Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[athrock]

It's a common but technically inaccurate assertion that there is NO evidence for God. There is evidence. 

Just not the kind of empirical* evidence that some people seem to think is required. 

---

And therefore the cry, "NO EVIDENCE!" gets repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....

---

*based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. (see? theory and pure logic are other forms of evidence)

Are you really this stupid? We have been asking and asking and asking and asking and asking and asking and asking and asking.... for this fucking evidence. So where the hell is it if you claim it's there so much?

Well, that was rude. What have I done to deserve being called stupid?

Have you ever read any books written by believers or non-believers going over the issues for and against? If so, then you already know the issues that are debated.

This must be like Obama's refusal to use the phrase "radical Islam"...once he says it, then it's a thing. Until then, it's workplace violence. Similarly, maybe folks here (you included?) don't want to concede that there is evidence (even if it is "weak" in their opinion) because it's better to simply deny that any evidence exists AT ALL.

That way, you don't have to actually think about it. Which may bring us full circle to the point of the OP.

[Edwardo Piet]

Argument is not evidence because it addresses validity and not soundness.

External evidence is the only way to build sound premises... giving argument and logic alone is just talking in circles of validity at best. Soundness is required for truth.

[Mr.wizard]

What is it?

The topic is too big to cover even briefly, but I did start a thread on the moral argument (in the Atheism forum) which is a standard logical argument used to prove the existence of a supreme being. I'm interested to here input as to why that argument does or does not work.

Not too many theists have contributed to the discussion so far (maybe I posted in the wrong forum), but the arguments against haven't been all that strong so far. 

In my subjective opinion, of course. 

I don't see how that would even be close to evidence, the moral argument doesn't work because none of the premises can be established as true. You cannot establish that there are objective morals, you cannot establish that objective morals have to come from a god, and you cannot establish that there is even a god creating objective morals.

[SteveII]

Regarding the OP topic, perhaps it comes down to whether you think that the Christian position is rational, yet wrong or just plain irrational.

If you think Christianity is a rational (but wrong) worldview, uninformed arguments are a distraction and waste of everyone's time at best. You would like to intelligently debate the points perhaps because you like the debate itself, have a genuine interest in the subject, and/or other reasons.

If you believe the Christian position is irrational, then it seems that even stupid comments, observation or poor logic serves us right. You don't have to understand the Christian position because you presupposed it to be irrational and not worth your time (of course some will know more than others or perhaps think you know...). You feel free to add your voice to the chorus because it makes you feel good to be right. The more vitriolic the better. Like Dawkins says, “mock them, ridicule them, in public … with contempt,”.

[Joods]

Are you really this stupid? We have been asking and asking and asking and asking and asking and asking and asking and asking.... for this fucking evidence. So where the hell is it if you claim it's there so much?

Well, that was rude. What have I done to deserve being called stupid?

Have you ever read any books written by believers or non-believers going over the issues for and against? If so, then you already know the issues that are debated.

This must be like Obama's refusal to use the phrase "radical Islam"...once he says it, then it's a thing. Until then, it's workplace violence. Similarly, maybe folks here (you included?) don't want to concede that there is evidence (even if it is "weak" in their opinion) because it's better to simply deny that any evidence exists AT ALL.

That way, you don't have to actually think about it. Which may bring us full circle to the point of the OP.

So you're still not providing the evidence. That is so typical of someone who has been asked to present evidence and instead of backing themselves up, they resort to telling the person asking for the evidence to find it themselves. 

To answer your question as to why I called you stupid: Because of your redundant and totally unnecessary over usage of the phrase "over and over". 

See. That is how you answer a question. Now, you try it. Where is this evidence of god?

[Edwardo Piet]

If evidence were found of God that would make "God" a falsifiable theory, touchable by the realms of science: IOW testable in practice.

So basically, God would be natural and not supernatural... so why call it "God"?

Naturalism has supernaturalism in a stranglehold.

[Joods]

Evidence of the existence of a god would be something like having god meet me in a coffee shop and sharing a hot beverage while we talk about all of the vile, horrible things he has allowed to happen on this earth. More importantly, just meeting god in the coffee shop so I can meet him face to face would work. He shows up and I'll actually believe. But he's gotta bring some form of ID, otherwise, he could just be some hobo coming in off the street to take advantage of a free hot beverage.

[Edwardo Piet]

Evidence of the existence of a god would be something like having god meet me in a coffee shop and sharing a hot beverage while we talk about all of the vile, horrible things he has allowed to happen on this earth.

Then I'd be like "Prove you're not a superpowerful alien posing as God."

Besides, if he's in physical form, he's testable by science, and not supernatural, but natural. I'd think either he was an alien or (what's more likely) I'm hallucinating.

[Whateverist]

Regarding the OP topic, perhaps it comes down to whether you think that the Christian position is rational, yet wrong or just plain irrational.

If you think Christianity is a rational (but wrong) worldview, uninformed arguments are a distraction and waste of everyone's time at best. You would like to intelligently debate the points perhaps because you like the debate itself, have a genuine interest in the subject, and/or other reasons.

And that describes pretty well why I do not look to debate the existence of god-thingies.

If you believe the Christian position is irrational, then it seems that even stupid comments, observation or poor logic serves us right. You don't have to understand the Christian position because you presupposed it to be irrational and not worth your time (of course some will know more than others or perhaps think you know...).

I think the Christian position is irrational. But what of it? Probably every human world view must of necessity include irrational elements.

You feel free to add your voice to the chorus because it makes you feel good to be right. The more vitriolic the better. Like Dawkins says, “mock them, ridicule them, in public … with contempt,”.

Nah. Those xtians looking to suffer for their faith can keep looking as far as I'm concerned. Only those behaving badly need have any concern about my popping their bubbles. Like taking candy from a baby, it would just be mean. Being irrational doesn't make Christians so different than myself. But arguing for the rationality of their position definitely separates them from me.

I admit I don't know why some people whose rationality is beyond reproach maintain belief in God. It is a mystery but while rare they do exist. What about you, Stevell? Are you rational about your irrationality?

[SteveII]

See. That is how you answer a question. Now, you try it. Where is this evidence of god?

While by no means exhaustive, All of the list below has been discussed anywhere from decades to millennium. Collectively they form the basis of the rational belief in the existence of God. While you can debate any or all of them, you cannot dismiss them as inconsequential to the question: does God exist.

The Kalam Cosmological argument
The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
The Ontological Argument
Origins of life
Irreducible complexity in biology
Psychological propensity to believe in God
Human consciousness
Miracles