Possibility of proving that God maker of everything exists.

[yrreg]

I like to ask atheists here:


1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?


2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?





Yrreg

[Hokulele]

1. Yes.
2. What?

[paximperium]

1)Yes
2)What?

[sinclairmcevoy]

1. Yes.
2. What?My response as well

[SezMe]

1. Yes.
2. What?

[Leftus]

1 - No.

I made myself a sandwhich for lunch. The other day I bought one pre-made. Ergo, using my sandwhich theory, it is disproven.

[MIKILLINI]

I like to ask atheists here:


1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?


2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?





Yrreg

1. I agree that it is a possibility.

2. Why is this 2nd question being asked?

[Sun Countess]

1. Yes, with actual evidence of her existence, not the navel-gazing meanderings of certain theists.

2. Wha?

[Molinaro]

1. Yes
2. Does he currently have doubts?

[Dancing David]

What difference would there be in a created versus a non-created universe?

How could you tell it was created?

[wdimac]

1. Yes.
2. Yes, once 1. is satisfied he can use the same evidence to convince himself once again.

[Dumb All Over]

1. all of the above
2. purple

[bokonon]

1. Yes
2. Forty-two

[Piscivore]

Yes.
Five tonnes of Flax.

[Dumb All Over]

1. Yes
2. Forty-two
Ook, ook.

[yrreg]

I like to ask atheists here:


1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?


2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?





Yrreg



Those who answer yes to 1 and 2, shall we work together on the how?






Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

1. Yes.
2. Yes, an atheist can find evidence for the existence of a god or gods on his or her own. Bit redundant, isn't it?

[Foster Zygote]

Those who answer yes to 1 and 2, shall we work together on the how?

Together? Does that mean you're actually going to listen to someone else, or is this just going to involve you preaching at us? The latter is pretty much how you've been "working on it" for a long time now.

[Agatha]

1. Possibly - you produce the evidence and others will evaluate it.

2. Eh? Recast the sentence into English and pay attention to verb, object, subject and pronoun(s).

[paximperium]

Those who answer yes to 1 and 2, shall we work together on the how?
So you're going to start reading people's posts and actually use proper english now?

[Emerson Street]

I like to ask atheists here:


1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?



Define 'prove', if you mean YOUR idea of proving, which mainly involves ignoring everything that is said to you unless it matches your forgone conclusion then probably not, if you mean that god made him/herself known to the world in a physical, tangible sense then it would be foolish to say that he does not exist.



2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?



Yrreg

See conditions above, else no.

[Sun Countess]

2. Eh? Recast the sentence into English and pay attention to verb, object, subject and pronoun(s).
And maybe think about including a few women in your discussions. Women can be atheists too.

[Piscivore]

Those who answer yes to 1 and 2, shall we work together on the how?
Yrreg

1. Strictly define your terms, to eliminate the possibility for errors of equivocation.

2. Come up with a doable experiment (which is not "thought experiments" a.k.a. woolgathering, speculation, and convoluted rationalisations for what you want to be true) that will address all or part of the question.

3. Do the experiment, with proper controls and protocols to eliminate all the errors by which we fool ourselves.

4. Accept what the results show, whether it agrees with what we want to be true or not.

[MattusMaximus]

Define God. Otherwise, this discussion is DOA.

[bokonon]

For me, all it would require is for GMOE to appear before me, answer a few simple questions, and re-arrange the stars to spell out a sweet message for the missus.

Done deal.

[AkuManiMani]

Possibility of proving that God maker of everything exists.

Whats is God and what did it make everything from?

[Piscivore]

Define God. Otherwise, this discussion is DOA.

... And you don't get to define it "maker of everything" because that's what we're trying to test. What are some of the properties "maker of everything" will have?

[yrreg]

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?






1. Yes.
2. Yes, an atheist can find evidence for the existence of a god or gods on his or her own. Bit redundant, isn't it?



I understand, Foster, that you used to be a Christian, a believer in God, but now you are an atheist.


Still you answer yes to the first question and yes to the second question.


Can you explain yourself?

Or you find nothing or no reason or no need whatever to explain, at least to yourself?

Or to the God of the Christian faith of which you used to be a professed adherent?





Yrreg

[Hokulele]

Those who answer yes to 1 and 2, shall we work together on the how?


Ah, so you are referring to your hypothetical atheist in question 2. Darn, I was hoping the "himself" referred to your god, as that would be a far more interesting question.

Anyway, regarding the "how", since you are apparently talking about proving it to a single, specific atheist rather than all atheists in general, it is even easier than the methods discussed by the other posters. Simply induce a stroke or epileptic seizure at a specific location and time in the atheist's brain, and there is a good chance he or she will believe in the existence of your type of god. The brain is a funny thing, and is susceptible to damage and being fooled (or fooling itself), which is why the scientific method and critical thinking are so important in understanding the whats and whys of the universe as it really is, rather than how we want it to be.

[RoboTimbo]

If this follows the typical yrreG pattern:

1. yrreG has it handed to him
2. yrreG realizes it long after everyone else does
3. yrreG turns tail and flees the thread
4. yrreG licks his wounds and goes into hibernation mode
5. yrreG starts a new thread and never mentions this one again
6. yrreG eventually convinces himself that he won against the evil atheists

Dang it, I got to the thread late!

1. yes
2. yes, if I'm understanding you correctly.

[Mojo]

Anyway, regarding the "how", since you are apparently talking about proving it to a single, specific atheist rather than all atheists in general, it is even easier than the methods discussed by the other posters. Simply induce a stroke or epileptic seizure at a specific location and time in the atheist's brain, and there is a good chance he or she will believe in the existence of your type of god. The brain is a funny thing, and is susceptible to damage and being fooled (or fooling itself), which is why the scientific method and critical thinking are so important in understanding the whats and whys of the universe as it really is, rather than how we want it to be.


So belief in God can be a result of possession of a damaged brain?

[Hokulele]

So belief in God can be a result of possession of a damaged brain?


Are you trying to get me infracted, O agent of Satan? ;)


But seriously, yes, it can. Then again, extraordinary musical talent can also be a result of possession of a damaged brain, so take that how you will.

[Mojo]

Are you trying to get me infracted, O agent of Satan? ;)


But seriously, yes, it can. Then again, extraordinary musical talent can also be a result of possession of a damaged brain, so take that how you will.


I know some very talented musicians, and you could be onto something there.

[wdimac]

Those who answer yes to 1 and 2, shall we work together on the how?

I can already see in your responses that you are assuming anyone who answered yes to both questions believes in a god. I answered yes because it is true in the same way that it is possible to convince an atheist that there is an invisible pink unicorn riding a teakettle around planet X. Evidence is all it takes.

But you've never presented such evidence in any of your many threads. So no thanks, I'm not interested in working with you to manufacture some.

[RoboTimbo]

Those who answer yes to 1 and 2, shall we work together on the how?

Yrreg

Absolutely!

You present your evidence and then I'll present mine.

[Foster Zygote]

The questions are:

1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?
Thanks! It's been so long that I'd forgotten.


I understand, Foster, that you used to be a Christian, a believer in God, but now you are an atheist.
That is correct.

Still you answer yes to the first question and yes to the second question.
That is also correct.

Can you explain yourself?
I found that the claims of evidence in favor of the existence of the Christian god were logically flawed. I also came to realize that the claims regarding the existence of all gods were similarly flawed. The total lack of evidence for the existence of any gods has led me to lack belief in gods as anything other than a human imaginary construct. However, if actual evidence that met proper scientific standards were to show that some form of god or gods exist then I will possess as much belief in said god or gods as I do in electricity or stars. But I will not play semantic games such as defining "god" as the physics that define the function of nature.

[yrreg]

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?






Before anything else we have to -- that is you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 -- determine whether an atheist has the capability for cognitive certainty.


That means that he is intelligent and also psychologically receptive to proof for the attainment of certainty.


How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?






Yrreg

[Hokulele]

What are some of the properties "maker of everything" will have?


Large hands.

[RoboTimbo]

How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?

Yrreg

(Raises hand) Ooh, ooh! I know this one, pick me, pick me!!

(Lowers hand) He or she has to agree with yrreG.

[Hokulele]

How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?


By asking them to calculate the kinetic energy of a 4.4 kg bowling ball hurled by a trebuchet with a 10 m arm at t=5 seconds. They must show their work.

[the PC apeman]

1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?
Did God make himself? Or does God not exist? (And who cuts his hair?)

[Twiler]

1. Yes

2. I suspect that this is meant to mean 'Can YHVH be proven to exist with a priori reasoning, that is, reasoning dependent solely on the axioms of reason?' In which case, no. I consider that everything can be explained with the simple phrase 'Things happen', and as such, no deities are ever necessary.

[wdimac]

How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?

The same could be asked of yrreg. And based on the massive evidence given in his many threads, he seems to be particularly unreceptive.

[bokonon]

What are some of the properties "maker of everything" will have?

Large hands.

Thick callouses. Maybe a blister or two.

A tendency to keep "tweaking" things, and not always for the better.

[joobz]

Large hands.

A circular saw. They come on handy. Especially when designing fjords.

[Foster Zygote]

The questions are

1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?
Yes, thank you Gerry. You can stop pushing the button now. By the way, if you're going to center text you don't need to also indent it.

Before anything else we have to -- that is you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 -- determine whether an atheist has the capability for cognitive certainty.

That means that he is intelligent and also psychologically receptive to proof for the attainment of certainty.
As I've said: I am receptive to evidence that meets scientific standards.

How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?
The same way that we determine if you are intelligent and receptive to proof. Of course, we need to be on the same page regarding the definition of "proof".

[bokonon]

How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?
Whoa, back up there. How do we determine that yrreg is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to serious discussion?

[Hokulele]

Whoa, back up there. How do we determine that yrreg is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to serious discussion?


He could always take a stab at the kinetic energy of a bowling ball problem...

[Mojo]

What are some of the properties "maker of everything" will have?


The orange ones.

With hotels on.

[MIKILLINI]

How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?



Will you acknowledge our arguments in a respectful manner?

[Hokulele]

Last edited by yrreg (http://forums.randi.org/posthistory.php?p=4915185); Today at 11:35 AM. Reason: To remove unneeded words accidentally left in the post.


You missed a few.

[Hokulele]

The orange ones.

With hotels on.


Win!

I have a funny feeling that this may turn into the most entertaining yrreg thread of all...

[RoboTimbo]

Win!

I have a funny feeling that this may turn into the most entertaining yrreg thread of all...

...until the next one.

[joobz]

...until the next one.
This one had me giggling by the 4th

1.) Yes
2.) No

Response.

And Hok's "Large hands" comment made me choke.

[yrreg]

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?








Before anything else we have to -- that is you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 -- determine whether an atheist has the capability for cognitive certainty.


That means that he is intelligent and also psychologically receptive to proof for the attainment of certainty.


How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?






Yrreg




There is a very simple way to prove that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of the certainty of God's existence.

Would you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 be interested in knowing what is that very simple way to show that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of God's existence?

Tell me then what is that simple way?






Yrreg

[Hokulele]

And Hok's "Large hands" comment made me choke.


Thank you kindly, sir.

But to RoboTimbo's point, I somewhat disagree. The "Atheist's Definition of God" thread was just stupid, not very entertaining. Yrreg's announcement early in his posting career that any Buddhist moderators should be fired for their religious beliefs, and his threat to take said campaign directly to James Randi, was simply pathetic.

This thread, on the other hand, contains the seeds of greatness.

[m!g]

I like to ask atheists here:


1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?


2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?





Yrreg

1 - No. God could show himself but It could be the Devil in disguise.:D

2 - That's God's problem

[Hokulele]

Would you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 be interested in knowing what is that very simple way to show that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of God's existence?


Ah, so you aren't interested in "working together". Got it.
Tell me then what is that simple way?


RoboTimbo correctly answered this back on page 1.

[RoboTimbo]

Thank you kindly, sir.

But to RoboTimbo's point, I somewhat disagree. The "Atheist's Definition of God" thread was just stupid, not very entertaining. Yrreg's announcement early in his posting career that any Buddhist moderators should be fired for their religious beliefs, and his threat to take said campaign directly to James Randi, was simply pathetic.

This thread, on the other hand, contains the seeds of greatness.

I plan on doing my part.

[Mojo]

OK, we're building up a picture of what this "maker" might be like:

Large hands.
Hotel owner.
A tendency to keep "tweaking" things, and not always for the better.
Orange stripes.

Something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Fawlty), perhaps?

[IMST]

Snip...

Tell me then what is that simple way?


Note how most if not all of us have changed our minds in the face of evidence on some matter of importance in the past.

Once you've done that, all you have to do is present convincing evidence.

For example, I was once opposed to nuclear power. I have completely changed my mind in the face of evidence as to effectiveness and environmental compatibility.

I was raised christian. I found those claims uncompelling to date. If you have emperical evidence better than the mind games and crap they came up with, it may turn out to be more compelling.

In short, cut the bull **** and get to the point.

[Olowkow]

I like to ask atheists here:1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?
Yrreg
1. Nope, all atheists just stubbornly don't believe in god so that they can do all the things to have fun that goddists can't. Purely evil sons o' guns.

2. "for him to prove to himself" I think is what he means. Nope, atheists can't prove anything to themselves cause they are too busy having fun doing evil stuff. Killing kitties, beating bunnies, shooting bambi, etc.

Go for it Hoss, you may be on to something. See how it works out for you and let us know.

[Foster Zygote]

Ab esse ad posse valet illatio.
What? People called Romanes, they go, the house?

"The inference from actual result to its possibility is valid." Yes, possibility. The existence of lightning makes the inference of the possibility of the existence of Thor valid. But do you believe in Thor, Gerry?

The questions are:

1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?

Are you sure about this? I could have sworn the questions were something else...

There is a very simple way to prove that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of the certainty of God's existence.
Of course. But you have to provide some proof first. Are you ever going to attempt to do this?

Would you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 be interested in knowing what is that very simple way to show that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of God's existence?

Tell me then what is that simple way?
I just did. Let's see your proof.

[Mojo]

"The inference from actual result to its possibility is valid." Yes, possibility. The existence of lightning makes the inference of the possibility of the existence of Thor valid. But do you believe in Thor, Gerry?


He would if he'd been born into a society where most other people do - see his comment about Odin in an earlier thread.

[Foster Zygote]

OK, we're building up a picture of what this "maker" might be like:

Large hands.
Hotel owner.
A tendency to keep "tweaking" things, and not always for the better.
Orange stripes.

Something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Fawlty), perhaps?
Well I was thinking of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigglesnort_Hotel). But that will certainly do.

[Mojo]

Well I was thinking of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigglesnort_Hotel). But that will certainly do.


The one I suggested is described as "a snobbish, miserly, xenophobic and sexually repressed paranoiac misanthrope".

[Foster Zygote]

The one I suggested is described as "a snobbish, miserly, xenophobic and sexually repressed paranoiac misanthrope".

Mine's more wacky and cartoonish.

[Mojo]

Mine's more wacky and cartoonish.


I guess we just have to figure out which one fits the observed universe best.

[Twiler]

[snip]

There is a very simple way to prove that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of the certainty of God's existence.

Would you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 be interested in knowing what is that very simple way to show that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of God's existence?

Tell me then what is that simple way?






Yrreg

I don't know, what is that simple way?

[Foster Zygote]

I don't know, what is that simple way?

I think Gerry wants us to ask him to tell us about the rabbits.

[UndercoverElephant]

1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?


No.


2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?


No.

[Simon39759]

... And you don't get to define it "maker of everything" because that's what we're trying to test. What are some of the properties "maker of everything" will have?

Large hands.


And you know what they say about divinities that have large hands... :blush:

[Twiler]

I think Gerry wants us to ask him to tell us about the rabbits.

Rabbits? I don't understand.

[Mojo]

And you know what they say about divinities that have large hands... :blush:


Large gloves?

[Fireshadow]

Okay, I'll play. I've felt kind of left out in yrreg's other threads, so...

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

Yes, it is entirely possible to prove to an atheist that God exists--all you have to do is provide empirical evidence that is plainly visible to an objective observer, that an entity exists that can create matter from nothing in defiance of all known laws of physics.

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?

I have no idea what this means--although others in the thread seem to. As I first read it, it seemed to me that it was asking if God could prove to himself that he exists, which is just silly. Upon reflection, it seems it's asking whether an atheist can prove to himself that God exists; this makes more sense, but the fundamental problem with this is that an atheist has no reason to prove to himself that God exits. Theists, of whatever stripe, are the ones making the claims of the existence of a deity; therefore, the burden of proof falls upon the theist to prove the existence of said deity. I'll accept that, logically, an atheist could prove to himself the existence of god, but, at least for this atheist, he probably has better things to do with his time.

There is a very simple way to prove that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of the certainty of God's existence.

Would you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 be interested in knowing what is that very simple way to show that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of God's existence?

Tell me then what is that simple way?


RoboTimbo seems to have nailed this one. I'm guessing that that simple way is to accept the existence of God. By reading your other threads, I've seen clearly that you tend to imply that the denial of God's existence is evidence of some sort of mental defect. If that is not what you're going for here, please prove me wrong--all evidence to this point, however, tells me that's exactly what you're going to say.

[yrreg]

[...]

In short, cut the bull **** and get to the point.



There is no call for the unacceptable language.


If you see any unacceptable language from my part, just report me to the moderators or administrators.


You still have not come to the simple way by which one can see that the atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to the proof of the existence of God.


I gave you a hint and you failed to see it -- in the message previous to this present one.





Yrreg

[bobcarp]

1 - No. God could show himself but It could be the Devil in disguise.:D

And why doesn't the devil, Satan, Beelzebub, whatever, just prove to us that he exists. Believers always have some rationale as to why god won’t prove his existence, i.e. wants us to believe on faith alone, but why doesn’t the devil do it. I guarantee you that if the devil just appeared before the world and proved he exists he would get more souls. People, including me, would say, “At least he had the common courtesy to prove to us that he truly exists and isn’t playing these faith-based mind games.”

[bobcarp]

There is a very simple way to prove that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of the certainty of God's existence.



Take this simple way and prove to yourself that you are intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of the certainty of Allah/Hindu God/Zeus, et al's existence.

[UndercoverElephant]

And why doesn't the devil, Satan, Beelzebub, whatever, just prove to us that he exists.


Why should any of them care whether you believe they exist?


Believers always have some rationale as to why god won’t prove his existence, i.e. wants us..


Why should God want anything? God is already perfect. What could a Perfect Being want?

[Olowkow]

About the same as proving that Zeus exists.

[Hokulele]

Why should any of them care whether you believe they exist?



Why should God want anything? God is already perfect. What could a Perfect Being want?


Foul! You are using a different definition of god than the OP.

[Olowkow]

Here you go, very relevant to the OP. Funny stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfqht0LEOWQ&NR=1

[UndercoverElephant]

Foul! You are using a different definition of god than the OP.

Guilty as charged.

[I Ratant]

For me, all it would require is for GMOE to appear before me, answer a few simple questions, and re-arrange the stars to spell out a sweet message for the missus.

Done deal.
.
Many years I ago I read, the Earth was visited by aliens, who arrived at night in the winter.
With an announcement of their arrival prior to it, a welcome committee composed of various heads-of-state was arranged, and the aliens de-disced in the evening.
Before any of the extensive planned cermonies could take place, the aliens looked around, quickly conferred with each other, and boarded the disc and left!
No explanation!
After much research, one of the persons on earth they'd been communicating with fingered out the problem.
The aliens used a hieroglyphic/pictorial method of graphic communications.
In this scheme, a box represented the female.
A long straight line represented the male.
The researcher noted that in the night sky at the time of the meeting the constellation Orion was prominently on the meridian.
In alien picto-talk, it represented man-in-woman.
He figured the aliens were very prudish, and having to see, or even kwow that the four-letter was up there in the sky every night was too much for them to accept!

[I Ratant]

For the yes answers, there's a follow-up.
We gets to ask the big sky daddy WHY he fouled it up so badly for so many years for so many people?
Imagine what some of the great thinkers in humanity would want to ask about that!

[I Ratant]

Thick callouses. Maybe a blister or two.

...
.
Actually, going to the point of blisters on the hands would mean serious damage to what the hands were doing to the joystick!
Prudence would dictate... Heh heh, I said dic... cutting. .. damn, ain't no way to not pun the hell out of this anecdote.. :)

[IMST]

There is no call for the unacceptable language.


If you see any unacceptable language from my part, just report me to the moderators or administrators.
I operated within the rules. The language was four asterisks. If you can't handle that, the real world has a memo for you.


You still have not come to the simple way by which one can see that the atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to the proof of the existence of God.


I gave you a hint and you failed to see it -- in the message previous to this present one.

When I said to cut the bull ****, this is what I was talking about. Back to ignoring these threads.

[UndercoverElephant]

I operated within the rules. The language was four asterisks. If you can't handle that, the real world has a memo for you.




When I said to cut the bull ****, this is what I was talking about. Back to ignoring these threads.

*****, does rule 10 apply to words refering to **** as well as *****s?

[yrreg]

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?





These questions bring up an ascendant question, namely:

Who will judge whether:

1. It has been proven to an atheist that God maker of everything exists.

2. An atheist has in effect proven to himself that God exists, but he refuses to admit the proof by an oral or written assent to the truth of God's existence.





You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.






Yrreg

[Hokulele]

1. The atheist.
2. What?

[UndercoverElephant]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.


I whisper, but my horse doesn't listen.

[bokonon]

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?



Asked and answered. Move on.


These questions bring up an ascendant question, namely:

Who will judge whether:

1. It has been proven to an atheist that God maker of everything exists.

2. An atheist has in effect proven to himself that God exists, but he refuses to admit the proof by an oral or written assent to the truth of God's existence.



You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Yrreg
1. The atheist (or, if such has actually been proven, former atheist).
2. Forty two.

[joobz]

These questions bring up an ascendant question, namely:
Who will judge whether:
1. It has been proven to an atheist that God maker of everything exists.
Each person will have to judge for himself. Just like each person must judge for themselves that F=ma


2. An atheist has in effect proven to himself that God exists, but he refuses to admit the proof by an oral or written assent to the truth of God's existence.
That would be a dishonest person. And yes, certainly such people exist. BUt why worry about them?

[Elizabeth I]

How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?

By asking them to calculate the kinetic energy of a 4.4 kg bowling ball hurled by a trebuchet with a 10 m arm at t=5 seconds. They must show their work.

I can recite all of "Jabberwocky." Would that count?

[Hokulele]

I whisper, but my horse doesn't listen.


And yet, someday it might talk.

[UndercoverElephant]

James James
Morrison Morrison
Weatherby George Dupree
Took great
Care of his Mother,
Though he was only three.
James James
Said to his Mother,
"Mother", he said, said he;
"You must never go down to the end of the town,
if you don't go down with me."

James James
Morrison's Mother
Put on a golden gown,
James James
Morrison's Mother
Drove to the end of the town.
James James
Morrison's Mother
Said to herself, said she:
"I can get right down to the end of the town and be
back in time for tea"

King John
Put up a notice,
"LOST or STOLEN or STRAYED!
JAMES JAMES
MORRISON'S MOTHER
SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MISLAID.
LAST SEEN
WANDERING VAGUELY;
QUITE OF HER OWN ACCORD,
SHE TRIED TO GET DOWN TO THE END OF THE TOWN-
FORTY SHILLINGS REWARD!

James James
Morrison Morrison
(Commonly known as Jim)
Told his
Other relations
Not to go blaming _him_.
James James
Said to his Mother,
"Mother", he said, said he:
"You must never go down to the end of the town with-
out consulting me."

James James
Morrison's Mother
Hasn't been heard of since.
King John
Said he was sorry,
So did the Queen and Prince.
King John
(Somebody told me)
Said to a man he knew:
"If people go down to the end of the town, well,
what can anyone do?"

(Now then, very softly)

J. J.
M. M.
W. G. Du P.
Took great
C/o his M*****
Though he was only 3.
J. J.
Said to his M*****
"M*****", he said, said he:
"You-must-never-go-down-to-the-end-of-the-town-if-
you-don't-go-down-with-ME!"

-- A. A. Milne

[proudnonbbeliever]

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?





These questions bring up an ascendant question, namely:

Who will judge whether:

1. It has been proven to an atheist that God maker of everything exists.

2. An atheist has in effect proven to himself that God exists, but he refuses to admit the proof by an oral or written assent to the truth of God's existence.





You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.






Yrreg

to answer
1. yes
2. not without empirical evidence

1. the atheist
2. proof of refutation would be a fact not a judged opinion if the said atheist continued to state their claim despite evidence to the contrary unless they are able to provide scientific objections to the validity of the evidence

as to the horse statement veiled sleights are the tools of egomaniacal sycophants unable to use a decent word like firetruck

[freebird]

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?






Before anything else we have to -- that is you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 -- determine whether an atheist has the capability for cognitive certainty.


That means that he is intelligent and also psychologically receptive to proof for the attainment of certainty.


How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?






Yrreg
LMAO! Ring around the rosey.

First you want to interact with only those who responded yes to one and two. Whom are atheists. Then question, "How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?" AHHHHH....the escape plan. Already devised a way out for yourself when you fall flat, eh?

You amuse me.

[bokonon]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
You can put a tube up its nose, or an IV in its fetlock.

But that assumes you know better than the horse how much water it needs. Chances are, if it's not drinking, it don't need no stinking water.

[JFrankA]

Okay, Gerry, I'm going to "bite down" on this seriously. If I get too wordy, I'm sorry, I like to be complete.

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

Yes, going with your definition, "maker of everything". Even though I find it an inadequate definition.


2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?


Well, he would have to in order for the first condition to be met. However, as I said before, "maker of everything" is an inadequate definition. For example, it would mean that he created himself. In order for him to do that, he would have to prove a paradox.




These questions bring up an ascendant question, namely:

Who will judge whether:

1. It has been proven to an atheist that God maker of everything exists.

The atheist herself/himself. No other person can make that judgment, not even god. That's because, by your definition, god is simply a creator, not a watcher, judge, jury, punisher, observer, etc.


2. An atheist has in effect proven to himself that God exists, but he refuses to admit the proof by an oral or written assent to the truth of God's existence.



See above. Same answer. The atheist herself/himself. Since god isn't going to judge, (again, by your definition, "maker of everything"), and neither can anyone else.

In reply, my question to you is this: What difference does it make?

Let's say your definition is true, that god is the "maker of everything". And it was proven to an atheist "Fred" to be true, the scientific evidence is there. Yet, he still denies the scientific evidence. Then "Fred" wasn't an atheist in the first place. An atheist doesn't deny scientific facts.

An atheist isn't someone who denies god, an atheist is someone who needs scientific proof that something exists. A god has never been proven.

It seems to me that your definition of atheist is flawed as well.



You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.


Horses don't like to drink poisoned water, Gerry.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I like to ask atheists here:


[indent]1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?Yrreg

Ummm, no.

But it's allowed.

Your move.

[Darth Rotor]

Large hands.

Terry Garr's eyes pop open wide ...

"His schvanstooker vood be enormous!"

To answer our OP:

1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?
1. Yes, it is possible.

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?
Is this "himself" the atheist, God, a god, the cook, the thief, his wife, or her lover?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?





Before anything else we have to -- that is you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 -- determine whether an atheist has the capability for cognitive certainty.

That means that he is intelligent and also psychologically receptive to proof for the attainment of certainty.

How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?

Yrreg
There is a very simple way to prove that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of the certainty of God's existence.

Would you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 be interested in knowing what is that very simple way to show that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of God's existence?

Tell me then what is that simple way?

Yrreg
Eff me, Yrreg, you just talked to yourself, in public. I may be an old fart, but I don't think I've pulled that stunt lately.

More questions:
Who will judge whether:

1. It has been proven to an atheist that God maker of everything exists.

2. An atheist has in effect proven to himself that God exists, but he refuses to admit the proof by an oral or written assent to the truth of God's existence.
Answers:
1. Judge Judy
2. That's being sneaky, but since you didn't spell out all of the ground rules ahead of time, maybe you need to redesign your game so that it is possible to get a win.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
If you lead Darth to a bar, you ought to buy him a drink.

@ Foster: I don't think it's fair that people keep assigning a gender to God. It is my idea that God somewhat transcends gender, and it is only a convenient convention that depicted God as male. I think it would be more fair if God looked like ... this.
14667 14668

Think of all the college aged males who'd start coming .... to church! :p

[Darth Rotor]

For example, I was once opposed to nuclear power. I have completely changed my mind in the face of evidence as to effectiveness and environmental compatibility.

Can't tell you how happy I am to have you on our side. :) Welcome.

[nescafe]

I like to ask atheists here:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

Yes, assuming that the atheist in question is willing to examine and change their preconceptions, and that you are not indulging in semantic foolishness with the word God. Given your past threads, I strongly suspect the latter is true.
2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?
Who is "himself" in this sentence?

If both instances of "himself" refer to the atheist, then assuming the conditions in point 1 are met, and there is sufficient evidence that can be explained in no other way, then yes.

If both instances of "himself" refer to the god, then trivially yes.

If the first instance of "himself" refers to the athiest, and the second to the god, then the sentence is nonsensical.

If the first instance of "himself" refers to the god, and the second one refers to the athiest, then yes, assuming the sufficient evidence is there and can be explained in no other way.

[Hokulele]

Think of all the college aged males who'd start coming .... to church! :p


And think of all the lesbians.








Hmm, maybe that shouldn't have been written using the imperative mood.

[RoboTimbo]

Who will judge whether:

1. It has been proven to an atheist that God maker of everything exists.

The atheist, duh.

2. An atheist has in effect proven to himself that God exists, but he refuses to admit the proof by an oral or written assent to the truth of God's existence.

Your pre-made 'out' for when you miserably fail.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Yrreg

Oh, the inanity.

[Foster Zygote]

If you see any unacceptable language from my part, just report me to the moderators or administrators.

I did that in your last thread.

[Darth Rotor]

And think of all the lesbians.

Hmm, maybe that shouldn't have been written using the imperative mood.

I'll be in my bunk ...

[Foster Zygote]

And think of all the lesbians.

OK!

[Foster Zygote]

Gerry, could you repeat the questions again? I'm afraid I've forgotten them.

[Foster Zygote]

Rabbits? I don't understand.

Of Mice and Men. This thread seems to be another roundabout way for Gerry to imply that those who disagree with him are mentally inferior to himself.

[Foster Zygote]

Who will judge whether:

1. It has been proven to an atheist that God maker of everything exists.

2. An atheist has in effect proven to himself that God exists, but he refuses to admit the proof by an oral or written assent to the truth of God's existence.

Yes , Gerry, we get it already. Can we move on to the part where you prove the existence of at least one god?

[Darth Rotor]

Yes , Gerry, we get it already. Can we move on to the part where you prove the existence of at least one god?
He has more fun doing it his own way.

This game is sorta like me enjoying my way to play Stairway to Heaven, now that it has been over twenty years since I last played it, and nobody else in the room can stand it.

[Foster Zygote]

I don't think it's fair that people keep assigning a gender to God. It is my idea that God somewhat transcends gender, and it is only a convenient convention that depicted God as male. I think it would be more fair if God looked like ... this.
14667 14668

Think of all the college aged males who'd start coming .... to church! :p

I hope that Gerry proves that one of them is god.

[EventHorizon]

Gerry, could you repeat the questions again? I'm afraid I've forgotten them.

I'll give you 2 to 1 odds that he takes that question literally.

[bokonon]

There is a very simple way to prove that an atheist can be intelligent
[...]
Tell me then what is that simple way?

The atheist has yrreg on ignore?

[Foster Zygote]

He has more fun doing it his own way.

This game is sorta like me enjoying my way to play Stairway to Heaven, now that it has been over twenty years since I last played it, and nobody else in the room can stand it.

Well you're obviously not playing it loud enough.

[joobz]

And think of all the lesbians.


I'll be in my bunk ...

OK!

This is the best thread in the universe.

[Foster Zygote]

I'll give you 2 to 1 odds that he takes that question literally.

Yeah, I forgot to specifically state that I was being humorous in that post.

[Foster Zygote]

This is the best thread in the universe.

We might need a "think of all the lesbians" thread in community, but I think Hokulele should start it.

[EventHorizon]

This is the best thread in the universe.

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/This-Thread-Delivers/1/thread-delivers.jpg

[Hokulele]

We might need a "think of all the lesbians" thread in community, but I think Hokulele should start it.


I did comment about posting about lesbians while drinking Sauvignon Blanc in the "Are You Drunk?" thread in Community. Is that close enough?

Mind you, that really doesn't count as evidence of the existence of a god matching yrreg's definition...

[joobz]

I did comment about posting about lesbians while drinking Sauvignon Blanc in the "Are You Drunk?" thread in Community. Is that close enough?
Wine helps some people see god. Does wine help you see lesbians?

[Hokulele]

Wine helps some people see god. Does wine help you see lesbians?


Um, I suppose that depends exactly what you mean by "see".

And of course, this is where Mr. H decides to wander by and read over my shoulder.

Gah. :cool:

[IMST]

Um, I suppose that depends exactly what you mean by "see".

And of course, this is where Mr. H decides to wander by and read over my shoulder.

Gah. :cool:

I think that, in this case, "see" is used similarly to how the bible uses "know".

[Lucian]

Did God make himself? Or does God not exist? (And who cuts his hair?)

Coiffures by Gabriel
Specializing in discreet services for the mature deity.


Are the saints pointing and laughing at your expanding "tonsure"? Sure, you could smite them, but they’re already saved. Why not try our Angel’s Hair® hair-replacement method? It’s divine!

Ask about our beard-fluffing specials.

[Mojo]

Coiffures by Gabriel
Specializing in discreet services for the mature deity.


Are the saints pointing and laughing at your expanding "tonsure"? Sure, you could smite them, but they’re already saved. Why not try our Angel’s Hair® hair-replacement method? It’s divine!


Careful now: He is known to be a little sensitive about that sort of thing. See 2 Kings 2:23-24.

[fromdownunder]

If it takes a man a mile to walk a minute and a half, how long does it take an ant with a broken leg to carry a bag of bricks over a yard of treacle?

The correct answer to this question will prove that gods exist.

Norm

[lionking]

If it takes a man a mile to walk a minute and a half, how long does it take an ant with a broken leg to carry a bag of bricks over a yard of treacle?

The correct answer to this question will prove that gods exist.

Norm
Very wise grasshopper.

[Fiona]

Hmmm. What have we got here

First Yrreg post: A straightforward question followed by one which is incomprehensible.

Second Yrreg post: Yrreg's awesome impersonation of a primary school teacher

Third Yrreg post:Yrreg's succinct demonstration that he has no capacity to understand anything which does not fit in with his existing view: and that he takes this inability as proof that someone else is illogical

Fourth Yrreg post: Yrreg insults atheists in two ways: he implies that there may be something wrong with their brains (which we know he has already decided from previous threads); and he does it in his primary school teacher persona

Fifth Yrreg post: Yrreg shows he is not just a one trick pony: he is now impersonating a primary school teacher impersonating Rolfe Harris - "can you see what it is yet?"

Sixth Yrreg post: Yrreg gives the class a row and tells them to get on with their work

Seventh Yrreg post: Yrreg insults atheists by repeating the original questions though they have already been answered: and making it plain that since the answers don't suit him those who answered are lying or stupid. Now where have we seen this before: that's right children. We saw it in every other Yrreg thread.

Got anything new, Yrreg ?

[lionking]

The only thing wrong with your post Fiona is that it is an insult to primary school teachers. I can see the similarity in that they talk to children whereas yrreg thinks he is talking to children. But most primary school teachers listen and attempt to communicate. They also have a reasonable grasp of the english language and a concept of logical dialogue.

[Fiona]

You are right lionking: but this is what I had in mind :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oom2EPuNPv8. Yrreg reminds me irresistibly of this

[Aitch]

@ Foster: I don't think it's fair that people keep assigning a gender to God. It is my idea that God somewhat transcends gender, and it is only a convenient convention that depicted God as male. I think it would be more fair if God looked like ... this.
14667 14668

Think of all the college aged males who'd start coming .... to church! :p

Reminds me of a (very) old joke:

Cardinal: Your holiness, I have some good news and some bad news...
Pope: What is the good news, my son?
Cardinal: We have definite, undeniable proof of God's existence.
Pope: That IS good news, but what is the bad news?
Cardinal: She's black...

:o

[bokonon]

And think of all the lesbians.
Mmmmm...

After a LOT of careful consideration, I'm wondering if maybe that whole "virgin birth" thing might have been one of those Bill-Clinton-style technicalities?

[Blackadder]

On a similar forum in my native language users like yrreg are given a chance, then given a warning after their 3rd thread, then another warning and then they get banned.

What is the reason they can go on for months or years here?

a. freedom of speech

b. Entertainment value

c. JREF forums have a lenient moderation policy

d. something else

[lionking]

e. all of the above

[Fiona]

f. Masochism

[Twiler]

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?





These questions bring up an ascendant question, namely:

Who will judge whether:

1. It has been proven to an atheist that God maker of everything exists.

2. An atheist has in effect proven to himself that God exists, but he refuses to admit the proof by an oral or written assent to the truth of God's existence.





You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.






Yrreg

Isn't that two questions?

I still don't understand what this 'simple way' of determining whether an atheist is receptive is meant to be.

Having observed Yrreg's actions over a series of threads, I think the essential problem is that he is rooted in a theist behaviour pattern to such an extent that he is incapable of dialectic reasoning. All his threads are thus attempts to emulate this reasoning, which he considers a tool to convince us, but inevitably fail, because he can't grasp the way the system works.

How it works:

1. Make a series of assumptions.
2. Reason from those assumptions to a set of conclusions.

How he thinks it works:

1. Everything Yrreg has been brought up to believe is logical and correct.
2. Reason can be used to clear the heads of people who don't agree.

[John Jones]

I like to ask atheists here:


1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?







Yrreg


Yes. Bring me an autographed dinner menu from The Last Supper.

[Dancing David]

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?






Before anything else we have to -- that is you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 -- determine whether an atheist has the capability for cognitive certainty.


That means that he is intelligent and also psychologically receptive to proof for the attainment of certainty.


How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?






Yrreg

Yrreg, the shifter of goal posts.

Sorry, try the evidence for a created universe.

[Dancing David]

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?











There is a very simple way to prove that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of the certainty of God's existence.

Would you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 be interested in knowing what is that very simple way to show that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of God's existence?

Tell me then what is that simple way?






Yrreg


Yregg the gilder of new goal posts.

[Dancing David]

There is no call for the unacceptable language.


If you see any unacceptable language from my part, just report me to the moderators or administrators.


You still have not come to the simple way by which one can see that the atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to the proof of the existence of God.


I gave you a hint and you failed to see it -- in the message previous to this present one.





Yrreg


Yrreg espouses the Mystery of the Gilded Goal Post.

[Dancing David]

The questions are:
1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?





These questions bring up an ascendant question, namely:

Who will judge whether:

1. It has been proven to an atheist that God maker of everything exists.

2. An atheist has in effect proven to himself that God exists, but he refuses to admit the proof by an oral or written assent to the truth of God's existence.





You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.








Yrreg

Yrreg, the maker of the nested gilded goal posts.
Atheists deny god and thereby prove god.

[Dancing David]

@ Foster: I don't think it's fair that people keep assigning a gender to God. It is my idea that God somewhat transcends gender, and it is only a convenient convention that depicted God as male. I think it would be more fair if God looked like ... this.
14667 14668

Think of all the college aged males who'd start coming .... to church! :p

Freya rocks!

[!Kaggen]

1. Yes, give them a copy of Snow White to read
2. Yes, on condition that they have read Snow White and know how to use a mirror

[Elizabeth I]

Yes. Bring me an autographed dinner menu from The Last Supper.

When my mom was a kid there was a radio evangelist who raised money by selling "gen-u-wine autographed pictures of Jee-sus Christ."

[Marcus]

Define God. Otherwise, this discussion is DOA.
Given Gerry's vague and useless definition of god (maker of everything) his questions are unanswerable.

[LibraryLady]

Is God being defined simply as a first cause of existence? (That's what it looks like, like the Deists' watchmaker god.)

Or are you referring to a god that controls and sees even when a sparrow falls.

[bokonon]

Is the maker of everything a troublemaker?

[Foster Zygote]

Is God being defined simply as a first cause of existence? (That's what it looks like, like the Deists' watchmaker god.)

Or are you referring to a god that controls and sees even when a sparrow falls.

Gerry tried the "Spinoza's God" thing. Then he hoped no one would notice as he pole vaulted from there to the the god of Catholicism.

[RoboTimbo]

Is God being defined simply as a first cause of existence? (That's what it looks like, like the Deists' watchmaker god.)

Or are you referring to a god that controls and sees even when a sparrow falls.

I define God as the maker of everything, everything man knows that is.
Do you give your god any other properties?
Let us first get clear that God is the maker of everything, afterwards we can proceed to discuss the properties of God.

He wants to lure atheists into agreeing that there is a maker of everything and call it God, then he'll trot out the "HA HA GOTCHA" that Foster is referring to.

[MIKILLINI]

Who will judge whether:

1. It has been proven to an atheist that God maker of everything exists.

An Atheist.

2. An atheist has in effect proven to himself that God exists, but he refuses to admit the proof by an oral or written assent to the truth of God's existence.

Not you.

[yrreg]

[...]

However, as I said before, "maker of everything" is an inadequate definition [of God]. For example, it would mean that he created himself. In order for him to do that, he would have to prove a paradox.

[...]




God is the maker of everything and He does not have to make Himself.

Why? Because it is not necessary to do so since He is already God the maker of everything.Rule 11 portions removed.
There are several threads for the general discussion of atheism. This one asks specific questions. Please stick to the discussion of those questions.

[RoboTimbo]

God is the maker of everything and He does not have to make Himself.

Yrreg

Still unable to answer the tough questions, huh? But that is all off-topic.

What evidence do you have to show atheists of the reality of your particular god?

[joobz]

God is the maker of everything and He does not have to make Himself.

Why? Because it is not necessary to do so since He is already God the maker of everything.

If god requires no maker, why does the universe?

[Hokulele]

God is the maker of everything and He does not have to make Himself.

Why? Because it is not necessary to do so since He is already God the maker of everything.


Why is it not necessary? If you are simply building the why into your definition, why is it wrong to build the why into the definition of everything and simply omit the god part?

[Nogbad]

I like to ask atheists here:


1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?


2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?





Yrreg


1. An unknown. If there is a God or Gods his/her/its/their nature may be unprovable and therefore proof in a scientific sense is unattainable. If it is attainable it certainly hasn't been achieved yet.

2. Or indeed does not exist. See 1. Given the failure to date it would suggest that it would be a rather long and fruitless task. That doesn't mean someone should not try but they would have to be motivated to do so. Most, I would suggest, would have other things to do.

Of course anyone can take a step of faith and skip over the proof bit. Once on the other side proof is irrelevant because one believes. One can choose to believe in any number of deities and of course millions do.

[Phase Inverter]

1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?


Yes, by presenting sufficient evidence in support of the claim.


2. Is it possible for [the atheist] to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?


Yes, by the atheist discovering or otherwise obtaining sufficient evidence in support of the claim.


Those who answer yes to 1 and 2, shall we work together on the how?


I have answered "yes" to 1 & 2 and I have also listed the "how," or at least one possible "how." Do you wish to work further on this together?


How do we determine that an atheist is intelligent and is psychologically receptive to proof?


I would imagine an intelligence test or psychological evaluation that was designed for humans would also work for atheists, although I am unfamiliar with any tests that specifically evaluate psychological receptivity to proof.


Would you anyone and everyone who answer yes to 1 and yes to 2 be interested in knowing what is that very simple way to show that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of God's existence?


Yes, I would be interested in knowing your very simple way to show that an atheist can be intelligent and can be psychologically receptive to proof of God's existence.


Who will judge whether: It has been proven to an atheist that God maker of everything exists.


First, only the atheist himself can judge whether or not he accepts the statement "God, maker of everything, exists" as being true.

Second, if you are using the phrase "proven to an atheist" in some other way, it is unclear to me what you intended to ask.


Who will judge whether: An atheist has in effect proven to himself that God exists, but he refuses to admit the proof by an oral or written assent to the truth of God's existence.


Only the atheist himself can judge whether or not he accepts the statement "God, maker of everything, exists" as being true but if he does, and is unwilling to disclose it, then to all others it would be no different than if he did not accept the statement as being true. I don't see how anyone can judge whether or not this is what the atheist in question has done unless there is evidence other than his oral or written attestation, such as someone catching him in the act of worshiping God or sacrificing animals to God, or some other visible display of belief.

[Marcus]

God is the maker of everything and He does not have to make Himself.

Right. So he has no attributes, no omnipotence, no omnipresence, no ability to answer prayers or send sinners to hell. You certainly can't be a Christian, sounds more like a Buddhist to me.

[bokonon]

Maybe a Spinozoroastrian.

What puzzles me is how desperately some people yearn to have non-believers acknowledge the reality of their deity, as though it's a fallen fairy that needs applause or it will wink out like a dying ember. If this thing existed, and wanted acknowledgement, it would roll credits and let everyone know it was the creative force that made things happen. So either it exists and doesn't care about such acknowledgement, or it doesn't exist.

[X]

I get the impression from reading this thread that yrreg thinks he has us all on tenterhooks.

He makes a short post, with an open question.
Then he waits while we reply, before making his follow up post.
This follow up post ignores everything that was said in reply.

He has a script, and he's sticking to it.

He thinks we're all on the edge of our seats, like primary school children eager for the next chapter of the book.

The next chapter, in this case, being his latests "proof of god/proof of atheist stupidity", which he shall of course continue to withhold to build up what he perceives as tension.

I wonder if it has occurred to him that the reason we atheists reply to him is because we are playig with him.
Much like my sisters' dog tears up tennis balls to entertain itself.
While the ball lasts, the dog enjoys herself.
When the ball is skinned and split, it's time for a new one.

And when we've destroyed yrreg's latest repeat of the same-old argument he always uses, it'll be time for anew thread.



Yrreg

My point here is simply this:

Stop mucking about and get to the point already.
We're perfectly capable of following multi-stage arguments.
There is no need to introduce (and re-introduce, and re-introduce, and re-introduce) tiny parts of it at a time.

Post your thoughts and stop wasting time on this whole "is the atheist intelligent enough" crap.


Oh, and for the record:

1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

Yes.


2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?

Assuming "himself" refers to the aforementioned atheists, I would have to answer yes.

[fromdownunder]

Yrreg

My point here is simply this:

Stop mucking about and get to the point already.


He has a point? :jaw-dropp Why am I always the last one to get the memo?

Norm

[Marcus]

I get the impression from reading this thread that yrreg thinks he has us all on tenterhooks.

Gerry has that peculiar mix of logical incompetence and persistence that makes for an entertaining thread. Once you are past the expectation of receiving any kind of coherent reply, the entertainment value comes from the response of the posters.

[Marcus]

Maybe a Spinozoroastrian.

Nice word, I had to look it up. It appears to be Hatha Yoga as practiced in Kuwait.

[MIKILLINI]

God is the maker of everything and He does not have to make Himself.

Why? Because it is not necessary to do so since He is already God the maker of everything.

http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/ad_populum.jpg

[kerikiwi]

I like to ask atheists here:


1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?


2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?




Yrreg
Why yes, yes it is.
And again yes, yes it is.
But in both cases so unlikely it is not worth thinking about.



(Should I have read all the pages before diving in? You know, just in case an interesting discussion has beeen taking place which I am completely stuffing up with my frivolity...)

[MIKILLINI]

Why yes, yes it is.
And again yes, yes it is.
But in both cases so unlikely it is not worth thinking about.



(Should I have read all the pages before diving in? You know, just in case an interesting discussion has beeen taking place which I am completely stuffing up with my frivolity...)

No need to. It's the usual Gerry thread: Revealing his arrogant nature toward Atheists while attempting to direct the conversation into agreement with him on the existence of God. :rolleyes:

[rikzilla]

I like to ask atheists here:


1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?


2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?





Yrreg

Your questions have been answered by serious and honest people.

Now can we have an answer from you that is both serious and honest?

Is it possible to prove to Gerry that God, maker of everything, is a lie? Does Gerry know how to tell the difference between a truth and an untruth?

-z

[Mojo]

Does Gerry know how to tell the difference between a truth and an untruth?


Sure he does: truth is anything Gerry believes, untruth as anything that disagrees with what Gerry believes.

[bokonon]

(Should I have read all the pages before diving in? You know, just in case an interesting discussion has beeen taking place which I am completely stuffing up with my frivolity...)
No, as with all of these threads, it's just the usual gerry maundering.

[I Ratant]

No, as with all of these threads, it's just the usual gerry maundering.
.
Gots to LOVE the English langwitch! :)

[Elizabeth I]

No, as with all of these threads, it's just the usual gerry maundering.

How long have you been waiting to use that one?

[kerikiwi]

What's the bet bokonon has a list of such gems next to the computer, just waiting for an opportune moment...

[bokonon]

How long have you been waiting to use that one?
If I wait to use them, I forget them. It came to me a few hours before I typed it in. I think probably some post upstream, here or in another thread, suggested it to me, but I'm not going to go looking for it.

Honestly, I've avoided yrreg's threads pretty religiously until this week, and will probably go back to doing so. Like cotton candy at the fair, it's not something I want very much of.

[brodski]

No, as with all of these threads, it's just the usual gerry maundering.

Nominated.

[bokonon]

Nominated.
Wow, thanks, there will be a little something extra in your paypal envelope this week.

[Hindmost]

This just makes me wonder why god made atheists...it seems pointless from a god purview.

glenn

[I Ratant]

What's the bet bokonon has a list of such gems next to the computer, just waiting for an opportune moment...
.
The event where those two words could be expected to be encountered is probably just this single thread, of the billions of threads extant.
Knowing to combine them in that way is pure genius!

[I Ratant]

This just makes me wonder why god made atheists...it seems pointless from a god purview.

glenn
.
It gives the god-smacked the chance to commit the crime of pride!
Such forethought!

[Robert Oz]

I like to ask atheists here:


1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?


2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?





Yrreg



1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?

Yes.


2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?

Yes.


3. Is it possible to prove to an adult that Santa Claus bringer of gifts exists?

Yes.


4. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that Santa Claus bringer of gifts exists?

Yes.


5. Are any of the above likely?

No.

[kerikiwi]

.
The event where those two words could be expected to be encountered is probably just this single thread, of the billions of threads extant.
Knowing to combine them in that way is pure genius!

Oh I don't know. The opportunity is almost certain to arise in any Gerry thread.

[Darth Rotor]

Reminds me of a (very) old joke:

Cardinal: Your holiness, I have some good news and some bad news...
Pope: What is the good news, my son?
Cardinal: We have definite, undeniable proof of God's existence.
Pope: That IS good news, but what is the bad news?
Cardinal: She's black...

:o

If She looks like Halley Barry, I still envision all those college aged males coming ... to church, of course! :cool:

ETA: Ok, next time I'll use Multi Quote.

[Darth Rotor]

Is the maker of everything a troublemaker?
Well yes, it seems to follow. Witness some of the trouble makers he crafted in his own image and likeness: Moses, Abram/Abraham. (See my sig for a possible reason why this might amuse the maker of everything.)

The neat thing about trouble is that through trouble, one can learn how to adapt and overcome, and in so doing become better.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

How long have you been waiting to use that one?

Since Maundy Thursday, I'd guess.

[Darth Rotor]

If I wait to use them, I forget them. It came to me a few hours before I typed it in. I think probably some post upstream, here or in another thread, suggested it to me, but I'm not going to go looking for it.

Honestly, I've avoided yrreg's threads pretty religiously until this week, and will probably go back to doing so.
You are a sneaky bugger, aren't you?

Thanks for that grin. :D

[Phase Inverter]

I now see that the American people in its vast majority are the ones most entitled to judge on both scores.

And their conclusion overall is atheists are the most distrusted minority in their country.


This response confirms my suspicion that you might be using the phrase "proven to an atheist" differently than I was when I initially answered your question. (see my previous post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4917756#post4917756))

When you ask "who will judge whether it has been proven to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?" are you intending to present the following scenario?



The theist provides the atheist some "proof" that God, maker of everything, exists.


Now that the atheist has been shown "proof" that God, maker of everything, exists it can be judged by a third party that it has been "proven" to the atheist that God, maker of everything, exists.


Even if the atheist refuses to admit the truth of God's existence, the judgment by the third party - that it has been "proven" to the atheist that God, maker of everything, exists - still stands.


What possible value could this scenario have when you pick as the judge a party that is already clearly biased against the atheist?

Also, judging atheists untrustworthy is not the same thing as judging whether or not an atheist has "proven to himself that God exists, but he refuses to admit the proof by an oral or written assent to the truth of God's existence."


God is the maker of everything and He does not have to make Himself.

Why? Because it is not necessary to do so since He is already God the maker of everything.


I think you may be misunderstanding the intention of some of the posters on this forum. You, on several occasions, asked what is wrong with your definition.

The issue (for some) is not whether or not God actually exists or how exactly He made everything. All that can be argued later. The problem is that your definition leaves unstated something that you claim is an important feature of the object of the definition. Namely the idea that it is the only thing in all of existence that didn't need to be made. The typical arguments for God that follow are dependent on this distinction.

If you would say "God, the maker of the universe," this distinction can be inferred (God not part of universe). Another possibility would be something like Aquinas's "Uncaused cause," which makes the distinction more explicit.

Your definition does have a weakness when critically examined (which is what you asked us to do, by the way) and only those with certain preconceptions about the word God can infer the parts you leave unstated.

[proudnonbbeliever]

I dare say Gerry gave up on us.... :(

[Mojo]

He vanished for a while last time he got a suspension.

[yrreg]

Is it possible to prove the existence of God maker of everything?


There are several questions which must be settled first in order an answer in the affirmative can be made to that question.


First of course is, what is it to prove the existence of something?


Next what is certainty for humans?



Other questions will come up as we go about with the topic of this thread in the quest for an answer to the inquiry on the possibility of proving the existence of God maker of everything.


Any ideas from you guys, atheists here, on what is it to prove the existence of something?

And any ideas from you guys, atheists here, on what is certainty for humans?




Yrreg

[yrreg]

But before everything we must agree on some assumptions otherwise the exchange of ideas among us humans would be impossible or an exercise in futility.


The first assumption is that we exist as humans.

The second assumption is that we have reason and it is a dependable faculty for thinking and arriving at certainty.

The third assumption is that the only certainty we can have is what I call human certainty.



What do you guys here, atheists, say about the three assumptions?




Yrreg

[joobz]

Any ideas from you guys, atheists here, on what is it to prove the existence of something?

Photographic evidence helps but isn't great.
Video evidence is better, but is still fakable.
A body would be best.

[Foster Zygote]

Gerry, will you just come to the point already and provide some evidence of the existence of this god of yours other than the arguments from incredulity and ignorance that you have presented?

[Foster Zygote]

Photographic evidence helps but isn't great.
Video evidence is better, but is still fakable.
A body would be best.

"God is dead and we have the body to prove it."

[RoboTimbo]

But before everything we must agree on some assumptions otherwise the exchange of ideas among us humans would be impossible or an exercise in futility.

Yrreg

You will have to specify ALL of the attributes of your god(s) before anything else or this thread will become another exercise in futility.

[Mojo]

The third assumption is that the only certainty we can have is what I call human certainty.


Please define "human certainty".

[godless dave]

I like to ask atheists here:


1. Is it possible to prove to an atheist that God maker of everything exists?


2. And is it possible for himself to prove to himself that God maker of everything exists?



1. Yes.

2. Meaningless question.

[yrreg]

I am asking you guys to agree on the assumptions I present before you, because unless we adhere to the assumptions human discourse of any worth is impossible.


But as usual you guys keep avoiding what is crucially necessary to have any constructive and thus productive discourse on the issue at hand.




Why are you always afraid?

That is why I always believe that the only productive study of atheists is their psychology of being angry at God because they are afraid of God whereas there is no need to fear God whatever if you guys will just face God and live with God.


Okay, tell me if you are not accepting any of these three assumptions, and why?




The first assumption is that we exist as humans.

The second assumption is that we have reason and it is a dependable faculty for thinking and arriving at certainty.

The third assumption is that the only certainty we can have is what I call human certainty.




Let me see if someone among you have the courage to either accept these the assumptions or to point out which assumption(s) you cannot accept and why.





Yrreg

[Fiona]

You will have to specify ALL of the attributes of your god(s) before anything else or and this thread will become another exercise in futility.

Fixed that for you :)

[EventHorizon]

I am asking you guys to agree on the assumptions I present before you, because unless we adhere to the assumptions human discourse of any worth is impossible.


But as usual you guys keep avoiding what is crucially necessary to have any constructive and thus productive discourse on the issue at hand.




Why are you always afraid?

That is why I always believe that the only productive study of atheists is their psychology of being angry at God because they are afraid of God whereas there is no need to fear God whatever if you guys will just face God and live with God.


Okay, tell me if you are not accepting any of these three assumptions, and why?




The first assumption is that we exist as humans.

The second assumption is that we have reason and it is a dependable faculty for thinking and arriving at certainty.

The third assumption is that the only certainty we can have is what I call human certainty.




Let me see if someone among you have the courage to either accept these the assumptions or to point out which assumption(s) you cannot accept and why.





Yrreg

OK, I'll bite. I cannot accept assumption three until you define 'human certainty' and explain how it is different from just plain old certainty.

[RoboTimbo]

I am asking you guys to agree on the assumptions I present before you, because unless we adhere to the assumptions human discourse of any worth is impossible.

Yrreg

Nope. The first thing you have to do is define your god(s), including ALL of their attributes.

Fixed that for you :)
Thanks! :)

[stijndeloose]

1. Theoretically, yes
2. Я не понимаю ваш инглиш, сэр!

S.

[kerikiwi]

Why are you always afraid?

That is why I always believe that the only productive study of atheists is their psychology of being angry at God because they are afraid of God whereas there is no need to fear God whatever if you guys will just face God and live with God.



I will agree that I am angry at each and every god, that I am afraid of each and every god, that there is no need to fear each and every god if I will just face each and every god and live with each and every god....
if you,Gerry, will agree to all the same things about the flying spaghetti monster.

[Hokulele]

The first assumption is that we exist as humans.

The second assumption is that we have reason and it is a dependable faculty for thinking and arriving at certainty.

The third assumption is that the only certainty we can have is what I call human certainty.


The problem with your second and third assumptions is that being certain does not mean that you are right.

People used to be certain that the sun orbited the earth.

They were certainly wrong.

[MIKILLINI]

But before everything we must agree on some assumptions otherwise the exchange of ideas among us humans would be impossible or an exercise in futility.


The first assumption is that we exist as humans.

Yes, we are classified as humans.

The second assumption is that we have reason and it is a dependable faculty for thinking and arriving at certainty.


Yes, we can reason with thought and develop subjective conclusions.

The third assumption is that the only certainty we can have is what I call human certainty.

You will have to clarify this one Gerry. What is meant by "human certainty"?

[yrreg]

The first assumption is that we exist as humans.

The second assumption is that we have reason and it is a dependable faculty for thinking and arriving at certainty.

The third assumption is that the only certainty we can have is what I call human certainty.




OK, I'll bite. I cannot accept assumption three until you define 'human certainty' and explain how it is different from just plain old certainty.


How can I begin to explain to you human certainty, except to ask you if you know what is man?


I have come across people who demand absolute certainty, but even the most accomplished philosophers and scientists if I am not mistaken admit that there is no such thing as absolute certainty for mankind.

On that above statement that absolute certainty is not available for mankind, I have come to the idea that we should we humans should just settle for human certainty.

What is human certainty? It is the certainty that humans can arrive at using their reason sincerely in order to decide questions which for humans are important to live together peaceably and productively together.

I like for you to give me some samples of human certainty as I have just describe human certainty.


My own examples of human certainty is the certainty arrived at by people who have to make a finding of guilty or not guilty in a court of law, or who has the right and who not in a court of law.

Another example of human certainty is the idea that mothers love their children.



I will appreciate very much if you can from my ideas here on human certainty see what I am driving at and also contribute to my concept of human certainty.





Yrreg

[godless dave]

Many mothers do not, in fact, love their children. That shows the limits of your kind of certainty right there.

How about we use reasonable certainty instead?

[Foster Zygote]

I am asking you guys to agree on the assumptions I present before you, because unless we adhere to the assumptions human discourse of any worth is impossible.
You are asking us to agree with your baseless assertions derived without evidence.

But as usual you guys keep avoiding what is crucially necessary to have any constructive and thus productive discourse on the issue at hand.
This is laughable. In your latest thread you avoided responding to posts that exposed the weakness of your argument and then in obvious frustration you resorted to accusing atheists of being afraid of god and needing psychiatric help.

Why are you always afraid?
I don't know, Gerry. Why are you afraid of Buddhism?

That is why I always believe that the only productive study of atheists is their psychology of being angry at God because they are afraid of God whereas there is no need to fear God whatever if you guys will just face God and live with God.
And here we go again. Is the above "productive study of atheists" what led you to suggest that atheists have no sense of beauty and love and should therefor commit suicide? This sort of insult is a transparent display of your frustration at your inability to construct a cogent argument.

Let me see if someone among you have the courage to either accept these the assumptions or to point out which assumption(s) you cannot accept and why.
What you seem to be saying is "Let me see if anyone among you will stop pointing out the errors in my arguments and just agree with me because otherwise I will call you a coward".

Gerry, do you have the courage to provide us with a rational reason to assume that the universe had a beginning? Can you show real physical evidence that the universe is ordered by an intelligence? You can treat each as a separate question but please answer each in no more than ten words. As you are so clever and statements with less than eleven words are the hallmark of a solid argument this should be no problem for you.

[RoboTimbo]

I will appreciate very much if you can from my ideas here on human certainty see what I am driving at and also contribute to my concept of human certainty.

Yrreg

Pastafarians are certain that The FLying Spaghetti Monster exists.
Children of age 7 are certain that Santa exists.
Theists are certain that god(s) exist.

That kind of thing?

[Shalamar]

Is 'human certainty' the type of certainty that one has without any sort of evidence to support ones claim?

[yrreg]

Many mothers do not, in fact, love their children. That shows the limits of your kind of certainty right there.

How about we use reasonable certainty instead?


I think that is a suggestion that should be acceptable.


May I just say that I use the word human in order that the word certainty will be under a big enough umbrella as to include all and every certainty that mankind live with and under and no man will challenge except that he must live by himself alone in the jungle or in the forest or in the desert, or better put himself in a dungeon away from all human presence.


You know, I can see better and better in the course of writing in web forums why people are afraid of the truths in everything, of course understanding by truths, the truths men live by and live together peaceably and productively, even though mankind can never achieve absolute truths.

Why can mankind never achieve absolute certainty and absolute truth? Because man is a limited being, only God is unlimited in contrast to man being limited.

Can God create a being just like Himself? He can but He is not silly, because two Gods are not better than one, that is also a human certainty for myself and a human truth for myself.

Dear Godless Dave, why do you have to adopt that name, godless dave? Is it any really useful way for you to arrive at human certainty in everything that counts for anything that is good and noble and uplifting to mankind starting with yourself?


That is why I always believe and get more an more certain, humanly certain that is, that the only for the present productive in terms of human knowledge of human behavior in the study of atheists, mind you I say atheists not atheism, is the psychology of atheists as atheists, in particular their anger at God.





Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

I have come across people who demand absolute certainty, but even the most accomplished philosophers and scientists if I am not mistaken admit that there is no such thing as absolute certainty for mankind.
Nice strawman, but we are not demanding absolute certainty from your claims. We are asking that you provide even a loose framework of an argument to support your assertions that the universe had a creator and that it was intelligently designed.

On that above statement that absolute certainty is not available for mankind, I have come to the idea that we should we humans should just settle for human certainty.
That sounds an awful lot like you're just going to hammer your god into the gaps in our knowledge. "We don't know what's on top of that mountain so that's where God lives."

What is human certainty? It is the certainty that humans can arrive at using their reason sincerely...
This makes sense, but let's call it reasonable certainty then.

...in order to decide questions which for humans are important to live together peaceably and productively together.
This makes no sense.

I like for you to give me some samples of human certainty as I have just describe human certainty.
I am not a brain in a vat dreaming the universe.

The North American plate is emerging from the mid-Atlantic ridge.

The last living T. rex walked about 65 million years ago.

I will appreciate very much if you can from my ideas here on human certainty see what I am driving at and also contribute to my concept of human certainty.
I see what you are driving at, but there is a problem. Take my last example above: we know that T. rex has been extinct for some 65 million years because of a great deal of physical evidence that has allowed paleontologists to formulate testable hypotheses regarding their history. Your assertion that the universe was designed and created by an intelligence does not lend itself to the formation of a testable hypothesis. Indeed, as I have already pointed out, you have yet to provide evidence that the universe had a beginning or was intelligently designed.

[Hokulele]

Yrreg, there is a vast difference between certainty and truth, rather like there is a vast difference between belief and knowledge.

You might want to sample from column B, one of these days.

[kerikiwi]

Can God create a being just like Himself? He can but He is not silly, because two Gods are not better than one, that is also a human certainty for myself and a human truth for myself



Clearly god is silly because I am certain two gods are better than one.
Why is your certainty better than my certainty?

[Hokulele]

Clearly god is silly because I am certain two gods are better than one.
Why is your certainty better than my certainty?


And Shinto are certain that kami as numerous as objects in the univese are better than one god.

Hey, this game is kinda fun!

[Shalamar]

I think that is a suggestion that should be acceptable.


May I just say that I use the word human in order that the word certainty will be under a big enough umbrella as to include all and every certainty that mankind live with and under and no man will challenge except that he must live by himself alone in the jungle or in the forest or in the desert, or better put himself in a dungeon away from all human presence.

What? I have no clue what this means. Unless you are still railing that 'I do not know' is an invalid answer.


You know, I can see better and better in the course of writing in web forums why people are afraid of the truths in everything, of course understanding by truths, the truths men live by and live together peaceably and productively, even though mankind can never achieve absolute truths.

People are not afraid of truths. But they get annoyed at others who try to force their person truths upon others. Your truth involves God. Someone elses truth is Allah. A third might even be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. A Child truths is Santa Claus. Each of these truths is just as well valid as the others, even if each claims that only they have the real truth,. and all other are lies and falsehoods.


Why can mankind never achieve absolute certainty and absolute truth? Because man is a limited being, only God is unlimited in contrast to man being limited.

And what is absolute certainty and truth? God has nothing to do with these, but rather in how we perceive the world around us. While I am certain that the sun will rise one again tomorrow, I could be wrong.


Can God create a being just like Himself? He can but He is not silly, because two Gods are not better than one, that is also a human certainty for myself and a human truth for myself.

What? Well, whatever. Just accept that your certainty and truth are not mine, or others certainty or truths.

Dear Godless Dave, why do you have to adopt that name, godless dave? Is it any really useful way for you to arrive at human certainty in everything that counts for anything that is good and noble and uplifting to mankind starting with yourself?

"A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet." It is a name. Are you offended by his name? Others may find it inspiring, showing that people can be good, and noble, and uplifting without needing god to prop them up.


That is why I always believe and get more an more certain, humanly certain that is, that the only for the present productive in terms of human knowledge of human behavior in the study of atheists, mind you I say atheists not atheism, is the psychology of atheists as atheists, in particular their anger at God.

Once again, please understand, Atheists are NOT angry at god. They simply do not believe that god exists at all. Are you angry at Allah? Thor? Zeus? It is the same rationale.

Atheists do not believe your god exists. And in fact, think you are silly to be clinging to such a false belief. Once you understand that, then perhaps you might be able to have a rational discussion with an atheist.

[godless dave]

Dear Godless Dave, why do you have to adopt that name, godless dave?

I didn't have to adopt it, I chose to. My name is Dave and I'm godless.

Is it any really useful way for you to arrive at human certainty in everything that counts for anything that is good and noble and uplifting to mankind starting with yourself?

Choosing a forum name isn't usually done to arrive at certainty. I do, however, think godlessness is good, noble, and uplifting to humankind.

[slingblade]

Yrreg, why are you angry at Odin?

[RoboTimbo]

Pastafarians are certain that The FLying Spaghetti Monster exists.
Children of age 7 are certain that Santa exists.
Theists are certain that god(s) exist.

That kind of thing?

I should also point out that some theists incorrectly use the word "know" when they really mean "believe".

So, yrreG, can we use these three examples of being certain of things? Then we can get on to your complete definition of your god(s) including all attributes.

[kerikiwi]

Then we can get on to your complete definition of your god(s) including all attributes.

Actually, just one or two attributes would be a giant leap...

[yrreg]

So far I have had two posters here who appeared at the start of my renewed presence here to be constructive and thus productive.


But I am losing them, I am sorry to notice.



So, if you two are still around, please resume our exchange of thoughts on the need to take for granted as a working platform for our discussion the three assumptions I put forth for your concurrence, so that we can the three of us continue forward to the discussion ultimately of the possibility of proving the existence of God.


Here again are the there assumptions:

The first assumption is that we exist as humans.

The second assumption is that we have reason and it is a dependable faculty for thinking and arriving at certainty.

The third assumption is that the only certainty we can have is what I call human certainty.




Those of you who have something to say about the three assumptions, to accept them in toto or to reject and why, please do so, and say it right away at the start of your messages.



I will be back later in the late afternoon.





Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

Dear Godless Dave, why do you have to adopt that name, godless dave? Is it any really useful way for you to arrive at human certainty in everything that counts for anything that is good and noble and uplifting to mankind starting with yourself?
Were you being good and noble and uplifting to mankind when you suggested that atheists should commit suicide?

[Shalamar]

So far I have had two posters here who appeared at the start of my renewed presence here to be constructive and thus productive.


But I am losing them, I am sorry to notice.



So, if you two are still around, please resume our exchange of thoughts on the need to take for granted as a working platform for our discussion the three assumptions I put forth for your concurrence, so that we can the three of us continue forward to the discussion ultimately of the possibility of proving the existence of God.


Here again are the there assumptions:

The first assumption is that we exist as humans.

The second assumption is that we have reason and it is a dependable faculty for thinking and arriving at certainty.

The third assumption is that the only certainty we can have is what I call human certainty.




Those of you who have something to say about the three assumptions, to accept them in toto or to reject and why, please do so, and say it right away at the start of your messages.



I will be back later in the late afternoon.





Yrreg

The titular bandage frocks the purple canary to which it blogs with inhuman certainty.

[Hokulele]

Those of you who have something to say about the three assumptions, to accept them in toto or to reject and why, please do so, and say it right away at the start of your messages.


Here is what I have to say about your assumptions:

The problem with your second and third assumptions is that being certain does not mean that you are right.

People used to be certain that the sun orbited the earth.

They were certainly wrong.

[Fiona]

Ok I will play

The first assumption is that we exist as humans.

Since I do not believe in reincarnation I can accept that.

The second assumption is that we have reason

As it happens I do accept that we have reason. But I am not being difficult when I say that I have no grounds at all to suppose that you mean the same thing by that word as I mean. So before I can accept your assumption you need to define reason. Once you have done that I will tell you whether I can adopt this part of your assumption

and it is a dependable faculty for thinking and arriving at certainty.

No I don't think I can accept that. Reason is one of several abilities we have. It is extremely useful for certain kinds of task but the achievement of certainty is not one of them. I tend to think that instinct is much better for arriving at certainty. We act on instinct very quickly and if we do not do so on the basis of certainty it will do till certainty comes along. I must also disagree that reason is dependable. I have often seen people who genuinely believe they are acting on the basis of their reason when it is clear to all and sundry that they are doing no such thing. In fact I have seen this quite recently and not a million miles away from this thread.

The third assumption is that the only certainty we can have is what I call human certainty.

I do not think this is a good way to phrase what you say you mean; I prefer

"The third assumption is that we are subject to error even when we are certain: and it is helpful to remember that in all except the most extreme circumstances"

[I Ratant]

...

I will be back later in the late afternoon.

Yrreg
.
No, you can hold off.
Say, to 2012.

[Robert Oz]

That is why I always believe that the only productive study of atheists is their psychology of being angry at God because they are afraid of God


Please explain why you are angry at Ganesh, because the only productive study of Christians is their psychology of being angry at Ganesh, because they are afraid of Ganesh.


whereas there is no need to fear God whatever if you guys will just face God and live with God.


So, all that talk in the Bible about facing the wrath of God if you follow other gods isn't true? Does a Muslim or Jew have anything to fear from God? What about a Hindu or a Sikh? What about all those Egyptians who believed in gods? God didn't seem too happy about that.

What if you are the one that has chosen poorly? What if the Jews are right and Jesus was a false prophet? What if the Muslims are right and Jesus was not the son of man and Mohammed was God's last and greatest prophet? What will you say to Allah when you face him in the afterlife?


Okay, tell me if you are not accepting any of these three assumptions, and why?




The first assumption is that we exist as humans.

The second assumption is that we have reason and it is a dependable faculty for thinking and arriving at certainty.

The third assumption is that the only certainty we can have is what I call human certainty.




Let me see if someone among you have the courage to either accept these the assumptions or to point out which assumption(s) you cannot accept and why.


First assumption: Yes, I accept that we indeed exist as humans.

Second assumption: Reason without evidence is dependable to arrive at certainty about very simple things. For example, we can know that all squares have four sides, because squares have four sides by definition. This is known as a priori knowledge. However, reason alone (i.e. without supporting evidence) is not enough to arrive at certainty about most things including the existence of gods. If you have come to such a conclusion in the absence of supporting evidence, please provide the reason and logic here and we can discuss it.

Third assumption: I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. It sounds like gibberish. But I suppose it follows:

P1: We are human.
P2: We have certainty about a very few things.
C: The certainty is human certainty.

However, see my response to your second assumption in regards to arriving at certainty.

[Robin]

Why are you always afraid?
I am not. Why are you always afraid?
That is why I always believe that the only productive study of atheists is their psychology of being angry at God because they are afraid of God whereas there is no need to fear God whatever if you guys will just face God and live with God.
Here is an example of your fear. Why are you afraid to admit that Atheists just don't believe in God?

Why are you always desparately inventing fanciful motivations like this?
Okay, tell me if you are not accepting any of these three assumptions, and why?




The first assumption is that we exist as humans.

The second assumption is that we have reason and it is a dependable faculty for thinking and arriving at certainty.

The third assumption is that the only certainty we can have is what I call human certainty.


I am happy to accept these assumptions.

[Robin]

But we need to fix that definition of God - "Maker of everything" is meaningless.

I would not accept any definition that did not stipulate a purposeful intelligence.

yrreg, do you continue to deny that purposeful intelligence is a necessary criterion to define God?

If so then you are still an atheist in denial.

[Robert Oz]

But we need to fix that definition of God - "Maker of everything" is meaningless.

I would not accept any definition that did not stipulate a purposeful intelligence.

yrreg, do you continue to deny that purposeful intelligence is a necessary criterion to define God?

If so then you are still an atheist in denial.


I've been trying to get yrreg to acknowledge this on multiple threads for weeks now.

I would even suggest that 'intelligence' isn't enough for yrreg's definition of God.

'Maker of everything' would allow for the dead, unconscious universe to be God, which yrreg would reject.

'Intelligent maker of everything' would allow for an alien or time-traveller to be God, which yrreg would also reject.

yrreg's definition must, therefore, be 'supernatural, intelligent maker of everything'.

[Singularitarian]

Is it possible to prove the existence of God maker of everything?


There are several questions which must be settled first in order an answer in the affirmative can be made to that question.


First of course is, what is it to prove the existence of something?


Next what is certainty for humans?



Other questions will come up as we go about with the topic of this thread in the quest for an answer to the inquiry on the possibility of proving the existence of God maker of everything.


Any ideas from you guys, atheists here, on what is it to prove the existence of something?

And any ideas from you guys, atheists here, on what is certainty for humans?




Yrreg


It is possible to know the mind of God?

Stephen Hawking asked exactly the same question in his legendary book, dare i repeat it for boredom. However, from my perspective, i doubt it greately.

For instance, how can we even reconcile the variables of the universe, and inexorably see past its complexities? I don't even think something as vast as the universe would even allow us to reduce it's complexities so easily, nor could we ever define the existence of a God mathematically, simply because of continuous strings of variables yet again. A God, a creator or maker of everything, would know the ultimate plan, if indeed there is one. The universe to have a proper meaning however would need to come in the form of a single equation which could possibly describe everything. The equation would be simple by contrast, and some have even hoped it being as simple as E=Mc^2.

Even if we had the ability to know everything about the past, its complimentary partner, the future, would still hold complexities, one off the top of my head would be chaos theory (something by the way i have no mathematical grasp of :) ). To know the rules of everything, you would need to know the future, whether it had an end or not. An infinite future will eventually leave the universe drained in black holes and a soft background temperature, colder than today. Ultimate knowledge would be to know the initial statistics of the beginning and how they might play in a predictable or non-predictable role in the future. If we knew this, we might at least know Gods plan in this universe.

[makaya325]

I tend to believe that citizens of our little blue planet get ahead of themselves when stating that something is for certain, without considering any of "Neighbors" opinions. :gasp:

[Elizabeth I]

I am asking you guys to agree on the assumptions I present before you, because unless we adhere to the assumptions human discourse of any worth is impossible.

So you say. I say otherwise. Since all we have to back us up is what we say, why should you be right and I wrong?

But as usual you guys keep avoiding what is crucially necessary to have any constructive and thus productive discourse on the issue at hand.

So you say. I say otherwise. Since all we have to back us up is what we say, why should you be right and I wrong?

Why are you always afraid?

I'm not. The only thing I'm afraid of is vampires. They are relatively rare. And I like garlic.

That is why I always believe that the only productive study of atheists is their psychology of being angry at God because they are afraid of God whereas there is no need to fear God whatever if you guys will just face God and live with God.

That is why I always believe that the only productive study of Christians is their psychology of being angry at Astarte, because they are afraid of Astarte, whereas there is no need to fear Astarte, whatever if you guys will just face Astarte and live with Astarte.

Okay, tell me if you are not accepting any of these three assumptions, and why?

Because if you just start off with assumptions and no evidence, all you can do is chop logic.

So far I have had two posters here who appeared at the start of my renewed presence here to be constructive and thus productive.

But I am losing them, I am sorry to notice.

If you ask yourself why that is, you might arrive at some truly useful knowledge.

[godless dave]

We cannot arrive at certainty using reason by itself. Reason needs data to work with.

[Robin]

I've been trying to get yrreg to acknowledge this on multiple threads for weeks now.

I would even suggest that 'intelligence' isn't enough for yrreg's definition of God.

'Maker of everything' would allow for the dead, unconscious universe to be God, which yrreg would reject.

'Intelligent maker of everything' would allow for an alien or time-traveller to be God, which yrreg would also reject.

yrreg's definition must, therefore, be 'supernatural, intelligent maker of everything'.
Probably not enough for his personal idea of what God is, and probably too much for the proof he has in mind, I would say.

I have always preferred "a purposeful, creative intelligence that encompasses, and is fundamental to, all existence".

[Robin]

What is God for myself?

God is the maker of everything and the author of order and intelligence in the whole universe of existence, this whole universe of existence includes the physical universe.
From your other thread.

In essence here you are claiming that God existed before there was any order whatsoever? Yes?

And that God existed before there was any intelligence? Yes?

[MIKILLINI]

May I just say that I use the word human in order that the word certainty will be under a big enough umbrella as to include all and every certainty that mankind live with and under and no man will challenge except that he must live by himself alone in the jungle or in the forest or in the desert, or better put himself in a dungeon away from all human presence.

You should proof read your stuff Gerry. Sometimes you really go wandering to who knows where when you write.

You know, I can see better and better in the course of writing in web forums why people are afraid of the truths in everything, of course understanding by truths, the truths men live by and live together peaceably and productively, even though mankind can never achieve absolute truths.


Once again it's obvious where you go with this;

Why can mankind never achieve absolute certainty and absolute truth? Because man is a limited being, only God is unlimited in contrast to man being limited.

Provided that there is proof of God. Do you have any of that Gerry?

Can God create a being just like Himself? He can but He is not silly, because two Gods are not better than one, that is also a human certainty for myself and a human truth for myself.


The only certainty in that comment is your belief in God.


That is why I always believe and get more an more certain, humanly certain that is, that the only for the present productive in terms of human knowledge of human behavior in the study of atheists, mind you I say atheists not atheism, is the psychology of atheists as atheists, in particular their anger at God.

Again, proof read your stuff Gerry and answer what it is that makes you believe Atheists are mad at God.

[Mojo]

May I just say that I use the word human in order that the word certainty will be under a big enough umbrella as to include all and every certainty that mankind live with and under and no man will challenge except that he must live by himself alone in the jungle or in the forest or in the desert, or better put himself in a dungeon away from all human presence.


How would you differentiate between, for example, the certainty some people have that there is no god but Allah, and Jesus was one of his prophets, and the certainty that others have that Jesus was the son of God? Both of these are certainties that people live under. Since these "certainties" are contradictory, at least one of them must be wrong.

If "certainties" can be wrong, what value do they have?

[Aitch]

Why are you always afraid?

When I was a believer, I was afraid of the dark.
As I moved to atheist, that fear faded away*.
Go, as they say, figure.

* with the possible exception of walking through parts of Staines late at night. ;)

[Femke]

1. Theoretically, yes
2. Я не понимаю ваш инглиш, сэр!

S.


And I don't understand that Russian. :) But I think you are right. Yrregs English is quite his own.

[yrreg]

Posted by Yrreg

The first assumption is that we exist as humans.

The second assumption is that we have reason and it is a dependable faculty for thinking and arriving at certainty.

The third assumption is that the only certainty we can have is what I call human certainty.




I have not seen EventHorizon coming back to this thread; that is the sorrow I always encounter in this JREF forum, that when I have come to someone willing to discuss seriously, constructively, and thus productively, he will disappear, and I get the impression that he is afraid to continue the discussion with me, afraid to have a really serious, constructive, and thus productive discussion.

I could be mistaken, maybe he has come already but I did not see him here, or he just has not come back -- yet.

In which case my apologies, but I have not read up to except to the post below from godless dave.

So, addressing EventHorizon, I hope to meet you again here and with your sincere desire to truly have a serious, constructive, and thus productive discussion or exchange of thoughts with me.

For the guidance of folks who come late, here is the post from EventHorizon and my reply to him:




[My earlier post]

OK, I'll bite. I cannot accept assumption three until you define 'human certainty' and explain how it is different from just plain old certainty.

[My post in reply]

See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4966919&postcount=206




Now addressing those of you who have replied in regard to my three assumptions, thank you so much, and I am sure that readers are thinking over your replies.

My wording of the three assumptions is simple enough, there is really no need to nitpick over the meanings of words there.



I will now attend to godless dave.

We cannot arrive at certainty using reason by itself. Reason needs data to work with.


You are the one who suggest that what I call human certainty should instead be called reasonable certainty.

Are you now having second thoughts about calling reasonable certainty what I call human certainty.

See: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4966996#post4966996


Anyway, I like to ask you, godless dave, is absolute certainty possible with man?

And please for the sake of being serious and sincere in this exchange between you and me, please don't now react with the question whether by man I exclude women, etc., etc. etc. etc.

Why do atheists to my recurring and regrettable impression always want to make things so unnecessarily wasteful of time and resources by bringing in things and questions which are just dilly-dallying the issue, muddling up the issue?




Okay, godless dave, please just tell me if you agree with me that absolute certainty is not possible with humans.



In the meantime, yes, I must reply to your present question:

We cannot arrive at certainty using reason by itself. Reason needs data to work with.


As I said in the present post earlier that you are the one who told me that reasonable certainty could be a better term instead of human certainty.

Now you are abandoning your previous position.


You now tell me that reason needs data to work on.

That is all perfectly acceptable to me.


There, we have an agreement that reason needs data to work on.


As we proceed further we will come to the need to classify data, but until then please don't now clutter the discussion with all kinds of obstructing issues about data, okay?


Did you get my previous reply to you about my preference for my term human certainty in place of your suggestion of reasonable certainty? See here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4966996#post4966996).


I will just add now that the term reasonable certainty will provoke some naughty minds who have nothing else to employ their faculty of reasoning but to abuse it in order to infect everything that people consider to be certain with doubts, and that by all kinds of what I call the abuse of reason.

But in their abuse of reason they wilfully do not want to see that they themselves by their abuse of reason render reason inutile -- so it's like slaying the goose that lays the golden eggs.


Now, I would still suggest that human certainty is a good and useful term in place of reasonable certainty, and it is within the big umbrella of human certainty where we can distinguish different kinds and degrees of human certainty, like physical certainty, artistic certainty, statistical certainty, psychological certainty, etc.





Yrreg

[RoboTimbo]

Now, I would still suggest that human certainty is a good and useful term in place of reasonable certainty, and it is within the big umbrella of human certainty where we can distinguish different kinds and degrees of human certainty, like physical certainty, artistic certainty, statistical certainty, psychological certainty, etc.

Yrreg

You forgot faith based religious certainty.

Theists are certain that god(s) exist.

[Foster Zygote]

Why do atheists to my recurring and regrettable impression always want to make things so unnecessarily wasteful of time and resources by bringing in things and questions which are just dilly-dallying the issue, muddling up the issue?
Yes, how frivolous of us to ask for evidence to back up your claims. I mean if someone says "I have a dragon in my garage" it would be evading the issue to ask him to open his garage door.

As we proceed further we will come to the need to classify data, but until then please don't now clutter the discussion with all kinds of obstructing issues about data, okay?
You've been telling us that you will get to the data for months now.

[Ryokan]

Having observed Yrreg's actions over a series of threads, I think the essential problem is that he is rooted in a theist behaviour pattern to such an extent that he is incapable of dialectic reasoning. All his threads are thus attempts to emulate this reasoning, which he considers a tool to convince us, but inevitably fail, because he can't grasp the way the system works.

Well, according to himself, he used to be an atheist.

Anyway, I am an academic atheist or nontheist or secularist or infidel myself.

http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?p=1961716#post1961716

Or at least, an 'ultra liberal Christian', 'practically an atheist'.

Yours truly was brought up a Catholic from the cradle to college. But I am now a postgraduate Catholic, meaning more in a cultural sense, actually an ultra liberal Christian, and practically an academic atheist or secularist or infidel or an ecumenist, that can live with all kinds of peoples with a religion or without a religion, provided they are not violent in their religious enthusiasm or ir-religious fervor or when engaged in anti-theist objections or recriminations.

http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?p=1961716#post1961716

What happened, Yrreg? When did you rediscover your faith?

[Ryokan]

And Shinto are certain that kami as numerous as objects in the univese are better than one god.

Hey, this game is kinda fun!

And Buddhists are certain about nothing.

Hey, I understand why Yrreg hates them now! :D

For Yrreg: This post was made in jest.

[Ryokan]

Once again, please understand, Atheists are NOT angry at god. They simply do not believe that god exists at all. Are you angry at Allah? Thor? Zeus? It is the same rationale.

Now you just prove that atheists have no brains, because it's quite obvious only a brainless idiot would believe in those other gods.

;)

[godless dave]

I will now attend to godless dave.

You are the one who suggest that what I call human certainty should instead be called reasonable certainty.

Are you now having second thoughts about calling reasonable certainty what I call human certainty.

No.


Anyway, I like to ask you, godless dave, is absolute certainty possible with man?

No.



As I said in the present post earlier that you are the one who told me that reasonable certainty could be a better term instead of human certainty.

Now you are abandoning your previous position.

No, I'm not.


You now tell me that reason needs data to work on.

That is all perfectly acceptable to me.


There, we have an agreement that reason needs data to work on.

This in no way conflicts with my use of the term "reasonable certainty".

[yrreg]

Addressing godless dave:

I will not argue with you endlessly over which is a better phrase to call the certainty that man has in terms of his acquaintance with reality and ultimately with the whole totality of existence, which includes the physical universe or the empirical universe if you will of some scientists, whether reasonable certainty from you or human certainty from me.


The way I see it, reasonable certainty is one kind of certainty within the big umbrella of human certainty.


You will ask if there is any certainty that is human which is not reasonable certainty.


I stand to be corrected by you, but right away I will say even before I reason out very carefully my words here, namely:


Yes, there are kinds of certainty that is not reasonable but are certain for mankind to live peaceably together and productively.

I can see clearly that want to understand by reasonable certainty which I think you understand it so, namely, it is the certainty arrived at by reasoning, i.e., arguing at least within yourself by the use of your reason in its function of ratiocination.

But reason is not only for ratiocination, it is also for all kinds and manners of being certain about anything even without ratiocination.


For example, I gave earlier the fact that mothers love their children, that is certainly certain on the basis of human reason, but it is not necessary to arrive at its certainty by reasoning over it, i.e., by ratiocination or arguing at least within yourself.


Anyway if you want to insist that the only certainty you can admit is what you call reasonable certainty, and you mean the certainty arrived at by ratiocination, then I have to tell you that you don't need to reason out over so many things that you are immediately certain about, like for example when you are thirsty you are certain you are thirsty, when you have to go to the bathroom you are certain that you have to go, when you are sexually excited you know for certain that you are sexually excited.



The way I see it, you seem to be engaged in an attempt to prepare a venue or an approach in this discussion whereby you can and will keep on arguing forever: that there is no certainty on whatever you want to insist there is no certainty because you can use your reasoning capability to abuse reason interminably, as in keeping on and on and on about the absence of sufficient evidence for this or that piece of knowledge mankind has always lived by, for example, mothers love their children.

Is that your attitude? in wanting to set as the right kind of term for the certainty available to mankind to be what you want to call "reasonable certainty"?





Yrreg

[joobz]

Addressing godless dave:

I will not argue with you endlessly over which is a better phrase to call the certainty that man has in terms of his acquaintance with reality and ultimately with the whole totality of existence, which includes the physical universe or the empirical universe if you will of some scientists, whether reasonable certainty from you or human certainty from me.


The way I see it, reasonable certainty is one kind of certainty within the big umbrella of human certainty.


You will ask if there is any certainty that is human which is not reasonable certainty.


I stand to be corrected by you, but right away I will say even before I reason out very carefully my words here, namely:

Yes, there are kinds of certainty that is not reasonable but are certain for mankind to live peaceably together and productively.
I can see clearly that want to understand by reasonable certainty which I think you understand it so, namely, it is the certainty arrived at by reasoning, i.e., arguing at least within yourself by the use of your reason in its function of ratiocination.

But reason is not only for ratiocination, it is also for all kinds and manners of being certain about anything even without ratiocination.


For example, I gave earlier the fact that mothers love their children, that is certainly certain on the basis of human reason, but it is not necessary to arrive at its certainty by reasoning over it, i.e., by ratiocination or arguing at least within yourself.


Anyway if you want to insist that the only certainty you can admit is what you call reasonable certainty, and you mean the certainty arrived at by ratiocination, then I have to tell you that you don't need to reason out over so many things that you are immediately certain about, like for example when you are thirsty you are certain you are thirsty, when you have to go to the bathroom you are certain that you have to go, when you are sexually excited you know for certain that you are sexually excited.



The way I see it, you seem to be engaged in an attempt to prepare a venue or an approach in this discussion whereby you can and will keep on arguing forever: that there is no certainty on whatever you want to insist there is no certainty because you can use your reasoning capability to abuse reason interminably, as in keeping on and on and on about the absence of sufficient evidence for this or that piece of knowledge mankind has always lived by, for example, mothers love their children.

Is that your attitude? in wanting to set as the right kind of term for the certainty available to mankind to be what you want to call "reasonable certainty"?



Yrreg
The way I see it, your post is certainly rambling. Of this, I am certainly certain.

[godless dave]

Addressing godless dave:

I will not argue with you endlessly over which is a better phrase to call the certainty that man has in terms of his acquaintance with reality and ultimately with the whole totality of existence, which includes the physical universe or the empirical universe if you will of some scientists, whether reasonable certainty from you or human certainty from me.


The way I see it, reasonable certainty is one kind of certainty within the big umbrella of human certainty.

By reasonable certainty, I meant certain as much as you can be with the limitations of our senses and what evidence we can gather. I can be reasonably certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. Absolutely certain? No. But reasonably certain.



You will ask if there is any certainty that is human which is not reasonable certainty.


I stand to be corrected by you, but right away I will say even before I reason out very carefully my words here, namely:


Yes, there are kinds of certainty that is not reasonable but are certain for mankind to live peaceably together and productively.

That's not certainty at all. Certainty is about what the facts are, not about the implications of those facts.



For example, I gave earlier the fact that mothers love their children, that is certainly certain on the basis of human reason, but it is not necessary to arrive at its certainty by reasoning over it, i.e., by ratiocination or arguing at least within yourself.

This is an example of the dangers of arriving at certainty without examining all the data. All you have to do is pick up a newspaper or visit a shelter for abused children to discover that there are lots of mothers who do not love their children.

After having examined the available data, I think I can be reasonably certain that a majority of mothers love their children, but a sizeable minority do not.


Anyway if you want to insist that the only certainty you can admit is what you call reasonable certainty, and you mean the certainty arrived at by ratiocination, then I have to tell you that you don't need to reason out over so many things that you are immediately certain about, like for example when you are thirsty you are certain you are thirsty, when you have to go to the bathroom you are certain that you have to go, when you are sexually excited you know for certain that you are sexually excited.

You're misunderstanding what I meant by "reasonable". I did not mean "arrived at by reason". That's not what reasonable means in American English. I'm sorry if my usage was confusing.



The way I see it, you seem to be engaged in an attempt to prepare a venue or an approach in this discussion whereby you can and will keep on arguing forever: that there is no certainty on whatever you want to insist there is no certainty because you can use your reasoning capability to abuse reason interminably, as in keeping on and on and on about the absence of sufficient evidence for this or that piece of knowledge mankind has always lived by, for example, mothers love their children.

Is that your attitude? in wanting to set as the right kind of term for the certainty available to mankind to be what you want to call "reasonable certainty"?


No, that is not my attitude. I merely wanted to illustrate that humans are very capable of feeling certain about things that are not true at all. As another poster pointed out, many humans used to be certain that the sun revolved around the earth. They felt certain, but they were wrong.