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?

[Philbert]

Philosophical hogwash, and I'll tell you why.

That's Professor I.B. Hogwash Phd to you buddy!

For your position to hold, you've got to demonstrate there even is anything outside of human reason that can answer anything.

I bear no such burden. It's entirely possible that the simple truth is that there simply is no method of answering questions of this scale.

Human reason has given us everything we know.

This is sorta true, I won't debate it. But it doesn't prove the ability of human reason to address a particular set of very large questions.

If you want me to entertain the thought that human reason is not the only thing we have to address ANY questions (questions we pose using our reasoning in the first place), you have to give me something, an alternative, which we then can investigate.

Yes, of course, but first I have to be mysterious to boost audience engagement and my ratings. This is how religion works you know.

You're beginning to sound a bit like Sye Ten Bruggencate here tbh.

No, that's actually incorrect. I am Sri Baba Bozo, founder of Bozoism, the next great world religion. Thousands of years from now nubile young virgins will be throwing themselves off cliffs in the hopes of having sex with me in the after life. So it has been foretold!

'you're using reason to validate your reason so you're circular so bye bye'

Ah, one can use reason to explore the limits of reason. Reason is indeed qualified to do that job. Being so qualified does not therefore make it qualified for EVERY job.

Not circular at all. Hello hello. Still here.

[Dantalion]

I bear no such burden. It's entirely possible that the simple truth is that there simply is no method of answering questions of this scale.

It's also entirely possible that we are all brainwashed by tentacled teapots using our brain farts to fertilize their lawn made out of 6-legged leprechauns.
Does not mean we ought to entertain the thought or give it any credence above what we DO know.

This is sorta true, I won't debate it. But it doesn't prove the ability of human reason to address a particular set of very large questions.

Fair enough

Yes, of course, but first I have to be mysterious to boost audience engagement and my ratings. This is how religion works you know.

Actually you don't.
You'll get the most interested people and the most respect on this forum if you cut the hogwash and go straight to the point. We've all been grown bored with promising foreplay, you're not the first to claim what you are claiming.

No, that's actually incorrect. I am Sri Baba Bozo, founder of Bozoism, the next great world religion. Thousands of years from now nubile young virgins will be throwing themselves off cliffs in the hopes of having sex with me in the after life. So it has been foretold!

That's cute.

Ah, one can use reason to explore the limits of reason. Reason is indeed qualified to do that job. Being so qualified does not therefore make it qualified for EVERY job.

agreed. The circular thing is Sye's flawed opinion, not mine.

[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.

But the point I've been making all along is that you haven't shown that God experiences are a result of indoctrination, whereas Santa Claus experiences are undoubtedly a result of such indoctrination. That's the difference between them. You are making assertions that you haven't justified.

I also have not, nor should I have to show you (justify to you) that the sky is blue or that grass is usually green.

A child is either indoctrinated into their parents belief system or they are not. I personally was, as well as many others on this board.

I'm not claiming that indoctrination is the ONLY way that ANYONE ever becomes a Christian. However, I cannot envision a scenario where a 2 - 3 year old "decides" to become a follower of their parents religion (whatever religion that may be) without indoctrination playing a part.

Here is my point again:
Kids don't start believing in Santa out of thin air.
Kids don't start believing in a god out of thin air.

So, when you said:
"People have experiences of an all-knowing person talking telepathically to them."

It suggested to me that your indoctrination is showing. There is no proof for telepathy.
This is similar to a child claiming that Santa is real and that his reindeer can fly. This, there is also no proof for.

I don't believe either sentence would ever be uttered unless some form of indoctrination has taken place. Thus, I believe your indoctrination is showing.

Can you show me an example of a child believing in Santa or a god concept without being told/indoctrinated about said concept?

[Clownboat]

But the point I've been making all along is that you haven't shown that God experiences are a result of indoctrination, whereas Santa Claus experiences are undoubtedly a result of such indoctrination. That's the difference between them. You are making assertions that you haven't justified.

I can show it by mentioning the lack of anyone ever who demonstrably was able to convey details of the Christian God's message, nature and laws without first being confronted with Christianity or the Bible.

If God is revelation, then surely we can demonstrably show people who've never read the Bible nor ever heard of it's contents nor ever heard anything about Christianity suddenly being able to recite this revelation in an accurate fashion.

Or perhaps God doesn't reveal himself randomly to anyone, but only to those who know the revelation and look for him.

Oh, you mean like me? A tongue talking, drunk in the Holy Ghost, street evangelizing Christian of 2 decades? If not to people like I was, then whom are you suggesting?

It may seem to you intuitionally that things would be different if God existed, but you are far away from showing what you asserted, namely that those experiences are for certainty a result of indoctrination.

Again, show me a child that arrived at a god concept all on their own without any indoctrination.

Literally, every scenario that I know of in the real world about how a person arrived at their specific god concept has been a result of indoctrination (speaking about children obviously).

[Clownboat]

Philosophical hogwash, and I'll tell you why.

That's Professor I.B. Hogwash Phd to you buddy!

For your position to hold, you've got to demonstrate there even is anything outside of human reason that can answer anything.

I bear no such burden. It's entirely possible that the simple truth is that there simply is no method of answering questions of this scale.

Human reason has given us everything we know.

This is sorta true, I won't debate it. But it doesn't prove the ability of human reason to address a particular set of very large questions.

If you want me to entertain the thought that human reason is not the only thing we have to address ANY questions (questions we pose using our reasoning in the first place), you have to give me something, an alternative, which we then can investigate.

Yes, of course, but first I have to be mysterious to boost audience engagement and my ratings. This is how religion works you know.

You're beginning to sound a bit like Sye Ten Bruggencate here tbh.

No, that's actually incorrect. I am Sri Baba Bozo, founder of Bozoism, the next great world religion. Thousands of years from now nubile young virgins will be throwing themselves off cliffs in the hopes of having sex with me in the after life. So it has been foretold!

'you're using reason to validate your reason so you're circular so bye bye'

Ah, one can use reason to explore the limits of reason. Reason is indeed qualified to do that job. Being so qualified does not therefore make it qualified for EVERY job.

Not circular at all. Hello hello. Still here.

I'm sorry, but what was the alternative you want people to use besides "human reasoning" again?

This just comes across as telling a person to stop breathing the earths air. Um, OK, but if I do, what do you suggest I do breathe. I gotta admit, air has been working well for me so far.

Now, just because air has worked so well for all of us for so long, does not mean we can't breath fairy farts or something other than the earths air.

This is why your statement is false that in order to be an atheist, you must believe human reasoning can answer the god question.

[Philbert]

I'm sorry, but what was the alternative you want people to use besides "human reasoning" again?

To find out, start a thread on this topic, and assemble a group of people who are exploring it.

This just comes across as telling a person to stop breathing the earths air. Um, OK, but if I do, what do you suggest I do breathe. I gotta admit, air has been working well for me so far.

Now, just because air has worked so well for all of us for so long, does not mean we can't breath fairy farts or something other than the earths air.

This is a good example of what doesn't qualify as exploring the question you have posed.

This is why your statement is false that in order to be an atheist, you must believe human reasoning can answer the god question.

And yet, you yourself appeared to have used reason to answer the god question. You might next introduce us to an atheist on the forum who has not used reason to answer the god question.

[A Troubled Man]

Atheists typically reference human reason as their chosen authority. Thus it is also reasonable to challenge the qualifications of that authority to address the question at hand.

But the vast majority of time, when an atheist makes any kind of public statement on these topics, they are referencing human reason as their authority. They are claiming, explicitly or implicitly, that human reason is qualified to address questions of this scale.

Just as the theists must demonstrate that holy books are qualified to provide answers to these questions, the atheist (the vast majority of them anyway) are required to demonstrate that their chosen authority, human reason, is qualified to provide answers to questions of this scale.

An equal burden placed on both parties.

This is a test that will help any atheist determine whether they are actually loyal to the processes of reason, or whether their atheism is really just another faith based belief system being used to create a flattering self identity.

Red herring. The alleged claims to authority of reason have no bearing on the answers to any questions posed to an atheist or theist by use of the process of reason, faith or otherwise.

[woodpen]

Atheists typically reference human reason as their chosen authority. Thus it is also reasonable to challenge the qualifications of that authority to address the question at hand.

But the vast majority of time, when an atheist makes any kind of public statement on these topics, they are referencing human reason as their authority. They are claiming, explicitly or implicitly, that human reason is qualified to address questions of this scale.

Just as the theists must demonstrate that holy books are qualified to provide answers to these questions, the atheist (the vast majority of them anyway) are required to demonstrate that their chosen authority, human reason, is qualified to provide answers to questions of this scale.

An equal burden placed on both parties.

This is a test that will help any atheist determine whether they are actually loyal to the processes of reason, or whether their atheism is really just another faith based belief system being used to create a flattering self identity.

Red herring. The alleged claims to authority of reason have no bearing on the answers to any questions posed to an atheist or theist by use of the process of reason, faith or otherwise.

The god question.
God is a claim made by men.
Question answered.

[instantc]

Literally, every scenario that I know of in the real world about how a person arrived at their specific god concept has been a result of indoctrination (speaking about children obviously).

And how exactly does this disprove something? Please back up your claim that if God existed, people would come to know his word without reading the Bible.

[Clownboat]

I'm sorry, but what was the alternative you want people to use besides "human reasoning" again?

To find out, start a thread on this topic, and assemble a group of people who are exploring it.

No need. It seems prudent to ask you.

This just comes across as telling a person to stop breathing the earths air. Um, OK, but if I do, what do you suggest I do breathe. I gotta admit, air has been working well for me so far.

Now, just because air has worked so well for all of us for so long, does not mean we can't breath fairy farts or something other than the earths air.

This is a good example of what doesn't qualify as exploring the question you have posed.

Dodge noted.

This is why your statement is false that in order to be an atheist, you must believe human reasoning can answer the god question.

And yet, you yourself appeared to have used reason to answer the god question. You might next introduce us to an atheist on the forum who has not used reason to answer the god question.

Stop complaining when humans use human reasoning!

Then to finish off this crap of a post, apparently you think people have answered the god question!
Please provide evidence that the god question has been answered.
I was not aware!