• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

Enai de a lukal

Enai de a lukal

Well-Known Member
LegionOnomaMoi said:
You mean your watered-down Western cultural appropriation of practices and beliefs existing for thousands of years "magically" reflects the Western influences of the so-called Enlightenment period whence comes this New and Modernistic Buddhism you seem to understand all Buddhism to be.
Click to expand...

L...O...L!!!

RF's resident comedian, at it again.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
garrydons said:
If we dont accept all things that we see are created by a God. Then what is the origin of all things? Look at the very very complex creation. Where did they came from? How did they originate?
Click to expand...

To me this is a matter of education

We do not place gods in the gaps of our knowledge. Because you cannot understand origins of matter does not mean it was creation mythology is credible. It isn't scientifically.
 
I.S.L.A.M617

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
Call_of_the_Wild said:
Well if that is what is meant I would like to see refutations of those arguments.
Click to expand...
There's a very specific place, called.... ALL OVER THIS FORUM, where you can find the refutations for those ludicrous arguments. One doesn't need to prove God doesn't exist in order to refute an argument for his existence.
 
Call_of_the_Wild

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
I.S.L.A.M617 said:
There's a very specific place, called.... ALL OVER THIS FORUM
Click to expand...

All over this forum? Are you kidding me I have been a member of this forum for over a year and all I see are weak arguments and crappy logic.

I.S.L.A.M617 said:
, where you can find the refutations for those ludicrous arguments.
Click to expand...

So, based on these many imaginary refutations of the arguments...lets take 3 arguments that Christian theists use:

1. The kalam cosmological argument
2. The ontological argument
3. The argument based on the historicity of Jesus Christ (the Resurrection)

Give me your best refutation of each of those three. Since there are so many, as you claim, this shouldn't be a problem.

I.S.L.A.M617 said:
One doesn't need to prove God doesn't exist in order to refute an argument for his existence.
Click to expand...

Thats cool but I don't recall saying that "one" does.
 
Call_of_the_Wild

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
Philomath said:
The regular rehashed arguments. The argument from design, the watchmaker argument and the list goes on.
Click to expand...

The argument from design is a good argument, not one that I like to debate, but I think it is a good argument.

Philomath said:
They've been argued over countless times on this website. But If you would like to see them debated over why don't you start a new thread about it?
Click to expand...

Been there, done that. :beach:
 
kjw47

kjw47

Well-Known Member
Philomath said:
As an agnostic theist I always notice other theist's attempting to prove God in one way or another. These arguments are never sufficient or conclusive enough to prove God. I recognize that my position is irrational and that there is no evidence for God. If you already have faith in God, what is the need to attempt to prove him?
Click to expand...



Creation is proof enough------ evolution is a theory--no proof

If evolution were truth--then all in a instance--trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of atoms all of a sudden all fell into perfect place to make everything work precisely. it could never happen in a gazillion years--- Gods use of science and math with precision caused all of creation.
 
Philomath

Philomath

Sadhaka
kjw47 said:
Creation is proof enough------ evolution is a theory--no proof
Click to expand...

Creation is proof of what?

Yes evolution is a Theory which is the highest something can be in science.

If evolution were truth--then all in a instance--trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of atoms all of a sudden all fell into perfect place to make everything work precisely. it could never happen in a gazillion years--- Gods use of science and math with precision caused all of creation.
Click to expand...

Evolution doesn't describe how life came to be....that's Abiogenesis.
 
I.S.L.A.M617

I.S.L.A.M617

Illuminatus
Call_of_the_Wild said:
1. The kalam cosmological argument

  1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
  2. The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore:
  3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
Click to expand...
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalām_cosmological_argument#cite_note-14
You can't prove the universe has a beginning of its existence, and are assuming such for the sake of the argument. If God can exist above time and not need a beginning of his existence, why can't the same be said for the universe itself? The Kalam argument operates under the assumption that the universe is not God. If God is the only thing that can exist without a beginning, you're essentially saying "everything except God has a cause". Unless you can think of more than one thing that exists without an initial cause, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God's existence.

2. The ontological argument

  1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
  2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
  3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
  4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
  5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
  6. Therefore, God exists.
Click to expand...
This argument just makes absolutely no sense. Classic equivocation fallacy. Anselm relies on there being two definitions of the word “God,” and he switches up between the two whenever it's convenient to him. The first definition is "a god who exists in reality" and the second is "a god who exists only in the mind". This link describes it better than I can:
God-1 = God who exists in reality (the thing whose existence we are trying to prove).
God-2 = a God who exists only as an idea in the mind.
Now we can rephrase the argument:

  1. Nothing greater than God-1 can be imagined
  2. God-2 exists.
  3. God-1 is greater than God-2
  4. If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1)
  5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God-1
  6. Therefore God-1 exists
Point 4 is where it goes wrong. It only appears to work because Anselm equivocates about the definitions of God-1 and God-2. This is what he is doing. He is trying to make point 4 sound like, “If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-1” (which would be a contradiction to point 1). But point 4 only makes sense as “…we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i.e., God-1),” as in my version. (Otherwise he is actually saying “If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-1 (i.e., God-1),” which is gibberish.) He hopes you won’t notice he changed God-2 to God-1 in point 5, setting up the contradiction to point 1. But he wasn’t talking about God-1 in point 4, so there is no contradiction. Consequently, point 6 “Therefore God-1 exists,” just doesn’t follow.
Click to expand...
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/08/ontological-argument-for-god-rebuttal.html
3. The argument based on the historicity of Jesus Christ (the Resurrection)
Click to expand...
The historicity of Jesus himself has yet to be proven, let alone the resurrection part... Try again.
 
nash8

nash8

Da man, when I walk thru!
Was this the thread were I was promoting outlandish concepts about my view of God or was that another thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top