Your best argument that god exists

[Willamena]

Belief.

Who believes?

 

[Willamena]

I declare as example of people who don't believe: My thoughts about the Abrahamic God | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists. ​

Define what you mean by, "god"?

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Well, first, this isnt a debate forum. So, we can discuss about the question you ask, which I find interesting, but I cannot put it more simple than youre existing. If youre looking for a christian type answer, youll wont get anything different than you already know.

I guess not everyone depends on the dictionary. Spirit is a religious word for just being alive. There does not need to be any religious connotation behind it. No God. No metaphorical language. You exist. Why not be thankful?


Doesnt matter what you call it. Youre body is run by energy. Biology book can be a good rescource for what is moving you around. It does not need to be religious in nature.

Life has no metaphysical language. Its biology and psychology. Biology keeps your heart pumping. Psychology is what "religion" and thr concept of God is made up of... our connection with the earth, unknown, something beyond, self, mind, and the list goes on.

What your doing is asking evidence for a psychological concept ingraved in cultural and traditional history and mythology. People will answer in the langauge of their belief and culture. Look beyond the surface.

The evidence is in your own existence. No God of any religion needed.
-
Also, you dont have to believe the Bible. As a discussion rather than debate, if you want a christian answer, the proof is just written by the callings people had in the bible the same as today. I dont believe in the Bible. That doesnt mean people dont have credible experiences even though I disagree with it as objective for all people.

Your comment brings back to my mind an experiment I observed years ago using a highly sensitive form of photography that is able to capture the image of the ora of energy which surrounds living things, whether plant or animal.

They took freshly cut leaves and began photographing them whole, one after another. Then they cut away one half of the leaf and continued to photograph it. The results were that for a period of some twenty or more minutes after the one half of the leaf was removed the picture or the ora yet showed a full uncut leaf. The ora gradually weakened away for the missing portion until after about twenty minutes it was finally gone and the picture of the ora then showed only the half of the leaf which remained.

That was positively fascinating to watch. I remember we discussed the symptoms of people who have suffered amputation of a limb and how they don't know the limb is gone for a long period of time, even claiming to feel as if they can yet wiggle their toes or their fingers. We mused concerning that being attributable to this ora of energy.

We are obviously far more complex than we realize.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your comment brings back to my mind an experiment I observed years ago using a highly sensitive form of photography that is able to capture the image of the ora of energy which surrounds living things, whether plant or animal.

They took freshly cut leaves and began photographing them whole, one after another. Then they cut away one half of the leaf and continued to photograph it. The results were that for a period of some twenty or more minutes after the one half of the leaf was removed the picture or the ora yet showed a full uncut leaf. The ora gradually weakened away for the missing portion until after about twenty minutes it was finally gone and the picture of the ora then showed only the half of the leaf which remained.

That was positively fascinating to watch. I remember we discussed the symptoms of people who have suffered amputation of a limb and how they don't know the limb is gone for a long period of time, even claiming to feel as if they can yet wiggle their toes or their fingers. We mused concerning that being attributable to this ora of energy.

We are obviously far more complex than we realize.

I like that. If I understand correctly, its also interesting and complex to talk about Gods existence? Kind of like studying hownthe camera sees a whole leaf that is only half there in reality?

 

[outhouse]

I'm sorry, I don't fail to have a belief about the incorrectness of 1+1= anything.

Exactly you think about things with no belief. Welcome to the club LOL


I don't believe because I know. Learning the average meaning of words while not changing context goes a long way here.

 

[outhouse]

They (hard atheists) have a belief that god does not exist.

Not all.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not all.

Wait. I'm a little confused.

Isn't hard atheism exactly what Willamena is talking about?

Hard atheism: a belief that god does not exist. B(~G)
Soft or weak atheism: no belief in existence of god. ~B(G)

Are there more types of hard atheists now?

 

[outhouse]

Are there more types of hard atheists now?

Im a hard atheist, and I have no belief now. I had a belief at one time. But know its just known and not a belief.


Do you believe 1 + 1 is 2? or do you know it is 2?


Explicit "positive" / "strong" / "hard" atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false.
‹See Tfm› on right Explicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists do not assert the above but reject or eschew a belief that any deities exist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Im a hard atheist, and I have no belief now. I had a belief at one time. But know its just known and not a belief.

I'm not sure how that explains the difference. What's the difference between hard and weak atheism?

Do you believe 1 + 1 is 2? or do you know it is 2?

I know it is.

So you're saying that strong atheism knows for sure, with absolute certainty, that there is no god, what-so-ever?

If you do, then that's a posit as Willamena says. It's a claim that is stated as a fact.

Explicit "positive" / "strong" / "hard" atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false.

One of the synonyms to "posit" is "assert". To posit or assert a claim is still to posit or assert a claim. So I'm not sure what this ruckus is about that the strong atheist's assertion is not a posit? How can it not be an posit when it is an assertion?

‹See Tfm› on right Explicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists do not assert the above but reject or eschew a belief that any deities exist.

Then it shouldn't be a problem for the strong atheist to admit that he posits/asserts that God doesn't exist.

--edit

Wait. Maybe I'm starting to see what you're saying.

Hard atheists: strong disbelief in the existence of God. They very, very much don't believe. Doubting extremely hard.
Weak atheist: weak disbelief in the existence of God. They kind'a, just don't believe, but not very much. Just a tiny disbelief. Doubting a little.

So are there any atheist that belief that God does not exist? What would they be called?

 

[WirePaladin]

First define "god" Which one(s) of the hundreds we have invented are you referring to?

For example, I assert Huitzilopochtli does not exist. But I allow for the possibility it did/does, however remote. I do so because it not possible to "prove" ANY of the mythological figures we have invented do NOT and never have existed.

 

[Randy Carson]

I'm not sure how that explains the difference. What's the difference between hard and weak atheism?

Strong or positive atheism holds that God does not exist with certainty. Weak or negative atheism merely holds that there is not enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

 

[outhouse]

So you're saying that strong atheism knows for sure, with absolute certainty, that there is no god, what-so-ever?

Some, not all though.

 

[outhouse]

So I'm not sure what this ruckus is about that the strong atheist's assertion is not a posit? How can it not be an posit when it is an assertion?

I don't know what the ruckus is either. Some people don't like ho wits defined because it goes against their PERSONAL view I guess.

Hard atheists: strong disbelief in the existence of God. They very, very much don't believe. Doubting extremely hard.

There are many ways to define this under explicit atheism.

"hard" atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false. You notice how belief is not even brought up on this definition?

Weak atheist: weak disbelief in the existence of God. They kind'a, just don't believe, but not very much. Just a tiny disbelief. Doubting a little.

"soft" atheists do not assert the above but reject or eschew a belief that any deities exist. Only eschew of belief.

So are there any atheist that belief that God does not exist? What would they be called?

Atheist. LOL

They could fall into a few different categories.

I have had beliefs about it in the past. I think at one time or another all have had to have a belief, but that does not imply its life long

 

[Bunyip]

Who believes?

No offence, but I find these obtuse exchanges very boring.

The belief in question is THEISM, I thought that was obvious.

 

[kepha31]

It's up to you to make your case as best you can.

Now you see why atheists attempt to pin the burden of proof on theists rather than do the work required to develop their own arguments.

However, there is another active thread for that. In this thread, the OP clearly places the burden of proof on the theists. So, you're off the hook!

This thread is like entering into a card game with a stacked deck. Since the thread title lacks any assertions concerning the non-existence of God, the atheist gets dealt all the high cards. The claim or assertion that God does not exist is still an assertion, so the burden of proof lies with BOTH. Philosophy may use a different method than science, but its assignation of the burden of proof is the same.

fat chance

 

[EyeofOdin]

You can't. You can only prove using science the material and tangible. God only makes sense in spirituality, the abstract and religion. Mixing science and religion is like asking "how many inches are in five gallons?" It just doesn't work.

 

[Willamena]

No offence, but I find these obtuse exchanges very boring.

The belief in question is THEISM, I thought that was obvious.

The default is a posit. The world is positive.

Default means to fall back on what is usual or a standard--the "default of belief" is a usual or standard belief. You've suggested that "not believing" is the belief that people default to, which defies what "default" means. To "default to" the usual belief would be a belief, not "a nonexistence of belief." Nonexistence doesn't exist. There is no "state of no belief"--not believing is not a state. The world is positive. To say there is a "default belief," is, by definition, to say that there is some belief defaulted to.

 

[outhouse]

The claim or assertion that God does not exist is still an assertion,

No

The claim he exist is an assertion based on mythology in theology.


The burden lies squarely on the theist to make their case. It is a burden that has never been met.

 

[Ouroboros]

You can't. You can only prove using science the material and tangible. God only makes sense in spirituality, the abstract and religion. Mixing science and religion is like asking "how many inches are in five gallons?" It just doesn't work.

I think the analogy can be pushed even further to make your point even better. It's like asking how much does happiness weigh?