How do you know you have Sensus divinitatis?

[boatsnguitars]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #83

You are missing all the points. I'm asking whether or not you 'of course' say 'there are no gods' regarding the ones of the religions. This is not about a possible 'underlying' creative intelligence.

Why can't it be about that?

You yourself said that discussions sometimes veer off into different areas.

Because the point is about parameter (claims about personal gods) that validate a near positive denial where the case for an intelligent creator (non religious) is not the same thing. So one can't be about the other. Do try to keep up.

The blind men an elephant is of course a flawed analogy and a very familiar one in theism. It assumed the existence of a unifying critter (elephant) which we all know is so

Going off of what's known is the whole point of an analogy. It's what gives analogies their explanatory power. Scientists use analogies all the time. For example, the expanding galaxies are compared to dots painted on the surface of a balloon. Even the analogy of wind, which is sometimes invoked as an indicator of the presence of the divine, can also be employed to illustrate how cosmologists detect the presence of Dark Energy----by what it does.

Yes, but the analogy is intended to explain with a known simple thing something more complex but analogous. But that latter has also to be known. Knowns do not validate unknowns by analogy. Sure, I know the analogy to explain the claim (excuse for why gods seem all different) but it does not validate it, so you had no valid purpose in dragging it into the conversation.

You also know you are doing it wrong when you pull the old 'This atheist agrees with Theism' stunt. Possible and undisproven as well as unproven is what atheism says about a sorta -god, and I suspect that not "Plausible" is what Krauss really thinks.

Why would you think he didn't mean what he said? Because you don't like what he said?

When you resort to the trickery of flawed analogy, trying to set one atheist against another (quotemining, if not misquoting Krauss

I didn't make the Krauss quote up. If you know of him ever stating that a deistic intelligence is implausible, you're free to quote him yourself.

I know enough about Krauss to know him as an atheist. I have only your quote that he thinks a sortagod 'Plausible'. Why should I trust you to speak for him?

and tacking on "Of Course" (when I don't recall an atheist making a gnostic claim)

If your memory is that short, go back and read the second paragraph of the OP again.

Touche. I shall. Yes. It is not an abstract intelligent creator there but a personal god "God" that speaks to him To that it is shorthand for 'Of course, (I am sure) there is no (such) God'. I'm sure too. If it was a Muslim of Hindu claiming that God spoke to him, wouldn't you be saying 'of course that god (I'm sure) does not exist?

the strawman caricature of atheism you are attempting to draw

At what point have I drawn a "caricature" of atheism? I've just been trying to illustrate weaknesses in a few arguments.

From the start, is casting a shorthand for 'I'm sure Biblegiod does not exist' as a gnostic claim, which would be untenable and give you the angle you are looking for. But I have asked you twice now as I recall, to make a case for an intelligent creator rather than trying to poke holes in atheism (using flawed arguments) which wouldn't make a case for a god even if your points were valid.

So while you demanded I explain why Krauss considers an intelligent creator 'plausible'

You're projecting. I haven't "demanded" anything.

Semantic nitpicking. You asked me why Krauss considered (as you claimed) a 'god'"Plausible". Just a look at a debate announcement "Dr. Krauss will be arguing that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of God." That's all atheism needs. 'Plausible' is a bit of a blunderbuss word and cannot be used to even halfway validate any kind of god - claim.

What evidence do you have for an intelligent creator?

I've already presented an argument based on observable evidence. And the evidence there isn't a run-of-the-mill "gap". In this situation, we don't just have theologians telling us that physics doesn't fill the gap. In this situation we have physicists

telling us that physics doesn't fill the gap. And unless and until your Appeal to the Future comes true, that's what we have to go on. And as far as intelligence goes, intelligence can reasonably be assumed in anything which can outwit physics.

Classic Theist fallacy - appealing to unknowns as evidence for a god. They are evidence of nothing. But the materialist default (e.g physics - which do not need a god to work) gives weight to a 'future' material explanation rather than a god. The basic Theist fallacy of assuming a postulated 'god' as a given is the basic flaw that is invalidating all your arguments so far.

When you resort to the tricks and evasions, misrepresentation and disrespect (to me, and atheism) of theism, you can be sure, you are doing it all wrong.

When you respond to criticisms of a few flawed arguments with such accusations as these, you can be sure that you're taking this way too personally.

Projection, old son. Personally is the last thing I am taking it. It is a logical argument and I have no personal Faith under threat. I don't even mind or care if there is a creative intelligence. It is organised religion that affects me personally. You may ask 'why argue then?' because Theists too often use a sortagod case as being 'We believe' the personal god. So we goddless cannot allow a sortagod claim to slip under the door just because we don't care.

[Mae von H]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

The assumption you make that there is no God precludes the obvious answer to this question. That is, you assume there is no God and therefore cannot consider the obvious answer of “because He is there” but must search for less obvious reasons.

The subject of Dracula is quite strange because no one thinks such a man is in the room. Why didn’t you pick Allah? Those adherents have shown themselves perfectly willing to kill unbelievers in Allah.

[boatsnguitars]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

The assumption you make that there is no God precludes the obvious answer to this question. That is, you assume there is no God and therefore cannot consider the obvious answer of “because He is there” but must search for less obvious reasons.

The subject of Dracula is quite strange because no one thinks such a man is in the room. Why didn’t you pick Allah? Those adherents have shown themselves perfectly willing to kill unbelievers in Allah.

Why does any religion pick any God? At some point, someone invented Yahweh, too.

But don't sell your religion short! Christians have a nice, long history of killing heretics and infidels. Islam is all in the news lately, but Christianity led the charge. Before that, Judaism.

Hhhm, seems to be a thread you can chase back to Abraham. They guy who invented Yahweh. The Bram Stoker of his day.

[Mae von H]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

The assumption you make that there is no God precludes the obvious answer to this question. That is, you assume there is no God and therefore cannot consider the obvious answer of “because He is there” but must search for less obvious reasons.

The subject of Dracula is quite strange because no one thinks such a man is in the room. Why didn’t you pick Allah? Those adherents have shown themselves perfectly willing to kill unbelievers in Allah.

Why does any religion pick any God? At some point, someone invented Yahweh, too.

Again you assume facts not in evidence. The evidence is God chose them and this is repeated.

But don't sell your religion short! Christians have a nice, long history of killing heretics and infidels.

You mean the Catholics? That’s true. But it needs to be pointed out that 1) you have to go back centuries to validate the claim whereas Islam still does this
and 2) It’s in direct violation of Jesus’ teaching and 3) his followers in the first century didn’t do this.

Islam is all in the news lately, but Christianity led the charge. Before that, Judaism.

Again you are quite mistaken. There’s no hint the 12 disciples taught or practiced murder.

Hhhm, seems to be a thread you can chase back to Abraham. They guy who invented Yahweh. The Bram Stoker of his day.

Again, you haven’t read or don’t remember the account of God choosing Abraham.

[alexxcJRO]

The problem with this conclusion in a scientific context is that science won't get you to it. A scientific conclusion has to follow an unbroken chain of physical cause and effect. You can't parachute down onto "It just is" and call it scientific. I admit that my postulate goes beyond the scientific, but you can't make the same claim for yours.

Sir its speculation(mine) as is religious people speculation.
The difference is I know I speculate and do not believe in the affirmative what I say.
The reality is I don't know. You don't know either.
Religious people claim to know what they can't know.

In the realm of the multidimensional, the shamans and the scientists have ended up saying much the same thing----and the shamans were saying it first.

Ancient Shamanism claims have been debunked long ago.
Millions of thing invented by scientists though the process of science which work; prove everyday, every hour, every minute, every second how good science is to find out things about our reality.

[alexxcJRO]

I feel that strands of Christianity are ' fundamentally flawed' and are inherently 'unfixable'. Should motorbikes be discontinued as an option on our public roads. Should some strands of Christianity be intentionally discontinued. This was done in the early centuries of the movement with very unfortunate consequences. The Ebionites are one example.
...

The concepts of God in theism are impacted by gathered awareness generally as are all concepts. What is your point. There is nothing that has happened between today and the time of Jesus that would change the basic truths of his teachings. If anything their relevancy becomes more apparent.

Hey Masterblaster!

When I said: "The concept of God continuously metamorphosis as some gaps get filled and subsequently others appear." I meant whole religions not sects.

We had Animism: gods as rocks, animals, trees. Then gods of thunder, storms, sun. Now more complex gods but they still lay still in gaps of knowledge: origin of universe, life, consciousness. The same faulty thinking of explaining the gaps with gods.

[boatsnguitars]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

The assumption you make that there is no God precludes the obvious answer to this question. That is, you assume there is no God and therefore cannot consider the obvious answer of “because He is there” but must search for less obvious reasons.

The subject of Dracula is quite strange because no one thinks such a man is in the room. Why didn’t you pick Allah? Those adherents have shown themselves perfectly willing to kill unbelievers in Allah.

Why does any religion pick any God? At some point, someone invented Yahweh, too.

Again you assume facts not in evidence. The evidence is God chose them and this is repeated.

But don't sell your religion short! Christians have a nice, long history of killing heretics and infidels.

You mean the Catholics? That’s true. But it needs to be pointed out that 1) you have to go back centuries to validate the claim whereas Islam still does this
and 2) It’s in direct violation of Jesus’ teaching and 3) his followers in the first century didn’t do this.

Islam is all in the news lately, but Christianity led the charge. Before that, Judaism.

Again you are quite mistaken. There’s no hint the 12 disciples taught or practiced murder.

Hhhm, seems to be a thread you can chase back to Abraham. They guy who invented Yahweh. The Bram Stoker of his day.

Again, you haven’t read or don’t remember the account of God choosing Abraham.

I've read it, Dracula, and many other fictional accounts of people claiming things. I'm not gullible enough to believe any of them are true.

I know I can't convince you to question your Faith. You seem intent on staying with it, as your religion demands.
But you must see why anyone from outside your religion would wonder why you believe one religious text over another, based on nothing you can actually verify.

It would be really nice if Theists were so fixated on confirming their beliefs out of fear that God will worry about their dedication, and actually show God they are willing to question their God. After all, does God want robots or does he want people to come to him freely, after a lifetime of questioning, searching and really giving thought to how they are going to treat their (alleged) immortal soul?

Instead, all I see are Theists claiming God exists, that they believe it because they can feel it in their heart, and that anything else is evil - therefore, they can't even consider any other option.

The Church is really good at scaring people into asking questions that challenge their death grip on people's minds.

[Mae von H]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

The assumption you make that there is no God precludes the obvious answer to this question. That is, you assume there is no God and therefore cannot consider the obvious answer of “because He is there” but must search for less obvious reasons.

The subject of Dracula is quite strange because no one thinks such a man is in the room. Why didn’t you pick Allah? Those adherents have shown themselves perfectly willing to kill unbelievers in Allah.

Why does any religion pick any God? At some point, someone invented Yahweh, too.

Again you assume facts not in evidence. The evidence is God chose them and this is repeated.

But don't sell your religion short! Christians have a nice, long history of killing heretics and infidels.

You mean the Catholics? That’s true. But it needs to be pointed out that 1) you have to go back centuries to validate the claim whereas Islam still does this
and 2) It’s in direct violation of Jesus’ teaching and 3) his followers in the first century didn’t do this.

Islam is all in the news lately, but Christianity led the charge. Before that, Judaism.

Again you are quite mistaken. There’s no hint the 12 disciples taught or practiced murder.

Hhhm, seems to be a thread you can chase back to Abraham. They guy who invented Yahweh. The Bram Stoker of his day.

Again, you haven’t read or don’t remember the account of God choosing Abraham.

I've read it, Dracula, and many other fictional accounts of people claiming things. I'm not gullible enough to believe any of them are true.

I know I can't convince you to question your Faith. You seem intent on staying with it, as your religion demands.
But you must see why anyone from outside your religion would wonder why you believe one religious text over another, based on nothing you can actually verify.

It would be really nice if Theists were so fixated on confirming their beliefs out of fear that God will worry about their dedication, and actually show God they are willing to question their God. After all, does God want robots or does he want people to come to him freely, after a lifetime of questioning, searching and really giving thought to how they are going to treat their (alleged) immortal soul?

Instead, all I see are Theists claiming God exists, that they believe it because they can feel it in their heart, and that anything else is evil - therefore, they can't even consider any other option.

The Church is really good at scaring people into asking questions that challenge their death grip on people's minds.

Chock full of things that aren’t so. We don’t believe because we feel it in our hearts. We believe from the evidence. What does the church say that scares you?

We’re not afraid God is worrying about our dedication. God actually says, “come let us reason together.” He welcomes reasoning but if the desire is to keep one’s preferred position opposed to learning truth it’s hopeless. If one has a lifetime of questioning, it shows one never wanted the truth, just avoiding it by asking questions. “Ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth.”

[boatsnguitars]

We believe from the evidence. What does the church say that scares you?

What evidence?

We’re not afraid God is worrying about our dedication. God actually says, “come let us reason together.” He welcomes reasoning but if the desire is to keep one’s preferred position opposed to learning truth it’s hopeless. If one has a lifetime of questioning, it shows one never wanted the truth, just avoiding it by asking questions. “Ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth.”

You said "God actually says,....." don't you mean a guy wrote in a book that says God said that?" If I write "God said, "I vant to drink your blood," does that mean God said it?

Dracula said, "Welcome to my house! Enter freely and of your own will!"

So, clearly, Dracula is real and said that. It's written in a book by a guy who said Dracula said it.

[Mae von H]

What evidence?

Books have been written with the evidence. Ever heard of,”Evidence that Demands a Verdict?”

You said "God actually says,....." don't you mean a guy wrote in a book that says God said that?"

You probably take that view. That is not what I mean. I mean God said that He’d chosen them and the evidence bears that out.

If I write "God said, "I vant to drink your blood," does that mean God said it?

No because you don’t know Him and He wouldn’t ever say that.

Dracula said, "Welcome to my house! Enter freely and of your own will!"

So, clearly, Dracula is real and said that. It's written in a book by a guy who said Dracula said it.

There is zero evidence for this.