Yes I pick on all religions.

[Simon Moon]

once you listen to all those competing claims you notice the pattern that they are using the same flawed logic

... but I don't know what that flawed logic is, so please don't ask

What do you think is the most compelling argument for the existence of a god?

[psychoslice]

There is no one who can prove there is a god, and there is no one who can prove there isn't a god, so we should not argue over such things, but if it affects our way of living in peace and harmony then yes we shout question it.

UGGGGGGGG! This has to be the most abused grade school logic I see constantly. No one has the guts to admit where this is coming from.

This attitude is coming from your evolutionary sense of empathy and fair play. No one is talking about human rights. This is about claims and how good logic works.

There is not one ethical scientist I can think of that will ever claim to know everything, but that has NOTHING to do with past and current claims.

Not knowing what the future might bring as far as evidence is not a licence to dwell in the past and cling go claims of invisible super hero claims. Not all claims are equal nor by proxy of utterance does that make a claim true.

Here is what you are doing by your good intent of fair play, which is still flawed logic.

"We dont know for sure so invisible pink unicorns exist until we prove they do not exist".

There are an infinite number of bullshit claims one could fill in the gaps because the future is not here yet. But it is still gap filling.

STEPHEN HAWKINS, "A god is NOT required"

Not only is a god not required we know that humans are notorious for making up all sorts of gods and falsely believing them to be true.

Now in scientific reality we know the only place we find cognition is in EVOLUTION. Postulating a fictional super hero with no brain and no body is like pretending you have an invisible car with no car or even an engine that runs on pixy dust.

It boils down to "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party".

Since we do not know the future that means Angelina Jolie will someday give me a blowjob. Now how much time do you waste considering that "posibility"? YOU don't.

Which makes more sense to you? A magical sky hero exists? Or humans make them up and falsely believe in them? How much time do you dwell on Thor existing because you have not lived the future yet?

You have just made a big song and dance out of nothing, as I said you cannot prove there is no god, its that simple, just have the guts to admit that and leave it at that, and also that goes for the one who believes there is a god.

[Simon Moon]

as I said you cannot prove there is no god, its that simple, just have the guts to admit that and leave it at that, and also that goes for the one who believes there is a god.

This is a logic 101 fail.

There are an infinite number of extraordinary claims that can't be proven not exist or be true. That doesn't mean they're worth considering.

You are accepting the burden of proof when it is not atheists' responsibility.

When is comes to existential claims, it is up to those making the claim to support it, it is not up to those rejecting the claim to prove it is not true.

And it certainly does not mean that the claim that a god exists, and the rejection of that claim have equal merit.

[psychoslice]

as I said you cannot prove there is no god, its that simple, just have the guts to admit that and leave it at that, and also that goes for the one who believes there is a god.

This is a logic 101 fail.

There are an infinite number of extraordinary claims that can't be proven not exist or be true. That doesn't mean they're worth considering.

You are accepting the burden of proof when it is not atheists' responsibility.

When is comes to existential claims, it is up to those making the claim to support it, it is not up to those rejecting the claim to prove it is not true.

And it certainly does not mean that the claim that a god exists, and the rejection of that claim have equal merit.

That maybe so, but why even argue about something that is not true, just to prove you are right, that is if the person doesn't come to you first and throws their belief of god onto you.

[Simon Moon]

That maybe so, but why even argue about something that is not true, just to prove you are right, that is if the person doesn't come to you first and throws their belief of god onto you.

Prove I'm right about what?

I am not making any claims that need to be supported. I take the position that the claim (the existence of a god) has not met its burden of proof. Therefore there is no justification to believe it is true.

I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist.

A defendant in a court of law does not have to prove they are innocent, only that they are not guilty.

I argue about it because there are real world, very negative consequences for theistic belief. I also happen to like to debate.

[psychoslice]

That maybe so, but why even argue about something that is not true, just to prove you are right, that is if the person doesn't come to you first and throws their belief of god onto you.

Prove I'm right about what?

I am not making any claims that need to be supported. I take the position that the claim (the existence of a god) has not met its burden of proof. Therefore there is no justification to believe it is true.

I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist.

A defendant in a court of law does not have to prove they are innocent, only that they are not guilty.

I argue about it because there are real world, very negative consequences for theistic belief. I also happen to like to debate.

Yes I agree, I don't have any beliefs in any god, but I do feel there is a collective universal consciousness that we are all one in. This idea of a universal consciousness is something I cannot prove also, even though I think quantum comes close to explaining it. But my whole point was that we shouldn't go out of our way and arrogantly pick on those who do have a belief in a god, that is of if they don't come to you first, but also I agree it can be fun just debating if that is what it really is.

[Brian37]

UGGGGGGGG! This has to be the most abused grade school logic I see constantly. No one has the guts to admit where this is coming from.

This attitude is coming from your evolutionary sense of empathy and fair play. No one is talking about human rights. This is about claims and how good logic works.

There is not one ethical scientist I can think of that will ever claim to know everything, but that has NOTHING to do with past and current claims.

Not knowing what the future might bring as far as evidence is not a licence to dwell in the past and cling go claims of invisible super hero claims. Not all claims are equal nor by proxy of utterance does that make a claim true.

Here is what you are doing by your good intent of fair play, which is still flawed logic.

"We dont know for sure so invisible pink unicorns exist until we prove they do not exist".

There are an infinite number of bullshit claims one could fill in the gaps because the future is not here yet. But it is still gap filling.

STEPHEN HAWKINS, "A god is NOT required"

Not only is a god not required we know that humans are notorious for making up all sorts of gods and falsely believing them to be true.

Now in scientific reality we know the only place we find cognition is in EVOLUTION. Postulating a fictional super hero with no brain and no body is like pretending you have an invisible car with no car or even an engine that runs on pixy dust.

It boils down to "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party".

Since we do not know the future that means Angelina Jolie will someday give me a blowjob. Now how much time do you waste considering that "posibility"? YOU don't.

Which makes more sense to you? A magical sky hero exists? Or humans make them up and falsely believe in them? How much time do you dwell on Thor existing because you have not lived the future yet?

You have just made a big song and dance out of nothing, as I said you cannot prove there is no god, its that simple, just have the guts to admit that and leave it at that, and also that goes for the one who believes there is a god.

You cant disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns either. That does not mean by proxy of utterance that the claim is worth considering. Otherwise if everything is true until disproved then there are an infinite number of bullshit claims humans can make up.

Not all claims are equal by default. Not all claims are true merely because someone utters them.

Science is running away from the concept of a non material god as a gap answer, it is not pointing to one even being a requirement.

You are enabling their bad use of logic employing your sense of fair play.

"God/god/deity or supernatural ARE NOT claims worth considering".

Especially now that evolutionary biology and neurology and psychology already explain how flawed perceptions evolved with our species.

[fr0d0]

What do you think is the most compelling argument for the existence of a god?

I'm not interested

[Brian37]

What do you think is the most compelling argument for the existence of a god?

I'm not interested

Why not? If someone has evidence and that brings you to facts you'd ignore facts just because you like your position?

[Chas]

You keep telling me that Bri without addressing my responses. Like I said, your mind is closed. Enough said.

/thread

Your assertion that Genesis is not a creation story is simply absurd. So, there's that.

---

Humans are not gods, no. They are evidence of his creation, just like everything else in existence.

You can look at that any way you like. But If you want physical evidence of God, that's how you're framing the question, then his physical creation is all around you.

There is no proving independently that God made anything. I thought we'd established that. Unless you know different of course.

Carry on.

Nope - there is no evidence for your assertions; you haven't even tried to present any. Scientists have very good explanations for where humans came from, you don't. All you have is 'feels'.

So I will dismiss your unsupported, unevidenced assertions..

---

I never assumed God as a child. I grew up in a disbelieving family. God was never really considered. It wasn't until my mid 20's that I reasoned to believe.

The mid 20's is the most common time for the onset of schizophrenia. Just sayin'.