EnPassant

One could as easily level the accusation that mastery - real or imagined - of science, tech, construction, math etc give people a sense of control and...

Dawkins' argument is a non starter. It is based on the erroneous idea that evolution needs some kind of physical mechanism. If God knows mathematics H...

Exactly. All neuroscience shows is that the brain is correlated with thought. They can't show that the brain is the source of thought. The example of ...

Pi is an essential unit of space and it can be represented, to an infinite degree of precision, with numbers (see this link http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~...

I don't see how it can predate God because math does not exist without mind. Brouwer, a Dutch mathematician, maintained that math creates logic.

And this manner of discourse, in your estimation, constitutes philosophy?

I have already told you. Many physicists and philosophers argue, coherently, that space is intrinsically mathematical; mathematics enables space to ex...

That is the short version. The argument is that mind precedes space and that must be God's mind.

But that does not mean you can place an extraordinary claim on the same level as delusion. There are plenty things that cannot be shared but you canno...

Well, you should have taken me up on that x^2 point because I was leading up to evidence for God. I can present you with many arguments to show that s...

Simply saying it is a matter of reason is not saying much. What is reason? Is reason only something that can be shared through language? Who has a mon...

Ok, you asked, but as I say I don't want to get into a God debate. Consider this as food for thought. I someone says 'I am', superficially, that is th...

Only from some people's point of view. Another theist would not put it on that footing. I put an idea to the thread earlier. What do you think of the ...

If I had a thought this morning I know I had the thought but can I prove it?

That might be true if by 'knowing' you mean abstractly knowing. But God is not an abstraction. You don't seem to be talking about God here, you seem t...

One of the best kinds methinks...

Well, I'm not putting up a pretence, honestly. I will answer your questions but I really don't feel like getting into another 'prove God' discussion. ...

That depends on what you mean by 'KNOWING'. Do you mean arriving at knowledge of God through intellectual means or by direct means? As I said, we can ...

As I say, I was drawn into an off topic discussion and it went on a bit but I am not obliged to continue an off topic discussion just because I was dr...

Like I said I was answering a question that was put to me. It was an aside from the subject of the thread but people kept asking questions and I answe...

Look, I made those statements simply by way of paraphrasing what theists say. Namely, that there is direct knowledge. The thread is not about trying t...

I agree with your definition of the difference between classical and quantum time (what you seem to call metaphysical time). But if we deem a series o...

Marvellous post Jake. You make short work of what I'm trying to say here, namely that the problem involves knowledge and what kinds of knowledge are v...

The subject of the thread is not whether God exists, it is about the discourse between theists and atheists and I have answered that; they cannot agre...

There you have it. You decide, purely on the grounds of materialistic ideology, that I am wrong without ever asking what my arguments are. I do acknow...

If the intellect could answer this question it would have done so a long time ago. Evasive about what? What cult are you talking about?

No. We are talking about the kinds of arguments for/against God's existence. Those kinds of arguments depend on what is considered to be 'rational'. T...

But since there is no proof I would say there is only a burden to provide a compelling argument. Exactly what I think. I doubt that there are many ath...

That is exactly what I'm saying. It is not possible. So we need to reason it out using a broader definition of 'reason'. The rationale of science is p...

Ok, but what other means do we have to find truth? The intellect has failed. If the intellect could discern truth it would have done so a long time ag...

Ok, we are on the same page now. The question of theism/atheism is not for want of 'evidence' if we adhere to the simplest definition of evidence: eve...

EnPassant: Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment. It is...

Not at all. What do you want to discuss within the context of the thread?

This is what I call meaningless rhetoric designed to avoid proper discussion.

The intellect cannot discern spiritual truth. Truth must come to us from God. The world is filled with human patterns. These patterns are not ultimate...

True, but the kinds of evidence that can be tested and shared are simple or primitive truths. Science is primitive. Matter is primitive. The atheists ...

All neuroscience can show is that there is a correlation between brain activity and thought. But correlation is not causation. The brain is involved w...

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that prevents reasoned discussion and blocks the kind of understanding I am talking about.

Not all things that are true can be proved. If I had a thought yesterday I cannot prove it. But it is true that I had that thought.

Do they understand them? Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the w...

To anyone who is capable of understanding the arguments.

Theist's position on God is not a guess, it is a conviction that can be convincingly argued for.

Yes. But reasoned argument can be tantamount to proof. Good argument can, in principle, become so strong that it can't be convincingly refuted. Proof ...

Ok, but I was not talking about assertions I was talking about beliefs. If someone says I believe God exists that is not an assertion that God exists,...

It is not about what is more likely because it is not about chance, it is about what is real. Why would it be about 'blind guessing'? It is about whic...

How can a burden of proof arise if neither side can prove their position? What accrues is a responsibility to present a persuasive argument. Blind gue...

The flaws, such as they are, are only secondary items that arise when ontological realities are translated into intellectual/philosophical/theological...

Why? It is not question of proof either way. It is a question of providing the most convincing arguments. That is all that can be done.

Personally I don't think study or intellect has anything to do with belief in God. It has to do with consciousness. The intellect is not the only way ...

But that is a Dawkinsian assertion of delusion, which you would be required to substantiate. You can 'refute' almost anything by crying 'delusion'. Bu...