Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[nonbeliever314]

Athiesism is accusatory in nature that creates conflict by saying that God doesn't exist. I thought you can figure that one out yourself.

You cannot say a person doesn't exist, just because you can't demonstrate their existence. So most arguments that you have made as an atheists are accusatory in nature by first denying the existence of God, then ridiculing Christians who have come to experience God in a real and tangible way that they can't demonstrate to you, because it is their PERSONAL experience. So your accusations even in your previous posts are based on accusations and of ridiculing people of their belief, because you have come at a conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Your whole take as an atheist is based on an accusatory role and not a defensive one to proof why you believe that God doesn't exist. You know very well that you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, so in that regard what is left?

Your accusations that fly left, right and centre at every believer. This is the perceived accusatory position that you have taken on board as an atheist, which is now been proven to be in denial of thier very own actions as false accusers.

You need to see the fallacy and irony behind the atheist position. It has to be one of the most absurd and laughable position that an intellectual person can take on board without accepting the role of accuser.

Do you see the irony friend, do you?

I've been called a sinner, told I was going to hell, etc, because I don't think what you believe in is real. Accusatory? You should check out the thread on this forum about same sex marriage. I'm not even gay, but it made me so angry if I would of opened my mouth I would have gotten banned from the site.

 

[SkyWriting]

What is this? A god must have believers in order to exist? Who made that rule?

Things that exist must have believers. It's Solipsism.

Read more at: http://www.learning-mind.com/10-mind-blowing-theories-that-will-change-your-perception-of-the-world/.

 

[SkyWriting]

I do not seek truth. I look for accurate descriptions of reality.

Accurate in your mind.

 

[SkyWriting]

I do not take issue with dreams, unless you were attempting to use them in the context of philosophy of mind as some sort of evidence for dualism.

No. I think you only exist in your mind.

 

[Berean777]

God can be experienced by all and learning from Jesus is the first step to knowing God. Then by faith and truthfulness a willing person can walk in his light. That is living the real life.

 

[SkyWriting]

AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE GOD OF THE BIBLE'S EXISTENCE.
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. (NOAH'S ARK)

Impossible is a pretty big word. I'm not sure you are adequate to prove your stand.
You have a lot of ground to cover. Especially the miracle parts.

 

[bhsmte]

God can be experienced by all and learning from Jesus is the first step to knowing God. Then by faith and truthfulness a willing person can walk in his light. That is living the real life.

Are you accusing those who don't believe in a God of not living a "real" life?

 

[nonbeliever314]

Impossible is a pretty big word. I'm not sure you are adequate to prove your stand.
You have a lot of ground to cover. Especially the miracle parts.

You can barely fit a descent amount of animals in a zoo. But of course you can put a lot more on an ancient wooden boat. Have you witnessed a miracle?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I do not believe it is possible that the universe formed through natural processes.

So what's your point?

So why have you a priori ruled out natural processes?

 

[Davian]

Things that exist must have believers.

The universe seems to have gotten along for several billions years prior to emergence of humans on this planet.

It's Solipsism.

Solipsism fails, in that if we can hypothesize and test the 'reality' we observe, and it behaves in a consistent manner, there is no effective difference.

Read more at: http://www.learning-mind.com/10-mind-blowing-theories-that-will-change-your-perception-of-the-world/.

Anything in there relevant to the OP?

 

[Davian]

Accurate in your mind.

In mine, and others, and as much as possible, testable and falsifiable. Subject to change with new information.

I do not consider my opinion to be truth.

 

[bhsmte]

So why have you a priori ruled out natural processes?

Why include something that would crater his theology?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You couldn't be more wrong.
A. The purpose of the KCA I advocate is to determine if it is reasonable to believe that the universe had a cause.
This is analogous to testing out the gloves in the OJ Simpson trial to see if the stain on them is really blood.

B. Now analyzing the traits of the cause of the universe narrows down the list to:
1. The Christian god
2. The Muslim god
3. The Jewish god
4. A mean god
5. (From other suggestions) An immaterial being pretending to be a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
6. (From other suggestions) An immaterial being pretending to be an Eternal Flame.
This is analogous to listing the possible suspects who belong in the gene pool of the blood cited in A.

From these two pieces of evidence alone, one cannot prove that the blood is really OJ's, but it rules out a whole bunch of other candidates.

That list is not exhaustive. There are various other supernatural candidates, including polytheistic ones. You also haven't included natural mechanisms as a candidate. Why?

By the way, the Divine Flame is not "pretending" to be anything other than a flame. It is an impersonal, nongaseous flame.

This thread doesn't seem to require that I provide proof positive that God created the universe. So supporting arguments are allowed, and the KCA is one of the best.

The KCA is only a supporting argument if you include the additional conclusion that God is the cause.

If you can read black print on white paper you will not find the phrase "God did it" in the following conclusion of the KCA that I advocate:
"Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's existence."

Then we can ignore the KCA you advocate - it's not relevant to the thread.

I find this utterly amazing coming from you. You would actually have me agree with you that my version of the KCA ends with the conclusion of "Therefore, God did it" and thus purposefully commit a logical fallacy.

The unstated conclusion.

Speaking for myself, I would rather make an intellectually honest argument than win a debate.

Are you accusing me of intellectual dishonesty?

 

[Davian]

No. I think you only exist in your mind.

In the context of the modern philosophy of mind, that would be accurate. "I" exist - my phenomenal self - as needed by my brain as a component of how the brain processes information. When my body sleeps tonight, "I" will cease to exist. I will remember being me tomorrow morning when my body wakes.

 

[Davian]

God can be experienced by all and learning from Jesus is the first step to knowing God. Then by faith and truthfulness a willing person can walk in his light.

I am sceptical that your opinion is "truth".

That is living the real life.

Should not the "real" life be able to be demonstrated to comport with reality?

 

[Davian]

Impossible is a pretty big word.

Impossible - not able to occur, exist, or be done.
- "a seemingly impossible task"
- synonyms: not possible, out of the question, unfeasible, impractical, impracticable, nonviable, unworkable;

Having seem many attempts by motivated individuals to create a biblical-flavoured ark, I will tentatively conclude that it remains impossible until new information is presented.

I'm not sure you are adequate to prove your stand.
You have a lot of ground to cover. Especially the miracle parts.

Can you provide an example of a "miracle" that could not be explained by a hoax, a fraud, a hallucination, an exaggeration, or an outright fabrication?

 

[Davian]

So why have you a priori ruled out natural processes?

Just guessing, but that may be incompatible with the conclusion that he began with.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since we have been discussing the Big Bang and whether it supports the second premise of the KCA, this would seem to be relevant:

 

[SkyWriting]

Having seem many attempts by motivated individuals to create a biblical-flavoured ark, I will tentatively conclude that it remains impossible until new information is presented.

So people have failed to build an Ark? Your own testimony negates your claim.

Some have shown the Ark design to be too weak to stand up to waves.
They took the idea that it existed from scripture.
They took the construction method from scripture.
But then they added their own idea of storm waves........not found in scripture.
And high winds........not found in scripture.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Possibly. Thanks for agreeing with me in that it would be philosophers who we would consult in order to consider the nature of reality.

The bottom line is this: if one cares enough about the question of the universe's origins, one cannot avoid astrophysics; it becomes a necessity. Likewise, if one cares enough about the nature of consciousness, one cannot avoid psychology and neuroscience. These mysteries are not easily understood from just an armchair, and I believe that most philosophers recognise this, which is why they often collaborate with scientists.