God convinced me he doesn't exist. What did he do to to convince you he does or doesn't exist??

[Wildswanderer]

Circular reasoning fallacy, textbook. You're convinced of something, but can't explain it unless it's to someone else who is also convinced of it. Not very compelling.



Straw man fallacy, and a false dichotomy fallacy in one sentence there. It's irrational to simply assume we are limited to those two choices, the one you favour, and the straw man you have used to make it appear an easy choice. This is also a very common mistake or deliberate sophistry I see theists use, just because the earth's existence might have involved chance events, does not suggest it all came about purely by chance, far from, as evolution for example is driven by very complex mechanisms like natural selection.




Wow, an argument from personal incredulity fallacy. Note this assumes a designer far more complex than the universe, yet its existence doesn't prompt the same incredulity. Get ready for the special pleading fallacies. "It always existed" for example.

Whatever your subjectively belief, if the best arguments you have can make, use 4 separate known logical fallacies in a single post, it is impossible to ignore how irrational these claims are.

Blah blah...I'm not trying to convince you.

 

[Ponder This]

I had believed in God for 60 years. For the next 10 years I reverted to believing it was some kind of deistic god or higher power, but most certainly this higher power was NOT the Christian pagan god, Yahweh (Yahweh in case you didn't know was a minor Canaanite god in a collection of Canaanite gods that included Asherah, Baal and headed by chief god, El. The early Hebrews living among the Canaanites picked up Yahweh and made him their chief god). Recently I've decided to just go full atheist. I've never had any proof God exists; I've never had any prayers answered; the world is cruel unjust place filled with violence and death; the Bible is riddled with errors and inaccuracies; there's no proof a Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. It just makes more sense to me that it was natural selection that created this marvelous universe. We are a tremendously complex accident and we are now destroying the earth with our avarice. In 100 years global warming will have killed off most of the earth's population and rendered everything but the north and south poles uninhabitable.

What convinced you God exists or doesn't exist?

"Where two or more are gathered in my name, I am there."

Spiritual experiences are the means to the observation of spiritual realities.

Passion is a little bit like hunger. It is more often an indication of something unfulfilled.

 

[osgart]

That's news to me. I haven't encountered a new argument for gods existing for quite some time. In fact, most of the "new" arguments are simply reformulations of arguments that have been debunked hundreds of years ago.

That's news to me. I haven't encountered a new argument for gods existing for quite some time. In fact, most of the "new" arguments are simply reformulations of arguments that have been debunked hundreds of years ago.

Well I'm still an atheist, but I enjoy some of Josh Rasmussen's arguments. Some of his arguments are new, and some are reformulations.

He asks the question can we know anything in philosophy? He is convinced that reason leads to knowledge this way it appears.

As far as being debunked goes that's a matter of the intuition you arrive at. It's not worth arguing intuitions. Different intuitions lead to different conclusions, and physicalism/materialism is an intuition as well as any.

The inaction of God is the strongest argument against God. As for things beyond the scope of science, perhaps there is ways of knowing what lies beyond.

 

[1213]

... the Bible is riddled with errors and inaccuracies;...

I am sure you can't show even one real error in the Bible, only erroneous interpretations.

...
What convinced you God exists or doesn't exist?

Bible. I think people are too stupid and evil to make it on their own without God.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm coming to the belief that the universe has had innumerable beginnings and endings and is just recycled endlessly. So we're in just one of its many births now and in 10 trillion trillion trillion trillion years it will all burn out and then be reborn in some kind of Big Bang yet again. There's no answer to your question.

So there was or wasn't anything at these beginnings you imagine might have occurred?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well I'm still an atheist, but I enjoy some of Josh Rasmussen's arguments. Some of his arguments are new, and some are reformulations.

He asks the question can we know anything in philosophy? He is convinced that reason leads to knowledge this way it appears.

As far as being debunked goes that's a matter of the intuition you arrive at. It's not worth arguing intuitions. Different intuitions lead to different conclusions, and physicalism/materialism is an intuition as well as any.

The inaction of God is the strongest argument against God. As for things beyond the scope of science, perhaps there is ways of knowing what lies beyond.

The Bible makes sense to me moreso than something always in the universe with or without a beginning. For instance, what was there before the supposed Big Bang?

 

[osgart]

The Bible makes sense to me moreso than something always in the universe with or without a beginning. For instance, what was there before the supposed Big Bang?

Whether or not the universe had a beginning is irrelevant to those two arguments I posted.

I think he's merely trying to establish that a necessary existence is self existent and in no need of anything else to exist and cannot not exist. He's also trying to establish that the totality of reality relies on this necessary existence. For all intense purposes the universe could have existed forever.

 

[Thrillobyte]

"Where two or more are gathered in my name, I am there."

Spiritual experiences are the means to the observation of spiritual realities.

Passion is a little bit like hunger. It is more often an indication of something unfulfilled.

We don't know that a Jesus character said that. That quote was written by an anonymous Greek scholar circa 90 CE, some 60 years after Jesus is purported to have been crucified. Nothing Jesus said was ever written down by anybody from that era so how could the writers of Matthew know Jesus said that?

Let me remind the readers that we have absolutely NOTHING that can be tied to Jesus' existence. He left no writings, no artifacts, there are no reliefs, no busts, no sculpts, no mention by any historians from that period--and all this includes the apostles--nothing! People who want to throw away their lives believing in a character for which there isn't a nickel's worth of evidence he ever existed are perfectly free to do so, but remember: you only get one life and then it's over. Live it wisely. Don't throw it away on fairytales.

If God really wanted is to believe in Jesus, God would have left enough evidence behind as tall as a mountain. But God didn't. He didn't even leave behind an anthill. All he left behind were four anonymous tales of a prophet named Jesus that were written half a century to a century after Jesus' supposed death that are filled with errors in geography, conflicting details, wrong genealogies, materials inserted 500 years later, and many more discrepancies. These are not perfect accounts. In fact they are so badly written as a whole that historians won't even take them seriously as reliable historical documents.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well I'm still an atheist, but I enjoy some of Josh Rasmussen's arguments. Some of his arguments are new, and some are reformulations.

He asks the question can we know anything in philosophy? He is convinced that reason leads to knowledge this way it appears.

As far as being debunked goes that's a matter of the intuition you arrive at. It's not worth arguing intuitions. Different intuitions lead to different conclusions, and physicalism/materialism is an intuition as well as any.

The inaction of God is the strongest argument against God. As for things beyond the scope of science, perhaps there is ways of knowing what lies beyond.

God promises action and He has acted in the past. Particularly in the book of Revelation The famous scene of the horsemen and their ride.

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't know that a Jesus character said that. That quote was written by an anonymous Greek scholar circa 90 CE, some 60 years after Jesus is purported to have been crucified. Nothing Jesus said was ever written down by anybody from that era so how could the writers of Matthew know Jesus said that?

Let me remind the readers that we have absolutely NOTHING that can be tied to Jesus' existence. He left no writings, no artifacts, there are no reliefs, no busts, no sculpts, no mention by any historians from that period--and all this includes the apostles--nothing! People who want to throw away their lives believing in a character for which there isn't a nickel's worth of evidence he ever existed are perfectly free to do so, but remember: you only get one life and then it's over. Live it wisely. Don't throw it away on fairytales.

If God really wanted is to believe in Jesus, God would have left enough evidence behind as tall as a mountain. But God didn't. He didn't even leave behind an anthill. All he left behind were four anonymous tales of a prophet named Jesus that were written half a century to a century after Jesus' supposed death that are filled with errors in geography, conflicting details, wrong genealogies, materials inserted 500 years later, and many more discrepancies. These are not perfect accounts. In fact they are so badly written as a whole that historians won't even take them seriously as reliable historical documents.

I have come to a different conclusion than Dr. Ehrman about the accuracy of the gospel accounts and the historicity of Jesus and the early Christians. An indication of the truthfulness of the account is testified by many examples, including the destruction of the temple and the monument called the Arch of Titus referring to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans among others. Also we have nonbiblical references to the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Among others.

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't know that a Jesus character said that. That quote was written by an anonymous Greek scholar circa 90 CE, some 60 years after Jesus is purported to have been crucified. Nothing Jesus said was ever written down by anybody from that era so how could the writers of Matthew know Jesus said that?

Let me remind the readers that we have absolutely NOTHING that can be tied to Jesus' existence. He left no writings, no artifacts, there are no reliefs, no busts, no sculpts, no mention by any historians from that period--and all this includes the apostles--nothing! People who want to throw away their lives believing in a character for which there isn't a nickel's worth of evidence he ever existed are perfectly free to do so, but remember: you only get one life and then it's over. Live it wisely. Don't throw it away on fairytales.

If God really wanted is to believe in Jesus, God would have left enough evidence behind as tall as a mountain. But God didn't. He didn't even leave behind an anthill. All he left behind were four anonymous tales of a prophet named Jesus that were written half a century to a century after Jesus' supposed death that are filled with errors in geography, conflicting details, wrong genealogies, materials inserted 500 years later, and many more discrepancies. These are not perfect accounts. In fact they are so badly written as a whole that historians won't even take them seriously as reliable historical documents.

Whether or not the universe had a beginning is irrelevant to those two arguments I posted.

I think he's merely trying to establish that a necessary existence is self existent and in no need of anything else to exist and cannot not exist. He's also trying to establish that the totality of reality relies on this necessary existence. For all intense purposes the universe could have existed forever.

Again, the Bible makes more sense to me than the idea that universes started more than once from something or nothing.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I have come to a different conclusion than Dr. Ehrman about the accuracy of the gospel accounts and the historicity of Jesus and the early Christians. An indication of the truthfulness of the account is testified by many examples, including the destruction of the temple and the monument called the Arch of Titus referring to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans among others. Also we have nonbiblical references to the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Among others.

It's not relevant. You might as well say the gospels mention Israel and Israel is a real country therefore the gospels are truthful. That's about a fallacious as you can get.

 

[YoursTrue]

Me neither.

So are you saying you can't have a personal relationship with God? In other words, using slightly different terms, He doesn't care about you or others?

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not relevant. You might as well say the gospels mention Israel and Israel is a real country therefore the gospels are truthful. That's about a fallacious as you can get.

Again, it makes much more sense to me than the idea of multiple universes or...life starting by magnetic chemical forces landing here from outer space or one cell burgeoning out to become trees, giraffes, fish, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not relevant. You might as well say the gospels mention Israel and Israel is a real country therefore the gospels are truthful. That's about a fallacious as you can get.

It is relevant. Anyway, have a nice day. For me, I didn't always believe in God or the Bible. Now I do.

 

[Trailblazer]

So are you saying you can't have a personal relationship with God? In other words, using slightly different terms, He doesn't care about you or others?

No, I am not saying that God does not care about me or others, but I do not believe we can have a personal relationship with God directly. I believe we have to go through the Messengers of God such as Jesus or Baha'u'llah in order to have a personal relationship with God.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Again, it makes much more sense to me than the idea of multiple universes or...life starting by magnetic chemical forces landing here from outer space or one cell burgeoning out to become trees, giraffes, fish, etc.

Yours, you have free choice to believe in whatever makes the most sense to you. The gospels and everything they say makes sense to you, the Flying Spaghetti monster makes more sense to that guy over there, little green men from Mars makes more sense to this guy standing next to you, and on and on. Nobody has any real evidence for any of it including the gospels for the exact reasons I enumerated: there's no historical evidence to support belief in them but that doesn't change your right to believe in them regardless of the lack of evidence. But that's the chink in man's right to choose what to believe: man often chooses something that has no basis in fact and throws his life away on that choice. In the end nobody will be hurt by your reckless choice but you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yours, you have free choice to believe in whatever makes the most sense to you. The gospels and everything they say makes sense to you, the Flying Spaghetti monster makes more sense to that guy over there, little green men from Mars makes more sense to this guy standing next to you, and on and on. Nobody has any real evidence for any of it including the gospels for the exact reasons I enumerated: there's no historical evidence to support belief in them but that doesn't change your right to believe in them regardless of the lack of evidence. But that's the chink in man's right to choose what to believe: man often chooses something that has no basis in fact and throws his life away on that choice. In the end nobody will be hurt by your reckless choice but you.

Yes, the Bible makes a lot of sense to me. I understand what I understand and am very happy with that understanding.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I am not saying that God does not care about me or others, but I do not believe we can have a personal relationship with God directly. I believe we have to go through the Messengers of God such as Jesus or Baha'u'llah in order to have a personal relationship with God.

Oh, ok, thank you for clarifying that. I won't go into detail now, but thank you for clarifying your statement.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not relevant. You might as well say the gospels mention Israel and Israel is a real country therefore the gospels are truthful. That's about a fallacious as you can get.

I don't reason as you imagine. But anyway, since I believe God is stronger, higher, than you or I, I'll leave it there for now.