If I were an Atheist

[Drew_2013]

The Reality Salesman,

I'm not sure that you considered all the variables that make this an explanation for the disparity in numbers between Atheists/Theists that you referred to in the beginning. If it were true that there was an overwhelming number of religious people compared to Atheists, and it is true that popular ideas can be abandoned due to the evidence against them, it must also be true that for any popular belief that is abandoned due to contrary evidence, some understanding of not only the belief itself, but also what it means to critically examine the evidence and an aptitude for drawing rational conclusions from it. And if the ability and knowledge are required but also rare, then you could have a popular belief that is abandoned by the minority who possess the skills, while widely accepted by those who do not.

On the other hand if there was a preponderance of evidence that naturalistic forces alone caused the universe and sentient humans to exist, people would abandon theistic belief without any special skills, ability or knowledge. The problem is there isn't a preponderance of evidence and there certainly isn't any smoking gun evidence.

The disparity would make sense, and it wouldn't point to religious belief being any more valid.

Theism isn't a religious belief, I am a theist. There is no church of theism.

This is when Santa or another ridiculous idea can be useful in illustrating the fallacy they've just employed in place of reason. Obviously, most adults don't believe in Santa Claus, but what we are hoping Theists will realize is that nobody needs to disprove Santa Clause before it's justified to not believe in him. We are hoping that you think more about why that is, rather than allow yourself to be reflexively offended. To a Christian, I don't use Santa, I use Allah.

For someone who claims to think critically you haven't thought this through. Belief in Santa (if any sane lucid adults actually believed in such) can be easily disproved with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a mystical being doesn't deliver presents worldwide on Christmas eve. This doesn't demonstrate an unfalsifiable hypothesis it is a bait and switch tactic. I'll impugn belief in God by comparing it to Santa Claus. Secondly, the God hypothesis is falsifiable. All you have to do is provide a preponderance of evidence that mindless mechanistic forces can account for all we observe including something completely unlike itself sentient life. If there isn't such a preponderance of evidence then your counter claim is a belief claim true?

Can Christians prove that Allah does not exist? No. But, they don't believe in him, why? If they would spend more time reflecting on how they answer the question instead of what they think the answer is, these sorts of thought experiments would be a lot more productive. But alas.

You claim to be a critical thinker but you're still not thinking this out. The difference between the God of Christians and those who believe in Allah is a difference of opinion of the nature of God, both groups share a belief in God. There differences are theological in nature.

Mister Agenda,

After all I don't deny God exists either.

If you think that qualifies you to be an atheist, we can start referring to you as such.

No, if one doesn't deny God exists, it makes them a weak theist.

If the universe and humans weren't purposely caused to come into existence intentionally by a creator designer, then we owe our existence to mindless mechanistic forces that unintentionally caused the universe with the characteristics to cause stars, planets, solar systems and life to exist.

And that can't possibly be the explanation, because in that explanation, you're not the goal of existence.

It could be the possible explanation is anyone here going to make the case it is? Is anyone here going to site lines of evidence that supports that conclusion? I don't have disregard for that explanation, I just view it as second runner up.

How many times should we have to repeat what cosmologists have to say? And if it's not a false dichotomy, that should be easy for you to prove.

Do you mean the latest cosmological theories?

The former explanations explain 'how'. The latter 'explanation' is 'God did it'.

Whether 'God did it' or 'mechanistic forces did it' we still seek explanations of how it works and functions. Does 'Egyptians did it' cause to not seek how the pyramids were built? However as with the pyramids we can also ask why they built them.

There's no rhyme or reason why just the right God would exist to create this specific universe. Positing God as an answer to 'why is there a universe' begs the question of 'why is there a God?'.

So? I'm limiting my inquiry to why there is a universe and sentient beings.

I don't believe God exists.

That wasn't so hard was it?

If your lines of argument were sound, it would be global philosophical news. I have never seen you present anything that didn't rest on a logical fallacy or the assumption that you must be right. It's assumed that you find your own arguments convincing, but it's arrogance to assume that they are therefore sound. Do you make a lot of arguments which you then follow by announcing that you're right? Good arguments stand on their own, bad arguments exist to be destroyed.

Atheists will invariably respond with logical fallacy to any line of evidence that disagrees with their opinion. That is precisely why neither your opinion or mine matters in regards to our own arguments or counter arguments. The only fair judge of any debates or arguments are from impartial folks who are neither devout theists or atheists and whether you could convince them arguments I make are fallacious. Of course you think so.

And you don't see any dichotomy between acknowledging the existence of a Creator is neither provable nor disprovable with being convinced that your arguments are sound? If they were sound, they would prove the existence of a Creator.

The arguments I made were used to justify an opinion, the belief we owe our existence to a Creator. As you mentioned before of course I think there sound. The real test would be whose arguments persuade the undecided. Are your arguments against belief in God sound, if so do they prove God doesn't exist?

We'll still be a small minority in the USA but demographic trends indicate we'll likely be twice the percentage of the American population that we are today. It's another example of the USA being 50 years behind Europe in cultural trends. The EU is about 20% atheist, which is where the USA will probably be in 50 years. Still a minority, but a significant one.

If belief in a Creator of the universe were anywhere near as absurd as many atheists paint it they should already be the majority belief. If your arguments were sound wouldn't you persuade many more much faster?

What you don't seem to grasp is that we don't 'recruit' atheists.

Again theism is an opinion to the questions why is there something rather than nothing? Why does a universe exist? Why do we sentient humans beings exist? Are we ultimately the result of unplanned forces that somehow came into existence and unintentionally caused the conditions that allow our existence or are we the result of plan and engineering? You don't have to recruit anyone if you have a good solid case from evidence (something I'm always asked for) for believing the former. There in lies the problem and why atheists tend to attack theism because they don't have a compelling case. You can criticize the case I made for my belief in theism but at least I made a case and one from evidence.

[Whateverist]

Again theism is an opinion to the questions why is there something rather than nothing? Why does a universe exist? Why do we sentient humans beings exist?

The why question loses its luster when it follows the fact that these things do exist. We don't really know what the necessary or sufficient conditions may be. But of course we can speculate. Nothing wrong with that. In most cases though, theism seems like a lot more than just a casual opinion regarding something exceedingly speculative and inconsequential.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Still waiting, Drew.

[Ravenshire]

Folks at AF waiting for Drew to make a rational argument about anything:

[Mister Agenda]

Mister Agenda,

After all I don't deny God exists either.

If you think that qualifies you to be an atheist, we can start referring to you as such.

No, if one doesn't deny God exists, it makes them a weak theist.

No, it doesn't. A weak theist believes there is some sort of God. You are a weak theist, apparently. Believing in some kind of god or God is the ONLY thing that makes someone ANY kind of theist.

"And that can't possibly be the explanation, because in that explanation, you're not the goal of existence."--Mister Agenda

It could be the possible explanation is anyone here going to make the case it is? Is anyone here going to site lines of evidence that supports that conclusion? I don't have disregard for that explanation, I just view it as second runner up.

On no other grounds than that it's not emotionally satisfying to you. The cosmological explanations have the advantage of being physically possible and based on observation of the universe as it is and was, and actually say how it could have happened in hypothetically testable ways. The theistic explanation has nothing at all but badly reasoned arguments, at best a God of the gaps presumption slated for further shrinkage when hypothetical tests become actual tests.

"How many times should we have to repeat what cosmologists have to say? And if it's not a false dichotomy, that should be easy for you to prove."

Do you mean the latest cosmological theories?

How late they are is irrelevant. And though I don't blame you for calling them 'theories', they're more properly 'hypotheses'. Yes, there are multiple naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe which are as yet untestable. You should be familiar with their basics and we shouldn't have to educate you about them just because you like to say we aren't providing alternatives to 'God did it'. If you're already familiar with them, you shouldn't be complaining about a lack of naturalistic alternatives. The problem with the naturalistic alternatives isn't that they're implausible, it's that there are multiple ways it could have happened consistent with the laws of physics as we know them, and we are not yet in a position to test these hypotheses to eliminate any of them.

"The former explanations explain 'how'. The latter 'explanation' is 'God did it'."--Mister Agenda

Whether 'God did it' or 'mechanistic forces did it' we still seek explanations of how it works and functions. Does 'Egyptians did it' cause to not seek how the pyramids were built? However as with the pyramids we can also ask why they built them.

With the pyramids we can examine archaelogical evidence, records that indicate how they actually did the work, and so on. None of that is an option with 'God did it'. Unlike 'Egyptians did it', 'God did it' is the beginning and the end of the 'explanation'.

"There's no rhyme or reason why just the right God would exist to create this specific universe. Positing God as an answer to 'why is there a universe' begs the question of 'why is there a God?'."--Mister Agenda

So? I'm limiting my inquiry to why there is a universe and sentient beings.

How absolutely convenient for you.

"I don't believe God exists."

That wasn't so hard was it?

Shall I give you the post numbers for other times in this thread I have said the same thing, Sherlock?

If your lines of argument were sound, it would be global philosophical news. I have never seen you present anything that didn't rest on a logical fallacy or the assumption that you must be right. It's assumed that you find your own arguments convincing, but it's arrogance to assume that they are therefore sound. Do you make a lot of arguments which you then follow by announcing that you're right? Good arguments stand on their own, bad arguments exist to be destroyed."--Mister Agenda

Atheists will invariably respond with logical fallacy to any line of evidence that disagrees with their opinion.

And will identify the fallacy for you, too. We couldn't do that if you weren't actually making that fallacy, and if we did, you could easily prove that we were applying the fallacy incorrectly. An argument for God that actually didn't rest on presuppostion and contained no fallacy would be global philosophical news that Christians and Muslims would trumpet far and wide. The reason they make so many bad arguments is that they don't have a single good one. One good one would be more impressive than a thousand bad ones.

That is precisely why neither your opinion or mine matters in regards to our own arguments or counter arguments.

That your arguments are fallacious isn't an opinion, it's a provable fact.

The only fair judge of any debates or arguments are from impartial folks who are neither devout theists or atheists and whether you could convince them arguments I make are fallacious.

That an argument is fallacious is something that can actually be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt. That an argument is NOT fallacious is also something that can be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt. Remember that a fallacy is not only a statement that an argument is wrong, but an explanation for why it is wrong.

Of course you think so.

Which is the height of your rhetoric: that the only reason we disagree with your arguments is because we disagree with your position, which is clearly projection on your part.

"And you don't see any dichotomy between acknowledging the existence of a Creator is neither provable nor disprovable with being convinced that your arguments are sound? If they were sound, they would prove the existence of a Creator."--Mister Agenda

The arguments I made were used to justify an opinion, the belief we owe our existence to a Creator.

So is the issue that you don't actually know what a sound argument is? A sound argument has true premises and valid logic. If the premises are true, and the logic is valid, the conclusion must be true. Perhaps you should stop calling your arguments 'sound' and call them 'persuasive to me' instead, as that is apparently what you really mean when you say 'sound'.

As you mentioned before of course I think there sound. The real test would be whose arguments persuade the undecided.

A sound argument is persuasive to those convinced that the opposite is the case. At the least, they must admit that the conclusion follows from the premises. The soundness of arguments is irrelevant to crowd opinion, if a sound argument doesn't persuade the audience, it is necessarily due to a lack on the part of the audience.

Are your arguments against belief in God sound, if so do they prove God doesn't exist?

Yes, they are sound. No, they don't prove God doesn't exist. It is the nature of propositions that have been defined in such a way as to be unfalsifiable to be immune to disproof. That's what unfalsifiable means. It is also the nature of unfalsifiable propositions that they can't be proven true, unless whatever it is changes the beheavior that makes it unfalsifiable in the first place (leaves no evidence, can change memories, only reveals itself to people who already believe in it, etc.). Genesha has the same issues as God in this regard, if you don't believe in Ganesha, how do you justify your disbelief? I would go with: no good reason to think Ganesha is really real.

"We'll still be a small minority in the USA but demographic trends indicate we'll likely be twice the percentage of the American population that we are today. It's another example of the USA being 50 years behind Europe in cultural trends. The EU is about 20% atheist, which is where the USA will probably be in 50 years. Still a minority, but a significant one."--Mister Agenda

If belief in a Creator of the universe were anywhere near as absurd as many atheists paint it they should already be the majority belief.

It's not absurd to believe what you were indoctrinated to believe from the time you could talk. It's not even surprising. There is a vast social mechanism at work to make sure people believe. It's got a lot of inertia and there's no reason to expect it to change rapidly. It seems to have taken a combination of religious freedom, horrid behavior on the part of many believers in the name of their religion, and the internet to affect the beginning of a decline in theism in the USA.

If your arguments were sound wouldn't you persuade many more much faster?

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. People don't hold religious or superstitious beliefs for rational reasons, they hold them for emotional and psychological reasons.

What you don't seem to grasp is that we don't 'recruit' atheists.

Again theism is an opinion to the questions why is there something rather than nothing? Why does a universe exist? Why do we sentient humans beings exist? Are we ultimately the result of unplanned forces that somehow came into existence and unintentionally caused the conditions that allow our existence or are we the result of plan and engineering?

Theism is none of those things. It is the opinon that at least one god or God is real. It is an affirmative answer to the question 'do you believe in at least one god or God?'. You might describe yourself more aptly as a deist if the God you believe in accounts for all that. Yes, a deist is a type of theist, but the word conveys the information you seem to want 'theist' to convey. You seem to be a deistic theist.

You don't have to recruit anyone if you have a good solid case from evidence (something I'm always asked for) for believing the former.

We don't have to recruit anyone because we get an influx of new atheists without any effort on our part. Plus, there's nothing inherent in atheism that compels us to increase our numbers, just the human tendency to argue for the positon we hold. It's not like we've been convinced you'll burn in hell unless we make an atheist of you. You'll just have some unjustified beliefs that we don't have a particular beef with unless you use them to justify actions detrimental to society. We don't need to evangelize, send missionaries, fill pews, or save souls. Yet our numbers are gradually increasing anyway.

There in lies the problem and why atheists tend to attack theism because they don't have a compelling case.

That didn't even make sense. How is not having a compelling case a motivation to 'attack' (by which I presume you mean 'argue against') a position?

You can criticize the case I made for my belief in theism but at least I made a case and one from evidence.

You made a case 'based on evidence' in your own less-than-humble opinon. Watching theists trying to make such cases so poorly was a key component in my coming to the conclusion that belief in God is not rationally justified. Don't feel too bad, I've seen a professor of religon do just as poorly. If someone can make a good case for believing in God, I'd really like to see it. Lack of such a good case, on its own, is sufficient reason not to believe in God for someone who believes the reasons to believe something should be able to overcome the null hypothesis before believing in it is rationally justified.

[The Reality Salesman01]

On the other hand if there was a preponderance of evidence that naturalistic forces alone caused the universe and sentient humans to exist, people would abandon theistic belief without any special skills, ability or knowledge.

This statement presupposes evidence to be the sole basis for religious belief. Surely you would admit that this is simply not true.

The disparity would make sense, and it wouldn't point to religious belief being any more valid.

Theism isn't a religious belief, I am a theist. There is no church of theism.

The disparity would make sense, and it wouldn't point to religious Theistic belief being any more valid.

My apologies. Fixed it, and it makes no difference.

This is when Santa or another ridiculous idea can be useful in illustrating the fallacy they've just employed in place of reason. Obviously, most adults don't believe in Santa Claus, but what we are hoping Theists will realize is that nobody needs to disprove Santa Clause before it's justified to not believe in him. We are hoping that you think more about why that is, rather than allow yourself to be reflexively offended. To a Christian, I don't use Santa, I use Allah.

For someone who claims to think critically you haven't thought this through.

I am always willing to acknowledge when I've made an error. Let's see if you're right.

Belief in Santa (if any sane lucid adults actually believed in such) can be easily disproved

In an argument, you should refrain from using tactics like this to gain favor. This is called "Poisoning the Well". Rather than offer an argument for your position, you've implied that one is not sane, lucid, or an adult if they oppose your position. You haven't given any reason to accept your position as the reasonable one. Instead, you implied that there are consequences for those that may object. That is not thinking critically. Let's edit that part out, and search for some substance in your argument.

Belief in Santa (if any sane lucid adults actually believed in such) can be easily disproved with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a mystical being doesn't deliver presents worldwide on Christmas eve.

For this exercise to work, you'll need to follow the rules of rational discourse. You've claimed that I am not thinking critically and I assume this was an attempt to show the errors in my reasoning by demonstrating how easy it is for you to refute that Santa exists. First, I never described any of Santa's properties, you took those liberties without being prompted. When did I say anything about Santa delivering presents worldwide on Christmas Eve? You assumed that was the Santa I believed in, but it's not. That is just a Caricature of my belief. Aside from that, you didn't present this "preponderance of evidence". You made a baseless assertion that it is available and then claimed that you could use it to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your caricature of Santa does not exist. You didn't even refute your own version of Santa.

I'll impugn belief in God by comparing it to Santa Claus.

I don't share your belief, I don't recognize a difference. Don't you see that this begs the very question we set out to answer? If I am of the opinion that not only does your God not exist, but it would be impossible for any sane, lucid, adult to consider it as a possibility, why then ought I take your position seriously? You have to acknowledge that to someone who doesn't believe in mystical supernatural things, I am inclined to have the same attitude toward your God. Instead, I am trying to engage in a rational exchange. I assume you would like me to take you seriously, no? I am sure you do not want me to tell you that it would be a defamation of my character as a rational person to even entertain your position about gods. Do you understand the comparisons yet?

Secondly, the God hypothesis is falsifiable. All you have to do is provide a preponderance of evidence that mindless mechanistic forces can account for all we observe including something completely unlike itself sentient life. If there isn't such a preponderance of evidence then your counter claim is a belief claim true?

No, it's not true. It's not a belief claim. You've made a few errors, and I'll show you exactly where you've gone wrong.

Secondly, the God hypothesis is falsifiable.

If it's falsifiable, then you must know what you would expect to find if it were not true. Give me an example of this sort of evidence.

All you have to do is provide a preponderance of evidence that mindless mechanistic forces can account for all we observe including something completely unlike itself sentient life.

Can you show me two examples of two different universes so that I might compare them? In this universe, I don't have any evidence for a mind creating a mountain, a small coin, or a pubic hair. You're telling me that a mind IS responsible for creating those things AND the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, or how you could know that because you have not yet demonstrated that it is worthy of consideration. There isn't anything in our universe that points to supernatural magic.

If there isn't such a preponderance of evidence then your counter claim is a belief claim true?

I haven't made any claims. Look bud, it's just you and me talking here. Here's what's going on:
You said "x" is true.
I asked how you know that.
You said that I can't know that it's not true (I agree with you, but that still hasn't explained why you think it is true).
I still don't believe you because you have not given me any reason to think it's true.
You accuse me of making claims that I cannot back up with evidence.
The only claim that I've made is "I don't believe you." And that is a subjective fact about my state of mind. It has nothing to do with whether or not your claim is true, I'm just describing my attitude toward your inability to effectively establish truth statements.

Can Christians prove that Allah does not exist? No. But, they don't believe in him, why?

You claim to be a critical thinker but you're still not thinking this out.

Always possible, and I'll be happy to own any errors on my part.

The difference between the God of Christians and those who believe in Allah is a difference of opinion of the nature of God, both groups share a belief in God. There differences are theological in nature.

If you were a Deist, you might be able to dodge the bullet on this one, and there's no shame in changing your tune now. The reason for my bringing this up is because you are a Theist. Your position implies something about what you believe God's nature to be.
You made two statements which I've bolded, and I want to make a distinction.
If a theistic God exists, he exists only in a manner that is consistent with the nature of His existence, and NOT in any other way. (a difference in opinion regarding the nature of God's existence means that either one is right, or they're all wrong) It is a logical contradiction to say that God and not-god are compatible with respect the actual nature of His existence (if true). If the gods of Hinduism are real, then the singular God of Theist is not. These are fundamentally incompatible by the nature of their alleged existence.
If god exists, but there is a difference in opinion regarding the descriptive qualities of god that are not essential to nature of his existence (ie. His favorite color, his favorite tribe of primate, his preferred preapproval process in order to apply for a slot in his neighborhood etc.) then it is still possible that Muslims and Christians could be wrong about some or all of these things, and a god could still exist, but then we would not have any reason to accept that theism is true.

My reason for asking that type of question is still valid, but I'll happily revise it.

Can Theists prove that Polytheistic God do not exist? No. But, they don't believe in them, why?

[Tonus]

2. Drop linking belief in Santa to belief in God argument.

It’s a silly argument on the face of it. If belief in God were akin to belief in Santa Claus (or fairies, invisible pink elephants and so on) then why doesn’t 80% of the population believe in Santa Claus?

Isn't it obvious? The difference is that children are disabused of the notion that Santa exists by the same people who put that belief in their heads to begin with. Now, imagine if they'd done the same with god?

[Brian37]

When someone starts off a giant wall of text with "atheism isn't a growing movement" they are not making an argument for their position, they are merely arguing for the gang they subscribe to. All religions do this.

Popularity is not an argument. If it were then the world should become Muslims because that has the most members.

I certainly would be willing to accept the existence of ANY god if the evidence was there. I would say however even if that happened, and I am not holding my breath, it still would not want me to call it good or moral considering all the horrible crap that happens in reality.

Science is not a method used to justify a case of the warm fuzzies. The truth should matter more than our own personal desires.

[The Reality Salesman01]

On the other hand if there was a preponderance of evidence that naturalistic forces alone caused the universe and sentient humans to exist, people would abandon theistic belief without any special skills, ability or knowledge.

This statement presupposes evidence to be the sole basis for religious belief. Surely you would admit that this is simply not true.

The disparity would make sense, and it wouldn't point to religious belief being any more valid.

Theism isn't a religious belief, I am a theist. There is no church of theism.

My apologies.

The disparity would make sense, and it wouldn't point to religious Theistic belief being any more valid.

Fixed it, and it makes no difference.
Fixed it, and it makes no difference.

This is when Santa or another ridiculous idea can be useful in illustrating the fallacy they've just employed in place of reason. Obviously, most adults don't believe in Santa Claus, but what we are hoping Theists will realize is that nobody needs to disprove Santa Clause before it's justified to not believe in him. We are hoping that you think more about why that is, rather than allow yourself to be reflexively offended. To a Christian, I don't use Santa, I use Allah.

For someone who claims to think critically you haven't thought this through.

I am always willing to acknowledge when I've made an error. Let's see if you're right.

Belief in Santa (if any sane lucid adults actually believed in such) can be easily disproved

In an argument, you should refrain from using tactics like this to gain favor. This is called "Poisoning the Well". Rather than offer an argument for your position, you've implied that one is not sane, lucid, or an adult if they oppose your position. You haven't given any reason to accept your position as the reasonable one. Instead, you implied that there are consequences for those that may object. That is not thinking critically. Let's edit that part out, and search for some substance in your argument.

Belief in Santa (if any sane lucid adults actually believed in such) can be easily disproved with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a mystical being doesn't deliver presents worldwide on Christmas eve.

For this exercise to work, you'll need to follow the rules of rational discourse. You've claimed that I am not thinking critically and I assume this was an attempt to show the errors in my reasoning by demonstrating how easy it is for you to refute that Santa exists. First, I never described any of Santa's properties, you took those liberties without being prompted. When did I say anything about Santa delivering presents worldwide on Christmas Eve? You assumed that was the Santa I believed in, but it's not. That is just a Caricature of my belief. Aside from that, you didn't present this "preponderance of evidence". You made a baseless assertion that it is available and then claimed that you could use it to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your caricature of Santa does not exist. You didn't even refute your own version of Santa.

I'll impugn belief in God by comparing it to Santa Claus.

I don't share your belief, I don't recognize a difference. Don't you see that this begs the very question we set out to answer? If I am of the opinion that not only does your God not exist, but it would be impossible for any sane, lucid, adult to consider it as a possibility, why then ought I take your position seriously? You have to acknowledge that to someone who doesn't believe in mystical supernatural things, I am inclined to have the same attitude toward your God. Instead, I am trying to engage in a rational exchange. I assume you would like me to take you seriously, no? I am sure you do not want me to tell you that it would be a defamation of my character as a rational person to even entertain your position about gods. Do you understand the comparisons yet?

Secondly, the God hypothesis is falsifiable. All you have to do is provide a preponderance of evidence that mindless mechanistic forces can account for all we observe including something completely unlike itself sentient life. If there isn't such a preponderance of evidence then your counter claim is a belief claim true?

No, it's not true. It's not a belief claim. You've made a few errors, and I'll show you exactly where you've gone wrong.

Secondly, the God hypothesis is falsifiable.

If it's falsifiable, then you must know what you would expect to find if it were not true. Give me an example of this sort of evidence.

All you have to do is provide a preponderance of evidence that mindless mechanistic forces can account for all we observe including something completely unlike itself sentient life.

Can you show me two examples of two different universes so that I might compare them? In this universe, I don't have any evidence for a mind creating a mountain, a small coin, or a pubic hair. You're telling me that a mind IS responsible for creating those things AND the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, or how you could know that because you have not yet demonstrated that it is worthy of consideration. There isn't anything in our universe that points to supernatural magic.

If there isn't such a preponderance of evidence then your counter claim is a belief claim true?

I haven't made any claims. Look bud, it's just you and me talking here. Here's what's going on:
You said "x" is true.
I asked how you know that.
You said that I can't know that it's not true (I agree with you, but that still hasn't explained why you think it is true).
I still don't believe you because you have not given me any reason to think it's true.
You accuse me of making claims that I cannot back up with evidence.
The only claim that I've made is "I don't believe you." And that is a subjective fact about my state of mind. It has nothing to do with whether or not your claim is true, I'm just describing my attitude toward your inability to effectively establish truth statements.

Can Christians prove that Allah does not exist? No. But, they don't believe in him, why?

You claim to be a critical thinker but you're still not thinking this out.

Always possible, and I'll be happy to own any errors on my part.

The difference between the God of Christians and those who believe in Allah is a difference of opinion of the nature of God, both groups share a belief in God. There differences are theological in nature.

If you were a Deist, you might be able to dodge the bullet on this one, and there's no shame in changing your tune now. The reason for my bringing this up is because you are a Theist. Your position implies something about what you believe God's nature to be.
You made two statements which I've bolded, and I want to make a distinction.

If a theistic God exists, he exists only in a manner that is consistent with the nature of His existence, and NOT in any other way. (a difference in opinion regarding the nature of God's existence means that either one is right, or they're all wrong) It is a logical contradiction to say that God and not-god are compatible with respect the actual nature of His existence (if true). If the gods of Hinduism are real, then the singular God of Theism would not be. These are fundamentally incompatible by the nature of their alleged existence.

If god exists, but there is a difference in opinion regarding the descriptive qualities of god that are not essential to nature of his existence (ie. His favorite color, his favorite tribe of primate, his preferred preapproval process in order to apply for a slot in his neighborhood etc.) then it is still possible that Muslims and Christians could be wrong about some or all of these things, and a god could still exist, but there still wouldn't be any reason to accept that a form of theism is true. The possibility of one or both being wrong says nothing about how likely one is to be true.

My reason for asking that type of question is still valid, but I'll happily revise it.

Can Theists prove that Polytheistic Gods do not exist? No. But, they don't believe in them, why?

[Drew_2013]

Parkers Tan,

I will be happy to explain it to you, and defend its explanatory power; but the fact is, it is a hypothesis, and the difference between an atheist proposing a mechanistic beginning (such as myself) and a theist such as yourself is that while I'm happy to admit I might be wrong, under no circumstances are you permitted to entertain that thought by your own dogma. That is the result of you fetishizing faith instead of knowledge.

Obviously you don't know me and your painting me with a generic brush. I posted a thread called The Case for Theism.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-17548.html

Here is an excerpt.


Theism to me is a belief and an opinion, I don't claim it's a fact. It's an opinion regarding the most basic philosophical questions people have asked. Why is there a universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? How did our existence come about? And perhaps the most puzzling question, is our existence the result of planning and design or was it the result of happenstance?

There has never been a time I have argued in favor of theism that I didn't claim it is a belief an opinion. I have in fact entertained the notion I'm wrong on many occasions. In this very post I cited what I think is the best evidence in favor of atheism.

If I were an atheist (a real atheist that actually believes and claims God doesn’t exist) I would clearly state such a belief is an opinion. It’s what I think is true but acknowledge I’m not certain of it. That’s what an opinion is, a statement you have reason to believe is true but can’t be certain is true. I don’t know of any atheists claiming it’s a fact God doesn’t exist so it must be a belief that God doesn’t exist so why the animosity towards others who have a difference of opinion? If I ran an atheist board I would welcome theists to the board, respect their difference of opinion but share the facts and evidence I believe challenges that belief.

-There is no direct evidence a Creator caused the universe.

-The laws of physics over vast periods of time appear to have caused all the things we observe including our own existence.

-Much of the universe appears to be chaotic and unguided.

-Evolution appears to account for how living things developed on going complexity.

Therefore was I an atheist I would argue from those facts God doesn’t exist which ironically means I’m making a better argument than most atheists make. I wouldn't antagonize anyone, bash them over the head, question their sanity, just make the case and let it go at that.

Do you think I'd offer what I think are the strongest arguments in favor of atheism if I didn't think I could be wrong?

That said I'm glad you'd be happy to explain it to me and defend its explanatory power. Few atheists have been willing, most resort to its a lack of belief tactic.