What would it take for you to believe in God?

[Chas]

There is no evidence for a god(s).

/thread

What has brought you to that conclusion?

The lack of evidence makes me see that there is a lack of evidence.

If you have some evidence to offer, please do.

---

Because he is an atheist. hock:

That doesn't at all answer the question. There are a lot of atheists who have never heard of this site and if they did wouldn't come.

Yes, it does. You asked why he was here and that was answered.

Please provide evidence for your assertion about 'a lot of atheists'.

---

As for evidence two words: necessary being.

One word: bullshit

The 'necessary being' argument is slipshod logic. It is an illegitimate attempt to turn mental conception into physical being.

[BoS]

In your mind, is your primary reason for not believing in God moral, scientific, or something completely different?

Scientific proof will only change my mind but scientific evidence seems to be doing the opposite. We are finding out things that are totally go against the notions of a god and of religious claims.

[Ksa]

A God to believe in.

[Cyberman]

As for evidence two words: necessary being.

That's merely adding another layer of assertion. It's rather like a lawyer standing up in court and saying "As for evidence that the accused is guilty, well somebody did it."

[ThomM]

This really sums it up doesn't it? The blinders, the ignorance, the wanton disregard of any kind of reason or logic - all summed up in this sentence:

It is circular reasoning, and I'm okay with that. I believe the Bible to be true, because I believe God to be true.

Congratulations, not only are you a gullible half-wit, but your belief system is supported by the exact same sort of "logic" that the Muslims and the Hindus use to support their belief structure.

I think we all believe in a lot of things without testable evidence. I believe that Plato existed even though the only evidence I have is secondary and isn't testable at all. We all believe and have faith in certain things that can't be tested.

- Words of someone who desperately needs an excuse to maintain his RIDICULOUS beliefs. As if somehow, it makes your absurd notions ok simply because there are others who exist who maintain your same level of stupidity. No sir, MANY of us do NOT believe in "a lot of things without testable evidence," and simply because you write words down on the internet, doesn't magically make them true.

Yes - WE indeed believe in things without testable evidence - especially when we were young - but then WHAT do/did we believe ?

I suspect few believe Plato was an almighty god - who could perform miracles - and created the earth - and I would want the same level of testable evidence of THAT - for ANY claimed god.

Think of it this way - your claim of your god - is just one of about 20,000 or so gods so far named - and NONE of them have any testable evidence to separate them from the pack. Why should I believe the claims of YOUR religion - when some of the evidence offered from the religion turned out to be WRONG?

The bible is clearly flawed - has errors - conflicts with nature - and as time passes - more and more of the bible passes from what was once considered absolute truth(and people were killed if they did not believe) - to an Allegory - which it clearly is not as well - it is MYTH and Legends of some ancient cave dwellers and goat herders - and even their history is MYTH.

[Clueless Morgan]

The resurrection of Christ, example was seen by hundreds of people. What keeps you from believing that?

The destruction of Voldemort was seen by hundreds of people. What keeps you from believing that?

[pocaracas]

The resurrection of Christ, example was seen by hundreds of people. What keeps you from believing that?

The destruction of Voldemort was seen by hundreds of people. What keeps you from believing that?

Darth Vader's demise, on the other hand, was only witnessed by one person... So says the big book of Star Wars.

[Esquilax]

As for evidence two words: necessary being.

That's merely adding another layer of assertion. It's rather like a lawyer standing up in court and saying "As for evidence that the accused is guilty, well somebody did it."

Given Chad's particular brand of christianity, it's actually worse than that: it's as if that lawyer merely fabricated this attribute, "necessary criminality," which only the accused possesses, and asserts that since the accused is necessarily the criminal, his work is done.

Because just saying that somebody committed the crime might actually have some basis in fact given the evidence of the case; we have no evidence that the universe even requires a creator, and yet Chad is attempting to point to a very specific, christian creator, using imaginary attributes. So a truly accurate comparison would be a lawyer accusing someone he already dislikes of a crime nobody can yet ascertain has happened, on the weight of the accused having "necessary criminality."

It's just making shit up, to support more made up shit.

[Lemonvariable72]

Great, now we've got traction. This is actually a lot more than we usually get from resident theists, so you're earning points right out of the gate here.


Why depend on faith? If you have evidence, you don't need faith. You might have reasonable expectations based on the evidence, but since you've set up such a partition you don't even have those.


Fine. Do you ever test those presuppositions? For example, what do you know of your god's attributes and how do you know them?


Evidence is only a problem, usually handwaved away like this, to those who don't actually have any. If you or any theist actually had some copper-bottomed, compelling evidence for whatever god you're proposing, do you think you (or they) wouldn't come to places like this and parade it around like a show pony?


Again, fine. I'm more interested in what you can demonstrate to be true, as distinct from what you believe to be true.

I depend on faith, because I think faith is superior to reason. Reason rests in what my own mental faculties can comprehend. Also, I see a huge problem with what "facts". Facts are always interpreted and therefore subject to error. Also, I think my presuppositions are tested and proven true nearly every day. One of my presuppositions is that I am really sinful and don't deserve any good whatsoever. I believe that my sin has earned me eternal punishment in Hell, but by faith in Jesus, God gives me grace and shows me favor, instead of the punishment I deserve. I see that presupposition proven true every day.

I don't think there are any ways to prove 100% that God exists. God never seeks to prove that He exists. He just exists. Reason, intellect, and evidences are not enough.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.

Thomas paine.

[Esquilax]

So, wait... the guy says that he thinks faith is superior to reason because reason relies on limited human faculties...

So then why is he so sure of his conclusion that faith is superior to reason? Didn't he have to use that flawed process to come to that position?

This is just the same flimsy pretense we see from christians, to justify their solipsism towards every position except the one they prefer to be true.