Prove god exists.

[robvalue]

Lek, you're making the exact same argument from ignorance again. Please look it up, I have an explanation about it on my website under logical fallacies and you can find it on Wikipedia. It's a broken way of thinking, to make and hold onto unfalsifiable claims. You need to realize this is an error if you are at all interested in truth. I'm not having a go at you, it's probably the most common fallacy committed by theists. Most of them don't give a shit that their arguments are broken, as they have routinely demonstrated, but I feel you are more concerned with them than truth. If I'm correct, please check it out or else it's just not possible to have meaningful discussion. Otherwise, it's like playing chess with someone who keeps trying to move their rook diagonally.

Here:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!argumen...lity/c1831

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

And here's a question: we have a sample size of one universe. What would a "non created" universe look like, and how do you know this?

[Lek]

Lek, you're making the exact same argument from ignorance again. Please look it up, I have an explanation about it on my website under logical fallacies and you can find it on Wikipedia. It's a broken way of thinking, to make and hold onto unfalsifiable claims. You need to realize this is an error if you are at all interested in truth. I'm not having a go at you, it's probably the most common fallacy committed by theists. Most of them don't give a shit that their arguments are broken, as they have routinely demonstrated, but I feel you are more concerned with them than truth. If I'm correct, please check it out or else it's just not possible to have meaningful discussion. Otherwise, it's like playing chess with someone who keeps trying to move their rook diagonally.

Here:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!argumen...lity/c1831

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

And here's a question: we have a sample size of one universe. What would a "non created" universe look like, and how do you know this?

Actually, I do understand what you're saying, but I'm not trying to scientifically prove God. I am ignorant of any scientific evidence that would prove the existence of God, but I'm not making an argument from that ignorance. I am saying that I believe in God and then I'm stating things that help support that belief. I'm not really trying to prove my position is true, but rather I am bringing up things that re-enforce or support my belief. If someone asks me why I believe in God, I would say that God put that belief in me and that these things support that belief in myself.

[robvalue]

OK cool. Well if you're happy with it, then that's fine Just trying to help you out, in case you want to debate points. If that's not your intention, then it's nothing to worry about.

I'm wondering if we need some sort of convention to say "this is a point I want to debate", or "this is a point I'd like opinions on" or "this is just my opinion/belief and I'm not putting it forward for debate".

[Lek]

OK cool. Well if you're happy with it, then that's fine Just trying to help you out, in case you want to debate points. If that's not your intention, then it's nothing to worry about.

I'm wondering if we need some sort of convention to say "this is a point I want to debate", or "this is a point I'd like opinions on" or "this is just my opinion/belief and I'm not putting it forward for debate".

Yeah. If there is one thing this forum has done for me, it has made me clear away all the extraneous stuff and try to pinpoint the real reason I believe in God. I came into it thinking that there was scientific evidence that could be used to prove God's existence, but there is not. At the same time, when many of us look around or contemplate the cosmos, we see God there. What comes across as evidence for me, wouldn't always pass as scientific evidence. Sadly, I believe that most of the time we're not arguing on common grounds, and consequently we can never come to a conclusion that suits both of us unless one goes over to the other side. Maybe the best that come from these discussions is gaining an understanding of the other person's worldview and then living with that.

[FatAndFaithless]

I came into it thinking that there was scientific evidence that could be used to prove God's existence, but there is not.

Thank you for being honest on that point. We generally tend to argue in scientific terms because the evidence procured by science is accessible and replicatable by anyone, and thus isn't reliant on personal experience.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Great. Now please explain how the existence of the Universe serves as evidence.

Things without a purpose end up in disarray.

What if disarray is the purpose?

[robvalue]

Lek: Well, I am very confident that the reason you believe, and specifically believe in christianity, is because you were raised to believe it. But that's just my speculation. It's up to you whether you think that's true, and whether you think it's a good enough reason. It's good you are honest enough to say there is no actual scientific evidence.

I don't know how you can look at the universe and see it as evidence specifically for the character in a story book. You need to already have accepted that the story book is somehow true with no evidence to support that. And why would you do that? Because your mind had been trained to do it.

But that's all just my opinion, and I'll leave you alone now until such time you'd like my opinion on something

[Pizza]

@Lek How do you handle the best of a bad lot problem? If you have a set of terrible explanations, the "best" of that set is still terrible. I think atheists can easily level this criticism at every supernatural explanation.

[Cephus]

Dyres...more of these kind of threads...? ಠ_ಠ

These really are the only kinds of threads that matter when it comes to religion because if the theist fails here, then nothing they have to say makes any difference. Every other claim they make is based on this belief. If this belief falls, everything else does as well.

It's made me come up with the "3 second debate" strategy. The theist has to prove their initial claim, the existence of a god or the debate is over. This usually takes about 3 seconds.

[Tonus]

Don't you think though that it would be a bit boring of God to make Himself obvious enough that His existence could be proved with the scientific method? For there to be a question regarding His existence makes it a lot more interesting.

See, this is what happens when god just up and disappears for thousands of years. Theists finally come to the conclusion that the utter absence of any real evidence of god is a good thing.