To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Firsty, the logical conclusion, if God exists, is that everything is evidence. Do you or do you not agree?

Even this isn't "true". "God" could exist without anything being "evidence".

There could exist a "God" that didn't have anything to do with creating the universe.

Also, has anyone given any thought as to what the mechanism could be to enable a "spirit" not of the material world to affect the material world?

Gravity isn't even strong enough to keep the glass in my hand from falling to the floor. It's the whole mass of the Earth against my mass and I'm able to keep the glass in my hand (let's stick with Newtonian physics just to stay on point).

So, there is a disembodied "spirit" that is able to "move mountains". How would this possibly be accomplished other than the cop out response of "God can do anything".

How does one come to the conclusion that God can do anything? Even if you think that nothing can occur without "design" because that's so logical to you. How is it so logical that there could be a spirit who can know everything and do everything in the material world?

You would think that even if we weren't able to devise a test to prove or disprove the existence of God you would think we could scale things back a bit and prove the existence of some sort of spirits in our everyday life.

If there is a world where spirits exist then the palm readers, psychics, etc. should be able to ply their craft legitimately. We should be able to set up a scientifically valid test to affirm or reject the hypothesis. That hasn't successfully happened either.
 
Jan said:
Firsty, the logical conclusion, if God exists, is that everything is evidence. Do you or do you not agree?
Click to expand...

I don't think that I do.

I agree pretty much with Sarkus, I guess. (I find myself agreeing with Sarkus quite a bit, he's one of the brighter bulbs on Sciforums.)

If the word 'God' is defined in such a way that any imaginable state of affairs is consistent with God's existence, then any imaginable state of affairs would be consistent with the existence of a 'God' defined in that way. That's true by definition and it doesn't tell us anything interesting or useful.

But when we push harder, trying to move from 'consistent with' to 'evidence of', we start to encounter problems.

At one end of the spectrum of 'God' definitions, we have something like 'whatever it is that explains why there is something rather than nothing'. At first glance, we might think that any and all being whatsoever must be indisputable evidence for the existence of whatever it is that ultimately explains the existence of being itself. Of course, that doesn't tell us anything about what that hypothetical explanation might be. What's more, we don't really know that an explanation of being itself even exists in principle or what logical shape such an explanation would take if it did. (What could possibly explain the existence of absolutely everything without begging the question or circularity?)

At the other end of the spectrum of 'God' definitions are the anthropomorphic divine persons revealed in various religious traditions and scriptures. There's Yahweh blustering on his mountaintop in Sinai while Moses is afraid to even look, there's Allah revealing his strangely medieval and tribal social order to Mohammed in a cave near Mecca, there's Krishna appearing as chariot driver to Arjuna on the eve of battle, and there's Jesus dying on the cross and rising again from the grave. Obviously we can't say that everything that exists constitutes evidence for the actual existence of the divine protagonist in any particular one of these traditional stories.

It's interesting how many theists move back and forth at will from God as abstract metaphysical function to God as a particular divine person, without acknowledging that these are very different kinds of ideas, and while simply assuming that philosophical arguments for the first kind of concept must somehow also be arguments for the second.
 
Sure it's what you think...The point is that you will give an account of it before God.
 
Seattle said:
Firsty, the logical conclusion, if God exists, is that everything is evidence. Do you or do you not agree?...
Click to expand...
Things don't become evidence just because their source is revealed some other way. It's either evidence or it's not. If it doesn't lead to the source of it's origin itself, then it can't be called evidence.
 
spidergoat said:
Things don't become evidence just because their source is revealed some other way. It's either evidence or it's not. If it doesn't lead to the source of it's origin itself, then it can't be called evidence.
Click to expand...
Yes, and there will be no pleading the 5th before Him.
 
spidergoat said:
Your scaremongering can only work on the weak and gullible. Having no faith whatsoever, I'm immune.
Click to expand...
No scaremongering. A rational appeal that you understand by your own admission. Yes, you do have faith... in your own assessments/certainty regarding yourself and your understanding of things around you despite not possessing the requisite knowledge to confirm whether you are right or not.
 
I don't have certainty. I just don't believe it. You can make your ghost story as scary as you want, there aren't any ghosts. The reason I'm so confident that my dismissal won't have any repercussions is that even if you can show there might be a God, you still have all your work ahead of you to show that the piece of shit book known as the Bible has any credibility, and that the Christian interpretation is more correct than the Jewish one or than any number of thousands of deity based religions that exist. Do you have the requisite knowledge? You have yet to show me. And why consider this crazy theory any less crazy than any other random theory? Not every hypothesis deserves equal respect. And you've proven the poverty of your argument by resorting to the threat of punishment. Rational people are better persuaded by a good argument rather than the kind of training I wouldn't use on a dog.
 
Sarkus,

There's anecdotal evidence, but it is more a guess based on what I think our capabilities in this regard are. I wouldn't place my life on it being true, and I'm quite open to evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Yet being in love is so common place, and accepted as something that is real, despite no evidence of it’s existence, unless one has the experiences, and even then it cannot be proven.


What of the term "all" is confusing you so as not to be specific enough?
Click to expand...


It could mean “all” the chocolate marshmallows in South Dakota.


No, one merely has to define God, irrespective of what others might mean it to be. If I define the "God" that I accept as "originator of all" then that is what I have accepted, and it is for evidence of that that I would look for.
What you are requiring is someone to look for evidence ofyour God.
Click to expand...


It doesn’t cut it in a discussion. I’m still non-the-wiser to what you mean by God.


I think it more plausible that the universe began, and after that we make no unwarranted assumptions and don't merely interpret our observations to fit preconceived notions.
Click to expand...


Who decides what is warranted or not?

We have no choice but to assume how the matter manifested into this phenomenal world (especially if you assume it had a beginning), So why not God, as opposed to the illogical, nonsensical notion that nature brought itself into being?


You might want to not be seen to make assumptions, but inside you have already made your choice, and that is decided in how you choose to live, and express your life.

IOW, no one can live without these built in assumptions, which change as you become more experienced in life, and that


Sure, where there is evidence to the contrary we quickly disband with such notions.
Click to expand...


There is never going to be evidence to the contrary of God, and there is never going to be one thing that makes everybody, comprehend, understand, or believe God exists, in one sweep. And it’s quite silly to think that such evidence will arise, unless of course you stick to the idea, justifying to yourself that God does not exist, or that I can believe in God when I’m ready. It’s the kind of mentality that equates God to invisible chocolate space ships, that flies to the planet Kato, every Friday afternoon at precisely 3pm from Regulation Road Community Center in Rotherham.

But where there is no evidence, why accept as true one notion but not the infinite other notions for which there is no evidence that rationally and unambiguously supports the notion?
Click to expand...


Why accept as true that humans have the ability to fall in love for the whole of their lives? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim


The subject matter is all important here. God. Once you accept that God is God, then you are in a much better position to decide what evidence will convince you of His existence, and whether or not you believe in Him.


Oh, look, we're back to the teapot.
Click to expand...


You’re back to the teapot, because for all intent and purpose, that invisible teapot is no different to God. You’re the one who has decided that there is no evidence, and you made that decision through accepting that God does not exist, or defaulted through a poor fund of knowledge regarding the subject. But it is not logical conclusion.


From your point of view, but since it is aimed from the atheist perspective where it is not a strawman, your objection is moot.
Click to expand...


Nope. The atheist perspective is moot, simply because the atheist does not know what he/she talking about when it comes to the subject. Hence silly, absurd explanations.


If I define the "God" that I accept as "originator of all" then that is what I have accepted, and it is for evidence of that that I would look for.
Click to expand...


“All” of what?


What you are requiring is someone to look for evidence ofyour God.
Click to expand...


Why do I require that? It makes no difference to me whether or not people believe in, or accept God. Another misconception, and tell-tale sign of atheism, and a poor fund of knowledge of the subject. You think that the theist has to prove God, to you.


I think it more plausible that the universe began, and after that we make no unwarranted assumptions and don't merely interpret our observations to fit preconceived notions.
Click to expand...


It either began, it didn’t, and you’re right it is more plausible that it began (putting it mildly), but I don’t see what that has to do with my point. There you go with the “unwarranted assumption” accusation again. When dealing with the origin of the material manifestation, there is nothing but assumption from ignorance.


It is a truism.
Click to expand...


That description is like house made of playing cards, when we discuss the notion of God.


However, if God does not exist, then everything is evidence that things can exist without God. Do you or do you not agree?
Click to expand...


I don’t know of anything in this material world, that was not caused by something, so I cannot even imagine that anything could exist without a cause, and as God is defined as The Supreme Cause, and One without a Second.


Assuming that you do, for you must if you understand logic, then the existence of everything is neither evidence for nor against God. i.e. it does not lead rationally nor unambiguously to the conclusion "God".
Click to expand...


I’m not claiming, or even trying to convince you everything IS evidence. It simply stands to reason that if God exists, then everything is evidence of His existence. Right?


It is the existence of God and his mind that is extraordinary... or are you claiming that God is ordinary?
Click to expand...


No I’m not. But why would the evidence be extraordinary?


Sure, and those extraordinary things are only accepted as right when there is evidence to support them.
Click to expand...


You mean like the evidence which supports the knowledge that humans have the ability to be in love for the whole of their life?


It is indeed a nonsense yet that is what you are asking.
Click to expand...


You’re being dishonest now, and it’s becoming tedious.


Jan.
 
The title of this thread is the following:

To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.


​
To Spidergoat, are you opting out of your statement that an example of something with a beginning but without any cause are virtual particles which pop in and out of existence without cause? See Annex, text in bold.

[From Spidergoat] I don't even need to show an example of something that began with no cause.
​
So, you realize that your virtual particles popping in and out of existence without cause are not science but pseudo-science or science fiction.


Now I like to talk with you on two facts:

1. There has always existed something instead of nothing.

2. There has existed a first cause to everything that is with a beginning.​

On Fact #1, tell me Do you concur with or not? You see to me it is obvious to man's reasoning on facts and logic, because if it were not the fact that there has always been something, then it is obvious that we would not be here talking.

As regards #2, tell me Do you concur with me or not? You see to me it is obvious to man's reasoning on facts and logic, there is a first cause to everything with a beginning, because if there were no first cause, then we would not be here talking.

Okay, first tell me if you concur with me or not; if not, then tell me how you come to the conclusion on facts and logic that there has not always existed something instead of nothing, and that there has not existed any first cause to everything with a beginning.



[ Portion in bold of the write-up is from my clone -- kidding only, but not the substance of the text. ]



Annex

spidergoat, Thursday at 8:40 AM Post #226

What empirical data is there on the side of the theist? Absolutely nothing.

To answer your question, I'm not even sure what supernatural is. Is it magic? Your argument has been flawed from the beginning, as I pointed out a long time ago. No one knows if the universe began, and even if it did, it doesn't prove that your definition of God applies. A naturalistic explanation is one that doesn't invoke magic, only known material phenomenon. I don't even need to show an example of something that began with no cause. So what if everything has a cause, you would still have to show that that cause is and can only be a God.
Click to expand...
 
Jan Ardena said:
It doesn’t address God, it addresses a contrived notion of God, by equating God to known childish or silly characters.
Click to expand...

God is a silly childish contrived notion.


Jan Ardena said:
IOW, somebody could come away thinking that I don’t believe in God, because, like invisible trains that live on a planet occupied by invisible trains, I can find no evidence of Him/It.
It says nothing about God.
And if their notion of God is some object like, invisible flying Christmas trees, then they’re hardly likely to find any evidence. So why bother? Unless of course they come to their senses like their one time like-minded brother, Anthony Flew.
Click to expand...

You are hardly likely to find any evidence. You certainly aren't presenting any. It's possible you will come to your senses someday.
 
spidergoat said:
The reason I'm so confident that my dismissal won't have any repercussions is that even if you can show there might be a God, you still have all your work ahead of you to show that the piece of shit book known as the Bible has any credibility...
Click to expand...
Baloney... it is not my job to show you anything of the sort...the work of discovering the TRUTH for yourself is your responsibility. --> "He that comes to God must believe that He exists (that's #1), and, (#2) that He is a rewarder of them that diligently* seek Him." Hebrews 11:6 --> "You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you,' declares the LORD" Jeremiah 29: 13-14

So, you can see--according to His Word--He invites you to come to Him.

*Definition of DILIGENT
: characterized by steady, earnest, and energetic effort : painstaking
 
Photizo said:
Baloney... it is not my job to show you anything of the sort...the work of discovering the TRUTH for yourself is your responsibility. --> "He that comes to God must believe that He exists (that's #1), and, (#2) that He is a rewarder of them that diligently* seek Him." Hebrews 11:6 --> "You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you,' declares the LORD" Jeremiah 29: 13-14

So, you can see--according to His Word--He invites you to come to Him.

*Definition of DILIGENT
: characterized by steady, earnest, and energetic effort : painstaking
Click to expand...

There is no according to his word until it comes out of hiding & shows itself.
Meanwhile, trying to put the responsibility on puny humans rather than a supposedly omnipotent god is just plain ridiculous. And lazy & irresponsible.
If you make a claim, it is your responsibility to present evidence.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
There is no according to his word until it comes out of hiding & shows itself...
If you make a claim, it is your responsibility to present evidence.
Click to expand...

God is making the claims (and an invitation). He has indeed come out of hiding and shown Himself...He has presented evidence: His Son, Jesus Christ. If you want to know Him, you will. God promises this.
Further evidence would be the change that you yourself would undergo...this would be observable and tangible to yourself and others who know you personally...i.e.what's with him? He used to be so antagonistic or indifferent about Jesus and God, now he speaks of both to everyone he knows...and his behaviors and language have changed...he used to be etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top