The Devil's advocate

[Guest guest]

> >I can know that the same way I can know a pot of rice has been cooked by

> >examining just one grain.

>

> With this logic I can also know all theists by examining just one of them.

> I did, and he couldn't prove God. Therefore no theist can prove God.

> Therefore atheism is the most rational position.

 

There is absolutely no basis to this assertion. Even if no theist can prove

God, doesn't make atheism a rational position. Atheism is fundamentally

irrational because it is based on an assumption that can never be proven. At

least theism has a theoretically chance of being proven... by God. I may not

be able to prove God to you, but I can prove Him to myself. In fact, God has

proven Himself to me, so I know beyond doubt that Krishna is God.

 

> >Very good. So you admit that to receive knowledge is largely a matter of

> >accepting authority.

>

> Well, I hear what they say, and then I see if it's logical and based on

> empirical observations. I it is then I have good reasons to believe it. As

> I said I never saw any good reasons to be a theist.

 

Well, I never saw any good reason for being an atheist.

 

> >> Of course there something wrong with sticking to ones subjective

> >> meaning about others.

>

> >What's wrong with that? Atheists do it all the time.

>

> I don't think all atheists do that. I don't.

 

Can you prove that? Otherwise I don't believe you.

 

 

> >> Like I told you I'm not prejudiced towards any notion of

> >> God.

>

> >I don't believe that. Can you prove it?

>

> The burden of proof must be on you, since you are the one putting forward

> the alligation. I'm innocent until proven guilty.

 

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. You claim that you

are not prejudiced against any notion of God. Can you prove that? I have

already proven that you are prejudiced, because if you weren't you would

know that God exists. I know that God exists, so if you don't know it, it

must mean you are prejudiced against notions of God.

 

> >I have lots of proof, but I have to know what you will accept as proof

> >otherwise you could just be wasting my time. What if I present some

> >proof, and you are not qualified to evaluate it, or even willing to

> >evaluate it? So before we get into the whole area of evidence you have to

> >let me know what you will accept as evidence.

>

> I already told you!

 

No, you haven't told me. You have only said some kind of empirical proof

that you can observe with your senses. So give an example so I know you are

not just wasting my time.

 

> >The existence of irreducible complex systems like a cell, suggests design

> >of a higher intelligence, but atheists don't accept that, so I am not

> >sure it will be productive to cite scientific proof. That's why I need to

> >know what you will accept as evidence of God. An irreducible complex

> >system like a cell suggests ID, but you reject that, on the basis of your

> >imagination that it was produced by natural selection. Then what will you

> >accept?

>

> Just because something is very complex doesn't mean that God did it.

 

I said, an irreducible complexity. It's like a car engine. A car engine only

works as a unit. Do you think that a Mercedes came about by itself without

any intelligent design.

 

>This

> is typically theistic argumentation. That whenever we counter something we

> can'y explain then God dod it. "God in the gaps." I think such arguments

> are way to vague to prove anything. They can't make me religious. Is that

> all you got?

 

This is typical atheistic lack of argumentation. When you present them with

a logical argument, the reject it with, it doesn't have to be that way. That

means you are arguing from your imagination. Obviously an irreducible

complex unit like a cell suggests an intelligent designer, but you will

rather believe that it came about without any intelligent design. That means

you are irrational.

 

> >We also accept that the universe as an energy is eternal. But obviously

> >it is not being run blindly without intelligent direction. Please tell me

> >what observation of the universe suggests that eg. awareness was produced

> >by matter.

>

> Well, we can manipulate conciousness by subjecting it to chemicals. We can

> even make it have "religious experiences." So as far as I can see all

> these religious expriences are better explained by psychology than by the

> existence of something trancendental. We should stick to the most simple

> explanation (Ockham's Razor) instead of invoking some unnecessary being.

 

I agree we should stick to Ockams razor. The most simple explanation when

you see some kind of orderly design, is that there is a designer. But you

will rather imagine so many things like big bang, abiogenesis, etc. That

means you unnecessarily complicate matters. I am following Ockham's razor,

you are not. For instance, when you observe that the I-feeling remains

constant even though you alter the mind with drugs, the most simple

explanation is that the the I-feeling is constant. It is the same 'I' that

observes all the changes and different feelings in the mind, but you will

rather imagine something else than the most simple explanation. That means

you are not following Ockham.

 

> >To say that consciousness (which directly can be observed to be constant)

>

> This is circular reasoning: In order to state that we can observe

> consciousness to be constant you have to accept consciousness to be

> constant.

 

It is not circular reasoning. It is directly observable by the consciousness

or the I-feeling, that it is constant. You can observe that the body, mind

and intelligence change from boyhood, to youth to old age, but the I-feeling

remains the same. If you won't accept that, it proves my idea that atheists

are opposed to logic and reason.

 

>Otherwise how can you observe it to be constant. Also: You don't

> observe it to be constant.

 

You can directly observe that the I-feeling is constant. The body, mind and

intelligence changes, but the it is the same observer that observes these

changes.

 

>Were where your consiousness 500 years ago? I

> can't remember? Well, probably because your experience of it is not

> constant.

 

Maybe, probably - that means you don't know. The most logical explanation is

what we find in the Bhagavad Gita where Lord Krishna says that the body

changes, but the observer stays the same. If the observer stays the same

during the bodily and mental changes from boyhood to youth to old age, why

should you assume that it changes at death? Again it is clear that Lord

Krishna offers the most simple and logical explanation but atheists reject

that, because they are prejudiced.

 

> >That is a baseless assumption. Can you give any evidence at all that

> >suggests consciousness is material? If you can give me the chemical

> >formula of consciousness I will accept that and give up my religion. Of

> >course, you can't do that, but I will accept even a logical argument. Do

> >you have any?

>

> I gave a reason above. Since we can manipulate consciousness by using

> chemicals it suggests it's material. If it were trancendental how could it

> be affected?

 

The consciousness, ie. the observer is not affected, it is only the mind,

the feelings, the intelligence etc. that are affected by chemicals. You

observe the change in the mind by taking drugs, that means you are not the

mind. The observe is always distinct from that which is observed. Since you

can observe your mind being affected by drugs that means you are not the

mind. What you are saying is the same as saying that if I smash my TV then I

affect the program in the studio where it is being produced. You can alter

the mind, but you cannot alter the observer. You can even smash your brain,

but that just means you have removed the media through which you observe the

material world. You can alter your sight by putting on a pair of sunglasses,

but the eyes are still the same. In the same way you can alter your vision

or your mind by drugs, but the observer remains the same. comprende? It is

very logical.

 

> Also, everything within our experience is materiel. Why should we then

> think consciousness is not?

 

Everything within our experience is not material. What reason do you have to

believe that? What reason do you have to believe that awareness is material?

 

> We require some very good reasons, not just

> some speculations. You say consciousness is spiritual, that means the

> burden og proof is on you. If you can't prove it, then we have to stick to

> the most simple explanation - that it's non-spiritual.

 

Actually the burden of proof is on you. If you say that consciousness is

material you have to prove it. But you have no proof. So you are just

believing in it blindly. I have given the logical argument that Krishna

gives in the Bhagavad Gita, and it makes so much more sense, than what you

are saying.

 

> >I don't find it reasonable at all. In fact, if you were to make a survey

> >of all the people on the planet, you would find that the majority would

> >appeal to a higher intelligence in the universe. So your claim that it is

> >the most reasonable answer is false.

>

> This is an appeal to the masses - a logical fallacy. Just because most

> people on the Earth think there's a higher intelligence behind the

> universe doesn't make it the most reasonable explanation.

 

It also doesn't mean it is not. Clearly it is more rational to believe in a

higher intelligence than to believe that everything happened by itself

without any intelligent direction.

 

 

> Most of the

> Earth's population are uneducated.

 

You are also uneducated. You are uneducated in the spiritual science of

bhakti yoga.

 

>If you make such a survey among the

> educated people then the result is very different. For example, among the

> scientists from USA 90% are atheists.

 

So you are appealing to the masses of atheists, which is a logical fallacy.

 

>I would rather listen to educated,

> informed people than to uneducated people.

 

The most intelligent, educated scientists and philosophers down through the

ages have always been theists. People like Socrates, Schopenhauer,

Oppenheimer, Einstein, Fromm, Jung, Thoreau, Emerson were all some type of

theists. I would rather listen to them than to you.

 

> >What's wrong in claiming to have perfect knowledge, when you have it?

>

> If you can prove it then there's nothing wrong.

 

But I can. Krishna has proven Himself to me. How can I convince you of that?

What will you accept as proof?

 

> We prefer to correct our understading when new evidence somes.

 

That means you didn't know to begin with. Any idiot can form an opinion

based on available information. But it takes intelligence to discern the

truth.

 

> > but to make the claim on the basis of the Vedas is only

> >intelligent. Of course if you don't know anything about the Vedas you

> >can't understand that.

>

> I know that a lot in the Vedas contradicts modern, scientific

> observations.

 

You don't know that. You just repeat what you have heard. Can you give any

examples so I may know what you are talking about?

 

>So to me the Vedas are better explanied as mythology.

 

That's because you are uninformed about the knowledge of the Vedas, That

also proves you are prejudiced.

 

> >You are speaking from a platform of ignorance. In my religion there is no

> >rule against accepting hardcore scientific facts.

>

> SO many scientific theories disprove the Vedas - the Vedic cosmology, and

> the many fairy tales in the Vedic scriptures. But still you don't change

> your dogmas. How is that welcoming scientific evidence?

 

You just revealed your own blind belief. You said that so many scientific

theories disprove the Vedas. A theory is an unproven assumption. How can an

unproven assumption prove anything?

 

> Atheism means "lack og belief in God/Gods." The burden og proof is on the

> theists, and before they have provided such proof then we have to be

> atheists.

 

What will you accept as proof? I know that God exists but how can I convince

you?

 

> We don't need any proof. We just need the absence of proofs for

> God. To invoke God is unnecessary. The world is better explained without

> God. At least until you show me otherwise.

 

Of course if you are content with being a blind believer, what can I do? You

reject logic and you reject direct observation, so what is left?

 

> >Why is it not convincing to you? Do you have any argument to back up your

> >conviction? Otherwise you are just arguing from your own incredulity.

>

> It seems far out to make analogies between things humans have invented and

> things from nature. These areas are too different to compare like that.

 

Why? To say that it seems to far out means you are arguing from your own

incredulity.

 

> >> ANYTHING I can sense with my five senses and which proofs God!

>

> >Like what? Give me an example, or admit that God cannot be proven on the

> >basis of your senses alone.

>

> Well, one thing is that He could make Himself visible to me, He could give

> me a revelation, He could make a wonder.

 

He has revealed Himself to so many people. As an atheist you signal to God

that you don't want to know Him. If He would reveal Himself to you, He would

interfere with your desire to not know Him. If you really wanted to know God

you would follow the process that Krishna Himself describes in the Bhagavad

Gita. There He says He can only be known by devotion. If you have no

devotion how can you then know Him?

 

>But I have answered your

> question: If you can bring something which I can sense with my senses then

> that would be one kind of evidence.

 

Like what? Give me an example.

 

>I already said I didn't know exactly

> what it is. You are the one who's supposed to tell me ehat it is. I'm just

> telling what I see as evidence.

 

How can I tell you? God has proven Himself to me, but it wasn't through

material things, it was through revelation in the heart. How can you prove a

revelation in the heart to someone else. It is just like you cannot prove to

me what you think. You cannot even prove to me that you exist. I only have

your word for it, but what if I don't believe it? Then you can't prove it.

If you can't even prove to me what you think, then how do you suggest I

prove God to you?

 

> >But you have shown again and again that you are opposed to logic and good

> >reason. I have given you logic and reason, like the watch maker analogy

> >and the existence of irreducible complex systems like a single cell, but

> >you reject these by saying that you can imagine so many other solutions.

>

> What you see as logic and reason I see as unsufficient proof. Therefore I

> think I'm the one who's being reasonable here. You haven't given me any

> reasons to believe in your arguments.

 

And you haven't given me any reason to think that you accept logic and

reason.

 

> Like I said: As long as there's no reason to be a theist, then there's

> good reasons to stick to the atheistic position. I mean the same with

> logic and reason as what you are tought about it in the universities. What

> do you mean?

 

I mean that you are opposed to logic and reason, since you reject reasonable

arguments for God's existence.

 

> > because obviously we don't have the same

> >understanding of logic and reason. If you don't accept logic and reason

> >as it is commonly understood then what is the use of demanding proof

> >based on logic and reason?

>

> Well, can you prove that your idea of logic and reason is correct?

 

I can prove it, but maybe not to you. What will you accept as proof?

 

> >I am beginning to think you are not really interested in

> >logic and reason but are only trying to obfuscate matters, because you

> >know you have no basis for your claim of atheism.

>

> Like I said: I would love a proof for God. But no one is able to provide

> one.

 

I would love a proof for what you think but no one has been able to give me

one.

 

> Why not just try and give me one of your reasons? I might accept it. Right

> now your just wasting our time with a lot of debate. If you just give me

> your proof, then we can discuss later if we disagree. Don't your religion

> tell you that yoy should help people to understand God? Then why are you

> not willing to just give me the proof. If I accept it then it's good, if I

> don't then we can discuss why.

 

I have given you so many reasons in the course of this discussion, but you

reject reasonable arguments. Besides proof is subjective. You can't even

prove to me that you exist, so how do you suggest I prove God to you?

 

> Or maybe you don't really have a proof. Maybe you are hiding behind

> rhetoric because you know that you, like all other theists, can't prove

> God?

 

Or maybe I know that God exists, but you won't accept it because you are

prejudiced against God.

 

> >You didn't define what you mean by logic and reason, you only made a

> >claim that you accept logic and reason.

>

> If you take a course about logic in the university then you will learn

> what I mean.

 

I did take a course, and from what I learned i can see that you are against

logic, because you have rejected every logical argument against God.

 

> >But when you are faced with logic and

> >reason, like the existence of irreducible complex systems like single

> >cells,

> >you reject it. Therefore your claim of logic and reason is empty. Can you

> >prove to me that you accept logic and reason?

>

> Can you prove to me that you accept it? If you accept these arguments then

> I don't think you accept reason and logic.

 

Can you prove to me that you exist?

 

> Best wishes,

> The Devil's Advocate

 

Kind regards

the voice of reason