Greetings Atheists

[Cinjin]

God is not a teapot. Unlike an object a God is a force/being which cannot be clearly perceived by humans. God is a concept, something which encompasses the entire universe, exists in every atom of the universe. Therefore arguments for the existence of God(s) must not rely on physical, tangible evince as there is none. Your comparison of God to a teapot shows how little you understand what a theist means when they say 'God(s)'.

I will provide you with an argument for the existence of God(s): Ockham's razor.

hmmmm. Ockham's Razor:

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora

or

When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.

by the way. The Pope in the 14th Century was not a big fan of William of Ockham because of his views on the christian god.

[Jesuslovesyou]

You are possibly being obtuse with regards Russell's Teapot, but if you're being sincere, you've missed the point completely. The point is you are asking people to disprove God, but that isn't how the burden of proof works. Otherwise I could ask you to disprove anything (like the teapot). The burden of proof rests with the claimant.

God is exempt from the burden of proof - he exists in the very fabric of reality.
Can you prove to me what your thoughts are at this very moment? You can only tell me and expect me to believe - does this mean you don't have thoughts?

When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.

There are two theories explaining the creation of the universes and the force which animates it.

Theory one:

The universe existed in a space the size of an atom which expanded rapidly. The contents of the universe exist by chance, including humans.

Theory two:

The universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent force. This force shaped the universe and everything in it, humans are a part of this 'design'.

[KichigaiNeko]

No JLY your deity is on trial here... you are not what is at issue ..evidence is what is at issue for your deity to be acceptable. Which it won't as it is a most unacceptable entity the mankind can dream up.

There are two theories explaining the creation of the universes and the force which animates it.

Not certain that "Black Hole theory" might be inserted here

[ElDinero]

God is exempt from the burden of proof - he exists in the very fabric of reality.
Can you prove to me what your thoughts are at this very moment? You can only tell me and expect me to believe - does this mean you don't have thoughts?

No he isn't. Anything you are claiming exists will have a measurable effect on reality and attracts the same burden of proof. You claim you have proof for it, but haven't put it forward yet. Occam's razor is not proof.

And which God, anyway? Are you arguing for Allah? Apollo? Shiva? Either way, highly recommend you do it in the thread in Religion sub-forum, as that's what it is there for.

[Cinjin]

When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.

There are two theories explaining the creation of the universes and the force which animates it.

Theory one:

The universe existed in a space the size of an atom which expanded rapidly. The contents of the universe exist by chance, including humans.

Theory two:

The universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent force. This force shaped the universe and everything in it, humans are a part of this 'design'.

See? This is not proof of anything. Ockham's Razor is not proof of God. In fact it is rather used often to argue the counter point.

Furthermore, I would advise you to stop making preachy posts such as this. Otherwise you will be banned from these forums - and no one here will give your silly posts a second thought.

[Ace Otana]

There are two theories explaining the creation of the universes and the force which animates it.

Theory one:

The universe existed in a space the size of an atom which expanded rapidly. The contents of the universe exist by chance, including humans.

Theory two:

The universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent force. This force shaped the universe and everything in it, humans are a part of this 'design'.

The later seems far more complex. Also "the force, creator, whatever" was invented by man through pure imagination because such things have not been detected.

[Jesuslovesyou]

No he isn't. Anything you are claiming exists will have a measurable effect on reality and attracts the same burden of proof. You claim you have proof for it, but haven't put it forward yet.

There is no tangible evidence for the existence of God(s), you know that. And the burden of proof lies with Atheists to disprove the existence of God(s). If neither of us can prove/disprove anything then we must accept neither of us it right.

And which God, anyway? Are you arguing for Allah? Apollo? Shiva? Either way, highly recommend you do it in the thread in Religion sub-forum, as that's what it is there for.

I'm arguing for all of them.

I sense there is an anti-religious theme on this forum, specifically anti-Christian. I remind you that religion is not God, and that Christianity is not representative of all religions and their God(s).

Human beings will always use religion as a pretext for evil. But organized religion is not representative of all those who believe in God(s).

Ultimately I want only to prove that you don't know there is no God (which is the definition of Atheist).

The later seems far more complex. Also "the force, creator, whatever" was invented by man through pure imagination because such things have not been detected.

The concept of the 'Atom' was created by man - through pure imagination. No such things have ever been seen, only actions attributed to them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Welcome aboard.

[ElDinero]

Yeah, the thing with Occam's Razor is it's not exactly about the simplest explanation per se. On the face of it 'God did it all' is spectacularly simple. It's more specifically about making the least new assumptions. So for example, we can observe the universe and the planet, we observe the natural world, we see that the natural world works and we know it's there because, you know, it's there. We're making zero assumptions because we see that all this stuff exists. Now if you say 'God caused all this to happen', you've introduced a new part to it. Now we've got to show that this thing exists. Over to you.

---

There is no tangible evidence for the existence of God(s), you know that. And the burden of proof lies with Atheists to disprove the existence of God(s). If neither of us can prove/disprove anything then we must accept neither of us it right.

And which God, anyway? Are you arguing for Allah? Apollo? Shiva? Either way, highly recommend you do it in the thread in Religion sub-forum, as that's what it is there for.

I'm arguing for all of them.

I sense there is an anti-religious theme on this forum, specifically anti-Christian. I remind you that religion is not God, and that Christianity is not representative of all religions and their God(s).

Ultimately I want only to prove that you don't know there is no God (which is the definition of Atheist).

Right, if you're just going to assert that atheism is defined in a way that is untrue, you're on your own, dickhead. We've explained this and explained this and explained this already about ten times. WE DO NOT SEE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE IN GOD.

I've been as patient as I can with you, but if you're just going to keep trotting out your misinformed bullshit, you can get fucked. You said you would be open to evidence and would become an atheist if your arguments were soundly defeated. You can't even get as far as adjusting your definition of atheism, so what hope does that leave me with that you are capable of responding to discussion and evidence?

The only thing you've got right is that there is no tangible evidence for God. If you think you can prove God, go to the correct thread, for the fourth time. Why are you struggling with that, you illiterate cunt?

[Jesuslovesyou]

Yeah, the thing with Occam's Razor is it's not exactly about the simplest explanation per se. On the face of it 'God did it all' is spectacularly simple. It's more specifically about making the least new assumptions. So for example, we can observe the universe and the planet, we observe the natural world, we see that the natural world works and we know it's there because, you know, it's there. We're making zero assumptions because we see that all this stuff exists. Now if you say 'God caused all this to happen', you've introduced a new part to it. Now we've got to show that this thing exists. Over to you.

I think we need to define God(s).

The Christian God has been personified into an old man in the clouds. But the real Christian God is an ineffable being.

I realize many of you consider yourselves to be agnostic rather than atheist - you must make this clear, regardless of what you think an Atheist knows there is no God.