Reasons for the belief in no God

[Amill]

Again, read my posts. All of peer-reviewed science is against your eternal universe, in which they support an AGE OF THE UNIVERSE, thus a beginning.

Again, read my posts, and realize why your position is nonsensical... If you want to try to salvage your argument, don't repeat it, deal with my critical objections.

Namely, why are you going against modern science with your position?

Sorry, what peer reviewed studies have shown that the governing laws of the Universe must be created by an intelligent being? You didn't read my post well enough.

And Meow mix addressed you in post number #200 regarding the eternal universe argument but you never responded.

 

[fallingblood]

And this " not a single shred of evidence supporting God's existence" fails to interface with any of my arguments directly for the existence of a mind like God.

Only because you don't want to address it. Show me some evidence, that's all you have to do. No need running around in a circle with the logic you're proposing

(See what I did there? I was insinuating that you are using circular reasoning.)

Sure wish you would deal with my arguments I have presented for the existence of God.

All you have to do is show me some evidence. Just list one piece of evidence, that's all I'm asking for. It shouldn't be hard.

 

[Subby]

What peer reviewed studies have shown that the governing laws of the Universe must be created by an intelligent being? You didn't read my post well enough.

I was referring to eternal universe with that statement.

And Meow mix addressed you in post number #200 regarding the eternal universe argument but you never responded.

Ya I did. The fact that peer-reviewed science over the past 40 years has shown a beginning to the universe, thus it is not eternal according to modern science.

 

[Subby]

Only because you don't want to address it. Show me some evidence, that's all you have to do. No need running around in a circle with the logic you're proposing

(See what I did there? I was insinuating that you are using circular reasoning.)
All you have to do is show me some evidence. Just list one piece of evidence, that's all I'm asking for. It shouldn't be hard.

I have presented many arguments that fail to be addressed. Do the work and read them then address them directly.

 

[fallingblood]

I have presented many arguments that fail to be addressed. Do the work and read them then address them directly.

Okay, so you can't actually supply any evidence. You can just say that. It's quite easy. Just say you have no evidence.

 

[Subby]

Okay, so you can't actually supply any evidence. You can just say that. It's quite easy. Just say you have no evidence.

You fail to interpret my words correctly, because you read your own views into it. Classic interpretation mistake that happens with the biblical texts a lot.

 

[Amill]

I was referring to eternal universe with that statement.

But MY original point wasn't referring to an eternal universe.

 

[blackout]

Reasons for the belief in no God

The "no God" exists as the antithesis of the "yes God".

 

[fallingblood]

You fail to interpret my words correctly, because you read your own views into it. Classic interpretation mistake that happens with the biblical texts a lot.

Then show me the evidence. It is as simple as that. Either you have the evidence or not. If you can't give me the evidence, then I have to assume you don't have any. And since you aren't giving me any evidence, the only logical conclusion is that you don't have any.

 

[Subby]

then show me the evidence. It is as simple as that. Either you have the evidence or not. If you can't give me the evidence, then i have to assume you don't have any. And since you aren't giving me any evidence, the only logical conclusion is that you don't have any.

read my posts. and realize i am calling for evidence of non-existence, some logical reason for the non-existence of God.

 

[Subby]

But MY original point wasn't referring to an eternal universe.

Of which I have addressed.

 

[fallingblood]

read my posts. and realize i am calling for evidence of non-existence, some logical reason for the non-existence of God.

I did. Now you are side stepping the issue. I gave you a reason. It is a very logical reason. Since there is no evidence of God, not a single shred of evidence, it is logical to assume that God does not exist. As in, the logical reason for the non-existence of God is that there is no evidence for that God.

 

[Subby]

I did. Now you are side stepping the issue. I gave you a reason. It is a very logical reason. Since there is no evidence of God, not a single shred of evidence, it is logical to assume that God does not exist. As in, the logical reason for the non-existence of God is that there is no evidence for that God.

You again state these opinions without directly confronting any of the arguments put forth already in response to the numerous posts attempting to defend the non-existence of God.

 

[fallingblood]

You again state these opinions without directly confronting any of the arguments put forth already in response to the numerous posts attempting to defend the non-existence of God.

Sidestepping again. All you have to do is show me some evidence. If you've already provided the evidence, it should be easy to just copy and paste it again. That's all I'm asking for, some evidence. If you can provide that, then I will retract my reason.

 

[Subby]

Sidestepping again. All you have to do is show me some evidence. If you've already provided the evidence, it should be easy to just copy and paste it again. That's all I'm asking for, some evidence. If you can provide that, then I will retract my reason.

Dude just read my posts. I am done with you on this topic until you actually directly confront arguments put forth.

 

[fallingblood]

Dude just read my posts. I am done with you on this post until you actually directly confront arguments put forth.

I have read your posts. You never offered any evidence that God exists. Thus, my point stands. A reason to not believe in God is that there is no evidence. You basically admit such by not presenting any evidence.

 

[Amill]

Of which I have addressed.

No you didn't, after my post you replied saying you already addressed the eternal universe argument. But my argument wasn't about an eternal Universe, it was about how the governing laws may have come into existence or came to be the way they are within our Universe. You never addressed that, you simply deflected my point from the beginning. And now you're deflecting some more.

 

[Subby]

No you didn't, after my post you replied saying you already addressed the eternal universe argument. But my argument wasn't about an eternal Universe, it was about how the governing laws may have come into existence or came to be the way they are within our Universe. You never addressed that, you simply deflected my point from the beginning. And now you're deflecting some more.

So how did natural laws come into existence, if not by a cause? If you posit the cause is natural you are self-refuting yourself because there is non-existence, and thus you cannot have anything spontaneously come forth. Thus there is a cause, there is a beginning.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Dude just read my posts. I am done with you on this topic until you actually directly confront arguments put forth.

Reasons have been given as you requested. I think the problem is you're not satisfied with the reasoning.....We don't posit a god, you do. Theist have not presented any evidence. If you posit a god then the onus is on the one making the claim to present the evidence for one but we're not the ones making that claim.

 

[fallingblood]

So how did natural laws come into existence, if not by a cause? If you posit the cause is natural you are self-refuting yourself because there is non-existence, and thus you cannot have anything spontaneously come forth. Thus there is a cause, there is a beginning.

I don't know if you want to use that argument. Because then you have to admit that God had a beginning. And since nothing can spontaneously come forth, God had to have a creator. Which poses a problem to your idea.