Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe

[(Q)]

What was it about learning science that lead you to believe there is no God?

It's mostly the fact that science has shown us that gods are not necessary for anything, so believing in them is a personal thing just like believing in a flat earth.

 

[(Q)]

Okay. What evidence would convince you that such a being could be real. I’ll start off with the obvious one “the creation” itself

That's as obvious as a flat earth until of course one starts looking at facts and evidence.

 

[(Q)]

So what is your definition of God?

If the definition of God is personal, shouldn't also the belief in God be same?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay. What evidence would convince you that such a being could be real. I’ll start off with the obvious one “the creation” itself

Oblivious to reality.

 

[Pinball1970]

If the definition of God is personal, shouldn't also the belief in God be same?

Good posts for a newbie!

EDIT: Checks status of (Q) 23 years on the site!? I have only been here 18 months myself ha ha!!

 

[Trek]

Your definition was that God was creator of the universe. What evidence do you have that rules out the Big Bang Theory and rules in the God theory? We have yet to see any from you.

Nevertheless, that is my entry. What is your definition of God?

False. See thread title you like to keep referring to.

Atheists have no obligation but to read and accept or dismiss your evidence.

Nobody has any obligation to say anything on here. But this is a discussion forum.
This silly thread is a perfect opportunity to discuss what lies behind the atheists that frequent this particular forum.
You all basically say the same things, like “there is no evidence for God”. But I’ve realised that quote is nothing but a diversion tactic, as you cannot back it up with reason. Only what amounts to passive-aggressive responses. When asked to elaborate on what is meant by “no evidence”, you have nothing to say.
I finally got into a discussion with Pinball and next thing posts get deleted, or changed to some other non-related thread.

 

[Trek]

It is about the necessity for a God. no?

It is is about showing proof that God is not fictional. A ridiculous thread if ever there was one.

So what is meant by God?
What is meant by evidence of God?
What would be accepted as evidence?
What do you know about God (no matter belief status) that make you think you need evidence to accept that God is real?

I just demonstrated that belief in a god is not necessary, as per Occam's Razor.

It’s obvious that belief in God is not necessary. But it says nothing about God, or whether or not God is real.

I don't see why my argument with proof does not qualify as a model of an observed creative process that does not need a supernatural creator agent.

Because it says nothing about God. Only that you don’t feel it necessary to believe in God

 

[(Q)]

It is is about showing proof that God is not fictional. A ridiculous thread if ever there was one.

So what is meant by God?
What is meant by evidence of God?
What would be accepted as evidence?

Acceptable evidence of God are the very same things that are accepted as evidence for anything and everything else in the universe. That should be obvious.

 

[Trek]

Acceptable evidence of God are the very same things that are accepted as evidence for anything and everything else in the universe. That should be obvious.

Is the criteria for obtaining evidence the same for the existence of electrons, abiogenesis, or the evolution of the humming bird? Or do you require different standards of application based on what is already understood about the particular subject?

 

[Write4U]

Because it says nothing about God. Only that you don’t feel it necessary to believe in God

My argument is that there is no necessity for a god fiddling in a laboratory called Eden to make a living person from a handful of mud.

And if a God is not necessary, why invent it? Back to the unnecessary belief in a FSM .

Don't we know that the first "unnamed" gods were invented by early hominids, from observation of natural phenomena?
These weather gods were the first speculation of the origin of natural environmental dynamics, like thunder and lightning.
Before the question "how?" was asked, there were no gods, yet everything worked just fine for some 14+ billion years.

I provided proof of an alpha chimp defending his family in the face of a thunderstorm caused by an "unseen powerful being" causing loud noises, fire and water that makes his family miserable and afraid. Those natural phenomena were the first observation and speculation about the existence of motivated sky beings.

Belief in gods was an attempt by primitive minds to make sense of naturally occurring processes. If a god is not necessary, it does not "need" to exist.

 

[Trek]

My argument is that there is no necessity for a god fiddling in a laboratory called Eden to make a living person from a handful of mud.

I’m not sure that is an argument as it says nothing about God, only that you believe theism isn’t necessary.

And if a God is not necessary, why invent it? Back to the unnecessary belief in a FSM .

I didn’t invent it.
Did you?
Who invented it?
Where is your evidence for this claim?

Don't we know that the first "unnamed" gods were invented by early hominids, from observation of natural phenomena.

No we don’t.
Please do tell.

These weather gods were the first speculation of the natural environmental dynamics, like thunder and lightning.

Link?

I provided proof of an alpha chimp defending his family in the face of a thunderstorm caused by an "unseen powerful being" causing loud noises, fire and water that makes his family miserable and afraid. Those natural phenomena were the first observation and speculation of motivated sky beings.

How do you know the Alpha chimp thought the storm was caused by an unseen being?

Belief in gods was an attempt by primitive minds to make sense of naturally occurring processes.

Evidence please

 

[Sarkus]

It is about the necessity for a God. no? I just demonstrated that belief in a god is not necessary, as per Occam's Razor.

All you have done is provide grounds for accepting a means by which God could have created Man, and that there might be alternatives to the literal version of Genesis.

You didn't need to go that far to show that belief in God is not necessary, however. After all, whether God exists or not is independent of whether anyone believes in God. This isn't some Pratchettian reality, after all.

If God exists, would he still exist if noone believed in him? Something something something about falling trees.

 

[Write4U]

How do you know the Alpha chimp thought the storm was caused by an unseen being?

Because he was displaying an aggressive defensive posture against an unseen threat from the sky. This was not a passive acceptance of Natural phenomenon. He was running around a clearing waiving a stick to the sky and beating the bushes to impress upon the hidden sky being that he was defending his family against that unwanted assault on their senses.

I have previously posted a NOVA (Youtube) recording made by a research group, observing chimpanzee behavior (a peek into the past) during a thunderstorm in the forest.

This is where the oldest gods came from.

Weather god

A weather god or goddess, also frequently known as a storm god or goddess, is a deity in mythology associated with weather phenomena such as thunder, snow, lightning, rain, wind, storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes. Should they only be in charge of one feature of a storm, they will be called after that attribute, such as a rain god or a lightning/thunder god.

This singular attribute might then be emphasized more than the generic, all-encompassing term "storm god", though with thunder/lightning gods, the two terms seem interchangeable. They feature commonly in polytheistic religions, especially in Proto-Indo-European ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_god

Check out the long list of weather gods, because all surface organisms are exposed to weather phenomena that occur without an observable cause, by unobservable causal processes.

This was the time when the concept of a flat earth made its entrance, an idea that has also met its demise, just like the weather gods of old were eventually relegated to mythology.

 

[Sarkus]

If we can assign phenomena to natural explanation like Life on Earth, Speciation, the formation of the earth solar system that were previously thought as god given, that cannot be used as evidence any more.
As a theist I brushed it off (god allowed it) but it came back to haunt me.

As I've argued here (or was it in the split-off thread? I can't recall) it depends on what you mean by "evidence". Do you mean along the lines of "something that fits the theory" or "something that promotes the theory above others" (or similar).

If the former, then you'll be hard pushed to dispute any evidence that doesn't fit the theory of "God".
If the latter then, given that both theories ("God" and "not God") are both aiming to fit the same observations, and by "observations" I mean ALL observations, then no such evidence will support one theory more than another.

The question of God, in my view, is not one of evidence, but rather one of philosophy. And by that I mean that neither side can ever be shown to be right or wrong (if talking about God rather than, say, a caricature of God, or gods).

Thus seems pointless to ask, and similarly pointless to to try to answer. Asking such a question is really little more than an expression of one's existing position. It's not asked honestly, that's for sure.

 

[DaveC426913]

Nevertheless, that is my entry.

You haven't provided evidence for god creating the universe.

What is your definition of God?

Asked and answered. Remember? You called it silly. That's your problem, not mine.

Nobody has any obligation to say anything on here. But this is a discussion forum.
This silly thread is a perfect opportunity to discuss what lies behind the atheists that frequent this particular forum.

No it isn't. There is a thread for that. Ask there.

You all basically say the same things, like “there is no evidence for God”. But I’ve realised that quote is nothing but a diversion tactic, as you cannot back it up with reason.

You really pretend to not understand the concept that it is impossible to provide evidence for something that does not exist.

I do not believe that the concept escapes you. It is you who is not being serious. I am immune to your complaints as long as you pretend to be oblivious.

Only what amounts to passive-aggressive responses. When asked to elaborate on what is meant by “no evidence”,

There is no elaboration on 'no evidence'. I think you are trolling.

I finally got into a discussion with Pinball and next thing posts get deleted, or changed to some other non-related thread.

Those comments were off topic here and have been moved to an appropriate thread. You know this perfectly well.

 

[Write4U]

(if talking about God rather than, say, a caricature of God, or gods).

Which god from 3000 gods would that be? Note that FSM is a "recent" caricature god, but the list above identifies "real" weather gods that existed before being relegated to mythology. What is the difference between those gods and God? Why was that an easy transferrence? Power/ Obedience?

I believe God is a political figure. Entire Theist cultures have been fashioned in His (whose God?) "honor".

 

[Trek]

You haven't provided evidence for god creating the universe.

The cosmological argument is evidence from the beginning if the universe.

Asked and answered. Remember? You called it silly. That's your problem, not mine.

You said God IS the imagination of 6 billion people, or something to that effect. Was that you (apologies if not)?

No it isn't. There is a thread for that. Ask there.

Which thread would that be?
Bearing in mind I know why I’m asking the questions I ask.

You really pretend to not understand the concept that it is impossible to provide evidence for something that does not exist.

So God does NOT exist?
Why do you think that?

do not believe that the concept escapes you. It is you who is not being serious. I am immune to your complaints as long as you pretend to be oblivious.

I want to know why you believe that Hod does not exist. We’re already in conversation. Let’s just go with it from here on

There is no elaboration on 'no evidence'. I think you are trolling.


Those comments were off topic here and have been moved to an appropriate thread. You know this perfectly well.

 

[Trek]

No, they're just discussions of the evidence. Jurisprudence.

I disagree.
But regardless it is my evidence.
What evidence do you think would convince you that God is real?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Personal chat with Him in person. I'm a very hard sell.

 

[Trek]

What do you mean "your" evidence? Did you write the wiki link? Did you even read it? The link provides arguments AGAINST gods existence as well.

I mean it’s what I have submitted

The link provides arguments AGAINST gods existence as well

Thats ok.

You know god is real right? You feel it? It’s "obvious" right? YOUR experience??

Do you know what a theist is

Religious experiences are subjective and cannot be verified or falsified.

2. If religious experiences cannot be verified or falsified, then they are unreliable as evidence for the existence of God.

3. Therefore, religious experiences are unreliable as evidence for the existence of God."

lol!!! What is your definition of God?

" if God were responsible for creating all life on Earth, then why would he create organisms with such poor design features? For example, why would he create animals with eyes that are poorly designed or prone to disease?"

Nothing here shows that there is no God.
So… what is your definition of God

The argument from naturalism is a philosophical argument that asserts that the natural world is all there is and that supernatural explanations are unnecessary. This argument is based on the premise that the universe operates according to natural laws and that these laws can be discovered through scientific inquiry"

Why are you seemingly afraid to to engage in a discussion about God? As an atheist, I would expect you to have a definition of God. Otherwise what is it you lack belief in?
If you only lack belief in what theists believe, then you aren’t atheist.

atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.