You can draw all the diagrams that you want, and you can write out all the formulas in the world, and you can quantify everything under the sun and at the end of the day the proof as to whether there is or isn’t a god just simply doesn’t rest on those things.
Well, that would be BS, but is that the error that you were talking about?
How about just quote whatever it was that you felt was whatever kind of error you are talking about.
I’ll take your “BS” remark as your concession. It’s 5am. Have something better for when I wake up. I don’t have to quote you, I know how you think and my statement stands on its own.
That’s what I thought. You never actually engage in debate, do you. Hit n Run.
I can’t go to sleep at 5am? I’m not engaging you unless I start a new thread?
James, be real. Respond to the post and stop making it about me. You’re better than this.
Your constant blame-shifting efforts don’t work with me. You made a claim that I was wrong about something. I merely asked you to explain what you were referring to. And since then you have been backpedaling, shuffling your feet, and making excuses.
You are the one who needs to stop stalling, dodging, and blame-shifting and “get real”. Or are you Not better than this?
Sigh…
Let’s bring this down to…earth?
Playing the stock market.
There’s the part where the folks who have the right answers invest in particular corporations and as a result make money. Right and wrong here are easily measured. By bank accounts for example.
But then the right/wrong dichotomy shifts from playing the stock market, to justifying it as a virtuous pursuit. Investment, in other words, in sync with capitalism, said to be in sync with the most or the only rational human interactions in the economic sphere.
But some argue that, on the contrary, capitalism is the immoral pursuit of selfish gain and exploitation. A mode of production [rooted historically] that is heavily invested in the “alienation of labor” and in “commodity fetishism”.
Now, I do not argue that there is “never a right answer”. I make the distinction between answers that are embedded objectively in the either/or world and answers that are embedded subjectively/subjunctively in the is/ought world.
And, per the OP, there are facts [right and wrong answers] regarding God and religion that either are as well in sync with the either/or world, or are instead embodied existentially in dasein and in conflicting goods.
Thus I am not only willing to acknowledge the existence of any number of “indeterminant” things, I point out time and again how my being entangled in this…
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
…is entirely predicated on “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty”.
Then it becomes a matter of folks like James and Mr. Reasonable noting the extent to which they are not in turn entangled in it. Relating precisely to those human interactions deeply embedded in contingency, chance and change.
Let’s see if James and Mr. Reasonable are willing to pursue this out in the world of actual human interactions that do come into conflict over things like God and religion and value judgments. And political prejudices.
How about starting a new thread, Smears?
And, if I’m not mistaken, he means this one: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=179879
Note how he introduces it:
I’m sitting on my couch, watching a video of the alabama/lsu game while smoking a bong and waiting for chinese food to be delivered. I was thinking of getting someone over here to clean the place. This is usually what I’m doing, I’ve seen this game about 130-140 times now.
Or I’m in the bathroom someplace, bored and using my phone to post on message boards while I poop.
And, indeed, if ILP were but one more component of social media, I believe it may well be the greatest thread here.
He noted in jest. 
There is no evidence for anything involving the senses either. Can’t trust the senses, can’t trust that traffic light, color blind to our own color blindness, but we stop and go just the same. :-"
Everything is a guess, but you have to put faith in something. Put faith in the right thing, and you know it. 
I am familiar with all the arguments against God [problem of evil, blah, blah, blah] and they leave holes for the theists to continue their beliefs and therefrom enable SOME [critical numbers] evil prone believers to be continually inspired by their God by its evil laden elements to commit terrible evils upon non-believers and their own.
For more than 2000 years humans have been arguing against God with the typical counters but there is still this;
and the whole range of evils from SOME theists who are evil prone.
I believe my counter/thesis is a novelty to all those typical ineffective counters against the existence of an illusory God.
Btw, I am not proposing we eliminate theism at present but rather humanity must strive to find foolproof alternative methods to replace theism to deal with that inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
I have also provided an alternative theory why theists are compelled to believe in a God, i.e. due to psychological impulses. [evidences given].
In any case, this is merely a discussion and I am not an enforcement officer to force my views down any one throat.
Where did I presume certainty of what is good and evil? To tackle this we have to debate within the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics which I am very comfortable with.
‘Evidence’ in this case refers to empirical evidence as in Science but in addition subject to philosophical rational justifications.
Private mental states are at best beliefs and strong personal conviction without objectivity.
Such private mental states could belong to the mentally sick, the average person and the genius.
To be credible all claims from private mental states must be verified and qualified to the Framework and System used.
The point is, it is very common for the idea of a God and experiences of God to arise from the mentally sick and due to other perversions from norm, e.g.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg[/youtube]
If the above guy had those experiences of God 2000 years ago, he or a group could have claimed he is the messiah then.
But in 2017 a psychiatric diagnosis inform us his problem is due to Temporal Epilepsy.
Einstein as a human also had his private mental states to hypothesize E=MC2 but to maintain credibility, his theory has to be proven with empirical evidence, which was done. This is the same type of evidence which is lacking for a claim God exists.
Note in my thesis ‘God is an impossibility’ it is not about evidence yet.
I am questioning the hypothesis ‘God exists.’
I have demonstrated that such a hypothesis ‘God is an impossibility’ is not feasible at all, thus moot and a non-starter.
For the sake of even theory, such a hypothesis cannot be raised in the first place.
Since there is no hypothesis the question of evidence do not arise.
The only reasonable option for the idea of God to be raised is for psychological reasons.
That God does not exist has not been proved here beyond a reasonable doubt. So why not believe?
A giant tea pot orbiting a star does not exist has not been proved here beyond a reasonable doubt. So why not believe?
Anyone can make any claim, say X.
Whatever-X does not exist has not been proved here beyond a reasonable doubt. So why not believe?
A murderer [on death penalty] can claim an alien-X in outer space took control of his mind and body to kill 100 people.
So he pleaded,
Alien-X does not exist has not been proved here beyond a reasonable doubt. So why not believe and clear him of any guilt and set him free.
People [except the deranged] will not make the above claims because it is ridiculous so why theists are doing that for God.
I am sure theists will ask for proofs if they are accused of murder in a court of law.
The only reason why only theists [from the majority] make the above very unconventional claim is due to desperate psychology.
What makes psychology desperate?
One can think anything about God.
The question is : how do those thoughts affect your life and the lives of others?
Does your belief improve your life? Does it improve other lives? (You need not even care about others, but that’s another discussion.)
Nothing desperate about it. It’s just how thinking works. Thinking is a tool for navigating through the world. Usually thinking wrong stuff will get you in trouble, but not always. Since one always has many thoughts, the right thoughts may more than compensate for the wrong thoughts.
Try to find out why Abraham was so spontaneous in agreeing to kill his own son when God ‘demanded’ he do so? Why?
An further exploration into the above will lead to the so called ‘desperate psychology’ linked to a belief in God [illusory but useful psychologically].
And note the following;
What is the basis why SOME theists are so worked out that they will kill anyone who ‘insult’ their God or even drawing cartoons of God’s chosen prophet. This is so evident.
Why do SOME theists kill non-theists merely because they do not believe in God?
Why do so many theists go on a murderous and violent rampage in the name of God as if God need protection.
Why do so many theists commit all sorts of evil on non-believers [oppression, hinder the progress of knowledge, limit freedom of speech, cultural genocide, etc.] in the name of God?
The answer is the idea of God provided desperate psychological existential security and when such security is threatened with the slightest ‘perceived’ threat theist [significant SOME] will try to get rid of the perceived threat by whatever means.
Agree with the above.
Note the whole load of cons of believing in a God and notably the following [32,344] which is directly linked to God’s commands in his holy book sent to a prophet;
Besides the above which refer to only incidents with deaths, there are many other theistic based evils and violence.
I do not deny there are ‘good’ benefiting from a belief in God but the trend into the future is the cons of theism are outweighing its pros. As such we need to address this potential threat to humanity NOW.
Why? What makes you think humanity is worth saving? If your posts, filled as they are with fear and loathing of something you don’t understand, are an indication of human nature, the universe would be better off without human beings.