A good case against God

[Kayenneh]

THIS:

---

[quote='Kayenneh' pid='308412' dateline='1341937765']
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

---

Watch, [.........] then talk.

Taqi, why do you censor me?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

THIS:

---

[quote='Kayenneh' pid='308412' dateline='1341937765']
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

---

Watch, [.........] then talk.

Taqi, why do you censor me?

LMAO.


TRYING to go gentle on the 15-year-old.


THANKS, btw, for posting that video. Great find.

[Kayenneh]

I wasn't my find actually.. Though, I can't remember who posted it here first


And don't be gentle on the 15-year-old. He needs a big slap of reality!

[Mister Agenda]

I don't believe in dragons, not because we don't have evidence for their existance but because we have good reasons to believe they don't exist! i.e. they are mythological, their phisiology is very highly unlikly and they are made up?

Substitute God or gods for dragons and you have an equally good argument against it/them: We have good reasons to believe gods don't exist! They are mythological, their physiology is very highly unlikely and they are made up. Good job!

[Jeffonthenet]

Also, if you are defining "weak atheism" the same way as I define agnosticism--simply as not knowing if God exists, we may not disagree here on anything but terminology.

Many people said this: atheist is a person that lacks the belief in god, agnostic is about knowledge, it says we can't know if X can be believed. This makes you a gnostic theist, since you claim to know that god exists. Either you believe in a god, or you don't, is that hard to understand? The main point is that you claim that god exists, its your burden to show us that such exists, in a surefire way we all can know it. Since the dawn of man, its been a futile quest.

I don't care what you call yourself or me… I believe, like many many other Christians based on the personal experience of God. Yet personal experience is by definition unsharable, so I cannot communicate to you that experience, I can only testify to you based on my experience. Why am I obligated to prove God in this case?

I would also say in an ultimate sense that there is evidence for God, it is just non-verbal--experiential or intuitive. I believe if one seeks God from a pure heart, one will find out at some point in their life if God exists.

I would also say that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in a case in which we should expect to have more evidence than we do

Well, your extraordinary god requires extraordinary evidence, or why is it hiding? Ah yes, people with pure heart, whatever that means. I guess you mean people that think exactly like you... typical. Your arrogance is showing.

[/quote]

Do you disagree with the principle--the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in a case in which we should expect to have more evidence than we do--or not?

I also disagree that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. God's existence has been, conversely, taken for granted up until the enlightenment.

[Epimethean]

"I also disagree that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. God's existence has been, conversely, taken for granted up until the enlightenment."

Uh. No. And before we can possibly get you to understand why that is wrong, you need to deal with the issue of your disbelief in other gods as pointed out to you elsewhere. You see, you're an atheist, too.

[Skepsis]

'You're deliberately trying to avoid the burden of proof.'

its you who is avoiding the burden of proof. all i'm saying is that both sides should show arguments and try to debunk each other.

also, to say that number 3 is wrong you have to give a reason. otherwise you are saying that purely on your own opinion without the the slightest shred of evidence to support it. if you do give evidence you are just reinforcing no. 3 so there is no logic 'false'

If all atheists were amking a positive claim in "I don't believe there to be a God or God(s)", then you might be correct.
Most atheists don't assert that there is no God. Most simply denounce God as a theory without supporting evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making an affirmation on the part of a particular idea. Anyone who makes a claim has to provide evidence to justify it.

[FallentoReason]

These discussions are always so pointless and trivial. Let me edit slightly your justification Jeff:

I don't care what you call yourself or me… I believe, like many many other Muslims based on the personal experience of Allah. Yet personal experience is by definition unsharable, so I cannot communicate to you that experience, I can only testify to you based on my experience. Why am I obligated to prove Allah in this case?

And the answer to your question is that you're no different to any other theist dead or alive, Muslim or even Mayan/whatever-other-myth-believer claims to have felt. Therefore, why is your god right and theirs wrong? This is where evidence would actually set you apart.

[Jeffonthenet]

"I also disagree that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. God's existence has been, conversely, taken for granted up until the enlightenment."

Uh. No. And before we can possibly get you to understand why that is wrong, you need to deal with the issue of your disbelief in other gods as pointed out to you elsewhere. You see, you're an atheist, too.

As far as I can tell this gives me no reason to think that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Perhaps you could be more explicit about what you are claiming here.

---

Can anyone give me a good case against the existence of God that can stand up to scrutiny?

What, you mean other than the complete lack of anything that could constitute evidence of any such thing ever having of existed?

It seems to me that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in the case that we should expect to have more evidence than we have.

---

'You're deliberately trying to avoid the burden of proof.'

its you who is avoiding the burden of proof. all i'm saying is that both sides should show arguments and try to debunk each other.

also, to say that number 3 is wrong you have to give a reason. otherwise you are saying that purely on your own opinion without the the slightest shred of evidence to support it. if you do give evidence you are just reinforcing no. 3 so there is no logic 'false'

If all atheists were amking a positive claim in "I don't believe there to be a God or God(s)"

It isn't true of atheists that they don't believe there to be a God or Gods?

---

These discussions are always so pointless and trivial. Let me edit slightly your justification Jeff:

I don't care what you call yourself or me… I believe, like many many other Muslims based on the personal experience of Allah. Yet personal experience is by definition unsharable, so I cannot communicate to you that experience, I can only testify to you based on my experience. Why am I obligated to prove Allah in this case?

And the answer to your question is that you're no different to any other theist dead or alive, Muslim or even Mayan/whatever-other-myth-believer claims to have felt. Therefore, why is your god right and theirs wrong? This is where evidence would actually set you apart.

The evidence I experience is virtually impossible to deny. Since it testifies of the God of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the bible, it is evident that it is not the God of muslims since they teach contradictory things about Jesus and God.

[FallentoReason]

The evidence I experience is virtually impossible to deny. Since it testifies of the God of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the bible, it is evident that it is not the God of muslims since they teach contradictory things about Jesus and God.

How's this possible if Mark wasn't talking about an historical Jesus?