reasons to believe, there is no God

[tavarish]

I care in the sense that i would like, that all human kind would accept God's offered forgiveness of sins.
But i do not try to convert anyone. If you do want to convert yourself, or not, is entirely your own business.

I want everyone to accept this nice gift. Or burn in hell. Whichever you choose, I don't care.

I cannot, and i do not want to prove anything, to anyone. The christian faith does not rely on proofs, otherwise it would not be faith anymore.

Then it would be knowledge, and you know we can't have that when talking about the origin of life and other scientifically unexplained matters. Hell no, we need FAITH!

I don't attribut critical thinking to atheists. Actually, the atheistic position is in my opinion the most irrational and senseless position someone can get.

Yes. Statistically atheists tend to be the dumbest people on the planet. It's not like any atheist has ever done anything of use in the world.

it seems you change proofs with evidence. there are in fact no proofs for Gods existence. But there is our cosmos. Creation and all that exists. We are intelligent beings, and capable of analying and thinking about all that surrounds us. Based on that, we can come to different conclusions. And one of them is, that there must be a higher being, that created everything. So our cosmos IS evidence for God's existence, for the ones, that believe God is the best explanation for our existence. Others might think the oposit. But then, they must come up with a explanation, why they think a OTHER cause for all that exists is better than God. I am still waiting a atheist to come up with a better explanation. So far, i have not seen one.

Let's take a look at this. First you assume a conclusion, then you come up with "evidence" to support your conclusion, none of which is verifiable or falsifiable. I'll explain to you how your argument is faulty:

I'm going to make a simple substitution. I hope you understand it.

"We are intelligent beings, and capable of analying and thinking about all that surrounds us. Based on that, we can come to different conclusions. And one of them is, that there must be a higher being, that created everything. So our cosmos IS evidence for The Invisible Pink Unicorn's existence, for the ones, that believe The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the best explanation for our existence. Others might think the oposit. But then, they must come up with a explanation, why they think a OTHER cause for all that exists is better than The Invisible Pink Unicorn. I am still waiting a aunicornist to come up with a better explanation. So far, i have not seen one."

That argument is just as valid as any God you could put in that place.

Saying the universe is evidence of God doesn't give us any more information about the universe or God. I can say "God's in that rock" and not give any attributes to the rock. It's not a valid statement because it's a placeholder for whatever made-up conclusion you want to make about that particular object.

[Tsidkenu]

Saying the universe is evidence of God doesn't give us any more information about the universe or God. I can say "God's in that rock" and not give any attributes to the rock. It's not a valid statement because it's a placeholder for whatever made-up conclusion you want to make about that particular object.

the cosmological argument does not elucidate WHICH GOD might be the designer of the universe, but that a designer, a intelligent creator, is the best and most rational answer to the question of the cause of our cosmos.

[Watson]

tavarish, your Invisible Pink Unicorn argument is not only regurgitated from the same tired old idea used in an atheistic viewpoint over and over again, it is also faulty because of the nature of your so-called 'Invisible Pink Unicorn.' The suggestion that thisUnicorn exists supposes that there must be a physical or biological entity known as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and that it could, in theory, be found or constructed or proven.

This pales in comparison to the idea of what God is supposed to be, which is a being free of tethers such as biological or physical existance and exists merely on a plain of it's own. The nature of God is different from the nature of your IPU because He is an entity which exists everywhere simultaneously, exists in a way that is non-physical, and exists beyond the scope of anything less than spiritual perception.

The IPU as you present it, however, presuppoes that the entity of God could perhaps be touched or seen or perceived in a lesser state than that of God. If you really want to talk about a being like that, let's start a topic about Angels and you can bring up your personal 'Angel', the IPU, there.

[Violet]

the cosmological argument does not elucidate WHICH GOD might be the designer of the universe, but that a designer, a intelligent creator, is the best and most rational answer to the question of the cause of our cosmos.

What makes an intelligent creator the most rational "answer to the question of the cause of our cosmos"?

Where is the evidence to show the soundness of the argument?

How does this "answer" apply to the question on hand? As far as I know... the question is "How did the universe come into being"... not "Why was the universe designed", the later of which assumes that the universe was designed in the first place... the former of which assumes only that the universe came into being. Why was the fire made? Was it to cook food, create warmth, burn a witch, raze a library, cauterize a wound, or all of the above and more? Before we have any scaffolding by which to ask "Why?", "How?", and "If it were otherwise?"... we must first establish the ground on which to build. Before we could ask why the fire was made... we first had to identify that it was indeed a fire, where it was, and when it was made (for sake of argument).

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.

As such... there is no data to support or deny the existence of anything beyond that which is physical or 'natural'. The argument that the universe was created by a designer is made with absolutely zero data to support the conclusion... hence no skeptic in their 'right' mind would ever support "The Cosmological Argument". I'm not suggesting you personally support the argument... only underlying it's weakness as an argument 'for' "God".

[fr0d0]

So our cosmos IS evidence for God's existence

If this were true, then your belief in God is not based on Faith, and therefore not Christian.

[downbeatplumb]

So our cosmos IS evidence for God's existence

If this were true, then your belief in God is not based on Faith, and therefore not Christian.

Thats right, if there ever was proof of god found everbody would stop believing there and then isnt that right Frodo.

The cosmos existing is evidence that the cosmos exists, not evidence for impossible sky dictators like the fictional Yahweh.

---

.

[Darwinian]

Why do people keep banging on about the fine tuning of the Universe saying that it must have been designed because the chances of all these constants being exactly as they are is so remote as to prove the existence of a mystical 'tuner'.

Can't they grasp the simple concept that the very fact that we are here to ask these questions means that the Universe must be the way it is, otherwise we simply would not be here to ask these questions.

Why is the Universe the way it is? Who says it needs a reason? Just because our hominid brain seeks answers to these question does not mean that there are answers. Perhaps there are as many different Universes out there in hyperspace as there are different combinations for the various cosmological constants, even more perhaps. So, purely from chance can we predict that there must be a Universe like this where the various 'variables' are tuned in such a way as to allow matter to form in such a way as to give rise to the existence of all that we see. It would then follow that there must be many Universes where matter can't form and all there is, is a sea of particles or maybe gravity is as strong as all the other forces and so on and so on....

Just because we can't understand why things are the way they are doesn't mean that an all powerful version of ourselves is responsible.

[fr0d0]

Thats right, if there ever was proof of god found everbody would stop believing there and then isnt that right Frodo.

The cosmos existing is evidence that the cosmos exists, not evidence for impossible sky dictators like the fictional Yahweh.

---

.

[tavarish]

tavarish, your Invisible Pink Unicorn argument is not only regurgitated from the same tired old idea used in an atheistic viewpoint over and over again, it is also faulty because of the nature of your so-called 'Invisible Pink Unicorn.' The suggestion that thisUnicorn exists supposes that there must be a physical or biological entity known as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and that it could, in theory, be found or constructed or proven.

She is transcendent and eternal. There goes your argument. You can't see her either. Blessed be her hooves.

This pales in comparison to the idea of what God is supposed to be, which is a being free of tethers such as biological or physical existance and exists merely on a plain of it's own. The nature of God is different from the nature of your IPU because He is an entity which exists everywhere simultaneously, exists in a way that is non-physical, and exists beyond the scope of anything less than spiritual perception.

You assumed the nature of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and you were wrong. She is everywhere and is transcendent, and the creator of the universe. Those who don't believe in her can't understand her. You need to believe her to feel her. Blessed be her hooves.

The IPU as you present it, however, presuppoes that the entity of God could perhaps be touched or seen or perceived in a lesser state than that of God. If you really want to talk about a being like that, let's start a topic about Angels and you can bring up your personal 'Angel', the IPU, there.

Wrong again. She is not an angel. She is an all encompassing, all knowing, all loving pink unicorn that just happens to be invisible and transcendent. Blessed be her hooves.

[Tsidkenu]

The argument that the universe was created by a designer is made with absolutely zero data to support the conclusion...

Quite the oposit is the case. We have very strong data and evidence on hand, that the universe had a beginning, and therefore it must have a cause.