The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The crux of the matter seems to be that the existence of other minds is the best available explanation for the observed phenomenon. The existence of God is manifestly NOT the best available explanation for, well, anything.

In short, the universe looks exactly as we would expect it to look if it were not designed.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

The crux of the matter seems to be that the existence of other minds is the best available explanation for the observed phenomenon. The existence of God is manifestly NOT the best available explanation for, well, anything.

In short, the universe looks exactly as we would expect it to look if it were not designed.

Boru

Or any explanation at all

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, it's definitely AN explanation, it's just a horrible one. More or less on a par with 'the dog ate my homework'.

Boru

[Deesse23]

An old question, if a god made the universe (that is everything that exists) where was he before he made it??

Magic 

[Simon Moon]

A third option is that you people are genuinely dishonest with all the suggestive evidence around you. I already explained how the existence of other minds doesn't meet you "standards of evidence", yet you accept them because you see enough stimuli in your everyday life to warrant an inference to  the best explanation - that my neighbor's behavior is better explained if he were a human being than if he were some weird manifestation of a ghost sent by Satan.

Show me some of this 'sugge4stive evidence'. Because so far, all I've even been provided with from theists (you included), is fallacious arguments; like, argument from design and argument from ignorance.

My acceptance of the existence of other minds is a pragmatic position I take, because that is all that I am presented with.

I am not presented with anything like the existence of other minds, for a god. Again, all I am presented with is reality. Theists claim this reality is due to some god or another, but they are unable to support their claim.  

We receive enough a lot of input through our senses around us suggesting design and thoughtful creation, this itself calls for an inference to the best explanation.

No, we receive input that some believe has the appearance of design. But all I am ever presented with by theists, to demonstrate that it is actual design, are fallacious teleological arguments.

If you want to open a new thread with your best 'argument from design' example, I am sure many here will be happy to show every flaw.

The same reason humanity can never know what's beyond the uncertainty principle, can never measure anything smaller than Planck's length, etc. Our knowledge of this universe is limited forever, demonstrably so. Our knowledge of the gods, a fortiori, certainly won't lift off the ground.

So...

Your admission that a device (or other scientific method) for detecting gods may be beyond human ability, should just be another reason why belief in gods is irrational.

Nome one other claim, other than the existence of a god, would you accept, without demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic?

It's not clear what would convince an atheist of a prophecy to begin with. Any serious discussion about some particular claim made by a prophet can't be carried out, I think, without presupposing the existence of god.

You could convince me that a so called prophet had an experience. Convincing me it was a god responsible for said experience, would in fact require demonstrating the existence of a god.

But I am not sure how you could ever eliminate every natural and mundane explanation, from being less likely than a god.

And what are these great reasons for infering so .....?

Whichever they are, what would they yield to if applied to the universe and all forms of life around you?

The great reason, is, that is what I am presented with. Every day when I go out, text or talk on the phone, talk online, watch tv, etc, I interact with what appears to be other minds. It is part of my reality, that I am forced by pragmaticism to accept. I am not claiming to know, with absolute certainty, that other minds exist, only that it is the most rational belief based what I am constantly presented with.

There is no answer for hard solipsism. I may be in the Matrix. But until someone demonstrates that to me, and shows me a way out, or how to talk to the beings outside the Matrix, I am forced to live by the rules, and accept what I am presented with, inside the Matrix.

I am not presented with anything even close for the existence of gods.

Ancient texts (Quran included), fallacious arguments (argument from design, Kalam cosmological argument, ontological argument, etc),  miracle claims, prayer, etc, etc, certainly do not work. So, I am left being unconvinced that gods exist (or there I am in the Matrix), and all you seem to offer are flawed inferences.

[GrandizerII]

Op, if I didn't believe there were other minds, then it would make no sense for me to act as if there were.

I don't think we generally believe there are other minds for the same core reason theists believe there is a divine mind out there. It's a different line of reasoning.

[The Architect Of Fate]

We receive enough a lot of input through our senses around us suggesting design and thoughtful creation, this itself calls for an inference to the best explanation.

God isn't an explanation period. Let alone the best one.

The same reason humanity can never know what's beyond the uncertainty principle, can never measure anything smaller than Planck's length, etc. Our knowledge of this universe is limited forever, demonstrably so. Our knowledge of the gods, a fortiori, certainly won't lift off the ground.

And none of this justifies a belief in god. And who says we can't know these things?

[Simon Moon]

A third option is that you people are genuinely dishonest with all the suggestive evidence around you.

I meant to comment about your the above in my last post.

Thanks for calling every atheist here, a liar.

Bit of an asshole thing to do.

I always give the benefit of a doubt to an interlocutor, that they are an honest debater.

If you truly believe our position are not based on our honest and sincere assessment of theist arguments and 'evidence', and we find them all to be lacking, then why are you even here? Why would you want to even engage with a bunch of obviously dishonest people?

[Apollo]

Poster is right—god first and foremost needs scientific proof—logic comes second.

In absence of ability to perform a scientific experiment, null hypothesis pervails.

[Fake Messiah]