... Therefore God does not exist.

[Ecowiz Returns]

(edited: Previously directed to the wrong guy)
Bodyless

I can remember another possible answer:
God, altough He would like you to believe, made it possible that you don't:
- By not giving you full knowledge of everything
- By generally only hinting His existence.

Also, the Biblical God didn't established any particular deadline for people to get to know Him. And you will find in the Bible plenty of references to the fact that no-one (other than Jesus, and that is in the New Testament) really knows God in all His reality. How can, such a statement be coherent with the notion that God really want us to know Him? The point in the answer to such a question rests of the When and of the How. And that, the Bible is not the least clear about.

Believing in an afterlife also helps a bit, when a Christian tries to reason with the question of When and How.

[loinburger]

I'll give it a try...

1. Proof through Generalized Incompetent Worship (I)
1) All Christians are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition.
2) Therefore, all Christians are lackwits.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

2. Proof through Generalized Incompetent Worship (II)
1) All Christians are responsible for the Crusades.
2) Therefore, all Christians are lackwits.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

3. Proof through Generalized Incompetent Worship (III)
1) Fundamentalist Christians are dumb.
2) Therefore all Christians are dumb.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

4. Proof through Fundamentalism (I)
1) The Bible contradicts itself in several places.
2) Therefore the entire Bible is wrong.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

5. Proof through Fundamentalism (II)
1) A lot of Christians do not literally interpret the Bible.
2) They're not allowed to pick and choose which passages are relevant.
3) Therefore all Christians who do not literally interpret the Bible must be hypocrites.
4) Therefore God does not exist.

6. Proof through Putting God to the Test
1) If God exists, then He should prove his existence to me.
2) God has not proved His existence to me.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

7. Proof through Burden of Proof (I)
1) I believe that there is no God.
2) You cannot prove my belief wrong.
3) The burden of proof lies on you.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

8. Proof through Burden of Proof (II)
1) You believe that there is a God.
2) You cannot prove that your belief is correct.
3) The burden of proof lies on you.
4) Therefore God does not exist.


That's all I can think of for now...

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Wraith
In the end this, for me, comes down to Ockham's Razor (entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity) and Rand's Razor (which changes entities to concepts and adds nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity). Until I see evidence to the contrary, the simpler explanation is that there is not a god, and it is the more likely case.

I have no evidence that Wraith exists, therefore I must apply Occam's Razor and assume that he does not exist.

Silly argument

[Bosh]

I always liked Hume personally, take a look at his essay "On Miracles," its not light reading but its worth taking a look at:

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Dye/HumeOfMiracles.html

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"Anyone care to give it a try?"

No. You can't prove a negative.

Oh yes I can, lots and lot's of times.
In fact, usually it is much easier to find proof of not existence than of existence.
Like the one: I never experienced the existence of God, therefore He doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Wraith
Asking people to try is just silly at best (if you don't know exactly what you're asking), or petty and childish (if you do know).

The burden of proof is on those who claim he does exist, not on those who claim he doesn't. If he doesn't interact with our reality in any way, then for all intents and purposes, he does not exist (that pink unicorn theory that's already been mentioned).

If he does interact, then surely you've got evidence...

Oh but I have evidence! Evidence in which I have chosen to believe in.
Evidence that comes from the testimony given on the words and actions of one Man that coherently demonstrated the He could be the Son of God. I also have evidence on the words and actions of those who followed Him, particularly after His death, when no particular rational reason can explain why they would keep, follow and proclaim the words and actions of someone that suffered the most humiliating death in the Roman Empire.
Of course, I believe those men and women, and those who wrote their testimonies were honest. Therefore I believe them.

Atheists, however choose not to regard those testimonies as truthfull. I don't understand why.

Originally posted by Wraith
In the end this, for me, comes down to Ockham's Razor (entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity) and Rand's Razor (which changes entities to concepts and adds nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity). Until I see evidence to the contrary, the simpler explanation is that there is not a god, and it is the more likely case.

Entities are not to be multiplied nor integrated .
By how much are we multiplying God?
With what is God being integrated?

If there is no need for God, why are so many of our questions still answered based upon His existence?

[Stefu]

Incidentally, arguments 8, 15-17, 24, 31, 53, 55, 57, 61, 64, and many others, from the "Therefore, God exists" thread can be easily turned whoppsie-daisie.

Proof through Prissiness:

1. In the Bible, God does lots of bad stuff.
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Bad Stuff:

1. There's a lots of bad stuff happening in the world.
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Ageism:

1. Lots of little children believe to God.
2. Therefore, losing faith in God must be part of growing up.
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Ageism, part II
1. Lots of old people believe in God.
2. Therefore, belief in God must come from fear of death.
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Karl Marx:

1. Religion is the opium of masses.
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Ayn Rand:

1. A=A. Rationality.
2. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Liberalism:

1. Many conservatives are Christian.
2. I'm liberal.
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Proof through Too-Easiness:

1. There's still a lot of stuff science can't explain.
2. However, using God to explain them would be too convenient.
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
I always liked Hume personally, take a look at his essay "On Miracles," its not light reading but its worth taking a look at:
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Dy...fMiracles.html

Thanks
It's reallly difficult to read, particularly for a someone not that proficient in English.
But it is very interesting reading.
It has strong arguments against an acritical acceptance of testimonies which are important to ponder and afirms that only through Faith can one assert the existence of God. These were, at least, the arguments that I found more interesting, on this first skim over the text.
Thanks again.

[randomturn]

there is no direct evidence for God, whether the biblical God or any other.

There is, however, some direct evidence for the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. After all, if I put a tooth under my pillow and there *is* a quarter there the next morning. Therefore, children who believe in the tooth fairy are more rational in that belief than are adults who believe in God.

Believing that there is no God (of any type -- obviously there is no Christian God) is just as irrational as believing there is a God. Some people seem to be using the irrationality of atheism as support for their equally irrational belief in God.

In general, you'd all do well just to ask Jack the Bodiless his opinions and adopt them as best you can. In my years here he has always been unassailably rational on this issue.

[Dauphin]

When it comes to debates about God's existance I try to forget religion, dogma and beleif entirely. It detracts from the facts.

I think more relevant questions go along the lines of "Why is nature the way it is?". If the ultimate axiomatic answer is "just because", it is as unsatisfactory an answer as saying "because God made it that way". All you do is replace "God" with "Science".

If you believe that science will lead to our ultimate understanding of axiomatic laws, then you are believing we shall one day be omniscient and therefore be our own virtual Gods - for any God would understand His creation.

[MrFun]

I believe in the natural way the universe, solar system, and the earth were formed.

I also believed that life on Earth was not created by God, but through evolution.

But, I do believe that God chose humans as the creatures who would receive his gift of the soul and spirit.

In essence, I believe that while God was not the creator of anything, he gave humans the gift of soul and spirit.

[mactbone]

Oh but I have evidence! Evidence in which I have chosen to believe in. Of course, I believe those men and women, and those who wrote their testimonies were honest. Therefore I believe them.

See, one of the problems with the NT, is that they were written after Jesus died. How do we know they didn't embellish the truth? If they embillished the truth, how hard is it to think that they may have added false things?

Also, none of those miracles have been recreated. If you can claim that they have happened, then I may as well claim I can see ghosts, only, noone can be around while I do it.

1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omnibenevolent
3. God created a good world (being all together good, he couldn't do anything but)
4. There is evil

or alternately

1. In the beggining there was only God (and nothing)
2. God created the world out of nothing
3. You cannot get anything from nothing
4. God does not exist

[Dauphin]

You cannot get anything from nothing

I would disagree and there is such a thing as a free lunch.

[mactbone]

How pray tell, do you get anything from nothing?

If it is nothing, by definition, there isn't anything there. It's not like you have an empty banl account, you don't have a bank account at all.

[Mr. President]

Many scientists and other technocrats are virulently atheist and anti-theist while hypocritically embracing natural philosophy uncritically. The true intellectual path is to be open-minded about both God and science, because neither can be taken as absolute. Equal chaos ensues under technocracy and theocracy.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Zopperoni

Next thread:

Logical Realist with "The Solipsist's Banana"

Banana Solipsist - could almost be a kind of ice lolly

Why bother considering God as feasible? The concept is a completely arbitrary and artificial one, and it is amazing why so much time and life has been wasted on it in the history of mankind