Why did you Change your world view?

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I said before from the alleged fact that the Bible is wrong, stupid, fallacious etc. It doest follow that God doesn't exist, at most it would follow that the Bible was not written/inspired by God


How do you go from
"the Bible is wrong" to "therefore God doesn't exist?"

You should rephrase that as "The bible is wrong, therefor the god of the bible as depicted in the bible does not exist".

And then it does follow.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So would you put God in the same category than Aliens?

No, not at all.
Aliens existing are FAR MORE LIKELY then god(s) existing.

See, aliens (ie: life forms that formed / evolved / live on planets that are not earth) are really just living things like us, but on another planet. They are just living creatures. We KNOW living creatures can exist.

No laws of nature need to be suspended or violated for aliens to exist.
Life on earth acts like a precedent for the potential existance of aliens.

We have no such precedents for anything god-like or supernatural. None at all.

So right out of the gates, even barring any evidence whatsoever, aliens are hugely, immensly more probable then gods are.

In fact, considering everything we know about the universe, the elements, chemistry, life,...
I'ld even say that aliens are not only possible but actually plausible.
While gods aren't even determined to be possible.

(perhaps he exist perhaps he doesn't, we don't know) but it's realistically possible that he excist

You haven't demonstrated that this is possible AT ALL.
Claiming it, doesn't make it so.

Or would you put God in the same category of Santaclaus? (he obviously doesn't exist we have good positive reasons to reject his existence)

I'ld put god in the same category as all things that are unfalsifiable and indistinguishable from sheer imagination, yes.

Because that's exactly what god is: unfalsifiable, unsupportable and thus indistinguishable from imagination.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would agree that none of the arguments for the existance of God is conclusive, but I don't think that is a good justification for atheism,...... science, history, philosophy etc. Usually don't present conclusive evidence for stuff, we simply accept the best explanation based on the data that we have to date.

That's a very misleading thing to say.
Science indeed offers the best explanation of the data we have.
But we have no data for god stuff.

So to call both "not conclusive", which is technically correct, and thereby pretend or imply that both thus are of equal value, is just very very false

My view is that These are good arguments for the existance of God that together make a comulative case that makes theism more probably true than atheism, and the arguments for atheism are bad in comparison to these arguments.

There are no arguments "for'" atheism, because atheism isn't an assertion or claim.
Atheism is what you default to when the "arguments" for theism aren't convincing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well let's define God as an intelligent agent who created the universe

Given this definition.... Would you put God in the category of "aliens"

No.

I'ld put it more in the category of gravitational pixies defined as "Gravitational pixies are undetectable pixies that regulate the workings of gravity".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You say that there is no evidence for God, well what is wrong with the arguments that theist typically provide?

They aren't evidence.

Like the kalam cosmological argument fine tuning, moral argument, resurrection, etc?

All of which are infested with logical fallacies like assumed conclusions, arguments from ignorance, etc.
Furthermore, they are just words on paper. There's no actual data backing any premise or conclusion whatsoever.

 

[leroy]

I wouldnt agree with that conclusion, but it isnt a conclusion that I would have a problem with. As long as someone isnt saying that a God definitely exists then i am fine with it.

My concern with a belief would be more if it has rammifications in the real world. So if someone just believes in a God then i dont care much. But if that belief causes harm in the real world then it becomes a problem.

Sure but weather if you cause harm or not in the name of God, has no bearing on whether if God exist or not.

 

[leroy]

The kalam cosmological argument is debunked from get go, for supposition, ignorance and leaps of faith. What fine tuning? The universe chaotic.

Morality is a human (and other animals) trait, stolen by god believers and bastardised to omit those not of their particular faith.

Evidence of resurrection world be nice, as it stands its only the opinion of believers in resurrection

Ok evidence for god. None
Evidence god is compassionate, just the opposite, any innocent child suffering the agonies of leukaemia should show you that
Evidence god listens, the starving millions show otherwise.
Evidence for player prayer Fill a warehouse with prayers and another will aid and see which is more beneficial.
Evidence for omnipotence, e=mc2 proves otherwise

From your comments it seems obvious that you don’t understand the FT and the moral argument, ……what is wrong with the evidence for the resurrection typically provided by theists?

What unjustified supposition or leap of faith does the KCA makes?

Yes some of those are good arguments against the existence of God

 

[leroy]

No.

I'ld put it more in the category of gravitational pixies defined as "Gravitational pixies are undetectable pixies that regulate the workings of gravity".

Well I would say that there are good positive reasons to reject your “pixies theory” namely we have a better explanation for gravity

Do you have good positive reason to claim that the universe had a natural cause, rather that God did it? Do you have a better explanation for the origin of the universe rather than God? Do you have a better explanation for the FT of the universe? Do you have a better explanation for the existence of objective moral values, free will, the applicability of math in the universe the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus? If yes then please feel free to share that explanation, and explain why that explanation is better than God


If you can’t provide such explanations, then there is no justification for putting God in the same category of pixies.

 

[leroy]

They aren't evidence.



All of which are infested with logical fallacies like assumed conclusions, arguments from ignorance, etc.
Furthermore, they are just words on paper. There's no actual data backing any premise or conclusion whatsoever.

Ok spot a specific logical fallacy made in any of those arguments.

 

[leroy]

You should rephrase that as "The bible is wrong, therefor the god of the bible as depicted in the bible does not exist".

And then it does follow.

That would only be true if you show that the bible is wrong in the specific verses where God is depicted.

But sure that would show that a specific interpretation/description of God is wrong.

That like saying Galileo was wrong in some parts of his book, therefore the geocentric model is true , obviously it doesn’t follow, in the same way showing that a specific verse in the bible is wrong, would not show that atheism is true.

The point being that finding mistakes in the bible does not justify atheism (do you agree with this point, yes or no)

 

[Samael_Khan]

Sure but weather if you cause harm or not in the name of God, has no bearing on whether if God exist or not.

I am referring to specific beliefs and about specific gods. So for instance according to Aztecs, the world (or humans only? Cant remember) was made with the blood of the gods. According to their religion the gods demanded the blood back otherwise they would end the world. This is what led them to sacrifice their own people and kill their enemies.

I would actively try to refute that religion, which includes their gods, since the religion is harmful. I would ask what valid reason they have to claim that their gods exist and if there isnt evidence then there is no reason for them to believe such beliefs. If they stop practicing sacrifice and the world continues to exist without sacrifice that throws their whole theology on its head this proving their concept of gods wrong.

Their gods dont represent all gods or the actual god/s that might exist.

 

[ChristineM]

From your comments it seems obvious that you don’t understand the FT and the moral argument, ……what is wrong with the evidence for the resurrection typically provided by theists?

What unjustified supposition or leap of faith does the KCA makes?

Yes some of those are good arguments against the existence of God

No it means you are using your own limited understanding to make an argument.

Please provide your evidence that can be falsified to show resurrection actually occurs, can occur or has occurred.

The KCA starts with a supposition based on ignorance and builds on that.

Thank you. I believe all are good arguments.

 

[Fool]

Why did you Change your world view?

This forum is full of theists that used to be atheist, atheists that used to be theists, Christians that used to be Jews, Creationists that used to be Evolutionists, etc.

So if you have changed your religious world view I would like to know what was the “thing” that convinced you that you where wrong,

In my particular Case, I used to be a YEC, in my mind the strongest and irrefutable argument for a flood was the fact that there where flood legends with parallels all over the world, to me it was obvious that all these legends had a common source, and this source had to be the actual event (a global flood)

Then I realized that the supposed parallels where vague and that the stories were in no way similar to the story reported in the bible. The exception would be Flood Legends in the middle east, but that can be explain by claiming that both legends where “quoting” from a common legend (not necessarily the event)

Then slowly but surely I began to notice that I was using the same logic that fanatics atheist use to support YEC. Things like “avoid the burden proof at all cost” “reject scientific consensus just because there are a few small holes u}in our knowledge, contradictions, conspiracy theories, raise the bar unrealistically to high when it comes to evidence that contradict my view, etc.

Then I simply decided that this logic was flawed. And had no option but to reject YEC.

love of the all. so many things to see, to do, to be. amazing

 

[leroy]

No it means you are using your own limited understanding to make an argument.

Please provide your evidence that can be falsified to show resurrection actually occurs, can occur or has occurred.

The KCA starts with a supposition based on ignorance and builds on that.

Thank you. I believe all are good arguments.

Ok so what unjustified supposition does the KCA makes?

The evidence for the resurrection that theist usually provide

1 Jesus Died on the Cross

2 Jesus was buried

3 the tomb was found empty

4 The disciples and many others had experiences that they interpreted as having seen iand interacting with the risen Jesus

5 They were willing to fight and die for the believe in the resurrection

So what’s wrong with this? Would you say that these are not historical facts that probably happened, or would you say that there is a better explanation than the resurrection for these facts? (are to provide such explanation and explain why is it a better explanation?)


Sure, the universe is chaotic, how does that invalidates the FT argument?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What about the arguments typically given by theists (cosmological argument, fine tuning argument, moral argument, resurrection, etc.? are you familiar with those arguments?, do you have good reasons to think the arguments are wrong or fallacious? Do you think that the arguments for atheism are better?

Those arguments for gods have all been shown to be fallacious, which we would expect, since they are just words that purport to demonstrate that a god must exist absent empiricism. What else have we proven exists without evidence? Purely verbal arguments are adequate for mathematical proofs, which are not about things floating out there outside our heads like the sun and, if they exist, gods.

The argument for atheism is the combination of the belief that nothing should be believed without sufficient supporting evidence, and the opinion that there is not sufficient supporting evidence for gods to justify belief. It's the same as the argument for not believing any other claim made without sufficient supporting evidence. It's why you don't worship the Viking pantheon. You have no reason to believe that Odin and Thor exist, so you hold no such belief.

But for Jehovah (I am assuming that you are Christian - if not substitute your god), you make an exception. That god you are willing to believe in without evidence. Even if we accept the scholastics' sophistry as a valid demonstration that a god or gods must exist, those arguments don't point to any single god including yours.

To me it seems that many atheist (not sure if this includes you) operate by the logic “there is no 100% conclusive evidence for God, …… therefore I am an atheist. What I am trying to say is that many times, atheist raise the bar unrealistically too high (which is also what YEC do when it comes to evolution)

I just explained the logic, and it's not what you wrote. I for one do not require 100% certainty to believe. My beliefs are tentative, that is, less than 100% certain, even if the doubt is only philosophical doubt (understanding the limitations of knowledge beyond "I think therefore I am" rather than psychological doubt, which is both understood and felt as uncertainty.

Tentative beliefs are amenable to revision up or down in degree of certainty with new evidence that makes the belief more or less likely to be the case, and belief should be commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence. Soe beliefs will be "possibly true," some "probably true," some "very likely true," and some as "near certain."

Gods' ratings on that scale are very low.

For me, the question is not whether gods exist, but whether that would matter even if true. If not, it's a non-issue.

from the alleged fact that the Bible is wrong, stupid, fallacious etc. It doesn't follow that God doesn't exist

If by "God" you mean the Christian god, then yes, for me, Christian scripture rules that god out. It describes a logically impossible god allegedly possessing mutually exclusive qualities simultaneously, like the celebrated married bachelor, which we know doesn't exist according to the law of noncontradiction, which states that "contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive."

There are several examples of these contradictions in the Christian Bible, such as that this god is both perfect and makes mistakes that it regrets and attempts to remedy. That god doesn't exist because it can't.

But I agree that no words rule out the possibility of a logically possible (no contradictions), non-interventionalist god like the deist god.

Still, what does it matter if the deist god exists, used to exist, or never existed? One need only be concerned about a god that has instructions for us with consequences if disregarded. So far, no holy book or prophet has convinced me that that has ever happened. I would need to see words that could only have come from a superhuman source at a minimum. There is nothing in the Christian Bible, for example, that could'nt have been written by ancient human beings.

at most it would follow that the Bible was not written/inspired by God

That's good enough reason for me to disregard it except as a work of historical or cultural significance.

And of course, without the Bible, there is no reason to believe in sin or any need for salvation, nor any solution suggested to deal with them.

Incidentally, if inspired means anything less than authored the book alone - and it generally doesn't - then I'm also not interested. Even if some but not all of the words were the ideas of a deity, if human thoughts offered as divine thought are present, it's a contamination that renders the whole thing useless, since there is no clear way to tell which is which. What parts (if not the whole thing) were added to modify the message.

And that's what inspiration is means in this context - a little from one source and a little from another source, as with West Side Story, which was inspired by Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Going by the movie alone, it's pretty hard to tell which parts were foreshadowed by Shakespeare and which were added later.

Game of Thrones is inspired by Middle Ages British History (the Lannisters and Starks are apparently named after the Lancasters and Yorks), but which other parts of the story are "inspired" by history? Were there dragons in history? We can only know if we see the source of the inspiration separate from any modifications. If the Christian Bible is only inspired by a deity, there is no way to tell which parts are of divine origin, and which are of human origin, which ought to tell us something about the quality of the divine contribution.

The Flintstones was inspired by The Honeymooners. If you are familiar with only the Flintstones, you wouldn't know that the Honeymooners was the source for the idea of a bigger, blowhard neighbor and a smaller, goofy neighbor, both with unskilled work, with wives that snickered at them and rolled their eyes at them, and the antics they get into. You wouldn't know that the modifications.

But did the Honeymooners work in a mine? No. Were they named Fred and Barney? No. Did either of them have a pet? No. Did they have children? No. Were they prehistoric people? No. In case you didn't know, the answer is yes in each case with the Flintstones

Inspired by is too different from authored by for the latter to be useful by itself to distinguish the previous authored part of the inspired work from the additions, omissions, and modifications, which in this case, would be the human input.

Presumably, we don't care about the human input as much or at all. What if it was man and not the deity that came up with the idea of the Sabbath? If so, why observe it?

So would you put God in the same category than Aliens? (perhaps he exist perhaps he doesn't, we don't know) but it's realistically possible that he exists. Or would you put God in the same category of Santa Claus? (he obviously doesn't exist we have good positive reasons to reject his existence)

All three - "God," aliens (I'm assuming that we mean technologically advanced intelligent life and not just bacteria or even worms), and Santa Claus are alike regarding being ideas never confirmed to exist, although as one poster indicated, they are not equally likely to be true. There is no reason to believe in Santa Claus if you haven't been told it's a hoax, but there are good reasons to believe that intelligent aliens exist somewhere in this universe.

The god idea is closer to the Santa idea than the alien idea in the fact that we have no experience with deities or flying reindeer, but have experienced an intelligent, technological species on earth, we have discovered earth-like planets and moons around distant stars, and we know that the material that led to life on earth (and the same physical laws) are everywhere in the universe. That's why we expect advanced alien life to exist, but not gods or Santa Claus.

I would agree that none of the arguments for the existence of God is conclusive, but I don't think that is a good justification for atheism,

Being inconclusive is a good reason to reject the arguments as proofs of a god. Proofs are conclusive.

But that is not the basis of atheism. It's not any single failure to produce evidence of a god that justifies unbelief, but the idea that there is insufficient evidence of any type to justify belief in gods.

If you frame the argument for atheism correctly, you won't be able to criticize it unless you want to say that people should believe by faith. If you agree that things should not be believed without sufficient evidentiary support, and you believe that somebody who agree with that and has not been convinced that gods exist is logically compelled to atheism, then where's your argument?

Rebutting other arguments only applies to those making them. Is somebody claiming that there are no gods because the Bible is flawed? I would rebut that argument as well.

But can you rebut mine? Being a rational skeptic, I need a reason to believe any idea, and don't have one in this matter, so I am an atheist. Where's your rebuttal to that? That I shouldn't be a rational skeptic, but rather, should believe by faith? If so, I can explain why that's a bad idea. That I should accept the conclusions of those arguments for gods? If so, I can explain why I don't in each case.

See if you can rebut the position I am actually taking.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My view is that These are good arguments for the existence of God that together make a cumulative case that makes theism more probably true than atheism, and the arguments for atheism are bad in comparison to these arguments.

I would say that you have interpreted the evidence incorrectly. First, each argument has been debunked. The believer will not see that, but the unbeliever, if skilled in evaluating arguments and understanding their criticism, can. The believer has a reason to not see that these arguments are flawed, so he doesn't, just as he often cannot see the flaws in scripture such as the internal contradictions and errors in science and history.

The more examples of failed arguments presented, the more likely that they are trying to prove something that cannot be proven, which doesn't rule the possibility out, but does make it less likely to be true. True things might be unprovable, false things always are.

Consider the Intelligent Design movement's claim of irreducible (biological) complexity existing in nature. I am aware of four such claims already debunked (the eye, the flagellum, the coagulation cascade, and the immune system). In a world with a creator deity, we might or might not find irreversible complexity, but in a godless universe, we will never find it.

In fact, whenever it is the case that if a god exists, we might see this or that, but if no god exists, we can only see one of the two, we always see what might be the case if there is a god, but must be the case if there is none, such as regular laws of nature. A god might or might not use them, but a godless universe couldn't operate in the manner we see it operating without them. A god might or might not have left us an unmistakably superhuman message ("The energy created by conversion of mass is proportional to the speed of light times itself"), but in a godless universe, you'll see the kinds of messages attributed to gods that we see today.

You collect enough of these examples, and the likelihood of gods existing drops with each one. Why do we never see what can only be explained by positing a god?

"In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own."

That's what we have here. All arguments for gods have failed, making their existence less likely. One more illustration.

If a coin is a fair coin, flipping it will result it about half heads and half tails. If a coin is loaded to always fall tails, only tails will be seen. This is analogous to if there is a god, we might see this or that, but if there is no god, we will only see that, never this.

We flip the coin and it comes up tails. Which is it? It could be either. After five flips, we have five tails. A loaded coin is not ore likely than before, but the evidence for it is still weak. How about after 100 flips, all tails? Or 1000? Sure, it's possible that a fair coin can come up tails a 1000 times in a row, but much less likely than that the coin is loaded.

Producing a series of fallacious (or inconclusive, or noncompelling) arguments for a god makes the likelihood of that god existing less likely, not more likely.

I would say that the strongest evidence for the existence of God is if somehow we can make accurate uncommon predictions based off that knowledge.

That's the criterion for calling any idea about the world fact (or true, or correct) - its utility. It's the predictive power of any rule that determines its utility.

We know that the science underlying space travel is useful because it has been used to successfully predict what would follow a launch.

We can't do that with any god claims. They have no explanatory or predictive power, no mechanism offered, and no supporting evidence. Contrast biological evolution with biblical creationism.

The theory of evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, has accurately made predictions about what can and could not be found in nature for about 150 years now (don't forget consiliece), provides a rational mechanism for explaining the observable fact of evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

That's a useful idea, and how we know that is a keeper. Whether you call the idea true or fact is irrelevant. Is it useful? If so, it's a keeper, and can be considered correct.

Creationism, by contrast, an idea generated by story tellers, is a sterile idea that can do none of those things or anything else.That is how we know the idea is useless, and to discard it.

Also I would think there is truth to be found in something if the viewpoint or structure or story is common around the world and is known to not be something that is intrinsic to human psychology.

Doesn't the existence of so many mutually exclusive god claims and religions tell us that inventing them are fairly universal traits of human psychology? Like the beasts, man is programmed to assign agenticity - a mind behind it - to any motion or action. It's a survival mechanism.

He is also programmed to submit to and cooperate with patriarchal figures like fathers, group leaders, and imagined gods - also a survival mechanism.

"Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen." Revelation 1:7 The dead atheists would rise again and be reunited with their bodies in order to see. Same with those in the present who died. Those in the present and future still living would see it live. It meant everything will be settled on Earth. I thought if I was an atheist, then that would make me fall down on my face and beg for forgiveness. That would convince me.

It would convince me as well, but there is no reason to believe that it will or even can happen. If it did happen, then we all have a problem, not just the unbelievers. That's a god we should all hope does not exist. Your problem from heaven will be that you are in the presence of a god who prefers guessers to those requiring evidence, and capriciously rewards the ones who guessed right and doesn't mind torturing its creations in the afterlife for guessing wrong.

I realize that reality does not depend on what we prefer be the case, but if that god exists, being an immortal human soul puts one in jeopardy of ending up in hell, meaning that you're in as much peril as the unbeliever. You should hope with me such a god does not exist.

You haven't demonstrated that this is possible AT ALL.

I realized recently that the word possible has two meaning. It refers to the set of all things about which it is known that they can happen, as well as all things merely not known to be impossible, including those things that actually are impossible, but not yet disproven.

I think you were involved in a discussion in which we were asked to demonstrate that abiogenesis is even possible, something not yet done. My argument was that anything not known to be impossible was by default possible, and that if he couldn't demonstrate with some observation, argument, experiement, or algorithm why abiogenesis is impossible, the scientific community is justified in assumming that abiogenesis is possible, occurred, and some or all of its mechanism canbe elucidated with study.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That's the criterion for calling any idea about the world fact (or true, or correct) - its utility. It's the predictive power of any rule that determines its utility.

We know that the science underlying space travel is useful because it has been used to successfully predict what would follow a launch.

We can't do that with any god claims. They have no explanatory or predictive power, no mechanism offered, and no supporting evidence. Contrast biological evolution with biblical creationism.

The theory of evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, has accurately made predictions about what can and could not be found in nature for about 150 years now (don't forget consiliece), provides a rational mechanism for explaining the observable fact of evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

That's a useful idea, and how we know that is a keeper. Whether you call the idea true or fact is irrelevant. Is it useful? If so, it's a keeper, and can be considered correct.

Creationism, by contrast, an idea generated by story tellers, is a sterile idea that can do none of those things or anything else.That is how we know the idea is useless, and to discard it.

I agree for the most part. I would say that the idea of God is useful to give people hope in a useless situation, thus courage to overcome them, as has been experienced by many people. I think that is the reason why many gods were thought up in the first place. Also the idea of God and creationism are very good ideas to be used in fantasy fiction.

Doesn't the existence of so many mutually exclusive god claims and religions tell us that inventing them are fairly universal traits of human psychology? Like the beasts, man is programmed to assign agenticity - a mind behind it - to any motion or action. It's a survival mechanism.

Possibly but not necessarily and maybe in certain aspects and not others. But the human psychology aspect you mention could be one of the truths behind the creation of Gods. Also gods are mutually exclusive depending on the religion. And there are common traits worldwide between all religions and their gods. But also saying that "it is psychology" would be falling into the same line of reasoning as "Godidit" unless it can be demonstrated. I would rather say "I dont know" otherwise.

 

[leroy]

Those arguments for gods have all been shown to be fallacious, which we would expect, since they are just words that purport to demonstrate that a god must exist absent empiricism. What else have we proven exists without evidence? Purely verbal arguments are adequate for mathematical proofs, which are not about things floating out there outside our heads like the sun and, if they exist, gods.

The argument for atheism is the combination of the belief that nothing should be believed without sufficient supporting evidence, and the opinion that there is not sufficient supporting evidence for gods to justify belief. It's the same as the argument for not believing any other claim made without sufficient supporting evidence. It's why you don't worship the Viking pantheon. You have no reason to believe that Odin and Thor exist, so you hold no such belief.

But for Jehovah (I am assuming that you are Christian - if not substitute your god), you make an exception. That god you are willing to believe in without evidence. Even if we accept the scholastics' sophistry as a valid demonstration that a god or gods must exist, those arguments don't point to any single god including yours.



I just explained the logic, and it's not what you wrote. I for one do not require 100% certainty to believe. My beliefs are tentative, that is, less than 100% certain, even if the doubt is only philosophical doubt (understanding the limitations of knowledge beyond "I think therefore I am" rather than psychological doubt, which is both understood and felt as uncertainty.

Tentative beliefs are amenable to revision up or down in degree of certainty with new evidence that makes the belief more or less likely to be the case, and belief should be commensurate with the quality and quantity of supporting evidence. Soe beliefs will be "possibly true," some "probably true," some "very likely true," and some as "near certain."

Gods' ratings on that scale are very low.

For me, the question is not whether gods exist, but whether that would matter even if true. If not, it's a non-issue.



If by "God" you mean the Christian god, then yes, for me, Christian scripture rules that god out. It describes a logically impossible god allegedly possessing mutually exclusive qualities simultaneously, like the celebrated married bachelor, which we know doesn't exist according to the law of noncontradiction, which states that "contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive."

There are several examples of these contradictions in the Christian Bible, such as that this god is both perfect and makes mistakes that it regrets and attempts to remedy. That god doesn't exist because it can't.

But I agree that no words rule out the possibility of a logically possible (no contradictions), non-interventionalist god like the deist god.

Still, what does it matter if the deist god exists, used to exist, or never existed? One need only be concerned about a god that has instructions for us with consequences if disregarded. So far, no holy book or prophet has convinced me that that has ever happened. I would need to see words that could only have come from a superhuman source at a minimum. There is nothing in the Christian Bible, for example, that could'nt have been written by ancient human beings.



That's good enough reason for me to disregard it except as a work of historical or cultural significance.

And of course, without the Bible, there is no reason to believe in sin or any need for salvation, nor any solution suggested to deal with them.

Incidentally, if inspired means anything less than authored the book alone - and it generally doesn't - then I'm also not interested. Even if some but not all of the words were the ideas of a deity, if human thoughts offered as divine thought are present, it's a contamination that renders the whole thing useless, since there is no clear way to tell which is which. What parts (if not the whole thing) were added to modify the message.

And that's what inspiration is means in this context - a little from one source and a little from another source, as with West Side Story, which was inspired by Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Going by the movie alone, it's pretty hard to tell which parts were foreshadowed by Shakespeare and which were added later.

Game of Thrones is inspired by Middle Ages British History (the Lannisters and Starks are apparently named after the Lancasters and Yorks), but which other parts of the story are "inspired" by history? Were there dragons in history? We can only know if we see the source of the inspiration separate from any modifications. If the Christian Bible is only inspired by a deity, there is no way to tell which parts are of divine origin, and which are of human origin, which ought to tell us something about the quality of the divine contribution.

The Flintstones was inspired by The Honeymooners. If you are familiar with only the Flintstones, you wouldn't know that the Honeymooners was the source for the idea of a bigger, blowhard neighbor and a smaller, goofy neighbor, both with unskilled work, with wives that snickered at them and rolled their eyes at them, and the antics they get into. You wouldn't know that the modifications.

But did the Honeymooners work in a mine? No. Were they named Fred and Barney? No. Did either of them have a pet? No. Did they have children? No. Were they prehistoric people? No. In case you didn't know, the answer is yes in each case with the Flintstones

Inspired by is too different from authored by for the latter to be useful by itself to distinguish the previous authored part of the inspired work from the additions, omissions, and modifications, which in this case, would be the human input.

Presumably, we don't care about the human input as much or at all. What if it was man and not the deity that came up with the idea of the Sabbath? If so, why observe it?



All three - "God," aliens (I'm assuming that we mean technologically advanced intelligent life and not just bacteria or even worms), and Santa Claus are alike regarding being ideas never confirmed to exist, although as one poster indicated, they are not equally likely to be true. There is no reason to believe in Santa Claus if you haven't been told it's a hoax, but there are good reasons to believe that intelligent aliens exist somewhere in this universe.

The god idea is closer to the Santa idea than the alien idea in the fact that we have no experience with deities or flying reindeer, but have experienced an intelligent, technological species on earth, we have discovered earth-like planets and moons around distant stars, and we know that the material that led to life on earth (and the same physical laws) are everywhere in the universe. That's why we expect advanced alien life to exist, but not gods or Santa Claus.



Being inconclusive is a good reason to reject the arguments as proofs of a god. Proofs are conclusive.

But that is not the basis of atheism. It's not any single failure to produce evidence of a god that justifies unbelief, but the idea that there is insufficient evidence of any type to justify belief in gods.

If you frame the argument for atheism correctly, you won't be able to criticize it unless you want to say that people should believe by faith. If you agree that things should not be believed without sufficient evidentiary support, and you believe that somebody who agree with that and has not been convinced that gods exist is logically compelled to atheism, then where's your argument?

Rebutting other arguments only applies to those making them. Is somebody claiming that there are no gods because the Bible is flawed? I would rebut that argument as well.

But can you rebut mine? Being a rational skeptic, I need a reason to believe any idea, and don't have one in this matter, so I am an atheist. Where's your rebuttal to that? That I shouldn't be a rational skeptic, but rather, should believe by faith? If so, I can explain why that's a bad idea. That I should accept the conclusions of those arguments for gods? If so, I can explain why I don't in each case.

See if you can rebut the position I am actually taking.

Well I guess it all boils down to your first statement “the arguments for the existence of God are fallacious” if you can show this to be the case then I would agree with most of the rest of your post, if the statement is wrong then the rest of your points would also be wrong.

Why are the arguments fallacious? Pick your favorite form the list that I provided and spot the fallacy or the mistake (be specific, explain exactly what the mistake is)

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well I guess it all boils down to your first statement “the arguments for the existence of God are fallacious” if you can show this to be the case then I would agree with most of the rest of your post, if the statement is wrong then the rest of your points would also be wrong.

Why are the arguments fallacious? Pick your favorite form the list that I provided and spot the fallacy or the mistake (be specific, explain exactly what the mistake is)

For me, even if one proves the resurrection actually happened, that does not mean that God exists. For one to conclude that a few conclusions have to be made first:

1. That God exists.
2. That God can resurrect someone.
3. That God is the only being, object or process known to be able to resurrect someone.
4. That God as presented in the bible is the one who resurrected someone.

 

[james bond]

nm