(May 4, 2013 at 6:38 am)smax Wrote: I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that you think Theists are making a compelling argument . If so, that explains why you and I already seem to be odds.No, they don't make any compelling argument... they utterly fail at the premise level, so, anything that comes after, is just non-sense.
(May 4, 2013 at 6:38 am)smax Wrote: I have yet to see a single compelling argument that points to the existence of a non-contingent being.Nor have I...
Nor will any argument ever work on me, compelling or not. Like min keeps saying to all theists: Show me the evidence.
If any god exists, show me how people came to know about it some 10 or 20 or 100 thousand years ago.... and then explain why can't it keep doing the same thing to every human being and why it must rely on faulty human transmission to pass on the information.
I can come up with a completely reasonable naturalistic method by which humans acquired the concept of the divine, and how different groups developed different deities... and it would rely on human transmission for that info, of course, how else?... and it would explain the fact that so many fail to experience the currently believed in gods.
(May 4, 2013 at 6:38 am)smax Wrote: In fact, I firmly believe the terminology itself was invented as a sort of bogus support for the existence of god.It's possible, but I wouldn't claim a belief in that.
