Arguments for God's Existence

[Man of Faith]

But there is: arguments based on evidence,

Theists and atheists have the same evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Theists and atheists have the same evidence.

That doesn't mean anything because, as far as I'm aware, "atheists" don't require evidence of anything. What evidence are you referring to and how do you reach your conclusions about it?

 

[Man of Faith]

That doesn't mean anything because, as far as I'm aware, "atheists" don't require evidence of anything. What evidence are you referring to and how do you reach your conclusions about it?

Atheists call themselves ration and reasonable which takes evidence of a rational and reasonable thought process. They also tout evidence through science that God isn't needed for the world that they see and for their lives.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Atheists call themselves ration and reasonable which takes evidence of a rational and reasonable thought process.

Everyone thinks they're reasonable. That's not a claim specific to atheists, nor is it some kind of "tenet" of atheism. Atheists can be just as irrational as anyone else, and theists can embrace rationality as well.

They also tout evidence through science that God isn't needed for the world that they see and for their lives.

That's called absence of belief, it's not a claim to say "I don't see the necessity of God" any more than it is a claim to say "I don't see the necessity of Father Christmas".

Try again.

 

[Thief]

The way to god may require reason, but reason cannot find god.

Your references are thorough.....a steep inclination of reading.

But to say we cannot reason to find God?......nay....that's too far.

My favored reason is based on science.....regression to the singularity.
At that 'point' a choice can be made.
Spirit first?....or substance.

I don't find it hard to choose Spirit.
Substance first is a terminal choice.

 

[Man of Faith]

Everyone thinks they're reasonable. That's not a claim specific to atheists, nor is it some kind of "tenet" of atheism. Atheists can be just as irrational as anyone else, and theists can embrace rationality as well.


That's called absence of belief, it's not a claim to say "I don't see the necessity of God" any more than it is a claim to say "I don't see the necessity of Father Christmas".

Try again.

They should call themselves afatherchristmas' then. The fact that they even call themselves atheists denotes that they considered the theist position and evidences.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They should call themselves afatherchristmas' then. The fact that they even call themselves atheists denotes that they considered the theist position and evidences.

And...?

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

Thinking about God is as natural for a man as jumping into water is to get wet. He just is,and therefore...in this life we just find that men think about,and talk about God.

 

[jmn]

Nothing but off the scale delusion in this thread. I'm not surprised though.

 

[Falvlun]

and that is exactly what is happening when you move your hand..
and those molecules stay together for some unknown reason..
and follow your electro stimuli command to move together.

Ignoring the rest of the questionable science in there, this is simply just false. We actually know a lot of the reasons molecules stay together, such as ionic bonds and covalent bonds (for molecules); and gravitational, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and electromagnetic forces within the atom. And those are just the ones we know about now; I wouldn't be surprised if there were more that we haven't detected yet.

 

[Falvlun]

invisible and unseen bonds..
proven point ..
is about observation.

"faith is substance of things hoped for not seen"

Invisible and unseen mean the same thing.

They might be invisible, but that doesn't mean there are not other methods of detection. We cannot see air, but we know that it is around us because we have many methods of confirming that besides our eyes.

Are you really suggesting that gravity doesn't actually exist, or that we have no proof of its existence?

 

[Falvlun]

good luck with your pursuits of seeing the back of your head..
because trying to see what youre looking for is same as trying to see back of your head..

I'll just use a couple of mirrors. It's not very difficult.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've yet to see an argument for the existence of god(s) that is logically flawed, or can't be reduced to the assumption that god(s) exist. Therefore, I have found none of them convincing, since, personally, I require logical arguments to be sound and valid in both the logic and their assumptions to find them convincing. Of course, not everyone uses this same criteria.

 

[Thief]

I've yet to see an argument for the existence of god(s) that is logically flawed, or can't be reduced to the assumption that god(s) exist. Therefore, I have found none of them convincing, since, personally, I require logical arguments to be sound and valid in both the logic and their assumptions to find them convincing. Of course, not everyone uses this same criteria.

Did you mean.... 'isn't'.... flawed?

Are you not asking for material proof knowing that won't happen?

And of course faith requires not proving.
And that brings us to 'reasonable' assumption.

Assumption is a useful tool.
Many discussions fall short of resolve without it.