(July 3, 2012 at 1:19 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote:

(July 3, 2012 at 12:41 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I think from pure reasoning alone all an atheist could ever do is demonstrate why holy book X's god(s) doesn't/don't exist. I can't think of any argument from reason alone that would discard the possibility of a god. So I guess at most the theist could push for a Deist god but that's about it. Given that you call yourself a Christian though I think we might have some problems with the claims you want to attach to this plausible Deist god...

The God one would show wouldn't be a deist or a Christian God, it would just be general attributes of God that would be shared by both. And given that I believe the experience of God is the best way to know the Christian God exists, I don't think it would be a huge problem for people to believe in Him after experiencing Him.

Explain the existence of all the major religions today then. Each one will tell you they have experienced god(s) and therefore you must be faking it.

Warm and fuzzy feelings don't cut it.

(July 3, 2012 at 10:26 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: At the end, there is no knock out argument either way. And I don't think there ever will be. Some people don't believe in free-will. I don't know how to convince those people at all and can only advise them to reflect if they truly know or don't, because I feel I do know we have free-will.

(Emphasis added)

As long as you recognize that your personal certitude is not likely to be very convincing to someone exercising critical thinking. It's likely to be more convincing to someone looking for a validation of their own cognitive bias.

On average, we're a tougher room than that around here.

I would like to add that I agree that it's unlikely that there will be a smoking-gun argument with respect to non-existence, if for no other reason that conclusively proving non-existence to someone with personal certitude seems damn near impossible.

As far as proving existence, I think I've heard every argument that exists on the matter, and they all have fallen short. That's not to say I'm not open to considering a new argument - I'm not personally invested in the matter either way.

(July 3, 2012 at 1:09 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 3, 2012 at 12:46 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: 1. Darwin and Einstein would not seriously believe a children's fable is true
2. Darwin and Einstein seriously believed God existed
3. Therefore God is not a children's fable

Nice fallacious appeal to authority.

Setting the fallacy aside for the moment, in order to reach conclusion (3), you're going to have to demonstrate that your premises are in fact correct. I'll be charitable and spot you (2). Good luck demonstrating (1).

I don't think I need any of your charity for the premises to be reasonably accepted as they are just about self-evident. Darwin and Einstein were extremely intelligent people. As such, they were able to engage in the elementary intellectual exercise of determining what is and is not akin to a children's story for plausibility. I could also give you a long list of intelligent people, past and present, that believe in God. (establishing the same point based on the logic I have given)

Regardless, it is really irrelevant. Simply to say that belief in God is akin to believing a children's story is a claim which requires evidence in itself. And throwing out statements which aren't backed up by anything where the vast majority of mankind disagrees with you, and expecting them to just be accepted without any reason is wrong.

(July 3, 2012 at 10:12 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Do we have a dumb new thread of the week award?

I believe so, it reminds me of that thread where those two fanatics started kicking the shit out of each other (metaphorically of course) over whos interpretation of God is right.
Turns out what transpired was so moronic it caused a rip in the fabric of space, time and reality that won't heal until the people who caused it grow more intelligent.
In short, we're doomed to forever roam this earth ravaged by robot genghis khans and a t-rex dressed as abraham lincoln.
On a completely unrelated note; I have insomnia again. :-)

(July 3, 2012 at 1:10 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:

(July 3, 2012 at 2:34 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: Can anyone give me a good case against the existence of God that can stand up to scrutiny?

You x-tards have presented absolutely not a shred of evidence at all to support your claim that such a being exists.

/thread

I would refer you to the Kalaam Cosmological Argument presented by Dr. William Lane Craig. But regardless of this, I haven't seen, as far as I am aware, a single argument presented here to argue that God does not exist… and that is all I have been asking for.

(July 4, 2012 at 12:08 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I don't think I need any of your charity for the premises to be reasonably accepted as they are just about self-evident.

...and I'll grant that your argument will likely be more convincing to someone who does see your premises as self-evident. I do not - smart people can be credulous. I note that Issac Newton believed in alchemy, for example.

(July 4, 2012 at 12:08 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: Darwin and Einstein were extremely intelligent people. As such, they were able to engage in the elementary intellectual exercise of determining what is and is not akin to a children's story for plausibility.

I'll also note that Einstein did not believe in a personal deity, based upon unequivocal statements he himself made. If I'm not mistaken, they've been quoted on this thread. He could be described as a deist or more likely, a pandeist, to which I would not attribute a belief in what have been broadly termed "fairy tales" here.

I can't comment on what Darwin believed, as I don't know enough about the man. It matters little - see the next paragraph.

(July 4, 2012 at 12:08 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I could also give you a long list of intelligent people, past and present, that believe in God. (establishing the same point based on the logic I have given)

So? It would be no less fallacious. Appeal to authority or appeal to popularity, take your pick. Note that your fallacious logic doesn't make your conclusion necessarily wrong - but it does make it irrational, based upon the logic you've presented. Perhaps you have a rational argument that you've not presented.

You may also want to consider that in human history, a great many people (including quite intelligent ones) have been very wrong about a lot of things.

If you'd like to be taken seriously, I would suggest finding a different line to argue.

(July 4, 2012 at 12:08 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: Regardless, it is really irrelevant. Simply to say that belief in God is akin to believing a children's story is a claim which requires evidence in itself.

I wouldn't make that claim, personally. I would say that I think that many parts of the bible are indistinguishable from fiction. The "fairy tale" claim was not mine.

(July 4, 2012 at 12:08 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: And throwing out statements which aren't backed up by anything where the vast majority of mankind disagrees with you, and expecting them to just be accepted without any reason is wrong.

I expect nothing, beyond an understanding of why I do not share your belief. Believe whatever you like, it matters not to me. But if you wish to convince me, you'll need to make your own case. I see no need to make an argument against irrational claims, beyond showing why I view them as irrational.

Completely DEFINE "god" I would imagine you are talking about the christian god..... great but what version ..... once you do that I may beable to construct an argument for you.
Components of god may be the Omni's , Immortality, the trinity, alighnment (good bad neutral), anyother supernat powers........ What is your god. but saying give me a case against god is like saying tell me the mechanical problems with "Car" as you know there are lots of cars that suffer in differnt areas. So if you were on a mechanics forum you would have to be specific like "2005 ford mustang GT coupe" now they can tell you the pros and cons.

(July 3, 2012 at 1:17 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(July 3, 2012 at 1:05 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: Because we have no evidence that there are extraterrestrials, does it follow from our lack of evidence that there are no extraterrestrials?

I do not believe that there are extraterrestrials, although I think it is likely because we have the example of ourselves.

However to establish a belief position on the subject I would want proof.

I like to have evidence for what I believe.

Saying that you do not believe that there are extraterrestrials but you think it is likely that there are extraterrestrials seems like a contradiction to me. What I imagine you are is agnostic about the existence of extraterrestrials. If so, we seem to have have proof that you do not consider something to be false simply because there is no evidence for it, as you do not consider the existence of extraterrestrials false though you have no evidence for their existence.

downbeatplumb Wrote:Theists seem to work in the reverse direction when it comes to their impossible delusion.

Their stance is "I will believe in this stupid unprovable thing until some one proves definitively that the great pumpkin will never visit the pumpkin patch"

You are asserting that God is a stupid idea. By your own standard of only believing things that you have evidence for, you ought to present your evidence for this claim… and this is the reason that I created this thread, for such evidence to be presented. Also, the experience of God can be evidence for his existence for one who experiences Him even if one has no argument for God. (not that I am granting the latter)

---

(July 3, 2012 at 1:23 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(July 3, 2012 at 1:19 pm)Jeffonthenet Wrote: The God one would show wouldn't be a deist or a Christian God, it would just be general attributes of God that would be shared by both. And given that I believe the experience of God is the best way to know the Christian God exists, I don't think it would be a huge problem for people to believe in Him after experiencing Him.

Define "god"

How about the uncreated creator of the universe…or the all powerful creator of the universe, or the omnipotent omniscient creator of the universe?

[/quote]

How about the uncreated creator of the universe…or the all powerful creator of the universe, or the omnipotent omniscient creator of the universe?
[/quote]

is that it?...... howabout Immortal omnibenevolent.. and another important thing is there a hell associated with said god? Is he part of the trinity or something like that?

(July 3, 2012 at 1:26 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:

(July 3, 2012 at 2:59 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: A statement that there is no reason to believe God exists is not an argument against God…

An "argument against gawd" presupposes that such a being actually exists.

I am sorry, but this is not the case. If you were to give an argument against the earth being 6000 years old, would I be presupposing that the earth is 6000 years old? (just a side note, I believe it is older)

Quote:You have not described or defined at all what a "god" is, nor have you shown any evidence whatsoever that such a being might exist. The burden of proof is yours. Your OP is precisely as preposterous as if I were to ask if anyone had any arguments against Crumple-Horned Snorkacks.

My purpose in this thread was not to prove God, but to ask for a good case against his existence. And if you are going to say that my OP is as preposterous as that, I would remind you that you are making a positive claim, and if you fulfill your own standards, this claim therefore requires evidence. I ask that you present that evidence.

Quote:

Quote:Even if there were no good arguments for God, which I don't think I need to grant given arguments such as the Kalaam Cosmological argument and the Moral Argument (from the existence of objective moral values to God) it would not follow that there is no God.

You really think those pieces of shit are "good arguments"? -- as if an argument were evidence...?

They seem to me to be pretty good arguments. And good arguments give us good reasons to believe things.

Quote:

Quote:It may follow that, as theologians throughout history have maintained, that if we are to know God, we must know Him by personal experience or by intuition…

You would first have to present some sort of evidence that such a thing exists and in the form that you idiots claim that it does.

Personal experience is evidence. If you went to a far off island yourself, but there was no other evidence for its existence, simply your personal experience of being there would be enough evidence to convince you that this island existed.

Quote:Lastly, if you accept the existence of the external world or other, what philosophers call properly basic beliefs, you believe some things apart from arguments, and so, if God exists it could be possible to know God in the same way, apart from argument. For all of these reasons, I don't think your reply stands up to scrutiny.

Quote:If such a being were to exist, it would be possible to know it in empirically, because it would be able to prove itself at any time by appearing before us and convincing us all of its existence, and it would be aware of the need for it to do so. That would be how it would be possible for us to know such a being "apart from argument".

How do you know such a being would want to do this? Especially when saving faith is not simply believing that God exists, Christian theologians through history have recognized that this is not saving faith, but trusting and obeying God from a sincere and moral heart are essentials as well. If