Evidence and causes for doubt

[KevinM1]

"I'm right even when proven wrong. Checkmate, atheists!"

[Simon Moon]

Another quote from WLC -

"I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel.... Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter"

[KevinM1]

That's legitimately frightening. The old "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" meme is supposed to be a joke, dammit.

[Simon Moon]

That's legitimately frightening.  The old "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" meme is supposed to be a joke, dammit.

Yep!

And William Lane Craig is supposed to be among the strongest of the modern Christian philosophers!

And yet, all his arguments are no different than what have been submitted by theists for centuries. Still flawed.

[ignoramus]

I think the question shouldn't even be taken seriously for starters.
All you'll do is encourage the delusion.

We've got 100% proof that God doesn't exist.
It's called no sign or the slightest bit of evidence ever in the history of the world that such a "thing" has existed in reality.

Does he exist outside of our reliality?
Theists, repeat after us: We don't know! We don't even know if there even is an "outside" of reality.
But someone convinced us that there's a boogy man called God, so we're going to hide him where science can never disprove him. Because, because , because life is sad if this is all there is, OK?!
We're more special than that!

[Old Baby]

I never really understood the argument that God must be supernatural or he's not God.

How many phenomena were once believed to be supernatural before they were properly understood?

When I believed, I thought that God was natural but beyond human comprehension. I've read that scientists believe there may be more than 10 dimensions, despite the fact that we humans can only function in three. I just assumed that God could function in every dimension, making him natural but too complex for us to understand.

To this day I have no problem imagining that an infinitely more complex being could exist who would be to us like we are to the single celled organism. I just don't find any compelling reason to believe that any particular world religion knows anything about him or that he could be known or that he is a "he".

[comet]

I never really understood the argument that God must be supernatural or he's not God.

How many phenomena were once believed to be supernatural before they were properly understood?

When I believed, I thought that God was natural but beyond human comprehension.  I've read that scientists believe there may be more than 10 dimensions, despite the fact that we humans can only function in three.  I just assumed that God could function in every dimension, making him natural but too complex for us to understand.

To this day I have no problem imagining that an infinitely more complex being could exist who would be to us like we are to the single celled organism.  I just don't find any compelling reason to believe that any particular world religion knows anything about him or that he could be known or that he is a "he".

same here.  You nailed my position on topic.

[Kiekeben]

[LadyForCamus]

I never really understood the argument that God must be supernatural or he's not God.

How many phenomena were once believed to be supernatural before they were properly understood?

When I believed, I thought that God was natural but beyond human comprehension. I've read that scientists believe there may be more than 10 dimensions, despite the fact that we humans can only function in three. I just assumed that God could function in every dimension, making him natural but too complex for us to understand.

To this day I have no problem imagining that an infinitely more complex being could exist who would be to us like we are to the single celled organism. I just don't find any compelling reason to believe that any particular world religion knows anything about him or that he could be known or that he is a "he".

I think it depends on how you are defining God.

[LadyForCamus]

I think the question shouldn't even be taken seriously for starters.
All you'll do is encourage the delusion.

We've got 100% proof that God doesn't exist.
It's called no sign or the slightest bit of evidence ever in the history of the world that such a "thing" has existed in reality.

Does he exist outside of our reliality?
Theists, repeat after us: We don't know! We don't even know if there even is an "outside" of reality.
But someone convinced us that there's a boogy man called God, so we're going to hide him where science can never disprove him. Because, because , because life is sad if this is all there is, OK?!
We're more special than that!

Sorry for hoping maybe one or two theists might take a few moments for self-reflection...I mean I was a theist once, and others posing questions like these to me is what got me wondering about other possibilities in the first place. I guess I'm still a newbie here in a lot of ways...