The Case for Atheism

[The Reality Salesman01]

HUH? I'm gonna need you to explain how you have a particular knowledge of a particular God, and therefore have a particular knowledge about the sorts of things IT normally produces by which you must base this "feasibility" on. I presume that you can explain all of this right? If you have NONE...there is absolutely nothing "feasible" about it. It is not a logically grounded supposition, and is actually...unfeasible, and illogical. If you have no basis for that which a God can be credited for "creating", you have no grounds to insert it as a conclusion!

As I have mentioned several times I'm a philosophical theist, not a religious theist. This means I believe our existence is the result of a transcendent being commonly referred to as God who caused, planned the universe and life to exist. If you want to see the case the evidence check the thread The Case for Theism. Unlike the atheists in this forum I was willing to make a case for my belief.

I've seen your thread, and nothing in it moves the burden you are trying so hard to support. I do appreciate your continued attempts, but your desire for it to be true has given you blunders to the obvious flaws in your logic. You've invoked "trancendent being". From where do you draw that such a thing exists other than the fact that it makes sense to YOU because there's not a factual explanation? If my leg it itched and I didn't know why, could I just make up a creature, assert it as something that makes legs itch, say its invisible and assume its in my pocket, doing its work? Would this be okay since there was no other explanation given as to why my leg itched at that moment?
Approach this scenario honestly and try to apply the same rationalization to any preponderance of evidence in any claim.

How likely would you say such a claim is? 50/50? You seem to be avoiding the shadow of probability that blurs your assessment. Your claim is no more grounded than a person claiming they have a unicorn in their pocket.

The standard of proof in a civil course is a mere preponderance of evidence in favor of a belief, meaning more for than against. I subscribe to theism because available evidence favors that explanation. You'll have to explain to your fellow theists how the case for theism is as weak and unfounded as a claim for a unicorn in my pocket because most of the atheists I have debated in this thread aren't willing to deny there is a unicorn in my pocket...they just lack that belief. Isn't that pathetic?

If there is ZERO results to compare for a God, you cannot preponder any sort of evidence as you have none to compare! You have an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and you chalk up the entire universe to an entity that you haven't been able to rationally establish. Lastly, no body can PROVE you don't have a unicorn in your pocket, so they can't claim it to be a fact that you don't. But pay attention here...We have no reason to believe you as such a claim doesn't correlate with reality, so its more likely, that the unicorn you claim is in your pocket, does not exist. So I do not believe it. For the same reasons, I do not believe your God claims. They lack all discernible attributes consistent with anything I believe exists. If you don't establish qualifying criteria for existance, you have no way of distinguishing it from that which does not exist. It sounds to me that you are ok with this. You being ok with this implies that you accept that anything could exist, unicorns and fairies included. These claims all share the same lack of comparable substance and are equally hollow. That's why people keep bringing them up. You can't use your reasoning to justify believing in God and then abandon it when it comes to disputing claims that equal in absurdity. Remember, unicorns seem ridiculous to you...and for good reason. God sounds AS ridiculous to me...for the same reasons.

Improbable claims of all sorts can be rightly dismissed on the same grounds.

I agree but which claim is more improbable? That we owe our existence to a universe that was designed and engineered to cause sentient life or that we owe the existence of universe, life and sentient life to mindless lifeless forces that somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence and created something totally unlike itself...life and sentience? What makes your counter claim (if atheism is true) less improbable?

The latter...as those "mindless forces" are what makes trees move when it's windy, the tides roll in and out, and govern the continuity of everything I experience as I understand it. For you to convince me otherwise, you would have to have a really good reason for doing so. Telling me that it makes sense to you, doesn't qualify. Try again.

A more intelligent approach would be to just say...There's an answer to the questions I have...I don't know what it is...and because I do not know anymore than anyone else, it would be impossible for me to invoke an answer, and then arbitrarily assign it any value of feasibility. I don't know what it is, but I also have ZERO reason to believe in this thing called "God", whatever it is...and so...I just don't know, but am open to new information that is grounded in reality and correlates with truth and verifiable experience.

That would be a reasonable approach but its not the approach you take. Instead you claim belief in God is no more probable than the claim I have a unicorn in my pocket.

You seem to confuse my thought experiment with a claim of knowledge. I haven't proven the unicorn doesn't exist anymore than anyone could disprove God. However, they are equally viable claims that lack substance and neither correlate with reality. Therefore, I comfortably reject them as they are both very improbable. They are only possible by virtue of them being unfalsifiable. Don't conflate probability with possibility.

I'm afraid you have a LOT of explaining to...starting with what reasons that any God theory is any more feasible than a celestial teapot.

See the thread titled The Case for Theism...

Not at all necessary. I've seen it, posted in it, and pointed out its logical deficiencies as many others also have.