Your best argument that G-d does not exist

[ThePainefulTruth]

No, I didn't. I asked for specifics on a God you're describing.

No you didn't, you asked if God was necessary, a totally new question.

BTW: when I'm open to you saying either "yes" or "no" to my yes/no question, there's no goalpost-moving.

I could have said yes, no or given a more involved response, but the question is still irrelevant to the thread, ergo, moved goalposts. So, enough with the red herring.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

@Blastcat

It's a pretty good bet that Santa and the Easter bunny don't exist.

Yes, yes, same for the Tooth Fairy, unicorns or any revealed god. That straw man is so worn out by atheists, and it never did have a brain to begin with.

 

[idav]

"Your best argument that G-d does not exist"

It really depends on the god your talking about but gods apparent incognito status is a pretty decent argument if your not talking about deism, pandeism or something similar, especially in light of all the fighting that goes on over an absentee landlord.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No you didn't, you asked if God was necessary, a totally new question.



I could have said yes, no or given a more involved response, but the question is still irrelevant to the thread, ergo, moved goalposts. So, enough with the red herring.

You know, if you had just never replied at all, it would have been just as productive.

I'm remembering why I had you on ignore.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Yes, yes, same for the Tooth Fairy, unicorns or any revealed god. That straw man is so worn out by atheists, and it never did have a brain to begin with.

Epistemologically, we have all of those things on a level playing field, so it's not really a straw man.

Unless of course you can 'reveal' (lol) some evidence for any of them(presumably whatever god concept tickles your fancy) that sets them apart?

My guess is that I can provide an equal portion of evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny as you can for any deity, and without even posting

 

[Trichakra]

You might believe that God is only one being, and that's fine.
But there are LOTS of gods people believe in.

Which god do you believe in?

Quetzalcoatl?
Zeus?
Vishnu?
Jehovah?
Allah?

I can't GUESS, Trichakra

I believe in Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

 

[Trichakra]

You might believe that God is only one being, and that's fine.
But there are LOTS of gods people believe in.

Which god do you believe in?

Quetzalcoatl?
Zeus?
Vishnu?
Jehovah?
Allah?

I can't GUESS, Trichakra

Please let me know which god do you believe in?

 

[Ana.J]

If you mean God The Creator of everything, I have no evidence he does not exist. If you refer to gods that we created...well...I'm sure, we will find some

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, yes, same for the Tooth Fairy, unicorns or any revealed god.

So is your God unrevealed, and what difference does that make? Lack of evidence is still a problem presumably? Does it mean you can believe what you like?

 

[Blastcat]

@Blastcat

It's a pretty good bet that Santa and the Easter bunny don't exist.

I agree.
But as a wannabe skeptic, I have to give Santa and EB at least a SMALL probability of existing.
I don't have all the data in the universe to check if they aren't there.

I give the same amount of probabilities to gods... I would represent the probability for God's Santa's and EB's existence with a number like this:

0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 %

It's NON ZERO.
I'm an agnostic.

 

[Blastcat]

If you mean God The Creator of everything, I have no evidence he does not exist. If you refer to gods that we created...well...I'm sure, we will find some

1. What evidence do you have FOR a Creator God?
2. What evidence do you have FOR other gods?

 

[interminable]

Don't bother

Nobody can deny the existence of god

Dark matter and dark energy are invisible does it mean they don't exist??
Something that we can't see or sense doesn't necessarily mean that is non existent

 

[Kartari]

Hi Paineful,

And the 4th option is the God has the power to intervene but must/will not in order to maintain our free will.

The free will argument is not based on sound reasoning, though. A deity with the intelligence and power ascribed to him by traditional western monotheistic religions could have easily created a humanity with the innate wisdom to be an enlightened species and still be free, thereby precluding us from bombing each other for instance NOT because we are not free but because we all recognize the folly and inhumanity of such an act and voluntarily refrain The free will argument essentially boils down to the premise, "People need to be stupid in order to be free." Quite the opposite is true, in fact.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You know, if you had just never replied at all, it would have been just as productive.

I'm remembering why I had you on ignore.

Something having to do with the Truth being Paineful to you no doubt.

Epistemologically, we have all of those things on a level playing field, so it's not really a straw man.

The straw man argument is arguing against man made "revealed" gods and claiming that's an argument against an unrevealed laissez-faire God.

Unless of course you can 'reveal' (lol) some evidence for any of them(presumably whatever god concept tickles your fancy) that sets them apart?

I've been arguing against there being evidence for any god forever. But the only one that isn't eliminated, by the elimination of hearsay, is said laissez-faire God.

My guess is that I can provide an equal portion of evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny as you can for any deity, and without even posting

Which is the same a the lack of evidence for a spontaneous universe. You can show the Easter Bunny to be just as totally based on hearsay as the biblical God. That says nothing about the cause of the universe.

So is your God unrevealed, and what difference does that make? Lack of evidence is still a problem presumably? Does it mean you can believe what you like?

Atheists know you can't prove a negative, which is why the question is how come the universe? That puts the unrevealed God on a veritable equal footing with no god.

1. What evidence do you have FOR a Creator God?
2. What evidence do you have FOR other gods?

There is no evidence for either, though the revealed gods can be disproven or at least dismissed. The question is the source of the universe, which must necessarily an unrevealed, laissez-faire God, or no god.

Don't bother

Nobody can deny the existence of god

Dark matter and dark energy are invisible does it mean they don't exist??
Something that we can't see or sense doesn't necessarily mean that is non existent

It's been detected indirectly, like gravity, which we only recently discovered the gravity waves for.

Hi Paineful,
The free will argument is not based on sound reasoning, though. A deity with the intelligence and power ascribed to him by traditional western monotheistic religions could have easily created a humanity with the innate wisdom to be an enlightened species and still be free, thereby precluding us from bombing each other for instance NOT because we are not free but because we all recognize the folly and inhumanity of such an act and voluntarily refrain.

Being created with an "innate wisdom" is the same thing as saying we'd been preprogrammed to be wise. Ostensibly, the object is to give us an ego, and then see what we do with it--i.e. try to put our rights above the equal of all others or not. A legal/moral double standard is the root of all evil. The source of our free will is our full self-awareness, full due to the awareness of our inevitable, universal mortality.

This is a test which can only have meaning if we have free will. "If you love something, set it free. If it comes back to you, it's yours. If not, it never was."--Johnathan Livingston Seagull

The free will argument essentially boils down to the premise, "People need to be stupid in order to be free." Quite the opposite is true, in fact.

That's similar to my definition of moral freedom: having the ability to be as dumb as you want, on your own dime.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Atheists know you can't prove a negative, which is why the question is how come the universe? That puts the unrevealed God on a veritable equal footing with no god.

We currently have no idea of what caused the big bang, or even if there was a cause ( since cause and effect are a feature of space-time ).

You seem to be filling this great gap in our knowledge with an ill-defined notion of "God". But why would you do that? Why not just say "I have no idea?"

 

[jeager106]

How horrible!

Who said Santa and the Easter bunny aren't real!?

Prove they are not real!

No one really but this looked like good place to lighten the mood a bit.

 

[Blastcat]

Don't bother

Nobody can deny the existence of god

Dark matter and dark energy are invisible does it mean they don't exist??
Something that we can't see or sense doesn't necessarily mean that is non existent

Nobody can deny the existence of Quetzalcoatl, either. I don't see the point.
We have evidence for dark matter.

We have no evidence for Quetzalcoatl, or Santa, either.. except, that certain people believed in these things.
Everyone should know by now in our modern SCIENTIFIC times, that not things that exist can be seen with the naked eye.

 

[Blastcat]

How horrible!

Who said Santa and the Easter bunny aren't real!?

Prove they are not real!

No one really but this looked like good place to lighten the mood a bit.

I always get chocolate at Easter.. I make a POINT of it.
Santa is a state of mind.. and an old magician living in invisibility ...

 

[interminable]

Nobody can deny the existence of Quetzalcoatl, either. I don't see the point.
We have evidence for dark matter.

We have no evidence for Quetzalcoatl, or Santa, either.. except, that certain people believed in these things.
Everyone should know by now in our modern SCIENTIFIC times, that not things that exist can be seen with the naked eye.

Can't u see these marvelous creatures and universes
Aren't they the best evidences of the existence of something intelligent????


What is the evidence that you are sane???
Can u show me???

The same is about god

Those who deny god have to do two things
First reject causality

Second define science as physics and chemistry

But we just take on logic and prove it

 

[interminable]

Something having to do with the Truth being Paineful to you no doubt.



The straw man argument is arguing against man made "revealed" gods and claiming that's an argument against an unrevealed laissez-faire God.



I've been arguing against there being evidence for any god forever. But the only one that isn't eliminated, by the elimination of hearsay, is said laissez-faire God.



Which is the same a the lack of evidence for a spontaneous universe. You can show the Easter Bunny to be just as totally based on hearsay as the biblical God. That says nothing about the cause of the universe.



Atheists know you can't prove a negative, which is why the question is how come the universe? That puts the unrevealed God on a veritable equal footing with no god.



There is no evidence for either, though the revealed gods can be disproven or at least dismissed. The question is the source of the universe, which must necessarily an unrevealed, laissez-faire God, or no god.



It's been detected indirectly, like gravity, which we only recently discovered the gravity waves for.



Being created with an "innate wisdom" is the same thing as saying we'd been preprogrammed to be wise. Ostensibly, the object is to give us an ego, and then see what we do with it--i.e. try to put our rights above the equal of all others or not. A legal/moral double standard is the root of all evil. The source of our free will is our full self-awareness, full due to the awareness of our inevitable, universal mortality.

This is a test which can only have meaning if we have free will. "If you love something, set it free. If it comes back to you, it's yours. If not, it never was."--Johnathan Livingston Seagull



That's similar to my definition of moral freedom: having the ability to be as dumb as you want, on your own dime.

Scientists say dark matter exists indirectly
So how can someone deny god directly????

Atheism is completely irrational because they overlook causality
If they can't accept causality then there is nothing in its place
We can't talk to someone that hasn't accepted causality.

At least agnosticism is better than atheism