Others have tried to do that, Packfan for one, and could never get past the ability to define what 'true' means.

 

I defined it.  You just didn't like the way I defined it.

I defined it.  You just didn't like the way I defined it.
------------------------
Because you had no ability to test statements you wanted to make, and you changed the definition later to make it more condusive to your argument when you realized you were stuck.
 
Trying to argue against a moving target is not effective, nor useful.

Not again!  One last time.  I did not change the definition.  It was there in post #1.  Check the record.  You can say its not testable, you don't like it, whatever.  But it did not change.  It's right there.

No worries, kingdomseeker.

 

Is there a contingent finite substance that is self caused? If not it would seem that we are dealing with an infinite regress which of course is philosophically unsatisfying while at he same time only pushes back the question . ( A slick way of trying to avoid the obvious)

 

You are suggesting that the law of causation requires an external cause for the universe, but we both know that it only applies when you know that something began to exist.  When it comes to the universe, that is simply not known.  There is the possibility that the universe is an infinite regression of dependent states (but I realize you don't find that satisfying).  It also seems reasonable to me that the since the universe is a set of all things that exist, it necessarily follows that the universe exists as long as some thing exists (i.e., the universe doesn't require an external 'cause').  It is as silly to apply the law of causation to the universe as it is to suggest that the law of causation applies to mathematical sets (e.g., whole numbers).  At the end of the day, we don't know if the universe has a cause, and it seems unreasonable to claim it must.

 On the contrary those who claim God does exist need not be all knowing and everywhere at once because they believe that God has made himself known through revelation and His creation. They don’t have to “find” Him because He has “found” them and made Himself known to them.

 

I disagree.  If someone claims that ghosts exist (or anything else supernatural), they have a burden of proof.  Since the supernatural cannot be measured or "known" in any sense other than through personal experience, I suggest that the theistic claim is just as incoherent as the strong atheist claim (i.e., no gods exist).

At the end of the day, we don't know if the universe has a cause, and it seems unreasonable to claim it must.
------------------------------
Exactly.
 
The current physics can predict that the Big Bang occured, but speculation prior to that is just ... well ... speculation.
 
It is not knowledge, it is not informed opinion, it is just raw speculation, and as such is unhelpful and (imho) uninteresting.
 
This goes for the speculative physics as well as speculative religion.

there's a reason religion is caled "the opiate of the masses."

      From my experience so far most of the others are coming from with in the tightly sealed box of methodological naturalism positing that all that exists is matter. Supernaturalism is beyond their grasp and therefore to be conveniently ignored. With this in mind I would ask, is this proof you allude to within the box or without? I have yet to have been given foundational evidence that would reasonably counter the proposition “God Exists” either from a physical or a philosophical perspective. What “proofs” philosophically can you offer to refute the proposition “God Exists”?
------------------------------------
"All that exists is matter."   I would not say this stronly worded ontological statement.  I would say, however, the epistemological statement, "all that can be known is matter."
 
The ontological discussion is one better suited to philosophy and not science.  The philosopher side of me does admit that there could exist things that we can have no knowledge of (one example is things that exist inside a black hole, or on the other side of the Universe).
 
Personally, "God exists" and "God does not exist" are both statements with the same epistemological value: Impossible to know.
 
I have given up searching for the impossible.  There are so many possible things left undone, so many positive impacts to make, that the hammering on people for doing the impossible is not productive.
 

    If you are seeking truth in your world view pragmatism has been known to be an ungracious bed fellow. I wouldn’t have picked you to be hedging towards postmodernism!
-------------------------------
I am not a pure pragmatist, but it definitely shapes my decisions, as you can see in the previous post.
 
Thank you KS.  Have a great day, and look forward to the conversation.

I would be more then happy to go through the evidence for God however at this point I must remain determined to work through my initial intent, that of studying the viability, coherency and consistency of the atheistic world view.

__________________

LOL. Evidence....sure let's review this evidence for the existence of your particular god.
As far as the coherency and consistency of atheism, here's the bottom line: Atheists are very, very skeptical about the positive claim that gods exist. Anything else you add to this is pure political spin on your part.