Why God??!!

[Arrian]

Mr. not-so-Nice Guy:

Short answer on Atheists: There are no true atheists.

Typical Atheist Quote:

"I hate God, so I choose not to believe in Him."

Because you hate God is just a sorry excuse not to believe in God that doesn't make any sense at all.

ALL atheists are this way, and ALL atheists are more agnostic that they are willing to admit.

You pulled that straight out of your ass.

I myself do not believe in God. I also know that I cannot disprove the existence of God (or gods, or other supernatural forces). It's pointless to try, because proving something allegedly beyond human comprehension does not exist is bound to be an excercise in futility, and even if it could be done, true believers like yourself wouldn't accept it anyway. So **** it. I also don't particularly care if my unbelief as described above makes me an "aethist" or an "agnostic."

I do not "hate" God. I do think that, if the God of the Bible (in particular the Old Testament) really did exist, that I might have some serious issues with Him. The God described in the OT is a bloodthirsty maniac. The same is true for lots of the gods dreamt up by humans. The Greek gods were nasty, selfish, capricious ****ers, for instance.

But I did not choose unbelief because I disliked a particular god (let's say from now on that when I say "God" I mean the god of the bible). I simply did not find the arguments for the existence of God persuasive. It's just not "believeable" for me. Doesn't pass my bull**** test, sorry.

Nice attempt to slander Aetheists & Agnostics with an inaccurate generalization, though.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lincoln
So you are again forming conclusions based on a lack of evidence? You 'stopped reading there'. And now you expect me to argue with someone who refuses to even read an opposing view? The fact is that we as humans do not know everything and we are restricted just as a goldfish in a bowl but on a higher level.

So what? If you admit we can not know, then you admit that to believe in God must be a faith-based thing period. Then the question becomes why believing in one creator is more valid than an interaction of forces-why must there be one god? If you are in the realm of faith, 30 are as good.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Here we go with the anthropic principle again...

We cannot observe all of the universe. Or all of the universes... perhaps. Consider how much life there is not in all places where the dials are wrong. We only know that they are right here because we are conscious to observe them. There is no consciousness in the places where there can be no consciousness.

Yep...
Im so tired of hearing the "dials are set right" argument...
Its like being at a convention of lotto winners and thinking the lotto must be rigged since everybody has won...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Thanks for your long but irrelevant post. the question was, can one say logically "there is no God"? You, yourself affirmed that no such definitive statement can be made.

Neither can a definitive statement be made that there are no undetectable little elves living on the surfaces of electrons, but it doesn't mean I can't say it isn't true. Occam's Razor.

[Lonestar]

Re: Why God??!!

Originally posted by Black Knight84 ...

My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I guess you didn't know that Occam was a Christian. One of you is misusing logic.

He also lived in the Middle Ages, when there was not the abundance scientific evidence such as we have today for the naturalistic mechanisms of the Universe. People are a product of their times. Any other irrelevant dodges?

[Ben Kenobi]

Black Knight.

Awesome thread so far.

You even got Lincoln to post again.

[Ben Kenobi]

Religion makes claims that are:

1) unsupported by evidence

But what kind of evidential standard do you apply to religion?

2) sometimes in direct contradiction with proven scientific principles

Such as? An example of where the two contradict would help. Remember, that there are certain assumptions held by science that cannot be applied to religion, the first one being an empirical standard for evidence. Science has no claim to the spiritual realm.

3) based on "faith"

I've never seen a reason why I should believe in Christianity instead of, say, Buddhism.

Excellent point. Why do I believe in Christianity instead of Buddhism? Because Christ died and rose from the dead. I contend that the resurrection is the best explanation of the empty tomb admitted by the Jews after the death of Christ.

Of course, I make several other presuppositions that need to be also examined in order to verify the claim.

1. God exists.
2. Scriptures are an accurate historical account of the time.

"I contend that we are all atheists; I simply believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you don't believe in all the other gods, you'll understand why I don't believe in yours."

This is the heart of the matter, eh? Why do we need God, when we can do so much ourselves? God is quite kind in that he allows us to make our own decisions, yet he also provides us with some kind of moral compass.

How do you explain the existence of your conscience without God?

[Ben Kenobi]

Then the question becomes why believing in one creator is more valid than an interaction of forces-why must there be one god? If you are in the realm of faith, 30 are as good.

Ockham's Razor argues that in a contest between two competing theories, given equal evidence for both, the simplest explaination is more probable to be correct.

Why have a multiplicity of causes?

[joncha]

Simplest explanation? The Jesus story is a myth, like the stories of Hercules.

Good job, BK!

[Boris Godunov]

Occam's Razor isn't kind to supernatural claims. Best not to bring it up in support of them.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ockham uses this argument in answer that specific question, so to say that his own claim is not kind to supernatural claims puzzles me.

Secondly, would Ockham have seen the same division of the material and spiritual worlds, as you do?

The Jesus story is a myth, like the stories of Hercules.

That is not the question at hand. The question is should there be many or one? Your question does not fall into this format.

[Ben Kenobi]

Secondly, does explaining away Christianity as a myth, really symplify things?

How do you explain the fact that the scriptures were written by eyewitnesses, in the presence of other eyewitnesses, and claims not to be a fable, but the truth?

Surely, if there were discreprencies between the account and the eyewitnesses, the eyewitnesses would correct the mistakes.

Finally, the simplest affirmation of the Christian faith comes from 1st Corinthians, which is written not more than 20 years after the death of Christ. Surely this is not enough time for a whole mythology to arise over the person of Jesus of Nazareth, since there are still living eyewitnesses.

[joncha]

If I write an "first hand" account of my visitation by Phoebus Apollo, is the simplest explanation that a god did visit me, or that I have an over-active imagination and/or am a nutter?

[Ben Kenobi]

If I write an "first hand" account of my visitation by Phoebus Apollo, is the simplest explanation that a god did visit me, or that I have an over-active imagination and/or am a nutter?

The latter.

That says nothing about Christ, nor about the Gospel accounts, since they do not rely upon the testimony of one man's visitation by Christ, but rather on very public events.

Christ does have an entire ministry, and a death on a cross that could easily be verified by the public at the time.

Acts even records the disciples going to Jerusalem at Pentecost to preach the risen Lord. Surely, the people in Jerusalem would have ignored them, had they not stuck to the facts of the matter, that could be proven.