Hugo the atheist says, Give me evidence that Creator God exists. Oh, and by the way, there is no evidence that I would accept.
Why can’t you just admit that right at the start? Instead you throw out infantile statements like, “I don’t know what "before the Singularity" means."
Or you could say, “Evidence to me would be some event that happened, that we know happened because we can see it, and that we know couldn’t have been brought about by natural or material means.
You could say that. But you won’t say that because you know where that leads. And then you’d have to admit something that is really hard for an atheist because atheists are those people who tell themselves that they only believe what can be proven and that they always follow the evidence.
Both of which are patently false.
Because of your commitment to atheism, when faced with the metaphysical implications of following the evidence, when faced with the logical conclusion of following the evidence, you’d have to say, as you have on several occasions, “Well, I reject that.”
How very scientific of you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You seem to be getting angry... is that why you lie again and again concerning me?
ReplyDeleteSorry don't have time to correct what you said and answer your questions now. I honestly what to; soon I hope.
Cheers
"Soon I hope"
ReplyDeleteI won't move.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteFirst, since you keep coming back with that, I have to once again tell you that you are insulting my beliefs and misrepresenting them when you say that I am committed to atheism. Atheism is pointless to me. It just means that I don't believe in gods and it also means for me, but not for all atheists necessarily, that I don't believe my consciousness will survive my physical body's death. Atheism is a result of several beliefs that I hold to; beliefs that are supported by evidence, and never by faith.
Second, you want me to give you examples of what evidence would convince me that Creator God, your God, exists. Again, I am not lying when I say that such evidence could exist (note the use of could) and I am not lying when I say that I would change my mind if I were presented with such evidence.
Third, one reason why I didn't give you any example of evidence that would convince me that Creator God exists is because I don't want to insult your beliefs, or be told that the evidence I am asking for do not represent your God. We see that happening so often... you attack Atheists by saying that they create a false image of God and then disbelieve or hate that God.
Fourth, another reason why I didn't give you any example of evidence is because I honestly don't know of any logically consistent definition for your God. If the definition itself is illogical I don't think it make sense to ask for evidence. We need to agree that the definition of God is possible before even attempting to prove his existence using evidence. This supports one point that you wrote in your long post, and I agree with it: God cannot be illogical. It is stupid for some people to ask if God could create a rock he could not lift, or draw a squared circle. These statements make no sense and contribute to nothing.
That is why I was trying to go through your definition and point out where I see inconsistencies. There are so many that I don't see the point of even trying to ask you for evidence concerning the points that make sense.
However, since you refuse to believe me, I will still present you with a starting point for what evidence could convince me. The first thing would be to show me that we actually have a soul, since without having a soul, there is no point in talking about life after death. In order to show me that we have a soul, the first step would be to, again, define what a soul is exactly. To me, the way I understand it, a soul is nothing more than our consciousness, except that it's supposed to continue to function after we are dead.
Therefore, to prove that a soul exists, there would be several things that could be done. One would be to show that I am wrong concerning the fact that it's nothing more than consciousness while we live. I would like to see evidence that our soul can actually communicate and/or be influenced by God, or any other spiritual entities, while we are alive. Another one would be to show that the soul actually survives the body's death.
If we think about it from a different approach, I think that your own personal history is supposed to be useful. You claimed that you were an atheist before being a Christian. At that point, did you believe that we had a soul or not? If you already thought that we had a soul then nevermind... but if you thought that we did not have a soul, what convinced you?
Perhaps my request for evidence for the soul is too vague, but again, I don't believe that a soul exist at all, so it's hard for me to ask for evidence for something that I cannot differentiate from nothing. I could give a few examples if needed, something like this:
- Can you pray, receive information soul-to-soul from God, then prove that you really received that information no other way than by God? Could you make prediction that way? Could you learn skills?
"I don't believe that a soul exist at all,"
ReplyDeleteAnd because of your commitment to atheism, there is no evidence for the soul that you would accept.
There is no evidence for the soul.
ReplyDeleteDeath is the end. There is no afterlife.
Sure, some people commit themselves to the idea that there is life after death. It is merely a fantasy, a dream that they build to shield their eyes from reality.
We are all worm food.
And because of your commitment to atheism, there is no evidence for the soul that you would accept.
ReplyDeleteYou are now officially lying on purpose.
You still accuse me of this false "commitment to atheism" even when I give examples of evidence that would make me believe that a soul exists, which is a necessary complementary belief for believing in your Christian Creator God.
Note that it is NOT a necessary starting point to be a theist. One could believe in a god, a powerful mind, that created the universe but let it go without acting upon it; that belief could be supported by evidence of intelligent design. Or, one could believe in an eternal soul that moves from body to body after death, without the intervention of a supernatural external entity.
However, because you think I have a "commitment to atheism", you refuse to even acknowledge the fact that one can reject both concepts presented independently, i.e. for completely different reasons. That is why I tried approaching both since in your particular faith system they ARE both based on the same assumptions: Jesus is God.
You are committed to a belief in Jesus, while I am committed to truth. I refuse to believe anything which is not true for sure, and enjoy discussing the possibility of so many other things that do not contradict these truths. You, on the other hand, have to constantly lie.
I was hoping to at least get a somewhat logical/consistent definition of your God but we cannot even reach that. You dismissed the very first concern I had without even talking about it, calling me a child for discussing what a singularity is...
I was hoping to at least get a definition of what a soul is, at least to confirm that mine was correct, or not. You dissmised that even more quickly without saying anything.
You have now fallen as low as to even lie right to my face concerning what I believe, what I value, and the reasons behind. It's so ironic that you do this now, after I've been trying to be as polite, honest and willing to discuss your logic for believing in God.
When I was reading older posts after you asked me if I read "Why I'm not an atheist", I ran into more than one comments where people were saying that you were one of the most annoying Christians they ran into, I even read a Christian who said you were a shame. I guess things never change over the years...
"I don't believe that a soul exist at all, so it's hard for me to ask for evidence for something that I cannot differentiate from nothing."
ReplyDeleteIndeed! You’re committed to the soul not existing so what is the point?
===
"Can you pray, receive information soul-to-soul from God,"
Yes
=====
"then prove that you really received that information no other way than by God?"
Not to you
=====
"Could you make prediction that way?"
Depends
=====
"Could you learn skills?"
I have and will continue to.
=====
You might be interested in:
http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/from-the-bbc-documentary-the-day-i-died-pam-reynoldss-truly-mind-blowing-near-death-experience/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA37uNa3VGU&feature=related
Though I can’t find it right now I was reading a month or two ago about a surgeon who specialised in working with those who had epilepsy. He was astonished by patients where he would first trigger an arm movement or leg movement or an eye to blink etc. by stimulating this or that part of their brain.
Consistently the patient would tell the doctor “You did that, not me.”
Then he would tell the patient to not allow him to move their arm. The patient would reach over and while he was stimulating one arm to move the “patient” would "decide" to grab the stimulated arm with the other arm and hold it still. To this doctor, it was evidence of the existence of more than just consciousness. To the doctor, it was proof of the “self” the “I” the “soul” the existence of which atheists so dearly wish to deny.
. It is the soul and not the mind that is in command of beliefs and decisions.
. It is the soul that directs the mind. Not the other way around.
Only the existence of God allows for a person to change from a soul that worships itself to a soul that worships God. As many an atheist has said, "I couldn't become a Christian even if I wanted to." Truer words were never spoken.
It is only God’s spirit that changes a soul from hate to love, from the love of wrong to the ability to do right. You’ve told me that you are now picking it up a notch regarding being a good person. I was delighted to hear that because as C.S. Lewis said, "We only come to know how bad we are when we try really hard to be good.”
Of course, from the atheist perspective, it’s only a quirky exchange of chemicals and not “you” that has decided to do that.
Hi Hugo, from my experience this blog author creates strawmen when arguing peoples' points. He's not worth it...
ReplyDeleteYou are correct; it always happens, but that's not my problem, it's his.
ReplyDeleteIt is still fun to have discussions with him since nobody comment on this blog so I can easily have direct interaction when I feel like it!
Hello again!
ReplyDeleteTime to reply to the things you wrote recently, including two examples of phenomena that could be considered evidence of the existence a soul...
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
NEAR-DEATH-EXPERIENCE (NDE)
Unfortunately I could not watch the video you posted, it has been removed (perhaps you should check what you post, just saying...)
However, there is no need to see that particular example because from what I have heard and read about NDE, they are actually NOT proof at all that we have a soul that survive the body.
Obviously, your reaction to my statement would be that I say this because of a pre-commitment to souls not existing, but you would be wrong. Here's the problem...
There is, to my knowledge, NO example of people being literally dead, i.e. no brain activity at all, having spiritual experience and then coming back to retell them.
In other words, if you have documented evidence of people being completely brain dead for some time and having spiritual experience during that time, then THAT would be pointing towards the existence of mental capabilities remote from the brain. Are you aware of such example? I am not honestly...
On the other hand, what I learned is fascinating studies into how the brain works and how crazy things can happen when the brain is going through intense stress due to the body functions failing. At this time, for me, NDE are actually good evidence that we DON'T have a soul! All the evidence that we have as of now shows that the conscious experience that we have as living being is intimately related to our brain functioning normally. When the brain/body starts malfunctioning, people experience freaking weird things.
Moreover, a side indication is the fact that everybody who have NDE (well I don't know if it's 'all' to be honest because they're could be exceptions), recall things that they were already aware of, or at least based on things that they were aware of. No Muslims suddenly see Jesus telling them that they need to repent, and no Christians suddenly see Vishnu telling them he is the creator of the universe.
Exceptions to this principle probably exist, but would not be sufficient, as if there was a definite afterlife, at least the Christian-style afterlife, there is no reason that people would have different experience, very very different experience. There should be some sort of uniformity.
Conclusion: as of now, with the information we can get from NDE, I believe that when people are close to death, their brain reacts in weird ways, making them experience something that they mistake for a spiritual experience because of their unique individual background. If there were more uniformity, and definite proof that people have spiritual experience while NO brain function is recorded, then I would see that as evidence for an afterlife.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
ReplyDeleteEPILEPSY STUDY
From your comment, I got that:
"...[a surgeon] was astonished by patients where he would first trigger an arm movement or leg movement or an eye to blink etc. by stimulating this or that part of their brain.
Consistently the patient would tell the doctor “You did that, not me.”
...
To this doctor, it was evidence of the existence of more than just consciousness. To the doctor, it was proof of the “self” the “I” the “soul” the existence of which atheists so dearly wish to deny. "
First, you attack a strawman! Atheists, at least me in that case, do not think that the 'I', the 'self' does not exist!! What the heck are you talking about?
My point, since it seems not clear at all, is that the 'self', the 'I', the 'soul' is NOT going to survive the physical death of the body. Proving that we, as living people, have a 'soul' proves nothing to me, because I full agree that we have a 'soul' right now. The difference is that I consider that we already have a word for that: consciousness. Labelling it a soul simply means that this consciousness is eternal, independent of the body.
Ironically, as for near-death experience, I think that the epilepsy experiment points more toward us being physical-only being. The experiment shows that by stimulating part of the brain, you can force the body to react in a certain way. This gives indication that the brain, the physically alterable brain, controls the physical movement of the body.
Another thing that the experiment shows is that you can bypass the conscious decision of doing an action by physically impacting the brain. This does not, in any way, imply that the conscious decision HAS to come from a non-physical process. Why? Because we also KNOW that we can impact consciousness chemically or physically using drugs or electric current, just to name these two.
In conclusion, because we know that we can chemically alter our state of consciousness, physically alter our state of consciousness and physically alter our body reactions, we know that the whole of our conscious experience CAN be altered by purely naturalistic physical process. This does not, in any way, proves that the self, the 'I', the "soul" could not exist after death, but it certainly does NOT support it. However, it does prove one thing concerning a soul that would survive death: it would NOT function the same way, it would not be like being alive, for sure, since this consciousness would NOT depend on a physical brain, and would not be alterable physically as the physical body would be dead.
This is why I really don't see evidence for the "I" surviving the death of my body. The soul for me is only consciousness surviving death, but I don't see how that could happen, what it would mean, or how it would work. It someone were to give details about that, support these details with evidence, then I would gladly accept it. Actually, that would be GREAT NEWS! I mean, seriously, who does NOT want to keep thinking after death!? Unfortunately, I don't see evidence of that happening as people who actually believe that this will happen simply hope it does, and believe it because of faith.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
ReplyDeleteACTING NICE!
You’ve told me that you are now picking it up a notch regarding being a good person. I was delighted to hear that because as C.S. Lewis said, "We only come to know how bad we are when we try really hard to be good.”
Of course, from the atheist perspective, it’s only a quirky exchange of chemicals and not “you” that has decided to do that.
Let me correct you: I did not decide to be a good person in general, I just decided to stop insulting YOU... I decide to act with YOU in the exact same way that I act with everybody in 'real' life. The fact that we write on a blog, semi-anonymously, grants both of us with a way to escape our usual filters and speak pass each other without caring about the way we speak. I decided to stop doing that. I decided to write here to you as if I was talking to a colleague or a friend that I simply disagree with on a few things. I don't have a single person in my surroundings that are so fundamental about their religious beliefs than you, and that is why I keep coming back here. But you already know that so there is no need repeating too much...
It hasn't been removed
ReplyDeletehttp://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/from-the-bbc-documentary-the-day-i-died-pam-reynoldss-truly-mind-blowing-near-death-experience/
Regardless of the soul issue, this is an interesting case. Until this I think I probably felt the same as you about NDE. This woman was pronounced clinically dead for a full hour and then - well - watch the video.