(May 26, 2016 at 12:37 am)dyresand Wrote: ...no one on this forum yet or in history provided in factual evidence for god(s)

On another thread I provided evidence that has been observed since the dawn of time: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889.html

1) Some things change and only things that actually exist can make changes happen.

2) People can observe things in nature that could possibly be or not be since those things can appear, change, and then cease to be.

3) Under specific circumstances, unthinking things that cause change regularly produce a limited range of effects.

Anything that is observably evident counts as evidence. That's what evidence means. You just don't like the rational conclusions that follow from interpreting that evidence, evidence you can see with your own eyes.

My 'Intro to Religion' professor in college (before I was an atheist, though he was a BIG help in that regard) did a thought experiment where there was a 'God Detector' and you would have to take it all over the universe to say there was no God (he was 'explaining' why his class wouldn't be addressing atheism: because it is irrational). I had much less experience with critical thinking back then, so it took a day or two before the Fridge Logic kicked in and I went 'hey, wait a second!'. Of course, if there were a God Detector that failed to detect God as soon as you turn it on, it's disproved the existence of an omnipresent God; one of those cases where you could, in theory, prove a universal negative.

Kingpin Wrote:

Quote:1.  You are presupposing omnipresence to be factual.
2.  By your test you did not prove God does not/cannot exist, only that "God" is not physically omnipresent.
3.  I agree with Minimalist actually.  I always wonder why some of those who do not believe work so hard to convince others of their unbelief.

1. It's a claim made by a LOT of Christians, any presupposition is theirs, not ours. Addressing the claims of others does not 'presuppose' their truth. Usually the form of responding to such claims is implied to be 'IF what you say is true, THEN 'X' follows'.

2. That test would prove that an omnipresent God does not exist. Of course there being a potentially infinite number of descriptions for God makes it impossible in principle to disprove all of them. And I personally acknowledge that the Christians who assert God is omnipresent would quickly alter what they think God is if faced with disproof of that attribute.

3. That is awkward phrasing, it sounds like some of those who do not believe work hard to convince people they don't believe...I think you mean they are trying to persuade people that they are correct to withhold their belief. Yeah, if I hear someone mention that the Daddy Longlegs is deadly poisonous to humans, I will go to some length to convince them it isn't so if they are hard to convince, I may put in some real effort in doing so. Surely it is a mystery why I would do something so contrary to human nature....

Kingpin Wrote:

Quote:I understand that, but one statement I've learned to be irrevocably true is:  "intent is prior to content".

My intent on first reading the KJV Bible was to learn more about God and become closer to him. My intent on reading the Bible again in a Modern English version was to salvage my faith in hopes that the King's English had confused me somehow. The resulting content differed greatly from my intent.

On the face of it, it is not 'irrevocably' true. It is, however, a cheap way to evade difficulties presented to you by other people by appealing to their motive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

Rhondazvous Wrote:

Quote:Christianity is a religion that teaches that all who don't believe in Jesus (although there is marked disagreement about exactly what we are to believe about Jesus) will spend eternity in hell.  If you hold to such a belief, then why the cavalier attitude about teaching children?

I think you can make a strong case that it's counter-productive. The countries where Christianity is the official religion aren't exactly known for high levels of religious devotion. It's true that government neutrality on religious matters works out better for everyone in the long run.

(May 26, 2016 at 10:18 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: My 'Intro to Religion' professor in college (before I was an atheist, though he was a BIG help in that regard) did a thought experiment where there was a 'God Detector' and you would have to take it all over the universe to say there was no God.

That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard, even if came from presumably theist professor (you didn't specify). The person using such a device would be looking for an isolated instance of a particular being. That would be the nature of gods in pagan polytheism and is the exact opposite of what omnipresence, in the Christian tradition, means which is being everywhere at all times by pervading the very fabric of reality.

(May 26, 2016 at 10:30 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: ...Of course there being a potentially infinite number of descriptions for God makes it impossible in principle to disprove all of them.

The following is my opinion and not necessarily shared by more conservative Christians (like perhaps Drich and Godschild)...

There is no need to disprove all the gods that have ever been proposed. They could even still exist. That would make them either 1) minor beings of lesser power than the Lord God or 2) only a partial revelation of Supreme Being the worship of which leads to doctrinal errors.

For an examples of 1), the OT Prophets did not go around disproving Baal and Ashura. They only preached that the Lord God was the Highest and/or calling their idols dead wood and stone. The Lord God set fire to the burnt offering for Elijah whereas all the pleas of the priests of Baal went unanswered. Saint Paul did not try to disprove the existence of the Greek pantheon; but rather, preached that the unknown god (Acts 17:23) was in fact the Lord God. The notion of 'false' gods is not that they doesn't exist; but rather, that they are not 'true' in the sense of being the highest or worthy of worship. Maybe Zeus and company are out there somewhere, but it doesn't matter if they are.

For examples of 2), the major religions besides Christianity have only partial or distorted revelation. Hindus and Buddhists revere only aspects of the Lord God and as such they are not so much wrong as misguided. Jews do indeed worship the same Lord God as Christians, but their nonacceptance of the full revelation in Jesus Christ, leads them to doctrinal errors like legalism. Islam is a little different, Saint Paul actually prophesied against the false Prophet of Mohammed (2 Corinthians 11:14). The teachings of Mohammed led his followers severely astray with respect to God's nature and sound doctrine (sorry MysticKnight, I love you to death but I have to be honest)

ChadWooters Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:My 'Intro to Religion' professor in college (before I was an atheist, though he was a BIG help in that regard) did a thought experiment where there was a 'God Detector' and you would have to take it all over the universe to say there was no God.

That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard, even if came from presumably theist professor (you didn't specify). The person using such a device would be looking for an isolated instance of a particular being. That would be the nature of gods in pagan polytheism and is the exact opposite of what omnipresence, in the Christian tradition, means which is  being everywhere at all times by pervading the very fabric of reality.

He was Orthodox Christian. Yeah, he could have gone with 'we're not going to discuss atheism in this class because it isn't a religion' and I wouldn't have blinked, but he had to try to prove it false instead. I likely wouldn't have picked up a copy of 'The Case Against God' from the library to learn more about atheism if not for that silly argument against it that made me curious.

Chad, as a side note, as an agnostic atheist I don't feel the need to disprove any version of God (or gods) though some of them are falsifiable through including attributes that are contradictory or being assigned history contrary to the evidence of what actually happened. Some versions of deities don't have anything going against them but not having enough support to pass through my plausibility filter.

What would you do with it if you finally found it anyway?

Ask it why it's been hiding there I suppose.

I'll just pretend I haven't seen it, I don't want to spoil the game.