in re God: your strongest objection or argument against

[yrreg]

Why didn't I introduce this topic earlier in my exchanges with atheists here on God or no God?

I guess I must have been not so intelligent.


Anyway, atheists here, what is your strongest objection or argument against God?





Yrreg

[laca]

Against what now?

ETA: What is your strongest objection against any or all of the following: Allah, Buddha, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, elves, Sauron?

[leon_heller]

Gods don't exist.

Leon

[badnewsBH]

Anyway, atheists here, what is your strongest objection or argument against God?


Yrreg


The strongest argument against God is that there is, as yet, no evidence for the existence of such a being. It's not my argument, of course; many people made it long before I was around.

[X]

There is no evidence for the existence of god(s).

Everything I have ever seen rests on the underlying assumption that there must be something.
An assumption which is completely without foundation.

[Mojo]

Occam's razor.

[Sun Countess]

My answer to that question is the same as your answer to:
Anyway, theists here, what is your strongest objection or argument against Odin?

[RoboTimbo]

It's the same as your strongest argument against the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Thor. You apparenly don't have enough objective evidence to support their existence. It's also the same as your strongest objection to Santa Claus. And leprechauns. And elves. And Saruman.

If you've found a way to overcome your objections to the above, let me know and then we'll see about overcoming atheists' objection to your favorite god.

[leon_heller]

Why didn't I introduce this topic earlier in my exchanges with atheists here on God or no God?

I guess I must have been not so intelligent.


Anyway, atheists here, what is your strongest objection or argument against God?
Yrreg

Who or what is God? You really ought to define the term.

Leon

[Mojo]

Who or what is God? You really ought to define the term.


He usually expects atheists to define it for him. This makes it rather easy to prove it doesn't exist. ;)

[bookitty]

Why didn't I introduce this topic earlier in my exchanges with atheists here on God or no God?

I guess I must have been not so intelligent.


Anyway, atheists here, what is your strongest objection or argument against God?

Yrreg

This is not the first time you have asked this, it comes up in each of your redundant posts.

So the real question is - What intellectual blind spot keeps you from anticipating the answers you will get?

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Meh I'm bored, so I'll just repeat what hundreds of others must have responded to similar questions over time.
There are several dozen religions out there, all claiming to be the true word of the divine which all totally contradict each other without even a single true overlap in their teachings at all.
Since they all claim all the others are false I believe all of them in this regard, as a god as powerful and involved in humanity as our religions claim would never be that confusing.
Humans would be, and there is nothing as human as god, after all we made it all up.

[Btodd]

Same objection as the others, but I'll state it differently:

"How can I tell a God that is intentionally hidden from one that doesn't exist?"

[John Jones]

Anyway, atheists here, what is your strongest objection or argument against God?

He never calls before he drops in, and he never brings any beer. Nobody likes a freeloader.

[yrreg]

For some of you atheists here, your strongest objection or argument is the lack of evidence for God, then?


Is this also the strongest objection or argument for all intelligent and actively relevantly thinkng atheists, here?




Yrreg

[Ignatowski]

For some of you atheists here, your strongest objection or argument is the lack of evidence for God, then?


Is this also the strongest objection or argument for all intelligent and actively relevantly thinkng atheists, here?




Yrreg

yes.

[Mojo]

For some of you atheists here, your strongest objection or argument is the lack of evidence for God, then?


Is this also the strongest objection or argument for all intelligent and actively relevantly thinkng atheists, here?


You would have to ask them that.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

For some of you atheists here, your strongest objection or argument is the lack of evidence for God, then?


Is this also the strongest objection or argument for all intelligent and actively relevantly thinkng atheists, here?


Yrreg

Well, what do you think? :boggled:

[RoboTimbo]

For some of you atheists here, your strongest objection or argument is the lack of evidence for God, then?


Is this also the strongest objection or argument for all intelligent and actively relevantly thinkng atheists, here?




Yrreg

And also your strongest argument against other gods not of your own persuasion?

[Ladewig]

Yerrg, not only do I not believe in God (put me down as lack of evidence), if the God of the Bible appeared before me and completely and unambiguously demonstrated His existence, I would not worship Him. He is, in my opinion, not worthy of worship. Furthermore, I assure you that I am not the only JREFer who holds that opinion.

[KingMerv00]

Burden of proof.

[X]

For some of you atheists here, your strongest objection or argument is the lack of evidence for God, then?


Is this also the strongest objection or argument for all intelligent and actively relevantly thinking atheists, here?




Yrreg




It is perhaps not my strongest, in the sense of being the one ultimate objection.
There are other reasons, many of which I consider of equal merit, against the existence of a god.
The lack of evidence is, however, the strongest argument with a simple explanation.

As for what others view as their strongest argument, you'd have to ask them.

Remember: The only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god(s). Everything else, even the reasons for unbelief, are subject to variation between individuals.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm too bored to come up with my own statement.

If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi


~~ Paul

[Elizabeth I]

For some of you atheists here, your strongest objection or argument is the lack of evidence for God, then?

Is this also the strongest objection or argument for all intelligent and actively relevantly thinkng atheists, here?

What makes you think anyone here knows what is in the mind of anyone else or is inclined to speak for them?

[bookitty]

For some of you atheists here, your strongest objection or argument is the lack of evidence for God, then?


Is this also the strongest objection or argument for all intelligent and actively relevantly thinkng atheists, here?



Again, asked and answered too many times already. (Although this time with new 'n improved insinuations of atheism being a religion.)

What is keeping you from understanding?

[JoeTheJuggler]

As others have said, the lack of evidence.

But I'd go further and say the lack of a definition makes the question of evidence premature. What do you mean by "God"?

If you're talking about the typical omnipotent, omniscient, and all-compassionate one, the argument from evil shows that such a deity is inconsistent with the real world.

[Correa Neto]

Because if god exists, after my death, I'll be so totally [f-word]ed due to my sinfull sexual life!
And that's also why I am such a rabid god-hater.

Now that you read something which fits within you flawed myopic preconceived view of atheists, I must ask: feeling happy now?

[kerikiwi]

Is this also the strongest objection or argument for all intelligent and actively relevantly thinkng atheists, here?



if I could find an actively relevantly thinking atheist it would probably be god: it makes as much sense.

[godless dave]

Lack of evidence, as I've told you before.

[Echoes]

No evidence.

Also, humans have had a long and storied history of writing myths, and I believe that gives me good reason to expect that Yahweh is just more of the same.

But, really, no evidence.

[Bikewer]

1. No direct evidence.

2. No indirect evidence. (things that would require the action of a deity)

3. Plenty of evidence of God/Gods as an artifact of human culture and psychology.

[Limbo]

“We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams” -Willy Wonka

[mist]

If I thought it would improve my (understanding of) life I would probably adopt a religion, but as it is I think it would fill my life with confusion, doubt, ignorance, fear and a general misunderstanding of how things work.

[KingMerv00]

“We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams” -Willy Wonka

Ironically, Gene Wilder considered himself an atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_(surnames_T_to_Z)).

[truethat]

I went to Seminary this fall as an Atheist. I quit because of the ******** they were passing off as thinking.

When you deconstruct the bible and in about 7 hours can see that in the OT you've got a lot of cult of the father, mixed up translation of Hebrew, myths and false stories with no corroborating archeological evidence, such as "EXODUS" never happened, no evidence while there's a lot of evidence for other stories it just bogggles the mind that anyone with half a brain in their head could seriously make the argument that the biblical God is a real entity.

What is happening nowadays is the "God is the Maybe" theme which I'm seriously considering writing a book about.

You have a believer creating a default pile where every unknown mystery is neatly swept in and labeled "Maybe God???"

The reason I started calling myself an atheist is that I tired of people pretending that my willingingness to concede that there are mysteries for which we have no explanation translates into "There might be a God"

God has a specific definition based on your belief system. You can't jumble all mystery together and call it God.

There is no biblical God, there is no Jewish God, there is no Allah, there is no Zeus. These are all very very very very clearly with just the slightest bit of investigation, and everyone knows this, NOT REAL ENTITIES>

You want to argue that God is beyond our explanation yadda yadda, some unknown mystery, fine. But I wouldn't call that God.

There is a real problem in society today in the way this word is used. The term "GOD" means something specific in this world.

So that God? Is he real. No *********** way. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.

[jmcvann]

No evidence.
No need.

[truethat]

Lack of evidence, as I've told you before.

No evidence.

Also, humans have had a long and storied history of writing myths, and I believe that gives me good reason to expect that Yahweh is just more of the same.

But, really, no evidence.

1. No direct evidence.

2. No indirect evidence. (things that would require the action of a deity)

3. Plenty of evidence of God/Gods as an artifact of human culture and psychology.

No evidence.
No need.

Saying that there is no evidence is not enough. There are things that we may discover in the future for which now there is no evidence. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The key point in this case is what Bikewer posted which is that there is not only NO EVIDENCE but there are piles and piles of evidence that God is a man made invention.

[godless dave]

Ironically, Gene Wilder considered himself an atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_(surnames_T_to_Z)).

I don't consider that ironic. Making music and dreaming have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of gods. I'm not sure why Limbo posted that here. Maybe he clicked the wrong thread by accident. I do know that movie was on FAM this evening.

[godless dave]

Saying that there is no evidence is not enough. There are things that we may discover in the future for which now there is no evidence. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Right, but without evidence we have no reason to think it exists.

[Limbo]

I don't consider that ironic. Making music and dreaming have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of gods. I'm not sure why Limbo posted that here. Maybe he clicked the wrong thread by accident. I do know that movie was on AMC this evening.


I don't know why his majesty considers it ironic either. Maybe he thinks I posted it to argue for God?

I posted that here because we are the dreamers of dreams, and 'myths are public dream and dreams are private myths'. Myths and dreams come from the same place. 'God', as typically conceived by typical theists and atheists, is a magnified dream...a symbolic mythic form, not an autonomous being. That is my strongest argument against that sort of kindergarten literalistic anthropomorphic God.

[Kilgore Trout]

Ironically, Gene Wilder considered himself an atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_(surnames_T_to_Z)).

(Um.. That probably should be "considers" since the man's still alive..)

[Limbo]

(Um.. That probably should be "considers" since the man's still alive..)


Plus, it seems that 'atheist' doesn't really cover it. "Well, I'm a Jewish-Buddhist-Atheist, I guess." -Gene Wilder.

[jiggeryqua]

Ironically, Gene Wilder considered himself an atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_(surnames_T_to_Z)).


"Well, I'm a Jewish-Buddhist-Atheist, I guess."


What some of you chaps would call a 'weak' atheist, I guess...

[Hokulele]

Anyway, atheists here, what is your strongest objection or argument against God?


Religion.

[ThatSoundAgain]

Nipples.

On men?!

[PDoug]

The evidence of God is all around us. It is just not in forms that we are accustomed to. Generally the strongest evidence of God, is the correlation between claims in scriptures, and our observations of universal laws. E.g. the scriptures claim that that when a person (legitimately) unites with God, the person takes on God's qualities, and becomes fundamentally good in a manner not seen anywhere else in the universe. I've personally observed this myself.

There are other things though. E.g. in our sphere of operations, we see that for there to be order, intelligence is required to establish and maintain it. Also, the greater or more sophisticated the order, the greater the required intelligence. We see this in the building of bird's nests, fox holes, houses, cars, computers, space craft, etc. We see this whether we are here on earth or in space. We have no reason to believe therefore that this law does not extend everywhere, suggesting that the staggering order seen in the universe, has been established and maintained by a myriad of intelligences, whose ultimate source is God, consistent with the depiction of things in mystical and other Christian related texts.

[Elizabeth I]

No evidence.

Also, humans have had a long and storied history of writing myths, and I believe that gives me good reason to expect that Yahweh is just more of the same.

But, really, no evidence.

That's interesting. The highlighted item above is the most important of them for me. My non-religious "epiphany" came when I realized that everybody has a creation myth, and tons of cultures have dying-and-resurrecting god-kings, so why should one of them be more likely to be true than any others?

[Hokulele]

There are other things though. E.g. in our sphere of operations, we see that for there to be order, intelligence is required to establish and maintain it.


Nope. To use Tricky's favorite example, take a bunch of mud, sand, and small pebbles and put them in a clear jar with a fair amount of water. Cover and shake enthusiastically. After it settles, you may notice a lovely order in the materials. If you do not personally think that order is complex enough (whatever "complex" means), try to do the same ordering by hand.

[PDoug]

Nope. To use Tricky's favorite example, take a bunch of mud, sand, and small pebbles and put them in a clear jar with a fair amount of water. Cover and shake enthusiastically. After it settles, you may notice a lovely order in the materials. If you do not personally think that order is complex enough (whatever "complex" means), try to do the same ordering by hand.
Yes, but that doesn't negate the fact that in order to get substantially greater order, you need correspondingly greater intelligence. Has anyone ever witnessed a natural non-human process produce a car?

[Hokulele]

Yes, but that doesn't negate the fact that in order to get substantially greater order, you need correspondingly greater intelligence. Has anyone ever witnessed a natural non-human process produce a car?


Nope. Why do you personally believe a car demonstrates greater order than a natural diamond?

[Elizabeth I]

Nope. Why do you personally believe a car demonstrates greater order than a natural diamond?

Or a snowflake?

[devnull]

Gerry: everyone is an atheist in respect to the majority of gods that have ever been worshipped.

How do you feel about Thor for example?

It is easy for a theist to understand atheism - you dont believe in most of the gods either - we just go 1 more.

Again, this is such a trivial notion, I really question your motives in starting this thread.

[ScottXSI]

The evidence of God is all around us. It is just not in forms that we are accustomed to. Generally the strongest evidence of God, is the correlation between claims in scriptures, and our observations of universal laws. The scriptures claim that that when a person (legitimately) unites with God, the person takes on God's qualities, and becomes fundamentally good in a manner not seen anywhere else in the universe. I've personally observed this myself.

There are other things though. E.g. in our sphere of operations, we see that for there to be order, intelligence is required to establish and maintain it. Also, the greater or more sophisticated the order, the greater the required intelligence. We see this in the building of bird's nests, fox holes, houses, cars, computers, space craft, etc. We see this whether we are here on earth or in space. We have no reason to believe therefore that this law does not extend everywhere, suggesting that the staggering order seen in the universe, has been established and maintained by a myriad of intelligences, whose ultimate source is God, consistent with the depiction of things in mystical and other Christian related texts.

You mean these same scriptures that have been edited and tampered with by man for thouasands of years, that don't contain any sort of accurate information as to how the world actually works, including even the basics such as the earth revolving around the sun and the earth being a sphere.

All of the things you have mentioned above all have real answers made by people who got off their behind and actually looked into the natural world and discovered that what they saw was completely different to what the bible said.

The bible was made up by man and god is a man made idea created to give answers to what people were unable to explain for themselves.

[PDoug]

Nope. Why do you personally believe a car demonstrates greater order than a natural diamond?
On a macro (non-molecular) scale, a car shows more order than a pile of dirt.

[Hokulele]

Or a snowflake?


Heh. Every time someone brings up a car as an example of intelligent design or order, I think to myself, "There's a person who has never driven a Pontiac Sunfire."

[Elizabeth I]

On a macro (non-molecular) scale, a car shows more order than a pile of dirt.

That doesn't seem to me to answer Hokulele's objection, or mine.

[dio]

the staggering order seen in the universe, has been established and maintained by a myriad of intelligences, whose ultimate source is God, consistent with the depiction of things in mystical and other Christian related texts.

That's new to me. Could you expand?

Welcome to the forum.

[Hokulele]

On a macro (non-molecular) scale, a car shows more order than a pile of dirt.


"There's a person who has never driven a Pontiac Sunfire."

How about a diamond?

[devnull]

Heh. Every time someone brings up a car as an example of intelligent design or order, I think to myself, "There's a person who has never driven a Pontiac Sunfire."

Ill see your Sunfire and raise you a Leyland P76 :)

[devnull]

Sorry, has he mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics yet? I havent been following..

[PDoug]

You mean these same scriptures that have been edited and tampered with by man for thouasands of years, that don't contain any sort of accurate information as to how the world actually works, including even the basics such as the earth revolving around the sun and the earth being a sphere.

All of the things you have mentioned above all have real answers made by people who got off their behind and actually looked into the natural world and discovered that what they saw was completely different to what the bible said.

The bible was made up by man and god is a man made idea created to give answers to what people were unable to explain for themselves.


Isaiah 40 (New International Version)

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Apart from the above scripture, all indications are that God sees the earth from several perspectives. Therefore when God e.g. in the Bible talks about the four corners of the earth, He is just relating things from a perspective beyond our perception. E.g. if you are an ant that lives in a tree, your perspective of your surroundings will be very different from a human beings' having much greater percepetion, and varied perspectives of your existence.

[Elizabeth I]

Isaiah 40 (New International Version)

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Apart from the above scripture, all indications are that God sees the earth from several perspectives. Therefore when God e.g. in the Bible talks about the four corners of the earth, He is just relating things from a perspective beyond our perception. E.g. if you are an ant that lives in a tree, your perspective of your surroundings will be very different from a human beings' having much greater percepetion, and varied perspectives of your existence.

First you're going to have to show that the Bible should be given credence, and by what authority.

p.s. you can't say, "By God's authority," because that's circular.

[devnull]

and the Earth isnt a circle......

[truethat]

Isaiah 40 (New International Version)

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Apart from the above scripture, all indications are that God sees the earth from several perspectives. Therefore when God e.g. in the Bible talks about the four corners of the earth, He is just relating things from a perspective beyond our perception. E.g. if you are an ant that lives in a tree, your perspective of your surroundings will be very different from a human beings' having much greater percepetion, and varied perspectives of your existence.

This is what I'm talking about.

This is why I left seminary.

Let me ask you a question.

Who wrote the bible that you are using?

[PDoug]

That doesn't seem to me to answer Hokulele's objection, or mine.

How doesn't it? If we are e.g. focusing on the building of shelters for man and animals, and the shaping of novel natural resources for living creatures, is it not apparent that for there to be order, intelligence is required, and greater order requires greater intelligence?

[Elizabeth I]

How doesn't it? If we are e.g. focusing on the building of shelters for man and animals, and the shaping of novel natural resources for living creatures, is it not apparent that for there to be order, intelligence is required, and greater order requires greater intelligence?

No. As has been demonstrated to you, order can occur with no intelligence at all in the picture.

Are you going to answer Hokulele's question about the diamond?

[John Jones]

From what perspective does a sphere have 4 corners?

A square is 2 dimensional figure. We can easily see three spatial dimensions. With math, we can represent 4 and higher spatial dimensions. As far as I know, in none of these does a sphere become a square.

[PDoug]

That's new to me. Could you expand?

Welcome to the forum.


Creation is a complex organization of intelligences who establish and maintain all things. E.g. time, numbers, the moon, are all intelligences or beings. They are just not the types of things we ascribe intelligence to. E.g.:

Proverbs 8

1 Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
2 On the heights along the way,
where the paths meet, she takes her stand;

[JFrankA]

I have to go with no evidence as well.

But I will add that because there is no god, the universe and how it works makes absolute sense.

With a god, the universe and how it works makes absolutely no sense.

[John Jones]

Creation is a complex organization of intelligences who establish and maintain all things. E.g. time, numbers, the moon, are all intelligences or beings. They are just not the types of things we ascribe intelligence to. E.g.:

Proverbs 8

1 Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
2 On the heights along the way,
where the paths meet, she takes her stand;


Using the bible to establish the credibilty of the bible is not going to get any traction around here.

[Elizabeth I]

Creation is a complex organization of intelligences who establish and maintain all things. E.g. time, numbers, the moon, are all intelligences or beings. They are just not the types of things we ascribe intelligence to.

(highlighting mine)

Oooh-kay, I'm not going to continue to try to talk any kind of sense to this person. Hokulele, et al., I leave it to you, if you have the stomach for it.

[jsfisher]

Isaiah 40 (New International Version)


If the Bible is the one truth, why are there so many versions?

[Hokulele]

Creation is a complex organization of intelligences who establish and maintain all things. E.g. time, numbers, the moon, are all intelligences or beings. They are just not the types of things we ascribe intelligence to. E.g.:

Proverbs 8

1 Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
2 On the heights along the way,
where the paths meet, she takes her stand;


Um, are you familiar with the term "metaphor"?

Oh, and how about adressing the issue of order and things such as diamonds and snowflakes.

[PDoug]

This is what I'm talking about.

This is why I left seminary.

Let me ask you a question.

Who wrote the bible that you are using?

If you looked through a collection of maps, and only 1 set of related maps consistently gave you reliable directions as far as you could tell, wouldn't you hold this 1 set of maps above the rest as being true? Do you realize that the integrity of a man's work reflect the man's own integrity? Therefore if you find a set of 'maps' to be reliable (particularly if the maps involved considerable work), you should be assured that the maps bear witness of the character of its author.

[Hokulele]

If you looked through a collection of maps, and only 1 set of related maps consistently gave you reliable directions as far as you could tell, wouldn't you hold this 1 set of maps above the rest as being true? Do you realize that the integrity of a man's work reflect the man's own integrity? Therefore if you find a set of 'maps' to be reliable (particularly if the maps involved considerable work), you should be assured that the maps bear witness of the character of its author.


"The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way;"

[John Jones]

If you looked through a collection of maps, and only 1 set of related maps consistently gave you reliable directions as far as you could tell, wouldn't you hold this 1 set of maps above the rest as being true? Do you realize that the integrity of a man's work reflect the man's own integrity? Therefore if you find a set of 'maps' to be reliable (particularly if the maps involved considerable work), you should be assured that the maps bear witness of the character of its author.


Are you saying you've done a comparative study of the scripture of various religions?

[Dunstan]

I guess I must have been not so intelligent.

Anybody looking for a new sig quote?

[PDoug]

No. As has been demonstrated to you, order can occur with no intelligence at all in the picture.

Are you going to answer Hokulele's question about the diamond?


My point is that if intelligence is seen to be required to establish order within a certain sphere, it is likely that the principle extends everywhere, and that order seen in all things, including in a diamond, is established by intelligences or beings (beyond our perception) as well - consistent with the claims of Christian related scriptures.

[Hokulele]

My point is that if intelligence is seen to be required to establish order within a certain sphere, it is likely that the principle extends everywhere, and that order seen in all things, including in a diamond, is established by intelligences or beings (beyond our perception) as well - consistent with the claims of Christian related scriptures.


The point of the mud/sand/pebbles example is to show that intelligence is not required to create order. Of course, that doesn't mean the intelligence isn't there, just that it isn't necessary. With that said, let me introduce you to a certain William of Ockham.

[PDoug]

From what perspective does a sphere have 4 corners?

A square is 2 dimensional figure. We can easily see three spatial dimensions. With math, we can represent 4 and higher spatial dimensions. As far as I know, in none of these does a sphere become a square.


All the scriptures are saying is that from a certain point of view, the earth has 4 corners. The problem is that you assume that you have perfect perception of the world - whereas you don't. Man's perception is extremely limited. Man cannot perceive dark matter, the millions of micro-organisms that inhabit his body, most forms of electromagnetic radiation, etc. Just because you cannot directly confirm that there is a legitimate '4 corners' perspective of the earth, that does not mean the perspective does not exist.

[Beerina]

Why didn't I introduce this topic earlier in my exchanges with atheists here on God or no God?

I guess I must have been not so intelligent.


Anyway, atheists here, what is your strongest objection or argument against God?





Yrreg

The entire concept of a god who is loving who lets babies be raped to death is ludicrous. And that's good enough. There is no way around this.

[PDoug]

Are you saying you've done a comparative study of the scripture of various religions?


Yes. Though it has not been exhaustive.

[jsfisher]

The problem is that you assume that you have perfect perception of the world - whereas you don't.

So, our observations which prove the Bible wrong are actually proof the Bible is correct. Good to know.

[nescafe]

All the scriptures are saying is that from a certain point of view, the earth has 4 corners.

How can an oblate spheroid be said to have 4 corners in any sense? Elliptical objects of any dimensionality are noted for their lack of corners in general.

The problem is that you assume that you have perfect perception of the world - whereas you don't. Man's perception is extremely limited.Unaided, yes. Aided by shiny technology, much less so.

Man cannot perceive dark matterNot yet, at least.
the millions of micro-organisms that inhabit his body,Trillions, and we sure can -- ever heard of a microscope? Simple optics will get you most of the way there.
most forms of electromagnetic radiation,
Hahahaa. We are pretty good at using technology to perceive most forms of electromagnetic radiation these days, and we are getting better at it all the time.

Just because you cannot directly confirm that there is a legitimate '4 corners' perspective of the earth, that does not mean the perspective does not exist.Whether or not that is the case, using the Bible to assert the truthiness (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/truthiness) of a position is risible (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/risible) around here.

[PDoug]

The point of the mud/sand/pebbles example is to show that intelligence is not required to create order. Of course, that doesn't mean the intelligence isn't there, just that it isn't necessary. With that said, let me introduce you to a certain William of Ockham.


But your point does not show that, because you cannot say definitively that beings beyond our perception, do not establish and maintain them. You assume no beings exist merely because you cannot directly perceive them. (And you do this knowing that your perception is very limited.) You therefore have no real basis for saying what you said. As for Occam's razor, it pertains to selecting the most straightforward answer after considering all critical facts. Occam's razor does not support oversimplified answers anymore than a proper verdict can be reached in a court case be ignoring critical evidence.

If a principle is readily seen to operate within spheres of our existence (that of order requiring intelligence to establish and maintain it), we cannot reasonably ignore this principle when we try to establish a picture of our world.

[Sun Countess]

The evidence of God is all around us. It is just not in forms that we are accustomed to. Generally the strongest evidence of God, is the correlation between claims in scriptures, and our observations of universal laws. The scriptures claim that that when a person (legitimately) unites with God, the person takes on God's qualities, and becomes fundamentally good in a manner not seen anywhere else in the universe. I've personally observed this myself.
Oh yes, I've certainly seen a lot of self-claimed religious people become petty, jealous tyrants, butting into other people's sex lives, calling for condemnation of those who dare to even "think" incorrectly. I haven't seen much wholesale call for rape and slaughter, so phew, I guess I should be glad that not too many people unite with god to such a degree.

There are other things though. E.g. in our sphere of operations, we see that for there to be order, intelligence is required to establish and maintain it.
Others have already noted that this isn't true.

I'd love to know what cars or watches have to do with "intelligent design" of worms and rocks anyway. I've never heard anybody claim that god builds better cars or watches than those built by human beings. I do hear he subcontracted out an ark at some point.... :rolleyes:

[PDoug]

So, our observations which prove the Bible wrong are actually proof the Bible is correct. Good to know.


There are many things in the Bible you cannot prove directly. But there are also many things that are in the Bible which you can prove directly. There are many things in science you cannot prove directly, but there are also many things in science you can prove directly. People put stock in science because the things they are able to test, they see to be true, and the rest of the claims made by science (not easily testable by them) they trust to be true.

[Hokulele]

But your point does not show that, because you cannot say definitively that beings beyond our perception, do not establish and maintain them. You assume no beings exist merely because you cannot directly perceive them. (And you do this knowing that your perception is very limited.) You therefore have no basis for saying what you said. As for Occam's razor, it pertains to selecting the most straightforward answer after considering all critical facts. Occam's razor does not support oversimplified answers anymore than a proper verdict can be reached in a court case be ignoring critical evidence.

If a principle is readily seen to operate within spheres of our existence (that of order requiring intelligence to establish and maintain it), we cannot reasonably ignore this principle when we try to establish a picture of our world.


Are you claiming that gravity (the force organizing the mud/sand/pebbles) is intelligent or are you claiming that gravity only works due to a background intelligence? If you claim the former, then your argument holds but is weird, because now gravity is intelligent enough to account for what we observe, hence the Razor applies and we don't need any god. If you claim the latter, then gravity is a process that lacks intelligence and can create order, so once again any god becomes superfluous.

If you take the route that it took intelligence to create gravity which can then unintelligently create order, well, I hope you ordered plenty of Purina Turtle ChowTM this week.

[Sun Countess]

But your point does not show that, because you cannot say definitively that beings beyond our perception, do not establish and maintain them. You assume no beings exist merely because you cannot directly perceive them.
So you cannot definitively say that fairies are not out on my lawn every morning, establishing and maintaining the morning dew. Or do you assume no such beings exist because you cannot directly perceive them?

Don't tell me that morning dew is a natural process either. Water can't just magically appear.

[jsfisher]

There are many things in the Bible you cannot prove directly. But there are also many things that are in the Bible which you can prove directly. There are many things in science you cannot prove directly, but there are also many things in science you can prove directly. People put stock in science because the things they are able to test, they see to be true, and the rest of the claims made by science (not easily testable by them) they trust to be true.


Name one, please. One that has some religious significance.

[PDoug]

So you cannot definitively say that fairies are not out on my lawn every morning, establishing and maintaining the morning dew. Or do you assume no such beings exist because you cannot directly perceive them?

Don't tell me that morning dew is a natural process either. Water can't just magically appear.


If intelligence is required to establish order, and you see order, then obviously an intelligence established it. I cannot tell you if it's a fairy because I cannot see them.

It is so amazing, because this principle is seen in so many places. E.g. doctors diagnose diseases all the time without seeing the agents that cause the diseases. If a person exhibits the symptoms of a virus infection, doctors routinely diagnose viruses as the cause without actually seeing the viruses.

All indications are the vast majority of things that exist, man cannot perceive directly, and man has little choice but to deduce things about the invisible world, through the effects they have on the visible world.

[Ladewig]

There are many things in the Bible you cannot prove directly. But there are also many things that are in the Bible which you can prove directly.

You left out the most important observation: there are many things in the Bible which we can directly disprove. All available evidence indicates that there has never been a world-wide flood. All available evidence indicates the Earth is billions of years old.

[Hokulele]

Name one, please. One that has some religious significance.


Proverbs 26:11. :cool:

[godless dave]

But your point does not show that, because you cannot say definitively that beings beyond our perception, do not establish and maintain them. You assume no beings exist merely because you cannot directly perceive them. (And you do this knowing that your perception is very limited.)

And yet you assert that some beings do exist, even though you cannot perceive them.

[Hokulele]

If intelligence is required to establish order...


Your "if" is asserted, but not evidenced.

[jsfisher]

Proverbs 26:11. :cool:

Touché.

;)

[PDoug]

In the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, "I'll be back" .... er, tomorrow.

[godless dave]

If intelligence is required to establish order,

Which it isn't.

[kuroyume0161]

Gods don't exist.

Leon

Late to the party. Please, do pardon my tardiness. :)

That and there is no evidence of any supernatural being (or phenomena or events). Therefore, gods don't exist (to the best of our objective evidence).

Religion, psychics, and ghost chasers are all exemplar of 'the boy that cried wolf'. They keep demanding that the wolf is real and it never shows. If, one day, it does, we will all be too late. But I won't be holding my breath for this fairy tale to come true. The wolf has no teeth and is but a whispy imagination of a child.

[XBoxWarrior]

gerry/yrreg=troll

that so many "skeptics" buy it, amazes me.

even Fark is better at callin' a troll a troll.

/yrreg is obvious
//yaw'l need to feed
///not many wanna be's here
////I get it...feed on!!111eleventy!

[JoeTheJuggler]

What some of you chaps would call a 'weak' atheist, I guess...

Or a weak Jewish-Buddhist.

[kuroyume0161]

Are you claiming that gravity (the force organizing the mud/sand/pebbles) is intelligent or are you claiming that gravity only works due to a background intelligence? If you claim the former, then your argument holds but is weird, because now gravity is intelligent enough to account for what we observe, hence the Razor applies and we don't need any god. If you claim the latter, then gravity is a process that lacks intelligence and can create order, so once again any god becomes superfluous.

If you take the route that it took intelligence to create gravity which can then unintelligently create order, well, I hope you ordered plenty of Purina Turtle ChowTM this week.

It's Angels! Gravity is Angels. Angels keep you planted on the ground and drag you down when you try to fly, like an Angel. Get it through your mind, man! :D

Have we counted the Angels dancing on a pinhead yet?

[paiute]

Why didn't I introduce this topic earlier in my exchanges with atheists here on God or no God?

I guess I must have been not so intelligent.


Anyway, atheists here, what is your strongest objection or argument against God?





Yrreg

1. The God of the Judeo-Christian Bible tradition is not necessary to explain anything. The is no physical event that cannot be rationalized by examination of the physics.
2. The God of the Judeo-Christian Bible tradition is not self-evident. Isolated from that tradition, a culture would not necessarily replicate it.

[kuroyume0161]

If intelligence is required to establish order, and you see order, then obviously an intelligence established it. I cannot tell you if it's a fairy because I cannot see them.

If intelligence isn't required to establish order, and you see order, then obviously intelligence isn't a prerequisite to establish it.

Until you show me evidence that a star can't form without 'intelligence' then natural laws as we have determined them remain the explanation. Natural laws completely explain how stars form.

The watchmaker has left the building. Thankya vera much.

[Hokulele]

It's Angels! Gravity is Angels. Angels keep you planted on the ground and drag you down when you try to fly, like an Angel. Get it through your mind, man! :D


http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

:D

[devnull]

It is so amazing, because this principle is seen in so many places. E.g. doctors diagnose diseases all the time without seeing the agents that cause the diseases. If a person exhibits the symptoms of a virus infection, doctors routinely diagnose viruses as the cause without actually seeing the viruses.

All indications are the vast majority of things that exist, man cannot perceive directly, and man has little choice but to deduce things about the invisible world, through the effects they have on the visible world.

Rubbish. We've seen viruses, and understand their effects on our bodies.

Can you show me your god in a microscope then?

Nonsense arguments. You got em.

[Sun Countess]

All indications are the vast majority of things that exist, man cannot perceive directly, and man has little choice but to deduce things about the invisible world, through the effects they have on the visible world.
What effect does your god have on the visible world?

[PDoug]

Rubbish. We've seen viruses, and understand their effects on our bodies.

Can you show me your god in a microscope then?

Nonsense arguments. You got em.


So are you saying up to the point microscopes were invented, viruses did not exist? Are you seriously saying for something to exist, man must be able to directly perceive it?

[Hokulele]

So are you saying up to the point microscopes were invented, viruses did not exist? Are you seriously saying for something to exist, man must be able to directly perceive it?


No, that is not what he/she is saying. Are you familiar with the term "strawman"?

[kuroyume0161]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

:D

:D

Such levity! :D

[PDoug]

Late to the party. Please, do pardon my tardiness. :)

That and there is no evidence of any supernatural being (or phenomena or events). Therefore, gods don't exist (to the best of our objective evidence).

Religion, psychics, and ghost chasers are all exemplar of 'the boy that cried wolf'. They keep demanding that the wolf is real and it never shows. If, one day, it does, we will all be too late. But I won't be holding my breath for this fairy tale to come true. The wolf has no teeth and is but a whispy imagination of a child.


Well, you can take a luddite approach to things (I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist), or an intelligent approach by contemplating well our world. Now it is true that a lot of religions, and spiritual claims are untrue. But that doesn't mean that they are all untrue. The problem I have with atheists', and many other people's thinking, is that they act like people awakened on a plane. They know nothing about themselves, what they are doing on the plane, what is their purpose for being there, etc. Don't you think it is more prudent for the people to figure out why they are on the plane, rather than just go along for the ride, and be unprepared at the end of the journey? If people have to sort through a lot of rubbish to find out what they are doing on the plane, it makes sense to me that that is what they do - even if a lot of the things they have to consider sound far fetched.

[Hokulele]

The trouble is, you aren't claiming we are in a plane, but riding a pegasus.

[Astreja]

My argument: A being that actually possessed the incredible power attributed to it *should* leave some sort of physical traces in the universe.

If it existed within the universe, with our current technology it would be theoretically possible to identify a suitable area of high energy, with occasional emanations that could be correlated to "miraculous" events or to prayers.

If it existed "outside the universe" (whatever that actually means in practice), it would probably crease some sort of energy imbalance that could be traced to the "outside" realm.

All I've seen so far is a reasonably well-explained universe, with a few mysteries that science is currently working on, but nothing so spectacularly weird that I would slap the 'god' label on it. There's still room for non-omnimax, naturally-evolved god-like extraterrestrials, and for a pantheistic "matter has innate sentience" POV, after the fashion of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's noosphere, but for the most part I find the personal-god religions thoroughly unconvincing.

[truethat]

Well, you can take a luddite approach to things (I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist), or an intelligent approach by contemplating well our world. Now it is true that a lot of religions, and spiritual claims are untrue. But that doesn't mean that they are all untrue. The problem I have with atheists', and many other people's thinking, is that they act like people awakened on a plane. They know nothing about themselves, what they are doing on the plane, what is their purpose for being there, etc. Don't you think it is more prudent for the people to figure out why they are on the plane, rather than just go along for the ride, and be unprepared at the end of the journey? If people have to sort through a lot of rubbish to find out what they are doing on the plane, it makes sense to me that that is what they do - even if a lot of the things they have to consider sound far fetched.

No I don't think it's more prudent. I also think it's a waste of time. There is no God and Jesus is not coming back to rapture you up to Heaven.

There's not even a debate on the issue really if you take time to read just a very little about Biblical history. It's made up and cobbled together.

Should I consider the possibility that Ra really is the Sun God? Should I worship Thor or Zeus just because some people invented stories about them that might be true.

We're sorting out the rubbish. The truth is, I don't know why I'm here. I don't need to know why I'm here to live it. It is a gift. Every time I hear about an unfortunate death like those people in Brazil who were just killed whilst on vacation by a mudslide, I decide to live harder and to appreciate the fact that I am alive and that I've woken up on the plane.

If being prepared for it means something like taking the red pill or the blue pill, well some of us take both pills and realize they are just pills. And we can live in the unknown without worrying about it.

[Hokulele]

If it existed "outside the universe" (whatever that actually means in practice), it would probably create some sort of energy imbalance that could be traced to the "outside" realm.


That is a good point I hadn't considered. Wouldn't we see a net energy gain in the universe if some god were interacting with it rather than the net zero we do see?

Thanks for triggering a new line of thought for me. :)

[Marquis de Carabas]

The strongest argument against god's existence is that the strongest argument for it sucks.

[kuroyume0161]

Well, you can take a luddite approach to things (I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist), or an intelligent approach by contemplating well our world. Now it is true that a lot of religions, and spiritual claims are untrue. But that doesn't mean that they are all untrue. The problem I have with atheists', and many other people's thinking, is that they act like people awakened on a plane. They know nothing about themselves, what they are doing on the plane, what is their purpose for being there, etc. Don't you think it is more prudent for the people to figure out why they are on the plane, rather than just go along for the ride, and be unprepared at the end of the journey? If people have to sort through a lot of rubbish to find out what they are doing on the plane, it makes sense to me that that is what they do - even if a lot of the things they have to consider sound far fetched.

But I've been on the plane and contemplated it. And I went up and down the aisles to see what was in it and met the other people onboard (some of them anyway). And I checked the cockpit to see that there were other people there flying the plane and no mystical beings. And I looked out the windows and saw a familiar world outside.

See, I was raised christian and spent nearly half my life there. There was the warm-fuzzy time, the empowered time, the insane time (pentacostal). But once I started to think about the book that was canon and the history behind it and was introduced into ideas about science and reason and critical thinking, then my investigations in the plane changed from simply 'making sense' in any way to making sense in ways that weren't far fetched or couldn't be shown. The plane became a recent human technology for flying and the cockpit people became pilots and the familiar world outside was over a my home town as we were approaching for landing. And the ride became a comfortable one knowing that the destination wasn't a boring heaven or boiling hell - neither of which can be viewed from the plane.

I've spent many years struggling with the 'each of us flickers into existence and then out again in a short time' (from the soulless, non-afterlife perspective). Life and death are probably two of the more difficult realities with which we sentient humans must grapple. There is no longer a struggle for me with an imminent death. The secret to calm the struggle is that once you are dead there is no possibility to worry or think about it. My more difficult struggle is in the dying process or being detrimentally harmed so as to reduce what little pleasure there is in life. I have much thanks for having most of my physical and mental capacities in tact.

The problem with the analogy is that we don't wake up all at once in the plane. We grow up in the plane. As babies we have very little cognizance of anything. As children we have no conception of other separate individuals. As we grow, we get to know the plane well and can even make stories or ideas about it. Stories are nice but ideas about how the plane works, where it's going, where it might have come from, are more important. Why the plane exists or why we are in it, honestly, isn't. Can we change the fact that we are in the plane? No. Therefore, it is better to know the plane objectively than to spend time trying to speculate some destination or reason for the plane.

[Dunstan]

The problem I have with atheists', and many other people's thinking, is that they act like people awakened on a plane. They know nothing about themselves, what they are doing on the plane, what is their purpose for being there, etc. Don't you think it is more prudent for the people to figure out why they are on the plane, rather than just go along for the ride, and be unprepared at the end of the journey? If people have to sort through a lot of rubbish to find out what they are doing on the plane, it makes sense to me that that is what they do - even if a lot of the things they have to consider sound far fetched.

I just want to know what the deal is with ALL THESE MOTHER ******* SNAKES ON THIS ******* PLANE!

Oh, and I'm also wondering why that Danish guy in the aisle seat keeps looking around so anxiously.

[Snixtor]

we see that for there to be order, intelligence is required to establish and maintain it. Also, the greater or more sophisticated the order, the greater the required intelligence. We see this in the building of bird's nests, fox holes, houses, cars, computers, space craft, etc. We see this whether we are here on earth or in space. We have no reason to believe therefore that this law does not extend everywhere...
What we see is many examples of intelligence creating and maintaining order. Yet when we see an example of order without a directly attributable creator, you are only assuming that it does have a creator. Arguing with countless examples of intelligence creating order is irrelevant, as it provides no evidence that the "god created" elements of order required intelligence. Examples of order that you would attribute a creator to could equally be provided as examples of order that had no creator.

[Mojo]

2. The God of the Judeo-Christian Bible tradition is not self-evident. Isolated from that tradition, a culture would not necessarily replicate it.


Even yrreg has admitted that his belief in this particular God is a social construct, and that if he had been born in another time and place he would believe whatever those around him believed: It's like this. Odin was good enough for some people, Norsemen, in the distant past; it's the name of their God.

If I were to be transfered to their time and clime and I am a Norseman, I would also believe in Odin for a God.

[John Jones]

All the scriptures are saying is that from a certain point of view, the earth has 4 corners. The problem is that you assume that you have perfect perception of the world - whereas you don't. Man's perception is extremely limited. Man cannot perceive dark matter, the millions of micro-organisms that inhabit his body, most forms of electromagnetic radiation, etc. Just because you cannot directly confirm that there is a legitimate '4 corners' perspective of the earth, that does not mean the perspective does not exist.

I've got an alternate explanation: The bible is wrong. The earth doesn't have any corners.

[Brian-M]

The evidence of God is all around us. It is just not in forms that we are accustomed to. Generally the strongest evidence of God, is the correlation between claims in scriptures, and our observations of universal laws.

Okay, can you explain to me why you think your religious texts are more accurate than other religious texts, such as:


The Bhagavad Gita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita)
The Book Of Mormon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon)
The Dhammapada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammapada)
The Egyptian Book Of The Dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_the_dead)
The Kangyur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangyur)
The Koran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koran)
The Pāli Canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali_Canon)
The Popol Vuh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popol_Vuh)
The Tao Te Ching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching)
The Tripiṭaka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripitaka)
The Vedas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas)

(Just to name a few.)

All the scriptures are saying is that from a certain point of view, the earth has 4 corners. The problem is that you assume that you have perfect perception of the world - whereas you don't. Man's perception is extremely limited. Man cannot perceive dark matter, the millions of micro-organisms that inhabit his body, most forms of electromagnetic radiation, etc. Just because you cannot directly confirm that there is a legitimate '4 corners' perspective of the earth, that does not mean the perspective does not exist.


Wait a sec...

P1: To the best of our understanding, describing the earth as having four corners is nonsense.
P2: The Bible describes the earth as having four corners.
C: The Bible contains nonsense, to the best of our understanding.

P1: The Bible contains nonsense, to the best of our understanding.
P2: And yet you argue that the Bible does not contain nonsense.
C: You are wrong, to the best of our understanding.

The only reason I can see that you would argue that it is in any way meaningful to say the earth has four corners is because you are basing your judgment on the assumption that The Bible is correct. Using the assumption that The Bible is correct as a basis for determining whether or not Biblical passages are correct is an obvious logical fallacy.

[Limbo]

All the scriptures are saying is that from a certain point of view, the earth has 4 corners.


quaternity [kwəˈtɜːnɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
(Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a group of four, esp a concept of God as consisting of four persons
[from Late Latin quaternitās, from Latin quaternī by fours; see quaternary]


"QUATERNITY (http://www.bookrags.com/research/quaternity-eorl-11/), or a fourfold structure (together with its multiples—eightfold, twelvefold, etc.), expresses symbolically the nature of the divine and, by extension, describes the structure of the world that mirrors that divinity. Like the other great numerical symbols in its class, quaternity is impersonal; it may stand alone, or it may be associated with the attributes of a personal god. God is one, says Plotinus, and so is the truth of this world. The divine is dual, say the Zoroastrians, and thus one must choose between truth and falseness. Christians say that God is a trinity, a perception that explains for Augustine the threefold nature of human love. Yet others have experienced the divine mystery as a quaternity, and its reality can be dimly perceived in the world's four cardinal directions, the four seasons, the four elements, and the four temperaments of classical thought."

"As I looked, a stormy wind came out of the north: a great cloud with brightness around it and fire flashing forth continually, and in the middle of the fire, something like gleaming amber. 1:5 In the middle of it was something like four living creatures. This was their appearance: they were of human form. 1:6 Each had four faces, and each of them had four wings." Ezekiel 1:4-1:6

Religion: Symbols & Religion (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,759209-2,00.html)

"In dreams and in researches he made among theological, philosophical and mystical works, Dr. Jung found the quaternity symbol everywhere. The square, the circle, the mystic squared circle suggest four; the Buddhist mandala-symbol is usually a circular lotus containing a square building with four gates; there are four seasons, four points of the compass, four Evangelists, etc. In the patient's dream of the "world clock" appeared "four little men," just as people in groups of four tended to appear in all his dreams. Only the Christian symbol of the Trinity fails to conform to this system of fours, and Dr. Jung believes that the unconscious mind therefore tends to augment it with a fourth element.

This is probably woman—the anima, or earth mother; although Dr. Jung points out that the element of evil, or the devil, is also excluded from the God-symbol, in which it might logically take part. At this point Dr. Jung excuses himself, declaring: "The church, I assume, has to invalidate any attempt at taking such results seriously. She must even condemn any approach to these experiences, since she cannot admit that nature unites what she has separated. . . . Close parallels to the psychology of dreams are to be found among Latin alchemical tracts and are, like these, full of heresy."

"One becomes two, two becomes three, and out of the third comes the one as the fourth." -Axiom of Maria

[ThatSoundAgain]

http://timecube.com/

[Ladewig]

The evidence of God is all around us. It is just not in forms that we are accustomed to. Generally the strongest evidence of God, is the correlation between claims in scriptures, and our observations of universal laws.

I've heard Muslims make the exact same claim related to the Koran. Why is your argument better than theirs?

. . . . . .

I should have just quoted BrianM's post.

[Gawdzilla]

Objection? God do nothing, and get the credit when something good happens. Then the guilt trip is laid on the person who asked for help or got slammed by some natural disaster. "I must not be a good enough (fill in the blank)ian. What have I done wrong or failed to do." Sick, that.

Argument against? Birth defects, natural disasters, the utter failure of prayer, and all the others you'll see in this thread.

[kuroyume0161]

I've got an alternate explanation: The bible is wrong. The earth doesn't have any corners.

There is the 'four corners' region (Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah). Maybe it's a predixian! Jeebus will return at that conjunction and he'll be a redneck. :cool:

[Gawdzilla]

There is the 'four corners' region (Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah). Maybe it's a predixian! Jeebus will return at that conjunction and he'll be a redneck. :cool:

The Japanese had it right, "the eight corners of the Earth." So we live on a cube.

[John Jones]

There is the 'four corners' region (Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah). Maybe it's a predixian! Jeebus will return at that conjunction and he'll be a redneck. :cool:



Drat. You got me there.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The evidence of God is all around us. It is just not in forms that we are accustomed to. Generally the strongest evidence of God, is the correlation between claims in scriptures, and our observations of universal laws. E.g. the scriptures claim that that when a person (legitimately) unites with God, the person takes on God's qualities, and becomes fundamentally good in a manner not seen anywhere else in the universe. I've personally observed this myself.

There are other things though. E.g. in our sphere of operations, we see that for there to be order, intelligence is required to establish and maintain it. Also, the greater or more sophisticated the order, the greater the required intelligence. We see this in the building of bird's nests, fox holes, houses, cars, computers, space craft, etc. We see this whether we are here on earth or in space. We have no reason to believe therefore that this law does not extend everywhere, suggesting that the staggering order seen in the universe, has been established and maintained by a myriad of intelligences, whose ultimate source is God, consistent with the depiction of things in mystical and other Christian related texts.

Re the hilited words above: EXACTLY!

[devnull]

So are you saying up to the point microscopes were invented, viruses did not exist? Are you seriously saying for something to exist, man must be able to directly perceive it?

huh?

Im going to stop talking to you now, as Im pretty sure you are wasting people's time on purpose. Either that, or you're an idiot. Either way, bye bye.

[isaone]

The fact that the existence of many many continually splintering contradictory religions indicates that the God thing is not actually involved in religions and requires every person to be 99.99% Atheist.


Also of course the fat that there is no definition of the term God which makes the entire question moot.

[Foster Zygote]

All the scriptures are saying is that from a certain point of view, the earth has 4 corners. The problem is that you assume that you have perfect perception of the world - whereas you don't. Man's perception is extremely limited. Man cannot perceive dark matter, the millions of micro-organisms that inhabit his body, most forms of electromagnetic radiation, etc. Just because you cannot directly confirm that there is a legitimate '4 corners' perspective of the earth, that does not mean the perspective does not exist.

Is there a legitimate 'turtles all the way down' perspective?

[Foster Zygote]

But your point does not show that, because you cannot say definitively that beings beyond our perception, do not establish and maintain them. You assume no beings exist merely because you cannot directly perceive them. (And you do this knowing that your perception is very limited.) You therefore have no real basis for saying what you said. As for Occam's razor, it pertains to selecting the most straightforward answer after considering all critical facts. Occam's razor does not support oversimplified answers anymore than a proper verdict can be reached in a court case be ignoring critical evidence.
How does this argument not apply to any judgments you might make against other religions in comparison to yours?

If a principle is readily seen to operate within spheres of our existence (that of order requiring intelligence to establish and maintain it), we cannot reasonably ignore this principle when we try to establish a picture of our world.
But what if our assumptions are incorrect? It may seem like "common sense" that something complex must have been designed by an intelligence, but many "common sense" notions have turned out to be false. Time was once assumed to be constant and eternal. The continents were once assumed to be fixed in position. It was once assumed that complexity had to originate from higher complexity. But we now have understanding of mechanisms that explain how time can be not only variable, but both boundless and finite, how continents can drift over the Earth's mantle, and how more complex systems can evolve from less complex systems via natural forces.

[JFrankA]

Is it me or am I the only one who thinks that PDoug and gerry are the same guy....? :boggled:

[Slimething]

The strongest argument against god's existence is that the strongest argument for it sucks.

Strongly seconded. I would add that the arguers that said omnipotent lucidity sends to us heather are so dense. (Sure, ya wanna be like me, don'cha?)

[Slimething]

Is it me or am I the only one who thinks that PDoug and gerry are the same guy....? :boggled:

That's very likely but PDoug is making gerry look intelligent by contrast. That's only because gerry hasn't posted lately, though.

[JFrankA]

I'd like to add this thought, although it's not evidence in any way, it's simply the way I feel.

The universe and how it works is so much more beautiful, exciting and wonderous without a god. Also, without a god, it makes life much much more precious.

[JFrankA]

That's very likely but PDoug is making gerry look intelligent by contrast. That's only because gerry hasn't posted lately, though.

Good point.

[Mojo]

The Japanese had it right, "the eight corners of the Earth." So we live on a cube.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5473874#post5473874

[kuroyume0161]

http://timecube.com/

Some people should be denied access to computers and the internet. :boggled:

[The Norseman]

*snip*

If you take the route that it took intelligence to create gravity which can then unintelligently create order, well, I hope you ordered plenty of Purina Turtle ChowTM this week.



Mmmmmm.... god fodder...


</drool>

[tsig]

[I]Isaiah 40 (New International Version)

E.g. if you are an ant that lives in a tree, your perspective of your surroundings will be very different from a human beings' having much greater percepetion, and varied perspectives of your existence.

So we're just ants in god's eyes? With his greater perception couldn't he have written something we could understand.

Of course if we're ants and are made in god's image then god is a giant ant.

[Bob Klase]

Of course if we're ants and are made in god's image then god is a giant ant.

Couldn't god be an ant the same size as us? Or smaller? I may have just forgotten, but I don't recall the bible ever saying how big god is, or that he made man in his own image but smaller.

[kuroyume0161]

...or that he made man in his own image but smaller.

Copy error.

ETA: Shrinkage?

"And, lo, god put his creations made in his image into the waters but, yay, forgot to set it to 'cold wash'..."

[Snixtor]

Deductive reasoning 101:

Intelligence created my car,
tiny fans in the dashboard create the wind in my car.

Intelligence created my house,
fans on the ceiling create the wind in my house.

Intelligence created the Mona Lisa,
fans in the air-conditioning create the wind in the building.

Therefore, an invisible omnipotent intelligent being created the universe,
therefore, giant invisible fans create cyclones.

[Pure Argent]

If intelligence is required to establish order,

It isn't, as has been demonstrated to you.

and you see order, then obviously an intelligence established it.

No.

I cannot tell you if it's a fairy because I cannot see them.

And yet you assert that it is your god rather than faeries. Do you see the problem here?

It is so amazing, because this principle is seen in so many places. E.g. doctors diagnose diseases all the time without seeing the agents that cause the diseases. If a person exhibits the symptoms of a virus infection, doctors routinely diagnose viruses as the cause without actually seeing the viruses.

Because they know that the viruses are there. The viruses have been shown to exist. Supernatural beings have not. You are creating a false analogy.

All indications are the vast majority of things that exist, man cannot perceive directly,

Perceive directly when unaided. You left out the part where we invent a machine to measure the presence of something that we're pretty sure is there, like magnetic waves. And viruses.

and man has little choice but to deduce things about the invisible world, through the effects they have on the visible world.

If they have effects on the physical world, they can be perceived.

Well, you can take a luddite approach to things (I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist),

Straw man.

or an intelligent approach by contemplating well our world.

Poisoning the well.

Now it is true that a lot of religions, and spiritual claims are untrue. But that doesn't mean that they are all untrue.

But, as all their claims are, at the core, exactly alike (supernatural forces exist), and all have exactly the same failing (the complete and utter lack of evidence), we can be pretty certain that they're all untrue.

The problem I have with atheists', and many other people's thinking, is that they act like people awakened on a plane. They know nothing about themselves, what they are doing on the plane, what is their purpose for being there, etc. Don't you think it is more prudent for the people to figure out why they are on the plane, rather than just go along for the ride, and be unprepared at the end of the journey? If people have to sort through a lot of rubbish to find out what they are doing on the plane, it makes sense to me that that is what they do - even if a lot of the things they have to consider sound far fetched.

And this is what we are not doing in what way? We're the ones who woke up on a plane and decided to go check out the cockpit, find the drinks trolley and see if the can's occupied. Along the way, we might accost a stewardess and see if she knows where we're going, from where, at what time and date (and afterwards take her with us to see if the can is still unoccupied, ifyaknowwhaddimean). Whereas you are sitting back in your chair and claiming that a supernatural being put you on the plane and that we should all just see what the supernatural being wants us to do.

[Phase Inverter]

So are you saying up to the point microscopes were invented, viruses did not exist?


They didn't. Prior to the invention of the microscope demons caused illness.

(either that or goddidit)

[Brainache]

Does anyone else feel a little creeped out by a religious fundamentalist using a plane as an analogy about how great God is?

Maybe it's just all of those 9/11 debates I've been reading, but I'd be inclined to check PDoug's carry-on luggage for sharp objects...

[kuroyume0161]

They didn't. Prior to the invention of the microscope demons caused illness.

(either that or goddidit)

Actually, vapors or bad blood (thus, blood-letting) were considered causes of illness for at least a century before the invention of the microscope and proposal of a 'germ theory of disease'.

ETA: Of course, yes, for religidiots, demons or acts of god were their common causes.

[Elizabeth I]

The Japanese had it right, "the eight corners of the Earth." So we live on a cube.

So we are all Borg? :eek:


Everybody - you do realize you're arguing with somebody who says the moon is an intelligence, right?

...a complex organization of intelligences who establish and maintain all things. E.g. time, numbers, the moon, are all intelligences or beings. They are just not the types of things we ascribe intelligence to.

[MIKILLINI]

Why didn't I introduce this topic earlier in my exchanges with atheists here on God or no God?

I guess I must have been not so intelligent.


Anyway, atheists here, what is your strongest objection or argument against God?





Yrreg

Hey Gerry, can you tell me what this phrase means? >>[READ AND CONSIDER]
Do you perform this action when all other people post in response to your posts?

[yrreg]

Burden of proof is on the one asserting a claim, that is correct.


But since atheists are writing voluminously and unremittingly on God to prove that God does not exist, I guess it is all right for me to ask them for their strongest objection or argument against God.

So that you will not be treated to otherwise for you people tiresome arguments for the existence of God from since ancient Greek philosophers to today's theist thinkers.


Let us just assume that the lack of evidence for God's existence is the strongest objection or argument against God.

Atheists who have another strongest objection or argument against God, please bear with us here, as we try to work out together the evidence that is not available or inadequate to establish the existence of God.


Some here brought up the need to bring forth first the concept of God before going into the strongest objection or argument against Him.

That is very logical; but I guess everyone reading current literature of atheists against God's existence is aware atheist authors refer to the God of Christians, and Jews, and Muslims.

Which God to my conclusion is first and foremost and in relation to man, the maker of everything.

If you as an atheist want to bring in Zeus, then I would say that he is already discredited and no one writes to prove that he does not exist, same also with flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorn and celestial teapot whatever; unless of course you are not relevantly and up to date intelligent with your concern about God or no God.


Someone here says he does not give a straw about anything, just that He hates God.

Well, that is his privilege as a free agent, i.e., a being that exercises free choice, so he can follow his emotional drive however unruly, and hatred is always unruly, as he wants to, if that is what he thinks satisfying to himself.

But we are here into an academic exercise, like for example, the query whether there is extra-terrestrial intelligence -- no one is working himself up into a frenzy of hatred, targeting extra-terrestrial intelligent beings.

So, please just rise above your emotions, specially the non-productive kinds which can and do suffocate your intellectual faculty.



Okay, what evidence do we have of God's existence? Or don't have of God's existence?


What about you and me, aren't we evidence of God's existence?




Yrreg

[jsfisher]

What about you and me, aren't we evidence of God's existence?

Nope.

[Sun Countess]

What about you and me, aren't we evidence of God's existence?
We're all evidence of human reproduction at work; no need to invoke an unnecessary invisible man in the sky.

[jsfisher]

If you as an atheist want to bring in Zeus, then I would say that he is already discredited and no one writes to prove that he does not exist, same also with flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorn and celestial teapot whatever; unless of course you are not relevantly and up to date intelligent with your concern about God or no God.


I see what you are saying here. The very existence of a god is dependent on the successful efforts of his publicist.

Makes sense.

[kuroyume0161]

One of the core prerequisites that might be considered evidence of (any) god would be an event that cannot be explained using our understanding through scientific methodology. Now, that is not to say that we have explained everything to such a degree to remove all doubt completely. But we have not seen such an event that would completely baffle scientific investigation so as to allow such a possibility. And it 'begs the question' (sorry, being literal not logical) why the existence of any being so penultimate to reality in this universe is hinged upon an improbable event which hasn't been objectively evidenced yet. A god which only evidences itself subjectively and rather ambiguously to individual sentient beings on this planet seems to be rather ineffectual and not so 'god-like' might I inject.

[MIKILLINI]

Is it me or am I the only one who thinks that PDoug and gerry are the same guy....? :boggled:

They are 2 different persons. Gerry attempts to master the total English vocabulary in most of his posts.

[MIKILLINI]

What about you and me, aren't we evidence of God's existence?




Yrreg

What about you Gerry?
Can you answer this question again: What causes you to believe in the existence of god?

[Kopji]

A real God would not need to enlist armies of crazy people to do his bidding.

[Ladewig]

What about you and me, aren't we evidence of God's existence?


Really, that's your best argument? The existence of people is proof of God's existence?

Did you honestly expect people who have studied religion and found it wanting to suddenly slap their foreheads and say "of course, it's so obvious; people exist therefore God created us"?

[dio]

What about you and me, aren't we evidence of God's existence?
Yrreg

If by god you mean the instant of the Big Bang, we are definitely evidence of his existence, as is the rest of the universe.

If by god you mean the natural laws that we were bound to follow, and evolve to our current state, yes we are evidence of that god.

If by god you mean a participative entity, (who has never been proven to participate in any way), then no, we are not evidence of this hypothetical entity.

BTW Gerry, in this very thread you have proof how very personal, subjective and different this god perception phenomenon is among believers.
And every one of them (including you) is certain that their version is correct. Doesn't that cast a shadow of doubt in your thoughts?*

So Gerry, why is it so offensive to you that our god ( Spinoza's and Einstein's and Hawkins' god) is different from yours, when you guys can't put together a unitary one anyway?

*Well I guess it does, otherwise you wouldn't be here desperately seeking confirmation for your sheep herder stories, and showing crass ignorance of the subjects involved on the way.

[RoboTimbo]

Burden of proof is on the one asserting a claim, that is correct.

Someday, you should take a crack at that.

But since atheists are writing voluminously and unremittingly on God to prove that God does not exist, I guess it is all right for me to ask them for their strongest objection or argument against God.

And many have answered you. You don't like the answers so by all means, ask the same question again.

So that you will not be treated to otherwise for you people tiresome arguments for the existence of God from since ancient Greek philosophers to today's theist thinkers.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Let us just assume that the lack of evidence for God's existence is the strongest objection or argument against God.

And people say that you are incapable of listening or comprehending!

Atheists who have another strongest objection or argument against God, please bear with us here, as we try to work out together the evidence that is not available or inadequate to establish the existence of God.


Some here brought up the need to bring forth first the concept of God before going into the strongest objection or argument against Him.

That is very logical; but I guess everyone reading current literature of atheists against God's existence is aware atheist authors refer to the God of Christians, and Jews, and Muslims.

Nope, you derailed there. Atheists lack belief in any god(s), yours has no special ranking.

Which God to my conclusion is first and foremost and in relation to man, the maker of everything.

Well, sure, it being your god and all...

If you as an atheist want to bring in Zeus, then I would say that he is already discredited and no one writes to prove that he does not exist, same also with flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorn and celestial teapot whatever; unless of course you are not relevantly and up to date intelligent with your concern about God or no God.

Nope again. You are discredited in giving your personal god special consideration that atheists don't give it. Sorry but your god is just one in a long line of failed gods that we lack belief in.

Someone here says he does not give a straw about anything, just that He hates God.

Well, that is his privilege as a free agent, i.e., a being that exercises free choice, so he can follow his emotional drive however unruly, and hatred is always unruly, as he wants to, if that is what he thinks satisfying to himself.

Ok, so they were correct in saying that you are unable to recognize or comprehend sarcasm.

But we are here into an academic exercise, like for example, the query whether there is extra-terrestrial intelligence -- no one is working himself up into a frenzy of hatred, targeting extra-terrestrial intelligent beings.

Nobody is in a froth about your god, either. I know it's been said before, we don't hate that which is fictional, like your god.

So, please just rise above your emotions, specially the non-productive kinds which can and do suffocate your intellectual faculty.

I think I see why you are in such a state about atheists. It's your emotions getting the better of you.

Okay, what evidence do we have of God's existence? Or don't have of God's existence?

Indeed. So we are back to where you started this post, it's up to you to provide compelling evidence for your god.

What about you and me, aren't we evidence of God's existence?

I'm proof that I had parents, as are we all.

[kuroyume0161]

Pass me that final nail. Oh, here's the coffin.

The thread topic, thrust is: what is your strongest objection or argument against God?

But see, this is the problem. It is not required of us to object or argue against 'God'. It is required of you (and others of your ilk) to support or argue for 'God'. And, in our circles, entreaties to emotion, so-called pure logic, and subjectivity don't work. (In the voice of Watto the Toydarian) We only respond to objective evidence. Your 'Jedi' mind tricks won't work on us.

The more nebulous god becomes, the less one can make out the form and reason to believe in such a thing.

[Brian-M]

The fact that the existence of many many continually splintering contradictory religions indicates that the God thing is not actually involved in religions and requires every person to be 99.99% Atheist.


That's not strictly true. There's always Omniquantism...

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01386.png

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01387.png

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01388.png

Comics from: http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01386.htm

[HumanityBlues]

Even if there is an afterlife, that wouldn't even prove God's existence. Nothing can. I guess you could say, yes God may exist, but God's existence is completely unnecessary, so it's more likely God doesn't exist....

ugh...

people will argue this forever huh?

[devnull]

people will argue this forever huh?

If history is any guide, in a thousand years it'll be a different god and the theists will be claiming certainty that *that* god is the right one.

[Pure Argent]

Burden of proof is on the one asserting a claim, that is correct.

But since atheists are writing voluminously and unremittingly on God to prove that God does not exist, I guess it is all right for me to ask them for their strongest objection or argument against God.

You've got it backwards again. You're the one making the claim that he exists (a positive claim). We claim that there is no reason to believe that he does (a negative claim). The burden of proof is on you. Any time that we spend refuting your arguments is just a review of your evidence. So far, it hasn't measured up.

So that you will not be treated to otherwise for you people tiresome arguments for the existence of God from since ancient Greek philosophers to today's theist thinkers.

Let us just assume that the lack of evidence for God's existence is the strongest objection or argument against God.

Sounds good to me.

Atheists who have another strongest objection or argument against God, please bear with us here, as we try to work out together the evidence that is not available or inadequate to establish the existence of God.

Some here brought up the need to bring forth first the concept of God before going into the strongest objection or argument against Him.

Uh, no, that was you.

That is very logical;

No, not really. I don't have to describe every subspecies of leprechaun before I can deny their existence, do I?

but I guess everyone reading current literature of atheists against God's existence is aware atheist authors refer to the God of Christians, and Jews, and Muslims.

Which God to my conclusion is first and foremost and in relation to man, the maker of everything.

If you as an atheist want to bring in Zeus, then I would say that he is already discredited

As your god has been.

and no one writes to prove that he does not exist,

Argument ad populum.

same also with flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorn and celestial teapot whatever;

All of which are not really beliefs so much as illustrations of the absurdity of belief. So no, they haven't been discredited.

unless of course you are not relevantly and up to date intelligent with your concern about God or no God.

Appeal to scorn.

Someone here says he does not give a straw about anything, just that He hates God.

Well, that is his privilege as a free agent, i.e., a being that exercises free choice, so he can follow his emotional drive however unruly, and hatred is always unruly, as he wants to, if that is what he thinks satisfying to himself.

But we are here into an academic exercise, like for example, the query whether there is extra-terrestrial intelligence -- no one is working himself up into a frenzy of hatred, targeting extra-terrestrial intelligent beings.

Oh, I dunno. You should see a few of the pages in Rramjet's thread over in general skepticism.

So, please just rise above your emotions, specially the non-productive kinds which can and do suffocate your intellectual faculty.

:rolleyes:

Okay, what evidence do we have of God's existence?

None.

Or don't have of God's existence?

All of it.

What about you and me, aren't we evidence of God's existence?

No.

[paiute]

If you as an atheist want to bring in Zeus, then I would say that he is already discredited


Your proof of this, please?

[Last of the Fraggles]

If you as an atheist want to bring in Zeus, then I would say that he is already discredited...
Yrreg

Is he? How so?

What would you regard as the key pieces of data/evidence/information and/or arguments that discredit Zeus and yet do not apply to the Gods of the Jews/Christians/Muslims?

Is it merely that he no longer has many (if any) followers? Is the truth of the existence of a God therefore only based on how many people believe in it? Can we therefore say that Gods exist only in the heads of believers?

[kuroyume0161]

If history is any guide, in a thousand years it'll be a different god and the theists will be claiming certainty that *that* god is the right one.

QFT

[biomorph]

<snip>



Okay, what evidence do we have of God's existence?

None



Or don't have of God's existence?



Everything


What about you and me, aren't we evidence of God's existence?

Yrreg

Nope.

[godless dave]

That is very logical; but I guess everyone reading current literature of atheists against God's existence is aware atheist authors refer to the God of Christians, and Jews, and Muslims.

No, they're referring to all gods.



Which God to my conclusion is first and foremost and in relation to man, the maker of everything.

That's one definition of God, but it's not the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish God. Those gods have additional properties besides maker of everything.


If you as an atheist want to bring in Zeus, then I would say that he is already discredited

EXACTLY.

[Robin]

Which God to my conclusion is first and foremost and in relation to man, the maker of everything.
But that is not the God of the Christians, Jews or Muslims.

They believe in a purposefully intelligent maker of everything.

If you deny that the purposefully intelligent part is an important part of the definition then you are an atheist in denial.

[yrreg]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.


Atheists here, what do you say about that?




Yrreg

[Foster Zygote]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.


Atheists here, what do you say about that?




Yrreg

How many guesses do you need?

[Mojo]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.


Atheists here, what do you say about that?


Ask William of Ockham.

[Robert Oz]

The problem I have with atheists', and many other people's thinking, is that they act like people awakened on a plane. They know nothing about themselves, what they are doing on the plane, what is their purpose for being there, etc. Don't you think it is more prudent for the people to figure out why they are on the plane, rather than just go along for the ride, and be unprepared at the end of the journey? If people have to sort through a lot of rubbish to find out what they are doing on the plane, it makes sense to me that that is what they do - even if a lot of the things they have to consider sound far fetched.


There are many very intelligent people running around the plane trying to figure things out. They're called scientists. There are also many people sitting in their allotted seats with their eyes shut babbling about a ghost that is holding up the plane and monsters waiting for us at the airport. They're called theists.

[IMST]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.


Atheists here, what do you say about that?




Yrreg

How cute. After all this he thinks everything boils down to a false dichotomy.
And, yeah gerry. Take two guesses as to which we have evidence for. First one doesn't count!

[Pure Argent]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.

Atheists here, what do you say about that?

For evolution.

[GT/CS]

In response to the OT; the need for St Judes Children's Hospital, and all such hospitals.

If there is a god then he's a total dick and I curse him.

[godless dave]

The existence of humanity by itself is not evidence for evolution; it is evidence for the existence of humanity and nothing more.

[Skeptic Guy]

Well, you can take a luddite approach to things (I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist), or an intelligent approach by contemplating well our world. Now it is true that a lot of religions, and spiritual claims are untrue. But that doesn't mean that they are all untrue. The problem I have with atheists', and many other people's thinking, is that they act like people awakened on a plane. They know nothing about themselves, what they are doing on the plane, what is their purpose for being there, etc. Don't you think it is more prudent for the people to figure out why they are on the plane, rather than just go along for the ride, and be unprepared at the end of the journey? If people have to sort through a lot of rubbish to find out what they are doing on the plane, it makes sense to me that that is what they do - even if a lot of the things they have to consider sound far fetched.

Bolding mine. Did you ever answer how you can tell which religions and spiritual claims are untrue and which are true? I'm very curious.

Burden of proof is on the one asserting a claim, that is correct.


But since atheists are writing voluminously and unremittingly on God to prove that God does not exist, I guess it is all right for me to ask them for their strongest objection or argument against God.

So that you will not be treated to otherwise for you people tiresome arguments for the existence of God from since ancient Greek philosophers to today's theist thinkers.


Let us just assume that the lack of evidence for God's existence is the strongest objection or argument against God.

Atheists who have another strongest objection or argument against God, please bear with us here, as we try to work out together the evidence that is not available or inadequate to establish the existence of God.


Some here brought up the need to bring forth first the concept of God before going into the strongest objection or argument against Him.

That is very logical; but I guess everyone reading current literature of atheists against God's existence is aware atheist authors refer to the God of Christians, and Jews, and Muslims.

Which God to my conclusion is first and foremost and in relation to man, the maker of everything.

If you as an atheist want to bring in Zeus, then I would say that he is already discredited and no one writes to prove that he does not exist, same also with flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorn and celestial teapot whatever; unless of course you are not relevantly and up to date intelligent with your concern about God or no God.


Someone here says he does not give a straw about anything, just that He hates God.

Well, that is his privilege as a free agent, i.e., a being that exercises free choice, so he can follow his emotional drive however unruly, and hatred is always unruly, as he wants to, if that is what he thinks satisfying to himself.

But we are here into an academic exercise, like for example, the query whether there is extra-terrestrial intelligence -- no one is working himself up into a frenzy of hatred, targeting extra-terrestrial intelligent beings.

So, please just rise above your emotions, specially the non-productive kinds which can and do suffocate your intellectual faculty.



Okay, what evidence do we have of God's existence? Or don't have of God's existence?


What about you and me, aren't we evidence of God's existence?




Yrreg

Again, bolding mine and have you answered what discredits a belief in Zeus as opposed to the One True GodTM? Again, I would like to know.

If history is any guide, in a thousand years it'll be a different god and the theists will be claiming certainty that *that* god is the right one.

I think this does an adequate job explaining why there isn't much discussion about Zeus. Couldn't it also apply to The One True GodTM, one day?

[Correa Neto]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.


Atheists here, what do you say about that?




Yrreg
That whoever makes such question is (willing or not) ignorant of evolution.

And also of philosophy, having his/hers view blocked and limited to certain theological aspects and prejudices.

[John Jones]

I guess I've been missing the definition of a luddite all my life.

[Lucian]

There are many very intelligent people running around the plane trying to figure things out. They're called scientists. There are also many people sitting in their allotted seats with their eyes shut babbling about a ghost that is holding up the plane and monsters waiting for us at the airport. They're called theists.

Wait, those are the only possibilities? People are either scientists or they're babbling, superstitious theists?

[jsfisher]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.


Atheists here, what do you say about that?


The evidence? No.

[Brian-M]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.


Atheists here, what do you say about that?


Man's existence is not evidence for either claim. The fact that something exists is not evidence for the method by which it came into existence. For example, the fact that a broken vase exists is not evidence for whether it was knocked off the table by a person, a pet cat or a curtain blowing in the wind.

ETA: Some people claim that God guided the process of evolution to create man, while others believe that God simply created the universe and let things (like evolution) unfold naturally without interfering. So, as In My Spare Time pointed out, the question of God vs. Evolution is a false dichotomy.

So no, the question does not boil down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.

What the question does boil down to is...

Given that throughout history, mankind has shown a marked tendency to invent and genuinely believe in all kinds of myths, legends and supernatural claims, many of which are highly intricate in detail, is there any rational reason for concluding that the supernatural beliefs of any particular religious doctrine are factual, rather than just another mythical invention?

As far as we can tell, the answer is no.

[Ladewig]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.

What a bizarre statement. The Catholic Church, most protestant denominations, and the majority of Christians in the world believe that evolution has occurred. Wherever did you get the idea that evolution is incompatible with a belief in the God of the Bible?!

You're not one of those young earth creationists, are you?

[Ryokan]

What a bizarre statement. The Catholic Church, most protestant denominations, and the majority of Christians in the world believe that evolution has occurred. Wherever did you get the idea that evolution is incompatible with a belief in the God of the Bible?!

You're not one of those young earth creationists, are you?

He's a Roman Catholic, and I've tried telling him that the Roman Catholic church, including the pope, accepts evolution as fact, but he has ignored it every time.

I bet his hears starts pumping faster when he sees it, and he promptly skips it and erases it from his mind.

[Slimething]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.
Yrreg

Depends on the man. If you're the best example of believer, I would say the former has failed and the latter is tardy. :covereyes

[MIKILLINI]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.




It only appears that way when one uses selective preference.

[Prometheus]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.


Neither. Man is the evidence for man. If god ever shows up, then he can be his own evidence.

[Robert Oz]

Wait, those are the only possibilities? People are either scientists or they're babbling, superstitious theists?


No. I wasn't taking every passenger into account. Of course they fall along a spectrum of knowledge and belief.

[MRC_Hans]

Why didn't I introduce this topic earlier in my exchanges with atheists here on God or no God?

I guess I must have been not so intelligent.

Why the past sense?


Anyway, atheists here, what is your strongest objection or argument against God?


What is your strongest argument against invisible unicorns?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, but that doesn't negate the fact that in order to get substantially greater order, you need correspondingly greater intelligence.

Wrong.


Has anyone ever witnessed a natural non-human process produce a car?

No. And?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.


Atheists here, what do you say about that?

False dilemma. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Hans

[sphenisc]

What makes you think anyone here knows what is in the mind of anyone else or is inclined to speak for them?

Post #16

[Skeptic Guy]

Bolding mine. Did you ever answer how you can tell which religions and spiritual claims are untrue and which are true? I'm very curious.



Again, bolding mine and have you answered what discredits a belief in Zeus as opposed to the One True GodTM? Again, I would like to know.



I think this does an adequate job explaining why there isn't much discussion about Zeus. Couldn't it also apply to The One True GodTM, one day?

Nothin'

[Brian-M]

:s2:
*snoozing while waiting for yrreg to respond*

[Fiona]

I wonder what point we have reached in the Robotimbo summary of the trajectory of Yrreg threads?

[EventHorizon]

All right, you want an argument against God? How about this:

John Lennon - Shot in the back (and all 5 bullets miss Yoko)
"Dimebag" Darrell Abbott - Murdered on stage
Stevie Ray Vaughan - Helicopter crash
Cliff Burton - Bus crash
Freddie Mercury - AIDS
Bon Scott - Choked on vomit (we don't know who's, you can't dust for vomit)
Bob Marley - Cancer
Ritchie Valens - Plane Crash
Buddy Holly - Plane Crash
Robert Johnson - Anybody's guess

And

Edie Brickell - Still lives
Celine Dion - May look like a skeleton but she's alive


If this isn't proof of God's non-existence, I don't know what is.

[Mojo]

Robert Johnson - Anybody's guess


The generally accepted cause seems to be "poisoned by a jealous husband".

[Aitch]

All right, you want an argument against God? How about this:

John Lennon - Shot in the back (and all 5 bullets miss Yoko)
"Dimebag" Darrell Abbott - Murdered on stage
Stevie Ray Vaughan - Helicopter crash
Cliff Burton - Bus crash
Freddie Mercury - AIDS
Bon Scott - Choked on vomit (we don't know who's, you can't dust for vomit)
Bob Marley - Cancer
Ritchie Valens - Plane Crash
Buddy Holly - Plane Crash
Robert Johnson - Anybody's guess

And

Edie Brickell - Still lives
Celine Dion - May look like a skeleton but she's alive


If this isn't proof of God's non-existence, I don't know what is.

Also:
uCqA9EHQDYE

[Fiona]

I do not think that flies; I suspect from your perspective you have demonstrated that there is no "good" god: but that does not speak to the non-existence of any god, does it?

[kuroyume0161]

All right, you want an argument against God? How about this:

John Lennon - Shot in the back (and all 5 bullets miss Yoko)
"Dimebag" Darrell Abbott - Murdered on stage
Stevie Ray Vaughan - Helicopter crash
Cliff Burton - Bus crash
Freddie Mercury - AIDS
Bon Scott - Choked on vomit (we don't know who's, you can't dust for vomit)
Bob Marley - Cancer
Ritchie Valens - Plane Crash
Buddy Holly - Plane Crash
Robert Johnson - Anybody's guess

And

Edie Brickell - Still lives
Celine Dion - May look like a skeleton but she's alive


If this isn't proof of God's non-existence, I don't know what is.

I love Pantera. Dimebag and his heavy chops are sorely missed.

Speaking of missing:

Randy Rhoads - Plane Crash
Jimi Hendrix - Choked on vomit (reportedly)
Janis Joplin - Overdose

I'll omit James Morrison since I'm not convinced we lost anything that precious.

[devnull]

If this isn't proof of God's non-existence, I don't know what is.

But then Faith No More reformed and are touring.

So, you know, it all evens out.

:)

[sgtbaker]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.


Atheists here, what do you say about that?




Yrreg

Man is evidence for evolution and god is evidence for man's curiousity. The more we learn about our environment, the less we need god as an explanation; unless you still go to church to have your priest exercise strep throat.

[kuroyume0161]

But then Faith No More reformed and are touring.

So, you know, it all evens out.

:)

Ouch! :boxedin:

[Ladewig]

to have your priest exercise strep throat.

I think you mean exorcise.

[sgtbaker]

no they make you sweat it out :o

[justcharlie09]

Man is evidence for evolution and god is evidence for man's curiousity. The more we learn about our environment, the less we need god as an explanation; unless you still go to church to have your priest exercise strep throat.

I don't see how understanding the environment negates belief in God. It might remove the more superstitious forms of spirituality or religion (going to a witchdoctor or priest to get rid of the "demons" making you sick rather than, say, a real doctor who gives you antibiotics because of our understanding of germ theory), but not the spiritual longing itself.

[godless dave]

Spiritual longing is not the same thing as belief in God.

[justcharlie09]

Spiritual longing is not the same thing as belief in God.

This seems like splitting hairs. I don't think an understanding of the natural world negates belief in God, either, then, if the two (spiritual longing / belief in God) are mutually exclusive.

Understanding of the natural world negates astrology, reading chicken entrails, insisting that the world is only 6,000 years old, burning witches/heretics/homosexuals...but not one of those things is required for belief in God.

[GeeMack]

So, the question boils down to whether man is the evidence for God or for evolution.


Atheists here, what do you say about that?




Yrreg


I say if you believe it is evidence for god, you're wrong.

[sgtbaker]

I don't see how understanding the environment negates belief in God. It might remove the more superstitious forms of spirituality or religion (going to a witchdoctor or priest to get rid of the "demons" making you sick rather than, say, a real doctor who gives you antibiotics because of our understanding of germ theory), but not the spiritual longing itself.

I didn't say it negates the belief in god, I said it negates the need for a god as an explanation.

[justcharlie09]

I didn't say it negates the belief in god, I said it negates the need for a god.

Either way, understanding of the world doesn't do either. The spiritual longing to connect with the mysteries of existence through a contemplative relationship with God (or whichever term one might use) doesn't evaporate the minute we use germ theory and antibiotics to understand/cure bacterial illness.

Unless, we're talking about people seeking to control their environment by currying favor from God/gods/goddesses/spirits/whatnot through prayers or sacrifices or funny little dances or kneeling in the right spot or burning the right incense while chanting incantations.

Then, yes, it does negate the need for that sort of God/gods/goddesses/spirits/whatnot. But, that can only be seen as a good thing by anyone who cares about humanity--be they atheistic or theistic in worldview.


ETA: Yes, need for God as explanation is eliminated, but again, this does not toss out the need, in some, for a more nuanced understanding of God. What we've lost is the simplistic and the superstitious. That's nothing but a good thing for both humanity and God (for those who believe). Maybe God will yet be rescued from religion.

[godless dave]

Right, but to me, and I think most atheists, if God is not needed for an explanation, and is not supported by evidence, then that right there is enough to conclude that it doesn't exist.

[justcharlie09]

Right, but to me, and I think most atheists, if God is not needed for an explanation, and is not supported by evidence, then that right there is enough to conclude that it doesn't exist.

I certainly understand the position, and it may be correct. That is one, very real possibility.

The "not supported by evidence" claim, however, is a little tricky. It is hard to find evidence for something that isn't even necessarily well defined or even necessarily physical in nature. The word God and concept of God encompasses many different things. People spend entire lifetimes trying to find their own definition of God. And, if really pressed, I would wager most believers, even the more superstitious varieties, would vary widely on their exact definition of God, what God is, what God looks like, or if God looks like anything at all.

It is safe to say that the god Zeus is not sitting atop Mt. Olympus. You can climb up there (if you can get to that part of the world and are so disposed) and verify the claim is false. In this case, yes, there is strong evidence against that god or concept of God existing. A good thing, because Zeus was kind of a jerk, anyway.

Other more abstract versions and understandings of God are not as easily discarded or disproved.

So it comes back to the atheist assuming, based on lack of evidence or perhaps lack of personal spiritual longing or other factors, that there is no God (gods, goddesses, anything else...) and the theist placing some trust in the notion that there is one (or two, or three or more).

Dead end argument. No atheist can be convinced of God and no theist would drop their trust that there is a God lightly. Neither will know who was right or wrong until they're dead and then it's too late to chat about it. Even then, depending on what definition of God was ultimately correct, even in death, neither may know.

Ah well, so it goes. Right?

[sgtbaker]

ETA: Yes, need for God as explanation is eliminated, but again, this does not toss out the need, in some, for a more nuanced understanding of God. What we've lost is the simplistic and the superstitious. That's nothing but a good thing for both humanity and God (for those who believe). Maybe God will yet be rescued from religion.

Did I throw you off with my ETA? Sorry, I realized my lack of clarity. The need for an explanation is, for most people, the start. Once you devulge deeper into sciences then the absolute basic necessity for high school graduation, I can't understand how people wouldn't have to start reconciling their beliefs with their knowledge.

[sgtbaker]

I certainly understand the position, and it may be correct. That is one, very real possibility.

The "not supported by evidence" claim, however, is a little tricky. It is hard to find evidence for something that isn't even necessarily well defined or even necessarily physical in nature. The word God and concept of God encompasses many different things. People spend entire lifetimes trying to find their own definition of God. And, if really pressed, I would wager most believers, even the more superstitious varieties, would vary widely on their exact definition of God, what God is, what God looks like, or if God looks like anything at all.

It is safe to say that the god Zeus is not sitting atop Mt. Olympus. You can climb up there (if you can get to that part of the world and are so disposed) and verify the claim is false. In this case, yes, there is strong evidence against that god or concept of God existing. A good thing, because Zeus was kind of a jerk, anyway.

Other more abstract versions and understandings of God are not as easily discarded or disproved.

So it comes back to the atheist assuming, based on lack of evidence or perhaps lack of personal spiritual longing or other factors, that there is no God (gods, goddesses, anything else...) and the theist placing some trust in the notion that there is one (or two, or three or more).

Dead end argument. No atheist can be convinced of God and no theist would drop their trust that there is a God lightly. Neither will know who was right or wrong until they're dead and then it's too late to chat about it. Even then, depending on what definition of God was ultimately correct, even in death, neither may know.

Ah well, so it goes. Right?

Agreed :D

[godless dave]

I certainly understand the position, and it may be correct. That is one, very real possibility.

The "not supported by evidence" claim, however, is a little tricky. It is hard to find evidence for something that isn't even necessarily well defined or even necessarily physical in nature.

Exactly. How can you believe in something you can't even define?


So it comes back to the atheist assuming, based on lack of evidence or perhaps lack of personal spiritual longing or other factors, that there is no God (gods, goddesses, anything else...) and the theist placing some trust in the notion that there is one (or two, or three or more).

Lack of spiritual longing has nothing to do with it. I imagine some atheists do feel a lense of spiritual longing. But longing for something is not evidence that that something exists. All it does is tell us something about human psychology.

As you describe it, the atheist is clearly taking the more rational position - not trusting that something exists just because she can imagine it. That kind of proves our point.

[justcharlie09]

Did I throw you off with my ETA? Sorry, I realized my lack of clarity. The need for an explanation is, for most people, the start. Once you devulge deeper into sciences then the absolute basic necessity for high school graduation, I can't understand how people wouldn't have to start reconciling their beliefs with their knowledge.

No, I just went back to answer what was actually said :)

God as explanation of natural events is a simplistic definition of God. It fills a simple and basic psychological need.

A simple definition of belief or a simple belief should expand with knowledge and experience. Depending on the belief, maybe it will be chucked to the garbage heap. Creationism is a prime example, so is the "young earth" concept. Once you've gained certain information, you can't hold onto those ideas with any seriousness.

Concepts of God which are more abstract, not so much. Being forced to expand the definition and understanding of God is not a bad thing...and shouldn't automatically lead to "letting go of God" and Julia Sweeney put it. :D

Life isn't that simple.

[justcharlie09]

Exactly. How can you believe in something you can't even define?



Lack of spiritual longing has nothing to do with it. I imagine some atheists do feel a lense of spiritual longing. But longing for something is not evidence that that something exists. All it does is tell us something about human psychology.

As you describe it, the atheist is clearly taking the more rational position - not trusting that something exists just because she can imagine it. That kind of proves our point.

Ever heard of people searching for God? Well, the search is the process of finding a personal definition. It's a life long process of trying to relate to and understand the intangible.

I didn't say lack of spiritual longing was a necessary component. It could be, some people just don't seem to have the drive for spiritual matters, but I doubt that is always the case. No, longing is not evidence anything exists. Wish in one hand... you know ;) I'm just saying that personal factors are the driving force behind the worldview of either an atheist or a theist.

It's just that: personal. I trust my guess is correct. You trust your guess is correct. And, yet, here we are, both guessing based on personal reasons.

As for trusting something exists because I can imagine it. I'll be frank, and say, I'm trusting in something I can't imagine and struggle to define.

No, it doesn't sound good. But, by and large, I am still probably about as rational as any human can be. And, so far as I can tell, we're a pretty damned irrational lot, so, take that with a grain of salt. ;)

[godless dave]

Ever heard of people searching for God? Well, the search is the process of finding a personal definition. It's a life long process of trying to relate to and understand the intangible.

I didn't say lack of spiritual longing was a necessary component. It could be, some people just don't seem to have the drive for spiritual matters, but I doubt that is always the case. No, longing is not evidence anything exists. Wish in one hand... you know ;) I'm just saying that personal factors are the driving force behind the worldview of either an atheist or a theist.

It's just that: personal. I trust my guess is correct. You trust your guess is correct. And, yet, here we are, both guessing based on personal reasons.


I'm not guessing. I'm making a conclusion based on the available evidence.

[justcharlie09]

Making a conclusion based on the available lack of evidence is still guessing.

:D

I'm not trying to assert that you're wrong. Maybe you're not, maybe you are. I couldn't tell you with any certainty.

[sgtbaker]

No, I just went back to answer what was actually said :)


As I was editing that I was thinking, 'gee I hope I caught that before someone else did. :p

God as explanation of natural events is a simplistic definition of God. It fills a simple and basic psychological need.

A simple definition of belief or a simple belief should expand with knowledge and experience. Depending on the belief, maybe it will be chucked to the garbage heap. Creationism is a prime example, so is the "young earth" concept. Once you've gained certain information, you can't hold onto those ideas with any seriousness.

Which is pretty much the god to which the OP was referring. That is the question I was answering.

Concepts of God which are more abstract, not so much. Being forced to expand the definition and understanding of God is not a bad thing...and shouldn't automatically lead to "letting go of God" and Julia Sweeney put it.

Life isn't that simple.

Even with them, for most atheists; once you can offer a natural explanation there is no need for a supernatural answer.

[godless dave]

Making a conclusion based on the available lack of evidence is still guessing.


How so?

[laca]

This seems like splitting hairs. I don't think an understanding of the natural world negates belief in God, either, then, if the two (spiritual longing / belief in God) are mutually exclusive.

Understanding of the natural world negates astrology, reading chicken entrails, insisting that the world is only 6,000 years old, burning witches/heretics/homosexuals...but not one of those things is required for belief in God.

For this assertion to have any value, you need to define "God". Since you didn't, I'm assuming you mean the "God" of the Bible. In that case, understanding the natural world might also negate the need for a creator, thus negating that god. BTW, that god can be negated by much easier means, just by taking the bible and its contradictions for example.

[justcharlie09]

How so?

If you don't have a clear definition and there are multiple definitions possible for a thing and on top of that, you don't have evidence against any but the most simplistic forms of that thing...How do you know any more than I do for the purpose of making a decision?

Not saying who is right/wrong. Just saying that it's a guess.

A reasonable guess. I feel my guess is also reasonable. But still a guess.

[Yoink]

Making a conclusion based on the available lack of evidence is still guessing.

:D

I'm not trying to assert that you're wrong. Maybe you're not, maybe you are. I couldn't tell you with any certainty.


But why do you take that approach to your idea of "God" but not to anything else? You dismissed the existence of Zeus before because you can climb to the top of Mt. Olympus and see he's not there, for example. But that's absurd. Invisibility is one of Zeus's available attributes, as is clouding your mind. Why are you willing to say "Zeus doesn't exist, because I can't find any good evidence to prove his existence" but feel that when it comes to your idea of God you have to turn the onus around. Now, suddenly and exceptionally, it's "my idea of God will be held to probably exist, unless good evidence can be brought forward to disprove that."

Of course I can't disprove the existence of your conception of God. I can't disprove the existence of Zeus, or of Thor, or of the Angel Moroni. I can't disprove the existence of Baal or Ganesh or Kali. I can't disprove the existence of brownies or fairies or elves or leprechauns. I can't disprove the existence of invisible beings who walk among us seeking occasions to spill coffee on our shirts.

Now I'm pretty confident you don't think that it's just a matter of "guessing" one way or the other as to the existence of any (or, at least, most) of those beings, do you? I'm pretty confident that you would say that it would be silly to believe in leprechauns in the absence of any evidence that they do, in fact, exist. Now why? Why is that the appropriate rule to apply to leprechauns, but not the appropriate rule to apply to your conception of God?

[justcharlie09]

For this assertion to have any value, you need to define "God". Since you didn't, I'm assuming you mean the "God" of the Bible. In that case, understanding the natural world might also negate the need for a creator, thus negating that god. BTW, that god can be negated by much easier means, just by taking the bible and its contradictions for example.

How can I define something in the space of a forum post that represents the intangible? The God of the Bible...the Bible itself...is one attempt among many at human understanding and definition of God (as are other sacred texts).

The lack of need for a creator doesn't negate anything except creationism, which, who needed that anyway?

[laca]

Either way, understanding of the world doesn't do either. The spiritual longing to connect with the mysteries of existence through a contemplative relationship with God (or whichever term one might use) doesn't evaporate the minute we use germ theory and antibiotics to understand/cure bacterial illness.


Bolding mine. That also might get explained into irrelevance by science.


Unless, we're talking about people seeking to control their environment by currying favor from God/gods/goddesses/spirits/whatnot through prayers or sacrifices or funny little dances or kneeling in the right spot or burning the right incense while chanting incantations.


Well, do you know of any major religion that does not advocate at least one of those?


Then, yes, it does negate the need for that sort of God/gods/goddesses/spirits/whatnot. But, that can only be seen as a good thing by anyone who cares about humanity--be they atheistic or theistic in worldview.


Exactly.


ETA: Yes, need for God as explanation is eliminated, but again, this does not toss out the need, in some, for a more nuanced understanding of God. What we've lost is the simplistic and the superstitious. That's nothing but a good thing for both humanity and God (for those who believe). Maybe God will yet be rescued from religion.

Again, I'm assuming you are referring to the god of the bible. In that case, what you just said doesn't make sense. That god can never be "rescued from religion" nor can it be good thing for it that we loose it as explanation: that god has major attitude issues.

[justcharlie09]

But why do you take that approach to your idea of "God" but not to anything else? You dismissed the existence of Zeus before because you can climb to the top of Mt. Olympus and see he's not there, for example. But that's absurd. Invisibility is one of Zeus's available attributes, as is clouding your mind. Why are you willing to say "Zeus doesn't exist, because I can't find any good evidence to prove his existence" but feel that when it comes to your idea of God you have to turn the onus around. Now, suddenly and exceptionally, it's "my idea of God will be held to probably exist, unless good evidence can be brought forward to disprove that."

Of course I can't disprove the existence of your conception of God. I can't disprove the existence of Zeus, or of Thor, or of the Angel Moroni. I can't disprove the existence of Baal or Ganesh or Kali. I can't disprove the existence of brownies or fairies or elves or leprechauns. I can't disprove the existence of invisible beings who walk among us seeking occasions to spill coffee on our shirts.

Now I'm pretty confident you don't think that it's just a matter of "guessing" one way or the other as to the existence of any (or, at least, most) of those beings, do you? I'm pretty confident that you would say that it would be silly to believe in leprechauns in the absence of any evidence that they do, in fact, exist. Now why? Why is that the appropriate rule to apply to leprechauns, but not the appropriate rule to apply to your conception of God?

I think Carl Sagan said it best with his dragon in the garage from Demon Haunted World. Fair play on the Zeus analogy, btw.

Yes, it is still guessing.

[Yoink]

I think Carl Sagan said it best with his dragon in the garage from Demon Haunted World. Fair play on the Zeus analogy, btw.

Yes, it is still guessing.

So you would say that people who believe in fairies are every bit as rational and well-justified as people who don't. It's just a matter of which way their guesses go?

[laca]

I certainly understand the position, and it may be correct. That is one, very real possibility.

The "not supported by evidence" claim, however, is a little tricky. It is hard to find evidence for something that isn't even necessarily well defined or even necessarily physical in nature. The word God and concept of God encompasses many different things. People spend entire lifetimes trying to find their own definition of God. And, if really pressed, I would wager most believers, even the more superstitious varieties, would vary widely on their exact definition of God, what God is, what God looks like, or if God looks like anything at all.


The problem is that the more well defined a god becomes, the more easier it gets to refute it. The more general its definition, the more useless it is.


It is safe to say that the god Zeus is not sitting atop Mt. Olympus. You can climb up there (if you can get to that part of the world and are so disposed) and verify the claim is false. In this case, yes, there is strong evidence against that god or concept of God existing. A good thing, because Zeus was kind of a jerk, anyway.


Well, I'm pretty sure Zeus or any god is invisible for mere mortals by default. So no, you cannot refute Zeus just by looking around atop Mt. Olympus.


Other more abstract versions and understandings of God are not as easily discarded or disproved.


Agreed, but more abstract versions cannot usually fulfill the role of a "standard" god for religious people. They need the personal type of god. The one that answers prayers and saves you from the boogie man.


So it comes back to the atheist assuming, based on lack of evidence or perhaps lack of personal spiritual longing or other factors, that there is no God (gods, goddesses, anything else...) and the theist placing some trust in the notion that there is one (or two, or three or more).

Dead end argument. No atheist can be convinced of God and no theist would drop their trust that there is a God lightly. Neither will know who was right or wrong until they're dead and then it's too late to chat about it. Even then, depending on what definition of God was ultimately correct, even in death, neither may know.

Ah well, so it goes. Right?

No, there are examples for atheists becoming theists and vice versa.

[godless dave]

If you don't have a clear definition and there are multiple definitions possible for a thing and on top of that, you don't have evidence against any but the most simplistic forms of that thing...How do you know any more than I do for the purpose of making a decision?


The very fact that there isn't a clear definition indicates that it doesn't exist. I mean, if the definition isn't clear, then you can't really determine what you're asserting the existence of.

The multiple definitions just means there are multiple gods I don't believe in.

I don't know any more than you do. The difference is I only believe in things based on what I know. You seem to be believing in something even though you can't even define it and have no evidence it exists.

[JAStewart]

Do not need God/a god in my life, would not change anything.

[laca]

<snip>
It's just that: personal. I trust my guess is correct. You trust your guess is correct. And, yet, here we are, both guessing based on personal reasons.


Taking into account this might be construed as nitpicking, I'd still like to point out that the guesses are not equally justified. Your guess is just that, a guess, while godless dave's is most probably based on critical thinking and evidence.


As for trusting something exists because I can imagine it. I'll be frank, and say, I'm trusting in something I can't imagine and struggle to define.

No, it doesn't sound good. But, by and large, I am still probably about as rational as any human can be. And, so far as I can tell, we're a pretty damned irrational lot, so, take that with a grain of salt. ;)

That's the most honest explanation I ever saw from a theist. Thank you for that.

[laca]

If you don't have a clear definition and there are multiple definitions possible for a thing and on top of that, you don't have evidence against any but the most simplistic forms of that thing...How do you know any more than I do for the purpose of making a decision?


No, actually, there is evidence against all but the most simplistic forms of that thing. Huge difference.


Not saying who is right/wrong. Just saying that it's a guess.

A reasonable guess. I feel my guess is also reasonable. But still a guess.

Well, no. While I agree that both are essentially guesses, one is based on evidence and hence it tends to be more useful in dealing with reality.

[laca]

How can I define something in the space of a forum post that represents the intangible? The God of the Bible...the Bible itself...is one attempt among many at human understanding and definition of God (as are other sacred texts).


From what I've seen around here, God with a capital G refers to the god of the bible.


The lack of need for a creator doesn't negate anything except creationism, which, who needed that anyway?

I know it's hard, but try to define your version of a god, because otherwise we are talking past each other.

[Fiona]

What possible reason can there be for objecting to the abstract conception of god which justcharlie09 has adopted? Correct me if I am wrong, justcharlie, but it seems to me that what you are outlining has little or nothing to do with the god of the bible: it is not an interventionist god nor "personal" in the sense that laca means either.

Such a god is private and it has little or nothing to do with "evidence" in the sense that term is usually used.

I can't honestly see that is any business of any one else's unless they find it interesting to discuss.

[godless dave]

What possible reason can there be for objecting to the abstract conception of god which justcharlie09 has adopted?

I'm not "objecting" to it, I'm saying there's no evidence it exists.

[Fiona]

I think that is irrelevant

[godless dave]

I think that is irrelevant

To a thread about atheism?

[laca]

What possible reason can there be for objecting to the abstract conception of god which justcharlie09 has adopted? Correct me if I am wrong, justcharlie, but it seems to me that what you are outlining has little or nothing to do with the god of the bible: it is not an interventionist god nor "personal" in the sense that laca means either.


I'm still trying to get a definition, and until that time I will continue to assume that God with a capital G refers to the god of the bible.


Such a god is private and it has little or nothing to do with "evidence" in the sense that term is usually used.

I can't honestly see that is any business of any one else's unless they find it interesting to discuss.

Yes, I personally would find it very interesting to discuss a god that is so private it cannot even be defined in an informal way.

[Fiona]

@ godless dave: Yes. I am afraid I do not think this conception of god has anything to do with evidence of any sort, any more than your view of any form of art does. Different realm of discourse IMO

[laca]

@ godless dave: Yes. I am afraid I do not think this conception of god has anything to do with evidence of any sort, any more than your view of any form of art does. Different realm of discourse IMO

OK, fair enough. I'd still like to discuss what the purpose of such a god would be.

[Fiona]

I'm still trying to get a definition, and until that time I will continue to assume that God with a capital G refers to the god of the bible.

Well you might be right: not for me to say and maybe justcharlie09 will correct me. But I cannot fit the god of the bible into anything s/he has said so far.

Yes, I personally would find it very interesting to discuss a god that is so private it cannot even be defined in an informal way.

Fair enough. Do you have a definition for art? What is its purpose?

[godless dave]

@ godless dave: Yes. I am afraid I do not think this conception of god has anything to do with evidence of any sort

The question of whether something exists or not is always about evidence.

If justcharlie is talking about something he doesn't actually believe exists, then he's an atheist like me.