Waahh Godfag, where's your proof?

Because some of us believe in the power of Love.

Simple, ask yourself as an atheist what evidence will be enough to make you believe in god. I am sure you will find the answer is none. The question of a belief in god has nothing to do with evidence because we insect evidence after we have already made the seperation. Today its trendy to look at evidence while pressuposing a materialst naturalist or even a physicalist reductive stance.
Meaning that you already pressupose that any evidence is evidence within a world that only includes materia.
If you can, try for a second to sympathize with the idea that a god exists and thus reality is not just matter. Now try to examine evidence with that in mind.
Suddenly something like a coincidence can be seen as a miracle, its similair but different and requires a fundamental swithc in the way you look at the world.
You swollowed the current meme son, you swollowed the current ideology of "muh materialis and science that uncovered objective absolute truth.

Wake up son, at least open your mind to the idea that physicalism and materialism might not be correct stances.

I dont know If I can ever agree with kierkegard's stances but one thing I do think and that is that when we actualy come to make a descision in our lives we sometimes do it by a guess. AS in we do not have descision reason to do one thing over another and yet we must choose none the less. This one can call faith. Faith as a result of inevitable circumctances of every day human existence.

Took a leap into Taoism. Nuts to Kierkegaard, he was much too angsty for me to think that his leap accomplished much.

Shit sorry for all the misspelling im really tired.

>I am sure you will find the answer is none.

I think most people, even fairly diehard atheists (at least the ones not big on Hume) would be convinced if God himself started actually visibly doing shit. You're making a rather absurd strawman to fight.

Not that user, but it would be pretty simple. Christians already believe that they can talk directly to God and he answers indirectly. This would only need to be extended slightly, where he responds with actual information. So, for example, any random scientist should be able to talk to God and ask about some piece of information no human currently knows about physics (leaps ahead of cutting edge) and receive a simple, correct answer that is later supported by observation. Or someone should be able to ask God to recite in full lost works, or be able to reveal hidden thoughts. Such a thing should be consistently correct.

Of course, this isn't "really" evidence of omniscience, but with enough probing we could establish that the being has some effective amount of omnicience. After which we move on to establishing effective omnipotence, etc. While this would not be evidence that the being is God, it would be evidence that it is effectively God, and if it walks talks and quacks like a duck I would be open to treating it as such.

(you)
In general kierkegard was going against these massive wholesome grand narratives like that of hegel. He wanted to bring shit back to actual human experience. He accentuated the fact that when we make descisions about our lives some of them are irreversible and yet we cannot know the outcome of the descision when we make it. i.e dropping school and going to work. Dropping colege or deciding what to study. Having a kid. Marrying. Believing in god...
We make a leap of faith in all these occasions and it is true they are usually within certain limited frameworks of action and today, religious faith is on the sidelines of what seems acceptable but this is simply because mainstream society and culture is sometimes decades behind philosophy. Fedora atheists are pressuposing old notions about truth and "bojective knowledge" which are no longer accepted by actual philosophers. Rational foundationalism, descarts attempt to find a source of objective knowledge(i think therefor i am etc) has failed, there is no way to step out of human existence to recieve "objective knowledge" this includes scientific data because just the process of recieving scientific data already includes human cultural biases and the entanglements of language.

Taking a leap of faith is stupid.
In your defense I guess there is no downside to believing in a socially acceptable religion, really.

So if you heard a voice talking to you you would be convinced god exists? Does this mean that when someone tells you god has spoken to him you start doubting your atheism? No, you suppose he is simply mad, that te voices are an illusion, a form of schizophrenia etc..
And any phenomena of the natural world that would seem unexplainable to you you would simply excuse by saying that we simply dont have al lthe data to explain it. right? it happens all the time that something that we are sure is naturala happens and yet we cant fully explain how it happened because we lack the proper data of the incident.
I dont think it is a strawman at all, think about it.

>I am sure you will find the answer is none
Oh there's plenty. A plethora of legit miracles. No crying statue bullshit, I want the nile river turned to blood, the red sea parted, tangible stuff beyond human control.

One I cooked up could settle everything. God would but have all the lights of the stars in the night sky rearranged. The lights would spell out the name of every atheist on the planet, in their native language/writing. Add some sort of Godly message at the end, maybe specify which specific religious sect is on the right path.

But no, we're left with tedious thought experiments as the only reasons to believe.

I dont know what sort of christians you speak off. There is no need to grab the first and dumbest christian arguments much like i would not try and address the most retarded atheist arguments. I will on the contrary try to address the most complex and interesting atheist positions(I am an atheist of sorts myself).
So It is very possible ot present the personal experience of a god not as an actual conversation but an internal feeling that reassures you that god exists. A unique feeling that cannot be explain in words.
You can say that all we can do is to strive to feel god and that there is no conversation going on but only one single choice, let god into your life and being or do not. Beyond that there is no conversation or QnA or wish fullfillment..
God does not intervene in your life and decisions(erhaps) but there is no point going into this because this is a very xomplex line of inquiry bout how a god reveals himself, free will and how it is substantiated etc...its beyond the scope of our actual topic of discourse.

But you only say this because you were born into a naturalist worldview where comets and tsunamis and all sortos of wonderful and extraordinary things have arleady been absorbed into the materialist world view.
You cn lways make up some shit that didnt happen or hasnt happened and say that that is what must happen but you can also go in the reverse direction and say that amazing bizzare things have ALREADY happened and you in your head have already explained them to yourself using the materialist world view.

That isn't a mis-characterization of Christianity at all. It is a very uncontroversial idea that God hears prayers. At most, you could say that "answers them indirectly" implies that some sort of answer is forthcoming (even a "no") instead of deafening silence. But that is a fairly minor point in the grand scheme of things, and there are still many things a God could choose to do to provide evidence of its existence.

Tsunamis happen when an extremely large package of water quickly moves vertically. It isn't "absorbed" into the materialist worldview, whatever that means, but examining what actually happens is much more useful and lifesaving than just throwing up your arms and deciding nature is mysterious.

The point is to give the opposite argument the benfit of the doubt and common religious views are not nessecarily correct much like a pop scientific explanation of general relativity is not really correct but a simplified abstraction.

THink about theoogians and philosophers of religion and deal with their arguments, not with the 80 year old grandma who has never thought about religion beyond hat her priest told her.

The idea of God is merely the extrapolation of human thoughts onto the natural world. Far from patrician, it's the most prehistoric, unsophisticated, "plebiest" thing you can do, like imagining the sun is a big bird or that the mountains are a large beast. It tricked you into thinking that a "leap of faith" is a commendable and brave thing.

This.

Pope's have claimed they have spoken to God or that he has at least made himself known to him. Define exactly what religious idea I am supposed to be giving the benefit of the doubt here, as apparently actually examining any of the common ones is cheating.

Are you talking about deism, for example?

I dont know if you are the same perosn but you have just showcased what i meant. Your words examplify an absorbption of all phenomena into the naturalist materialist world view.
Your words about effeciency and material explanations is exactly that, a POV that pressuposes the naturalist position.
Yes you might see a tsunami as water displaced by tactonic plate movements but what such obervations are good for is for prediting future events based on previous events. The goal is to solve problems and make reliable predictions.
This however can be simply a paralle view to the view of an event from a religious perspective.
What i am saying is that a tsunami can be both water displaced by the movement of a tactonic plate and some sort of non material phenomena. Dont immidately rush to reduce the one into the other, they can be parallel.
Imagine yourself standing in front of a mirror looking at your face as you contrort it.
On the one hand there are the sensual observations you are having of your face controting from the outside, or like how you examine your brain through an MRI machine but on the other hand you have your personal internal expeprience of your face controting, the way you experience it from the inside as yourself. And of course an emotion you feel as you feel it can be PARALLEL to an MRI scan showing parts of your brain flaring up. The one does not need to be a causal reason for the other but both can be different expressions of the same thing.

Amen.

Which ever you think challanges your arguments the most. I am not protecting a position or apologising for some dogma I am merely having a conversation with you.

You sound delusional.

Also, holy shit, learn how to spell, you mongoloid.

>some sort of non material phenomena
Specify exactly what sort of non material phenomena it is, and what that means, and what a tsunami lacking said non material phenomena would look/act like.

>but both can be different expressions of the same thing.
The MRI and sensations are both a product of electrochemical activity, yes. Where does the non-material fit in?

>both can be different expressions of the same thing.

Meaning parallel expressions of reality through different means.

But the point is to take a leap into thinking that life is good.

Why would believing that life is good require a deity?

I'm going to take a leap of faith here and say: Samefag

Okay, then converse with me. What conception of religion poses the greatest challenge to a "materialist" understanding?

Cancer, rape, murder, depression, genocide, tsetse flies, the entire biosphere of sentient animals being run through the meat grinder day in and day out for millions if years. I didn't say YOUR life, user, I said life.

Nope.

Every single one of those would continue to exist even if a deity does.

not him but i understand what hes getting at

Ah, sorry, I was referring to the Abrahamic gods. Either way, what kind of asshole would create all that.

How do you reduce your internal experience into pshysiological brain functions?
In what way do they connect? Yes, you can see your brain un an MRI machine and you see stuff flaring up and you feel emotions but in what way are actually connected?
Your hand touching a ball and making it move creates a causal chain you will have no problem explaining but what exaclty is being touched or how and what is being effected by them? What is the exact connection between your internal experience of reality and those neurons firing? How are the two connected beyond the fact that chaning one changes the other? You might not be able to reduce the properties of your consious experiencs to neural activity.
At least at this point we have no conception of how this can be done.

We created all that.

So what if I have a materialist worldview as you describe? That doesn't mean I wouldn't be open to new evidence.

The broader picture for me is simply explained better under secular observation. And the leap of faith is believing a bunch of miraculous things occurred in a era without any serious method, or inclination, of evaluating them. Without any sort of parallel historical sources mentioning them. And suddenly these titanic miracles stopped happening...

The passion of a bunch of illiterate middle eastern fanatics just doesn't convince me, user.

Na, it wasn't our idea.

>How do you reduce your internal experience into pshysiological brain functions?
By studying them. You can modify internal brain functions by holding a giant magnet above your head. It's electricity.
>but in what way are actually connected?
Self-reinforcing network of activation and re-activation.
>How are the two connected beyond the fact that chaning one changes the other?
You just explained it. One changes the other.
>You might not be able to reduce the properties of your consious experiencs to neural activity.
Not to a single one, no, but a network. Until something is shown to be impossible to explain using only neurology, I have no reason to believe otherwise, unless presented with some sort of preliminary evidence.

I dont know honestly, I have not given it the appropriate thought or attention but I sure as hell cant be a stounch materialist completely denying all other venues and possibilites.
ATM there ae philosophical condierations of a position of seperate ontologies of diferent levels of reality.
Meaning that physical realities, the rules governeing sub atomic and atomic particles are different to chemicl realities.
That properties of chemistry are not reducible to properties of atoms and propetries of biology are not reducible to chimistry and properties of mental experiences or the psych cannot be reduced to biology and the properties of culture cannot be reduced ot psychology..
Is it a wonder why we have seperate branches of inquiry for all of them?
Perhaps somewhere there a ew reinvigorated view of religion can fit. Another paralel stratum with its own understandings, after all religious concepts have been with us from the very beginning. Perhaps reducing them ot psychological properties was an overzealous act(i.e that since an argument can be made for an evolutionary benefit for a psyche that personifies natural events this means that concepts of god and reports of experiences of the divine can be resudec to these evolutionary and pychologic properties.

All those things are the product of humans putting themselves in the place of God and that is exactly what happened in Eden. Unlike Eve, Adam was not deceived by the Serpent but he chose to put his desire for woman above his duty to God.

>That properties of chemistry are not reducible to properties of atoms and propetries of biology are not reducible to chimistry and properties of mental experiences or the psych cannot be reduced to biology and the properties of culture cannot be reduced ot psychology.
You cannot reduce them to the properties of their parent "level" because they are emergent. You cannot reduce the properties of a house to a pile of wood and a few strip of metal, but that does not mean a house isn't fundamentally made of those materials. Organization of systems is arguably as important as the components of systems. However, this does not imply some non-material phenomenon, until there is evidence for such.

No you misunderstand me. The two worlds of internal experience and external obsevation and examination do not have a shared language unlike say a ball and a hand touching. To make my point easier to understand imagine for a second that your experiences as yourself are merely paralel to the observable physical phenomena.
Let me give you an analogy.
Imagine a room with someone jumping in it. You have a camera and a sound recoridng device recording the room and the person inside.
Both recording devices ar recording what is going on, as in the exact same htings, but are doing it in different ways which do not effect each other.

Both are unmergable they are not the cause of one another but are bot different expressions of changes in reality. the whole of reality changes and your internal feeling and external observations are both partial experiences of the same reality that are not translatable like the video and audio feeds.

>the product
And who decided that that would be the product?

We remain the cause.

Adam and eve didn't dream up the holocaust. They disobeyed but they didn't know of or choose what the punishment would be. God is the first cause.

They knew the punishment would be death and God did not cause them to disobey.

Too bad genesis is extremely vague. That's, like, your opinion, man.

I'll be praying for you.

Goodnight and God bless.

Prayer is just self-hypnosis.

I love how you insist that your Christian beliefs have nothing to do with reason, and at the same time argue them as if they are.

Anyway, Abrahamic religion was a mistake. It will never be fully coherent, because what you're referring to is the irrational part of thehuman condition, and the main sin of Abrahamism is the conflation of the rational with the irrational. You deriving a rational and moral code from stories that involve talking snakes, talking burning bushes and gods torturing people because they have a bet with each other shows you have zero understanding of the divine. The divine has no moral code, is not guided by rational proofs and axioms and has absolutely fuck all to do with anything systematic.

>ask yourself as an atheist what evidence will be enough to make you believe in god.
1. If I die and continue to exist. Note that according to Christians this one will definitely happen at some point, but by then God has decided it will be too late and won't matter if I change my mind, how convenient :^)
2. Unfakeable, worldwide miracle(s) a la the Rapture or something. Bonus points if it's unambiguously predicted by some holy book.
3. God appears on Earth and is clearly, undeniably God. And I'm not talking about Jesus-tier "miracles", David Copperfield blows the fuck out of Jesus. I need to see some real omnipotence on display.
4. We encounter space aliens who have the same god(s). I'm talking same names, attributes, commandments, appearance if applicable. Obviously a god who created the whole universe would not just reveal himself to people on Earth, so this is something we should expect if we ever encounter aliens. (But who am I kidding? We already did this test with the Americas.)
5. A logically valid argument for his God's existence that doesn't have bumfuck retarded premises. This one seems like the least likely of all :^)

Oh yeah, one last turd on your parade, those animals that are suffering had nothing to do with eves bad decisions making.

You don't even know what the fuck is a strawman, isn't it?

God opens up the sky, presents himself and causes a physical effect on the world. That would probably prove his existence to the world. You're not as deep as you think. The reason people doubt voices is because we can easily explain that in another fashion.

Misrepresenting the character of another person's argument to make it easier to attack. In this case, he's going about it in a roundabout way by misrepresenting their standard of proof.

There would be quite a number of skeptics who would have a hard time buying the veracity of such a display. See "brain in a vat".

>(at least the ones not big on Hume)

Already pointed that out, there is still reason to doubt something like that due to the fallibility of our perceptions, but that's not a standard position and you know it. You're arguing against a construct of your own design.

>Simple, ask yourself as an atheist what evidence will be enough to make you believe in god. I am sure you will find the answer is none
In other words, you're retarded. Got it.

"You are a false prophet. god is nothing but a superstition"

>Simple, ask yourself as an atheist what evidence will be enough to make you believe in god
Its 7am on a beautiful summer Thursday and I'm browsing amazing insights into the true nature of reality without the looming pressure of having to go to a wagecuck job nagging my focus.

you're stupid. maybe taking a leap can be justified. you clearly haven't done so, though.

it seems to me that you're rank one billion, the pretentious idiot without reflection.

I want to believe but OP got BTFO by the atheists ITT.

>It all makes sense if you really try

Yeah. It wasn't this time.

After some reflection the leap of faith seems much more like track and field type hurdling -of faith. The mental gymnastics of a theist never cease to baffle me desu.

Actually not even try in any experimental sense, just IMAGINE REALLY HARD.

But if you imagine really hard you could believe in elves (and a lot of people do in Iceland, I'm not saying that to mock your argument).

Please come back stronger OP.