, those others didn't try either, but what result were you expecting if you don't even try to be a good member of the forum. And by good member, I don't mean "not being white supremicist." You went out of your way to antagonize other people on the forum (including me), without first acquiring any goodwill to burn before doing that.

Well, I would of lived up to the claim if y'all did give me another chance, since not everyone is like that, but it's too late anyways.

Eh, you've kinda shown yourself to be exactly the kind of person who would not live up to the claim.

P.S. â€" I know you were the jackass who falsely flagged my review about this website.

What, just like you "knew" my grandfather was a kike? Nap, sorry, but wrong again. I didn't even visit the page on YouTube your review as on, let alone flag it, because in the end you are simply an immature little brat who has delusions of adequacy.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I didn't even visit the page on YouTube your review as on, let alone flag it

Spoilers: it was me. :3

[cabinetmaker]

You didn't even look at the page I posted, did you?

Yes, I did.  I stand by what I said.

[Unbeliever]

A creator God cannot exist, and therefore a creator God does not exist:

Why God is Impossible: A 60 Second Proof



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQm-vMMDe-E

[Baruch]

Given the usual definition of existence, a creator god can't exist, because that god would have to create themselves, before they exist.  So it really is that simple, as to why conventional belief is impossible.  But that is only given the usual definition of existence, and creation ... and given temporal logic.  This is  why eternity has to be invoked, and transcendence (rather than imminence).  All human material creation for example, is temporal, effect following cause.  And is always just a rearrangement of what is already there.  But what of immaterial things?