Ybe an atheist

[The Grand Nudger]

If no G, then no R
there is  R
So not no G or G

Ridiculous on it;s face. I remain unconvinced, therefore it is reasonable for me to remain an atheist. Your argument fails to meet a reasonable standard..therefore it is irrational for you to believe in a god on the basis of it.

If there are no cupcakes, then there are no green left handed widgets
There are green left handed widgets
Therefore there are cupcakes

[downbeatplumb]

The other post is not how I wanted it so to clear it up I will make this short and sweet. Sorry, it will be a question, but hopefully it will make my point.

So, are you also going to join the A(elephants in the kitchen forum) and the  A(gnomes) forums and tell people I just don't see enough evidence for those and make spout more illogical reasons for being one of those?

If the elephant in my kitchen and underpant gnome believers banded together in sufficient numbers threatening to impose some dark aspect of their idiocy on me or others and undermine education by insisting that underpant gnome existence be taught as fac,t then you bet your arse I would.


As it happens, if theists did not try impose their awful view of morality and facts on the world there would be no one having to point out the idiocy of their stance.

[purplepurpose]

If no G, then no R 
there is  R
So not no G or G

If there is no Zeus, then there is no lightning
there is lightning
Zeus exists...

[downbeatplumb]

It is clear that you are testifying no evidence that should prove God has been presented. I simply take it as a testimony, and not a justification of that claim. That is until you go through all the evidence you have been presented or have access to,  and show how it's wrong, and not conclusive, then it's not really convincing to me that evidence has not been shown to you.

Can you provide evidence that a slowly rotating chicken nugget is NOT currently making its way to the earths core, protected by the will of a Serbian goat that harbours a secret desire to star in the next bond film.


Where is your evidence that contradicts that?


For every thing you say I can come up with a reason why it would be wrong, just as long as no evidence is required FOR my assertion.

Are you willing to play?

[Mystic]

downbeatplumb, if you don't care to know if God exists or not, that is one thing, and I believe that is more irrational stance to take, since God by definition is well God.

But if you say there is no evidence, and many humans are claiming there is evidence for God, then if you are going to dismiss the evidence,  for it to be on par with the evidence should refute the evidence analytically and thoroughly while understanding it.

Otherwise, it's a claim, that Theists ought to not take seriously, that there is no evidence, when most Atheists aren't willing to show there is none.

[drfuzzy]

downbeatplumb, if you don't care to know if God exists or not, that is one thing, and I believe that is more irrational stance to take, since God by definition is well God.

But if you say there is no evidence, and many humans are claiming there is evidence for God, then if you are going to dismiss the evidence,  for it to be on par with the evidence should refute the evidence analytically and thoroughly while understanding it.

Otherwise, it's a claim, that Theists ought to not take seriously, that there is no evidence, when most Atheists aren't willing to show there is none.

You can't prove a negative.
No concrete scientific evidence exists.
Theists claim that God exists.  We see no evidence, only a lot of talk.  The one who makes the claim must prove the claim.
It is up to theists to provide the evidence.  When concrete scientific evidence is provided, there will be no more atheists.

[brewer]

downbeatplumb, if you don't care to know if God exists or not, that is one thing, and I believe that is more irrational stance to take, since God by definition is well God.

But if you say there is no evidence, and many humans are claiming there is evidence for God, then if you are going to dismiss the evidence,  for it to be on par with the evidence should refute the evidence analytically and thoroughly while understanding it.

Otherwise, it's a claim, that Theists ought to not take seriously, that there is no evidence, when most Atheists aren't willing to show there is none.

bold mine

First, define god please.

Second, consider us the non bridge jumpers.

[Angrboda]

Here is a proof for G.

If no G, then no R
there is  R
So not no G or G

R = reasoning the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.
G you know G.
G is the support for R and everything:
- thinking the future will be like it was in the past
-  why we call something good or evil
- Love
- logic
Bye for now tommorrow is Friday and I have to work early and so time is up.... its 12 am here Friday

I don't find your TAG argument at all persuasive, and it has been addressed in the literature (for example, Does Induction Presume the Existence of the Christian God?).

Moar.

When we look at reality, we usually explain things in terms of more primitive laws or principles. But eventually, you come to the bottom. These elementary principles, which can’t be defined in terms of anything more fundamental, are called axioms. There aren’t many of these, but there are more than zero.

Apologists claim that they can do better than this—they rest everything on just “God did it.”

The first problem is that this is stated as a theological claim, not as evidence. Problem two is that they’ve simply replaced natural axioms with others that they prefer. There are still axioms at the bottom, so this is no improvement.

Like naturalists, apologists agree that you’ve got to stop somewhere; it’s just that their stopping point is based on nothing. It has no evidence to support it. Contrast that with the naturalists’ logical and mathematical axioms. Unlike God, these aren’t taken on faith. They’re tested continually. Why would we want to ground the one that is strongly confirmed with evidence (logic) with the one that isn’t (God)? Why demand something solid to hold up the fundamental axioms but then use faith to hold up God?

I’ll admit that “that’s just the way it is” isn’t completely satisfying, but “God did it” resolves nothing. The apologist won’t tell us why or how God exists; he just exists. This informs us as much as “fairies did it.” But if the Christian can have a fundamental assumption about reality (God), so can the naturalist (natural axioms).

Show me that the laws of logic are optional or different in an alternate universe. Otherwise, we can presume that the logic that we have is universal.

Let’s say instead that reality just has properties. Or: properties are a consequence of reality. A universe with zero axioms is a universe without properties. Could such a universe even exist? Is that what a godless universe would look like? I await the evidence.

A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (2 of 3)

[downbeatplumb]

downbeatplumb, if you don't care to know if God exists or not, that is one thing, and I believe that is more irrational stance to take, since God by definition is well God.

But if you say there is no evidence, and many humans are claiming there is evidence for God, then if you are going to dismiss the evidence,  for it to be on par with the evidence should refute the evidence analytically and thoroughly while understanding it.

Otherwise, it's a claim, that Theists ought to not take seriously, that there is no evidence, when most Atheists aren't willing to show there is none.

"God by definition is god" is not very helpful is it.
Brexit means Brexit.
Flibblejim means flibblejim.

What is a god? s
What is it made of?
Where did it come from?
How did it do the things its supposed to?
Why did it do them?
Where is your evidence for all the above?

[Mystic]

downbeatplumb, if you don't care to know if God exists or not, that is one thing, and I believe that is more irrational stance to take, since God by definition is well God.

But if you say there is no evidence, and many humans are claiming there is evidence for God, then if you are going to dismiss the evidence,  for it to be on par with the evidence should refute the evidence analytically and thoroughly while understanding it.

Otherwise, it's a claim, that Theists ought to not take seriously, that there is no evidence, when most Atheists aren't willing to show there is none.

"God by definition is god" is not very helpful is it.
Brexit means Brexit.
Flibblejim means flibblejim.

What is a god? s
What is it made of?
Where did it come from?
How did it do the things its supposed to?
Why did it do them?
Where is your evidence for all the above?

It doesn't matter what is as far apathy goes, since by definition it is "God", it doesn't make sense to be apathetic towards it, rather, one must strive to find out whether it exists or doesn't.