Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dontaskme
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:44 pm
As do I.

I'm always amazed when I hear an Atheist say, "There's no evidence..." I look around me, and I see that the evidence on every side draws one to the conclusion they don't want you to make. And when I look within, at myself, I find even more evidence of design, purpose and intention. And they say, "There's no evidence"?
There is evidence in the sense there is no way to negate evidence, in the sense there is no evidence to support that we can experience our own absense, so 'our being' is without doubt or error, it's self-evident, so what more can be shown?
I believe that Being cannot come from non-being.
Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another. I've always thought that, if I'm here now then I must have always been here, in one form or another.

We claim to have a mind capable of reason, but we cannot show our mind, no more than we can show our thoughts. And that's why we have to believe that God is of the context that is the mind. To prove God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing, and that we are not. We can only imply potentialities, probabilities and possibilities, and that's about the limit of our scope, there's no way we could ever venture off beyond our finite limitation.

.
Dontaskme
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

If the seed of thought is within just one single human being, then it's in all of them...except for some, that seed has not yet been fertilised ...
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:44 pmWhat if we all do have an innate sense of God, but there are some who simply refuse to listen to it? Is that a possibility as well?
I don't think of it, quite like that, that they are refusing to listen to it. I think more along the lines of they are totally oblivious to knowing they have it, in other words, they are simply not aware they have it, and so dont bother to inquire into the nature of their being.

Not every person can be bothered to be a cosmic wonderer, or philosopher, or a truth seeker, or ever questions '' WHO AM I ''

Some people are simply more interested in what colour handbag they are going to buy today. :D

.
Dontaskme
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:48 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:48 am ...The dream is all that is known ...
But wait: if something "is known," as you say, then you have two things again, the "knower" and "what she knows." That's at least dualism again.

Then there would be the question of what it is that generates the "known" that the "knower knows," since it cannot be the "knower" herself, for if it were, she would already "know" it...so now we've got three... :?
To know you are knowing something can only happen within the dream of dualistic conceptual illusory separation.
In deep sleep there is no knowledge of I - in sleep I Am not aware I Am - in sleep I Am without knowing I Am... upon awakening from sleep, I Am now In knowledge, I Am knowing I Am... In sleep I don't know. And I know I don't know because upon awakening from sleep I know. ( that's a non - dualistic understanding )

All concepts are known, and the Known arises instantaneously with the knower, both knower and known create each other in the exact same instance of recognition by the only knowing there is which is consciousness (the waking state ) which is the only KNOWN state, as opposed to the sleeping state, ( unconscious / not knowing ) For example: there is no known without a knower and vice versa, both knower and known have to exist simultaneously together, as ONE ...and this is known as consciousness, the dream.

That's a nondual answer, so I'm not sure if it makes sense to you IC
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11659
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:13 pm There is evidence in the sense there is no way to negate evidence,
Okay, but that's minimal. If all we say of any evidence is, "There's no way to negate it," we haven't said much. I think the evidence, both from observation of nature and of ourselves, is stronger and much more positive than the Atheist will allow. He would like to think that the evidence favours Atheism, even though Atheism manifestly isn't even capable of evidence; and he'd really, really like to believe there's nothing at all -- or at least nothing compelling -- to which a Theist could ever point. But, of course, I think he's quite wrong about that, too.

Atheism is, by its own definition, a position held only negatively, not on strength of evidence (which most Atheist will refuse even to try to provide, and will insist they don't need to provide anyway) only in order to avoid thinking of a different possibility.
I believe that Being cannot come from non-being.
So do I. But it begs a question. When we say it "cannot come from" non-being, are we saying a) that being comes from God, who is the Source of Being and has always existed, or b) that nothing that is now could ever have not-been in the past? Because if it's b) I think our own observations will make us tend to think that's wrong. It seems quite clear that things can begin to exist; the question is what happens to them at the end...
Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another. I've always thought that, if I'm here now then I must have always been here, in one form or another.

I know a great many people in the world believe that. But they have problems with it, the first of which is, "If I have already existed, then what is the cause of my forgetfulness of that fact? Why don't I remember what I was? Because, after all, most people don't remember any "previous life". "Where did the amnesia come from, and what does it signify?"

Hinduism, for example, has explanations to try to cover that one. I don't know how persuasive you find such explanations... One thing for sure: if I can't remember my previous lives, either I didn't actually have any, or something other than me is interfering with me knowing I did and remembering precisely what has happened to me. And that, in itself, requires further explanation.
To prove God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing, and that we are not.

Right. Which is why Atheists can't even plausibly claim to be operating on the basis of having proved their position, even to themselves. It's a gratuitous belief, not a rational one.
...here's no way we could ever venture off beyond our finite limitation.
Here is the bit I don't get about your views, DAM. Sometimes you seem to say that you (and I, presumably) are the cosmic mind. But the cosmic mind must be unlimited, have always been, and will always exist into the future. In other words, if there's such a "cosmic mind," it must be "infinite" and "unlimited."

But if we have "finite limitation," then you and I are not the infinite, the cosmic mind, the eternal, the "unlimited." We are instead something that is "limited" by things. We are "finite," as you claim. But if that's the case, then why should we have trouble believing there was a time when we did not exist? And what has been running the universe before you and I existed, or compensating for the fact that you and I are "finite," and can't even remember our own "eternal pasts," if we had them at all?
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Okay, but that's minimal. If all we say of any evidence is, "There's no way to negate it," we haven't said much. I think the evidence, both from observation of nature and of ourselves, is stronger and much more positive than the Atheist will allow. He would like to think that the evidence favours Atheism, even though Atheism manifestly isn't even capable of evidence; and he'd really, really like to believe there's nothing at all -- or at least nothing compelling -- to which a Theist could ever point. But, of course, I think he's quite wrong about that, too.
By 'observation of nature' I assume you are talking about science. If you are then there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Immanuel Can wrote: Atheism is, by its own definition, a position held only negatively, not on strength of evidence (which most Atheist will refuse even to try to provide, and will insist they don't need to provide anyway) only in order to avoid thinking of a different possibility.
And what evidence might that be IC?
Immanuel Can wrote: Right. Which is why Atheists can't even plausibly claim to be operating on the basis of having proved their position, even to themselves. It's a gratuitous belief, not a rational one.
There is plenty of evidence for the non-existence of God, it comes in the form of alternative explanations for the so-called scientific and rational explanations for the existence of God.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11659
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 3:37 am ...there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Well, I hate to tell you, but if you think that, you're misinformed. There are very good empirical, mathematical, rational and other arguments. But Atheists tend not to want to sit still for any of them.
Immanuel Can wrote: Atheism is, by its own definition, a position held only negatively, not on strength of evidence (which most Atheist will refuse even to try to provide, and will insist they don't need to provide anyway) only in order to avoid thinking of a different possibility.
And what evidence might that be IC?
You mean the "evidence" they refuse to provide? That's what I'm speaking of above, so I must assume so.

It would be any evidence justifying the claim, "There is no God."
There is plenty of evidence for the non-existence of God,
"Plenty," you say?

What would be one such "evidence"?
Dontaskme
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:33 pm Okay, but that's minimal. If all we say of any evidence is, "There's no way to negate it," we haven't said much. I think the evidence, both from observation of nature and of ourselves, is stronger and much more positive than the Atheist will allow. He would like to think that the evidence favours Atheism, even though Atheism manifestly isn't even capable of evidence; and he'd really, really like to believe there's nothing at all -- or at least nothing compelling -- to which a Theist could ever point. But, of course, I think he's quite wrong about that, too.

Atheism is, by its own definition, a position held only negatively, not on strength of evidence (which most Atheist will refuse even to try to provide, and will insist they don't need to provide anyway) only in order to avoid thinking of a different possibility.
I think the problem lies in trying to tag the ''what is'' or '' all that is'' to a label, is the limitation right there.
The trick is to be still and silent and to just be. By doing that, it can feel like there is a sense of contraction ( a me ) that then dissolves completely away like an ice-cube melting into the water it is floating in, as if it never existed.

The 'what is' or 'all that is' cannot be put into one single category simply because that would make the ''knower'' an object. In reality, ''knowing'' is all there is, and an object known is of this ''knowing'' ...it's not the object that knows, the object is known by the only knowing there is..which is consciousness...the 'all that is'' or the 'what is' ...''knowing'' is only ever in the immediate moment, which is known as NOW ...where the past and present reside, there is only the now immediate moment where knowing is known.

The atheist, asking who created God is a category fallacy. It appears as though there is a 'someone' aka an object asking a question. In reality objects are already being known, and that which is known cannot know anything.

So asking who created God is like a denial of existence itself. It would be like the human being asking itself who created the very first human being. . even though the human being is self-evident, and so what need is there for further inquiry? there is no need, simply because it's already self-evident. Also, it's all functioning perfectly and efficiently like clockwork. Every thing is effortlessly being without having to do anything. Breathing is happening automatically, the heart is pumping automatically, even the trees and grass grows all by itself effortlessly.


.
Dontaskme
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another. I've always thought that, if I'm here now then I must have always been here, in one form or another.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:33 pmI know a great many people in the world believe that. But they have problems with it, the first of which is, "If I have already existed, then what is the cause of my forgetfulness of that fact? Why don't I remember what I was? Because, after all, most people don't remember any "previous life". "Where did the amnesia come from, and what does it signify?"
Beause the I AM's only existence is within the dream of illusory separation, which is a reflection of knowledge.

In the immediate moment there is no thing known to be happening. Although things are obviously happening, there is no knowledge of such. There's just pure empty subjective observing. Things are only known to have happened when the observing becomes aware of itself upon reflection. Reflecting is a reflexive action also in the immediate moment. This reflexive action is only ever a projection of past or future events appearing now. Past and future are illusions within the dream, and the dream is knowledge upon reflection.

It's difficult to remember a dream, but not impossible, but the recall is never an accurate account of what happened, it's blurry.
It's also difficult to remember what we had for lunch 3 weeks ago from now. This is because only the immediate moment is real, everything else - either side of the now..aka past and future is the dream.

I'm not sure what I am saying makes any sense to anyone reading, but it all makes sense to me. I do not need to explain what makes sense to me to another. All I can do is show another what makes sense to me, it will either resonate or not. The truth is within all of us, that I do believe. And I also believe God is real, because I am real. The dream is real, the illusion is real. It's all real. Everything and nothing is real. ...but here is the kicker: :arrow: the opposite is also true.

No one has to believe anything I say, I invite people only to listen. What I say comes from my own direct experience, unique to me.
That nothing I say makes sense to others, is of no concern to me. Nor is it any of my business, I am simply reporting my surround as I am experiencing it.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:02 am
Ginkgo wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 3:37 am ...there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Well, I hate to tell you, but if you think that, you're misinformed. There are very good empirical, mathematical, rational and other arguments. But Atheists tend not to want to sit still for any of them.
Immanuel Can wrote: Atheism is, by its own definition, a position held only negatively, not on strength of evidence (which most Atheist will refuse even to try to provide, and will insist they don't need to provide anyway) only in order to avoid thinking of a different possibility.
And what evidence might that be IC?
You mean the "evidence" they refuse to provide? That's what I'm speaking of above, so I must assume so.

It would be any evidence justifying the claim, "There is no God."
There is plenty of evidence for the non-existence of God,
"Plenty," you say?

What would be one such "evidence"?
ALL arguments for the existence of God have been subject to counter arguments .That is enough evidence for any atheist. II have seen most of your empirical, mathematical and rational arguments for the existence of God and they all fall short. As I have said, all arguments for the existence of God are subject to counter arguments.
Last edited by Ginkgo on Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dontaskme
Posts: 9976
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Dontaskme »

...here's no way we could ever venture off beyond our finite limitation.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:33 pmHere is the bit I don't get about your views, DAM. Sometimes you seem to say that you (and I, presumably) are the cosmic mind. But the cosmic mind must be unlimited, have always been, and will always exist into the future. In other words, if there's such a "cosmic mind," it must be "infinite" and "unlimited."
We are both the dreamer and the dream. The dreamer is the unlimited / infinite - lucid within it's own dreaming. Every dream is an appearance of the dreamer, and as an appearance it's existence implies a limited and a finite experience within limitless experiencing.

That's the only way I know how to answer your comments IC
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:33 pmBut if we have "finite limitation," then you and I are not the infinite, the cosmic mind, the eternal, the "unlimited." We are instead something that is "limited" by things. We are "finite," as you claim. But if that's the case, then why should we have trouble believing there was a time when we did not exist? And what has been running the universe before you and I existed, or compensating for the fact that you and I are "finite," and can't even remember our own "eternal pasts," if we had them at all?
We have trouble when we identify ourselves wholly as being the finite experience, rather than recognising our true nature that is both the infinite and finite...through knowledge. In Knowledge I am aware I am dreaming..aka I AM known.

The identification with myself as existing as a character now, is but one of an infinite appearances ( dream characters ) within the infinite.

Although this apparent identification with being a human has only just showed up on the stage of life, that idea is just within the dream of knowledge. In reality, the observer is the alpha and the omega, the first and the last infinitely for eternity, appearing as every character experience, in form, in knowledge. That's what I believe anyway.

And that is also what's known as the BELOVED - or God....this is it, it's the unreal real-ity. Likened to a dream, or simulation. And this is where the atheist stumble in their non-belief...simply because they are attempting to negate and refute the very fact that they are without doubt or error, self-evident. :D this is why I became so attracted to nonduality. Because it's pointings and what it is pointing to are ultimately and utterly irrefutable.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11659
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:03 am ... asking who created God is like a denial of existence itself...
Well, it only moves the problem back one stage: if one supposes there was a "created" god, then it would only be "a god," not the ultimate God, and the creator of that god would be the Supreme Being...which is the Christian definition of God.
It would be like the human being asking itself who created the very first human being.

Oh, that's quite different, because human beings are definitely contingent, limited beings. They begin and end. So some "cause" for that must be found.

Scientifically, we can prove the Earth is not past-eternal; neither, for that matter, is the universe itself eternal. Time is linear, instead, and there was an inception point to what we know as the universe. And we know that things don't happen without a cause, so something must have caused the whole sequence to commence.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11659
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dontaskme wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:08 am
Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another. I've always thought that, if I'm here now then I must have always been here, in one form or another.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:33 pmI know a great many people in the world believe that. But they have problems with it, the first of which is, "If I have already existed, then what is the cause of my forgetfulness of that fact? Why don't I remember what I was? Because, after all, most people don't remember any "previous life". "Where did the amnesia come from, and what does it signify?"
Although things are obviously happening, there is no knowledge of such. There's just pure empty subjective observing. Things are only known to have happened when the observing becomes aware of itself upon reflection.
That doesn't really address the question. It just says, "We forget," but doesn't even make a start towards saying why we do...especially if we are this pure "knower" that then, theoretically, should know everything always.

If we're the centre of all things, why are we so darn bad at doing it?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11659
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:24 am ALL arguments for the existence of God have been subject to counter arguments .That is enough evidence for any atheist.
It certainly shouldn't be; at least, not if Atheists are behaving rationally.

There are arguments offered by various people on both sides of many questions. But not all such answers are equally good. Not all account properly for the data. Not all are rationally coherent. Not all are supported with evidence. Not all accord with things we already know for certain already. And so on.

So the mere existence of counter-proposals is kind of unimportant, unless those proposals are better with the data, more rationally coherent, and so on. You say you know what all the Theistic explanations are, and you say there are alternate proposals. Well, sure. But so what? Which is actually the better argument -- that's the real question.

As you can see on the previous page, if you look for the green print, no less an Atheist than Richard Dawkins claims that the first and most obvious conclusion from observation of the data is a "religious" feeling, a desire to "worship," to "attribute [it to] a maker or creator." So now, Dawkins has placed the burden squarely on the shoulders of the skeptical Atheist to show why we ought to resist our common sense and the preponderance of the data, and instead insist there's no God. It's not at all an equal starting point, therefore.

But it gets worse for the Atheist. For the Atheist has now to prove the non-existence of Something, whereas the Theist has only to show evidence that counts for the existence of Something. But whereas the existence of a thing is relatively easy to demonstrate, the non-existence is often very difficult or even (as in the case of God) impossible to prove.

If I say, "Viruses exist," and somebody else says, "No, they don't," which one of us stands the best chance to prove his case? All I have to do is show one virus...or plausibly, even verifiable effects of a virus, maybe, and my hypothesis would have to become the favoured one.

But imagine my poor opponent: how is he ever going to go about proving that no such thing as a virus exists? What test will he create that will definitively eliminate viruses from the possibility of existence? Even if he can conclusively show that one person's disease is not the result of a virus, what about the next person? What about people in other countries? What about people in the entire history of the world? The poor lad is up a creek without a paddle.

But his situation is somewhat better than that of the Atheist, who has the task of showing that no God, no gods, no kind of god, ever existed anywhere; and that none of the apparent effects of His activity are actual evidences of God. What kind of a test meets that standard? And if he can't produce such a line of evidence, then he's offering no more than a wish, and the best hypothesis is still the God hypothesis.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote:
There are arguments offered by various people on both sides of many questions. But not all such answers are equally good. Not all account properly for the data. Not all are rationally coherent. Not all are supported with evidence. Not all accord with things we already know for certain already. And so on.

So the mere existence of counter-proposals is kind of unimportant, unless those proposals are better with the data, more rationally coherent, and so on. You say you know what all the Theistic explanations are, and you say there are alternate proposals. Well, sure. But so what? Which is actually the better argument -- that's the real question.
The counter proposals are important and they are better than the arguments that claim to show the existence of God.
Immanuel Can wrote: As you can see on the previous page, if you look for the green print, no less an Atheist than Richard Dawkins claims that the first and most obvious conclusion from observation of the data is a "religious" feeling, a desire to "worship," to "attribute [it to] a maker or creator." So now, Dawkins has placed the burden squarely on the shoulders of the skeptical Atheist to show why we ought to resist our common sense and the preponderance of the data, and instead insist there's no God. It's not at all an equal starting point, therefore.
Fallacy of incredulity
Immanuel Can wrote: But it gets worse for the Atheist. For the Atheist has now to prove the non-existence of Something, whereas the Theist has only to show evidence that counts for the existence of Something. But whereas the existence of a thing is relatively easy to demonstrate, the non-existence is often very difficult or even (as in the case of God) impossible to prove.{/quote]

I would strongly disagree with this. All the arguments for the existence of God have been successfully proved wrong by atheists.
.
Immanuel Can wrote: If I say, "Viruses exist," and somebody else says, "No, they don't," which one of us stands the best chance to prove his case? All I have to do is show one virus...or plausibly, even verifiable effects of a virus, maybe, and my hypothesis would have to become the favoured one.

But imagine my poor opponent: how is he ever going to go about proving that no such thing as a virus exists? What test will he create that will definitively eliminate viruses from the possibility of existence? Even if he can conclusively show that one person's disease is not the result of a virus, what about the next person? What about people in other countries? What about people in the entire history of the world? The poor lad is up a creek without a paddle.
Fallacy of false analogy. You cannot prove anything by way of analogy.
Immanuel Can wrote: But his situation is somewhat better than that of the Atheist, who has the task of showing that no God, no gods, no kind of god, ever existed anywhere; and that none of the apparent effects of His activity are actual evidences of God. What kind of a test meets that standard? And if he can't produce such a line of evidence, then he's offering no more than a wish, and the best hypothesis is still the God hypothesis.
In fact a large part of you post is a fallacy of incredulity. In other words, my argument does not conform to your expectations and beliefs
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11659
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2021 1:37 am The counter proposals are important and they are better than the arguments that claim to show the existence of God.
Really?

Let's hear them.
I would strongly disagree with this. All the arguments for the existence of God have been successfully proved wrong by atheists.
I can't wait to hear them, then.
Fallacy of false analogy.
Sorry to correct: it wasn't an analogy. It was an example, specifically, an example of how "proving something" works. And it works the same way for everything...to prove something didn't happen, or didn't exist is far, far harder than to prove it did.

And in the case of "disproving" God, it's impossible. Disproof for the existence of God would entail a person having demonstrations that no gods had ever existed in the past, in no corner of the universe, at any time, in any dimension. In other words, anyone possessed of such a disproof would have to have been everywhere, seen everything, at all times, and know for certain there was no possibility of any god existing anywhere, anytime.

You may judge for yourself whether it is even possible that such a person has done that. If he had, he's wrong again...there would be a god, and it would be him. :shock: For nobody else could do the set of tests required to disprove the existence of the Supreme Being.

This is another thing Dawkins has realized, that less aware Atheists might have not. That's why Dawkins declines, when pressed, to say "I'm an Atheist." He knows it's an inherently irrational position, no more than a skeptical wish. And he does not want to be responsible for showing disproofs. You can see him deny that he is even an "Atheist."

See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4

Now, it's true that there are Atheists around who imagine that maybe some "disproof" they haven't heard of exists somewhere. And though they can never give it to you, they maintain their faith that somebody must have it somewhere. They figure, "Why would all the other Atheists be so bold, so confident, if they had nothing by way of a disproof? So there must be one..."

Sadly for them, they're just ill-informed. There is no such "disproof." Nor could there ever be.
Post Reply