Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Dantalion]

The experience that the earth is a globe, is more valid than the experience that the earth is flat.

This is because the experience that the earth is a globe is confirmed by billions of other analogous experiences, and most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.

Any other questions?

So you invoke the number of equivalent experiences as a justification.

Notice that there are millions of experiences of the Christian God and dare I say not that many people who claim to have seen a flying reindeer? Therefore, by your logic, the former experiences are more valid.

Any other attempted justifications?

I'm sorry, what part of 'most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.'
did you manage to overlook ?

[Clownboat]

The experience that the earth is a globe, is more valid than the experience that the earth is flat.

This is because the experience that the earth is a globe is confirmed by billions of other analogous experiences, and most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.

Any other questions?

So you invoke the number of equivalent experiences as a justification.

Notice that there are millions of experiences of the Christian God and dare I say not that many people who claim to have seen a flying reindeer? Therefore, by your logic, the former experiences are more valid.

Any other attempted justifications?

I'm sorry, what part of 'most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.'
did you manage to overlook ?

Not only that, he is equating "experiences" of the Christian god to "seeing" flying reindeer. Apples and oranges.

To use his logic:
My kids have experiences of Santa every year and I dare say that not many people claim to have seen the Christian god. Therefore, Santa is more reasonable.

[instantc]

The experience that the earth is a globe, is more valid than the experience that the earth is flat.

This is because the experience that the earth is a globe is confirmed by billions of other analogous experiences, and most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.

Any other questions?

So you invoke the number of equivalent experiences as a justification.

Notice that there are millions of experiences of the Christian God and dare I say not that many people who claim to have seen a flying reindeer? Therefore, by your logic, the former experiences are more valid.

Any other attempted justifications?

I'm sorry, what part of 'most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.'
did you manage to overlook ?

We seem to have communication problems again. I didn't say that Christianity is as plausible as square earth theory, did I now? I said that Christianity is more plausible than Santa Clause, as one standard by which an experience is more plausible than another is the number of people with analogous experiences.

Every experience is subjective in nature, there is no such thing as objective experience. Talking to God experiences are repeatable, many people have them on daily basis. Empirical? Who says that sensory experiences are more plausible than other kind of experiences?

Any other arguments?

[Clownboat]

The experience that the earth is a globe, is more valid than the experience that the earth is flat.

This is because the experience that the earth is a globe is confirmed by billions of other analogous experiences, and most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.

Any other questions?

So you invoke the number of equivalent experiences as a justification.

Notice that there are millions of experiences of the Christian God and dare I say not that many people who claim to have seen a flying reindeer? Therefore, by your logic, the former experiences are more valid.

Any other attempted justifications?

I'm sorry, what part of 'most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.'
did you manage to overlook ?

We seem to have communication problems again. I didn't say that Christianity is as plausible as square earth theory, did I now? I said that Christianity is more plausible than Santa Clause, as one standard by which an experience is more plausible than another is the number of people with analogous experiences.

Every experience is subjective in nature, there is no such thing as objective experience. Talking to God experiences are repeatable, many people have them on daily basis. Empirical? Who says that sensory experiences are more plausible than other kind of experiences?

Any other arguments?

So, once again, we can use your argument to show that Santa is more plausible.

To use your logic:
My kids have experiences of Santa every year and I dare say that not many people claim to have seen the Christian god. Therefore, Santa is more reasonable.

I am not actually making this argument, I just want you to understand why it fails.

[Philbert]

Let's cut to the chase.

Does anybody have any evidence that human reason is qualified to deliver meaningful answers about the fundamental nature of reality?

That's the bottom line issue being addressed by the god question, right?

Where is the evidence that the analytical power of human beings...

A single species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies....

A species whose "reason" leaves it riding the very knife edge of self extinction...

...Would be capable of answering the god question one way or another?

Religion usually references holy books as it's guiding authority. It is surely reasonable to challenge the qualifications of the holy books to provide reliable answers to these questions.

Atheism references human reason as it's guiding authority. It seems equally reasonable to challenge the qualifications of reason to provide reliable answers to these questions.

Where is the evidence that either holy books or human reason are qualified to settle any of the big picture questions raised by religion?

[instantc]

The experience that the earth is a globe, is more valid than the experience that the earth is flat.

This is because the experience that the earth is a globe is confirmed by billions of other analogous experiences, and most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.

Any other questions?

So you invoke the number of equivalent experiences as a justification.

Notice that there are millions of experiences of the Christian God and dare I say not that many people who claim to have seen a flying reindeer? Therefore, by your logic, the former experiences are more valid.

Any other attempted justifications?

I'm sorry, what part of 'most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.'
did you manage to overlook ?

We seem to have communication problems again. I didn't say that Christianity is as plausible as square earth theory, did I now? I said that Christianity is more plausible than Santa Clause, as one standard by which an experience is more plausible than another is the number of people with analogous experiences.

Every experience is subjective in nature, there is no such thing as objective experience. Talking to God experiences are repeatable, many people have them on daily basis. Empirical? Who says that sensory experiences are more plausible than other kind of experiences?

Any other arguments?

So, once again, we can use your argument to show that Santa is more plausible.

To use your logic:
My kids have experiences of Santa every year and I dare say that not many people claim to have seen the Christian god. Therefore, Santa is more reasonable.

I am not actually making this argument, I just want you to understand why it fails.

Kids don't have experiences of Santa, they have experiences of a man dressed as Santa. People have experiences of an all-knowing person talking telepathically to them.

[Dantalion]

The experience that the earth is a globe, is more valid than the experience that the earth is flat.

This is because the experience that the earth is a globe is confirmed by billions of other analogous experiences, and most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.

Any other questions?

So you invoke the number of equivalent experiences as a justification.

Notice that there are millions of experiences of the Christian God and dare I say not that many people who claim to have seen a flying reindeer? Therefore, by your logic, the former experiences are more valid.

Any other attempted justifications?

I'm sorry, what part of 'most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.'
did you manage to overlook ?

We seem to have communication problems again. I didn't say that Christianity is as plausible as square earth theory, did I now? I said that Christianity is more plausible than Santa Clause, as one standard by which an experience is more plausible than another is the number of people with analogous experiences.

Every experience is subjective in nature, there is no such thing as objective experience. Talking to God experiences are repeatable, many people have them on daily basis. Empirical? Who says that sensory experiences are more plausible than other kind of experiences?

Any other arguments?

So, once again, we can use your argument to show that Santa is more plausible.

To use your logic:
My kids have experiences of Santa every year and I dare say that not many people claim to have seen the Christian god. Therefore, Santa is more reasonable.

I am not actually making this argument, I just want you to understand why it fails.

Kids don't have experiences of Santa, they have experiences of a man dressed as Santa. People have experiences of an all-knowing person talking telepathically to them.

Kids don't know it's not Santa, just as you don't know you're not deluded when experiencing God.

[Clownboat]

The experience that the earth is a globe, is more valid than the experience that the earth is flat.

This is because the experience that the earth is a globe is confirmed by billions of other analogous experiences, and most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.

Any other questions?

So you invoke the number of equivalent experiences as a justification.

Notice that there are millions of experiences of the Christian God and dare I say not that many people who claim to have seen a flying reindeer? Therefore, by your logic, the former experiences are more valid.

Any other attempted justifications?

I'm sorry, what part of 'most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.'
did you manage to overlook ?

We seem to have communication problems again. I didn't say that Christianity is as plausible as square earth theory, did I now? I said that Christianity is more plausible than Santa Clause, as one standard by which an experience is more plausible than another is the number of people with analogous experiences.

Every experience is subjective in nature, there is no such thing as objective experience. Talking to God experiences are repeatable, many people have them on daily basis. Empirical? Who says that sensory experiences are more plausible than other kind of experiences?

Any other arguments?

So, once again, we can use your argument to show that Santa is more plausible.

To use your logic:
My kids have experiences of Santa every year and I dare say that not many people claim to have seen the Christian god. Therefore, Santa is more reasonable.

I am not actually making this argument, I just want you to understand why it fails.

Kids don't have experiences of Santa, they have experiences of a man dressed as Santa. People have experiences of an all-knowing person talking telepathically to them.

I believe your indoctrination is showing.

Also, you are just wrong. My kids get presents from Santa every year. Just ask them!
(This is their experience, so to them, if we use the logic being presented, Santa is more reasonable).

Either way, whether we are talking about my children or your beliefs, it seems both are arrived at via indoctrination, not truth. It is dishonest on your part to make truth claims about telepathy without providing evidence for telepathy. Don't forget, you are talking to adults here.

[Dantalion]

Let's cut to the chase.

Does anybody have any evidence that human reason is qualified to deliver meaningful answers about the fundamental nature of reality?

That's the bottom line issue being addressed by the god question, right?

Where is the evidence that the analytical power of human beings...

A single species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies....

A species whose "reason" leaves it riding the very knife edge of self extinction...

...Would be capable of answering the god question one way or another?

Religion usually references holy books as it's guiding authority. It is surely reasonable to challenge the qualifications of the holy books to provide reliable answers to these questions.

Atheism references human reason as it's guiding authority. It seems equally reasonable to challenge the qualifications of reason to provide reliable answers to these questions.

Where is the evidence that either holy books or human reason are qualified to settle any of the big picture questions raised by religion?

The one ones who are settling anything are theists, once again, atheists look at the lack of evidence and state there is no reason to think any of the known god concepts exists.

That is not the same as stating it's impossible for such a concept to exist, as you are seemingly claiming atheists do.

Without any evidence for the existence of the supernatural, contemplating about supernatural possibilities is meaningless, let alone make certainty claims about the nature of a divine being.


You, me, a fundie, we all use our human reason because it's all we've got.
any 'eastern ways to look at things outside of reason' is nothing but empty rambling unless you can provide any evidence for it's claims.

[Philbert]

once again, atheists look at the lack of evidence and state there is no reason to think any of the known god concepts exists.

Right, agreed. They believe that reason is qualified to deliver a meaningful answer to the god question. And that's why they focus on the evidence.

But where is the evidence that human reason is qualified to deliver a meaningful answer to the god question?

This is the exact same challenge as, where is the evidence that holy books are qualified to deliver a meaningful answer to the god question?

We have two groups. One group uses holy books as it's authority. The other group uses reason as it's authority.

I'm suggesting that intellectual honesty and the process of reason requires us to challenge BOTH authorities, not just one.

Without any evidence for the existence of the supernatural, contemplating about supernatural possibilities is meaningless, let alone make certainty claims about the nature of a divine being.

You're assuming that evidence, ie. human reason, is useful and relevant to this particular question. Where is the evidence of such a power?

You, me, a fundie, we all use our human reason because it's all we've got.

Yes, we use our reason. This in no way whatsoever proves that our reason is qualified to answer some particular question.

Billions of people read holy books, and have for thousands of years. This in no way proves that holy books are qualified to answer these questions.