Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Davian]

...
We know that a square circle is impossible because it is an incoherent concept. Not so with God. The concept of the Christian god is totally coherent. You may not believe he exists, but that does not mean he's incoherent.

It depends on your particular "God" concept. Does your "God" concept require that the Earth be less than 10000 years old, and that the Earth's population of animals, including humans, are descendants of a tiny group that survived, in a boat that cannot be built, a global flood that left no evidence, missed wiping out the Chinese civilization of the time, yet killed all the dinosaurs in a manner that give palaeontologists the impression through independent and repeatable methodology that it happened more than 65 millions years ago, in almost complete contrast to almost all of modern scientific knowledge on geology, genetics, astronomy, and astrophysics?

That "God" concept is not coherent to me.

 

[TillICollapse]

Not so. Evidence is subjective. Always has been. Evidence of something is only what you choose to accept.

I see the end of this train of thought as being some form of solipsism.

 

[Davian]

No, and I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Post #607: You said: "Show me an example of an inanimate and unintelligent thing creating something like a car or airplane, for example."

No, because it's already been created. You have to deduce it had a designer, that's the point.

You said creating, not created. No cheating.

When you see a car or an airplane, do you think that a tree made them? Of course not. You automatically claim an intelligence did. Now why not the same with the universe?

It does not appear designed to me. What would you provide as an example of something not designed?

 

[Kirsten]

Post #697: You said: "Show me an example of an inanimate and unintelligent thing creating something like a car or airplane, for example."

You said creating, not created. No cheating.

It does not appear designed to me. What would you provide as an example of something not designed?

Chaos.

 

[Kirsten]

I see the end of this train of thought as being some form of solipsism.

You seem to be confusing evidence with proof.

 

[HitchSlap]

Not so. Evidence is subjective. Always has been. Evidence of something is only what you choose to accept.

Nope. Evidence has always been demonstrably objective and verifiable. It's the hallmark of the scientific method. Evidence of something is what one chooses to accept, or not. Unfortunately, many theists reject sound, objective evidence, for personal religious reasons.

 

[Davian]

The universe is the evidence.

In this current context, it is also evidence for that multiverse toaster-oven analog mentioned earlier.

Extra-biblically

I do not recognize the bible as an authority on... anything.

and outside of personal experience,

Personal experience is unreliable.

at least. Check out the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Even if it were not faulty, it would not point to a biblical-type god. The argument from design works against that type of god.

 

[HitchSlap]

The point is that evidence really isn't evaluated very objectively. It's often evaluated based upon one's own beliefs. So if you're an atheist, you'll deny what theists believe are obvious pieces of evidence for a Creator.

Of course it is. If we both weigh the same rock, will be have two different answers? Of course it wouldn't, and this fact would be a fact regardless of if I believed in leprechauns and you didn't.

 

[Davian]

The point is that evidence really isn't evaluated very objectively. It's often evaluated based upon one's own beliefs. So if you're an atheist, you'll deny what theists believe are obvious pieces of evidence for a Creator.

Then present what you feel is evidence in a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Define the terms you use with a positive ontology.

 

[Kirsten]

Nope. Evidence has always been demonstrably objective and verifiable. It's the hallmark of the scientific method. Evidence of something is what one chooses to accept, or not. Unfortunately, many theists reject sound, objective evidence, for personal religious reasons.

Evidence and proof are not the same thing. Evidence is something that convinces the observer that it is true or not. Proof is indisputable fact.

 

[HitchSlap]

This passage references all three as if speaking of the same God who is one.
Romans 8
10If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Romans was written a few decades before the gospels, and Paul never physically met Jesus, and in just about every mention of Jesus, he's referred to in the "spiritual" or heavenly sense.

 

[Kirsten]

Romans was written a few decades before the gospels, and Paul never physically met Jesus, and in just about every mention of Jesus, he's referred to in the "spiritual" or heavenly sense.

And?

 

[HitchSlap]

Evidence and proof are not the same thing. Evidence is something that convinces the observer that it is true or not. Proof is indisputable fact.

I'm not interested in proof (only good for alcohol and math )
Evidence is independently verifiable and considered factual.

 

[HitchSlap]

And?

Paul was most definitely not teach "trinity" here.

 

[Kirsten]

I'm not interested in proof (only good for alcohol and math )
Evidence is independently verifiable and considered factual.

It is only considered factual, it is not actually factual or at least, not provable. If it were factual, it would be referred to as fact and/or proof, not evidence. Evidence is always subject to the observer.

 

[Kirsten]

Paul was most definitely not teach "trinity" here.

He wasn't teaching at all, he was merely interchanging God, Jesus and The Spirit, because He understood them to be separate yet one.

 

[Davian]

Chaos.

What chaos, specifically?

 

[TillICollapse]

You seem to be confusing evidence with proof.

On what basis are you saying that ?

 

[Kirsten]

What chaos, specifically?

If there were no order, life as we know it would not exist.

 

[Kirsten]

On what basis are you saying that ?

Scientists use the term "evidence" because theories are largely based on educated guesses. This is why theories change based on relevant and new data. Proof is what it is and never changes.