How Much Evidence Will It Take You To Believe In God???

[Ben Davis]

[I_am_not_mafia]

What does it mean to deny god?

1) Deny the existence of god because evidence suggests that there are better explanations?
2) Deny claims for the existence of god that are unsubstantiated because there is no evidence for it?
3) Deny a real god despite knowing that it exists?

Only gnostic atheists like myself do 1) and 2). Most atheists do 2). Only theists think that atheists do 3)

1)Opinion Then, it would seem, that without God you would have to explain how the universe came into existence.  Can you please do that?  Tell us how the universe came into existence from your atheistic perspective?

2)There is no evidence for God, You can't say that because you have not looked at all evidence in the world. That isn't possible.

3)True and already proved on page 1.

1) Not opinion but evidence. The existence of the modern world is testament to the validity of science. It would not exist were it not for science. Science can explain to a greater or lesser extent how everything has come about since the Big Bang. We don't know everything, like for example why the Big Bang happened. But we know enough to make any form of god completely irrelevant to every day life. The gap that God can fit into is getting smaller the more we learn. This is why we no longer have a god of thunder for example. As for how the universe came into existence, we know that energy cannot be created not destroyed, but we know that matter came from energy. Can a universe consisting of nothing but energy be rightfully deemed to exist?

2) I do not need to look at all the evidence in the world. First there are enough theists looking for evidence who would only be too happy to tell us all about it if they ever found any. No evidence that stands up to any scrutiny has yet been found. Secondly, there can be no evidence because a god can't even be defined. You would first need to know what a god was in order to show evidence for it. No one can come up with a proper definition of what a god could even be.

3) So you are openly admitting that you are making a strawman argument.

[pocaracas]

Oh, the Irony!

 Perhaps you could tell me how that is not arrogant.

Perhaps I could... but your posting history shows that you are unable to understand. Either poe, or way too deluded.
So... perhaps you could tell me why I should bother.

[brewer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuP4c2MR37E

[Angrboda]

Edward John:  Your arguments are terrible.  That you think you have provided enough evidence to persuade an open minded person is likely the result of you not being very smart.  It takes brains and a willingness to consider alternatives to mount a convincing case.  You have neither of these.  You provide poorly framed arguments for your God and have the cheek to format it in large colorful fonts as if we were children that you had to speak down to.  If you want to know why you've failed to convince, then I suggest you look in the mirror.

point 1:  God isn't "the best explanation" for anything.  God is an explanation, but not a very good one.  God as an explanation has great explanatory scope, meaning that it can account for a wide variety of facts.  But that is the only virtue that God as an explanation has.  There are other virtues we look for in an explanation which are lacking in your God explanation.  One of these is explanatory power, which is the quality of increasing our understanding of the phenomenon on account of the explanation.  This is usually done by providing a mechanism of action by which to understand the phenomenon.  Your God explanation is notably deficient in this area in that the only mechanism postulated is, "it's magic."  Saying that it "just happened" does as much to illuminate the underlying mechanism as your God explanation does.  There are other qualities that we look for in a good explanation that are not found in your God explanation.  One of these is the ability to make predictions based on the explanation.  "Goddidit" provides no useful predictions.  In summation, far from being the "best" explanation for these things, it's hardly an explanation at all.  At best it's a very poor one.

So you deny god.  You don't lack belief, or have a non position. You openly deny. Since you cannot demonstrate that there is no God, all you have is your opinion.  Why are you in here arguing about your opinion?  I think it is arrogant for you to want others to believe in your opinion.

I deny that your evidence is any good. And you're a hypocrite if you believe me arrogant for representing my opinion, for that's exactly what you're doing with this so-called evidence of yours. It's just your opinion that it is sufficient.

[Edwardo Piet]

Guys, guys, guys, guys GUYS!!!!

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

So you deny god.  You don't lack belief, or have a non position. You openly deny. Since you cannot demonstrate that there is no God, all you have is your opinion.  Why are you in here arguing about your opinion?  I think it is arrogant for you to want others to believe in your opinion.

  

I deny that your evidence is any good. And you're a hypocrite if you believe me arrogant for representing my opinion, for that's exactly what you're doing with this so-called evidence of yours. It's just your opinion that it is sufficient.

I'm interested in reading your response to Jörmungandr's  statement, Edward John.  To be clear, I realize that your faith is special to you and makes you a unique individual. However, as the existence of this forum and the secular members on it demonstrates, people can find meaning in their lives via different worldviews and sense-making processes.  Hence, why should any particular worldview assert itself as representing the truth, particularly if there exists the possibility that there are so many ways of thinking about and understanding reality that we just haven't discovered yet?

[Mister Agenda]

Edward John:  Your arguments are terrible.  That you think you have provided enough evidence to persuade an open minded person is likely the result of you not being very smart.  It takes brains and a willingness to consider alternatives to mount a convincing case.  You have neither of these.  You provide poorly framed arguments for your God and have the cheek to format it in large colorful fonts as if we were children that you had to speak down to.  If you want to know why you've failed to convince, then I suggest you look in the mirror.

point 1:  God isn't "the best explanation" for anything.  God is an explanation, but not a very good one.  God as an explanation has great explanatory scope, meaning that it can account for a wide variety of facts.  But that is the only virtue that God as an explanation has.  There are other virtues we look for in an explanation which are lacking in your God explanation.  One of these is explanatory power, which is the quality of increasing our understanding of the phenomenon on account of the explanation.  This is usually done by providing a mechanism of action by which to understand the phenomenon.  Your God explanation is notably deficient in this area in that the only mechanism postulated is, "it's magic."  Saying that it "just happened" does as much to illuminate the underlying mechanism as your God explanation does.  There are other qualities that we look for in a good explanation that are not found in your God explanation.  One of these is the ability to make predictions based on the explanation.  "Goddidit" provides no useful predictions.  In summation, far from being the "best" explanation for these things, it's hardly an explanation at all.  At best it's a very poor one.

So you deny god.  You don't lack belief, or have a non position. You openly deny. Since you cannot demonstrate that there is no God, all you have is your opinion.  Why are you in here arguing about your opinion?  I think it is arrogant for you to want others to believe in your opinion.

Your ability to understand other people's posts is appallingly deficient. Just because God isn't very good as an explanation (doesn't really help us understand what actually happened) doesn't mean it's not the case. Your desperate need to have atheists deny God so they can watch pornography seems to be biasing your understanding of what we actually say.

Btw, there's no statistical evidence that belief in God in general or Christianity in particular prevents people from viewing pornography, so how could not being able to view pornography be a disincentive for atheists to believe? If you imagine that we have too much integrity to cherry pick Christianity for the parts we agree with and ignore or reject the parts that we don't like or find inconvenient, you may be on to something.

[Mister Agenda]

1)Opinion Then, it would seem, that without God you would have to explain how the universe came into existence.  Can you please do that?  Tell us how the universe came into existence from your atheistic perspective?

There is no requirement for an alternate explanation to a made up one. If you say three eyed leprechauns created the universe, I do not have to provide an alternate explanation, you still have to support yours. And maybe look up 'Argument from Ignorance'. But if it's important to you, study cosmology, it's unreasonable to ask for a branch of physics in a forum post.

2)There is no evidence for God, You can't say that because you have not looked at all evidence in the world. That isn't possible.

Good point. We can't know that there's no evidence for God. Only that the people who say there is seem incapable of producing it. It could exist somewhere. Just like evidence for three-eyed leprechauns could exist somewhere. That's not a very good reason to think they're real though, is it?

3)True and already proved on page 1.

As I've noted elsewhere, I think you may not actually understand what the word 'prove' means.

[Mister Agenda]

Oh, the Irony!

 Perhaps you could tell me how that is not arrogant.

Perhaps you could tell us how you're not being hypocritical, since you are so desperate to convert us to your opinion on the same topic.