Honest Question to Atheists - Best Argument?

[Pyrrho]

No.  Many miracle stories are still from primitive, superstitious people, so we have no reason to believe them.  We also know about magicians, who seem to do miracles, but do not do miracles.  Stupid and ignorant people can be fooled by magicians into believing some miracle really occurred.  So whatever is beyond the observable universe (if anything) does not make the miracle stories believable.

And even if you were right about this (and you are obviously not; see previous paragraph), you would have zero justification for singling out the miracle stories of one religion rather than the miracle stories of any other religion, or those miracle stories not associated with any religion.  Are you really silly enough to believe every ridiculous story that anyone tells you?

Whatever is beyond the observable universe, we still observe regularities in the observable universe.  Any claim that violates the regularities is automatically suspect, as usually (or always) things happen in the regular way.




Even if there is something beyond the observable universe, you still don't get a personal god out of that, or anything with a consciousness.  You are just making stuff up, and have no basis for saying that any of it is real.

Your argument is essentially an argumentum ad ignorantiam.  Your argument is essentially:

    We don't know what is beyond the observable universe, therefore God is beyond the observable universe.

Your reasoning is completely fallacious.

No all we can surmise by use of related sciences is that God   cannot be ruled out. I never singled out any one God. There is but one God. That is single, and One, and all encompassing.

Here again you are going from "God cannot be ruled out" to "There is but one God. That is single, and One, and all encompassing."  You have no basis for that leap.

From the idea that God cannot be ruled out, it does not follow that there is a God at all, nor does it follow that there must be only one god, nor does it follow that it must be "all encompassing" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

You are committing the fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam.


To give you an analogy for what you are doing:  Suppose I cannot rule out the possibility of quantum leprechauns living at the bottom of a well.  From that, it does not follow that there actually are quantum leprechauns living at the bottom of the well and they are Irish.  It is essentially going from not knowing something, to making up stuff.  Doing that is irrational and unfounded.