20 arguments for the existence of God

[hamashiachagape]

You remember what your topic was, right? Try to stick to it. We've pointed out to you in other threads how atheism can be a lack of belief, you just carefully ignored it.

The topic of the OP (you remember it, right?) is God's existence. Theists claim God exists, so the burden of proof is on them. I claim that God probably doesn't exist because there is no proof. If both sides have to prove their argument, then prove that Allah doesn't exist.



Proof please.

I'm granting you the possibility that Atheism is a lack of belief, but in doing so am subjecting it to the status of relativism. Thats self refuting .

On Theists claiming the existence of God, and therefore the burden of proof is on them...thats special pleading. You're trying to give your position special consideration that is unwarranted. A more appropriate question to ask would be, "Is there a God?"

You were just looking at the proof. If it was a snake, it would have bit you.

 

[awitch]

All you're doing is ignoring the fact that Atheism is a lack of belief is a positive assertion by the Atheist standards, else it could not be held by your standards. Otherwise the dilemma arises, that Atheism can not be held, and its still not foundationally based in truth since it becomes an impossible stance. I say Atheism is just self refuting either way.

How is lack of belief a positive assertion?
Then you're disbelief in the unicorn then is also self refuting.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I believe in God is also an objective statement by your standards. This refutes Atheism by your standards, since we have contradictory claims that exist in the same objective world.

Or I refute you. One or the other.

Actually "I don't believe in God" is a subjective claim.

If you want to be really pedantic, claiming personal thoughts is on the fine line between subjective and objective, because it is not independent to thoughts (subjective), but, should anyone ever learn how to read minds, can be known (objective). Given that it is a statement of fact, not opinion (it's not "I don't think I believe in God", it's "I don't believe in God") I tend to veer towards objective. If we could read minds, we would be able to independently verify it, so it is more objective than subjective.

 

[hamashiachagape]

How is lack of belief a positive assertion?
Then you're disbelief in the unicorn then is also self refuting.

We can refute unicorns, but you can't refute God .

As Alvin Platinga rightfully admits, God is a basically proper belief.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Or I refute you. One or the other.

Then you prove your stance is subjectivism.

If you want to be really pedantic, claiming personal thoughts is on the fine line between subjective and objective, because it is not independent to thoughts (subjective), but, should anyone ever learn how to read minds, can be known (objective). Given that it is a statement of fact, not opinion (it's not "I don't think I believe in God", it's "I don't believe in God") I tend to veer towards objective. If we could read minds, we would be able to independently verify it, so it is more objective than subjective.[/

quote]

Now you are violating the Principle of Excluded Middle. I thought Atheism was supposed to be the more rational belief system?

 

[SithDoughnut]

I'm granting you the possibility that Atheism is a lack of belief, but in doing so am subjecting it to the status of relativism. Thats self refuting .

Nope. It's not relative. I do not believe in God. Fact.

On Theists claiming the existence of God, and therefore the burden of proof is on them...thats special pleading. You're trying to give your position special consideration that is unwarranted. A more appropriate question to ask would be, "Is there a God?"

OK. Prove that Allah doesn't exist.

You were just looking at the proof. If it was a snake, it would have bit you.

Unless it's invisible, there's been no proof yet.

 

[awitch]

We can refute unicorns, but you can't refute God .

Sounds like *you* are special pleading to me.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Nope. It's not relative. I do not believe in God. Fact.

You don't know the difference between Objective and Subjective then. How is Atheism more rational?

OK. Prove that Allah doesn't exist.

Allah does exist.

Unless it's invisible, there's been no proof yet.

Invisible unicorn? Unicorn by definition has a substance to it, thus can not by definition be invisible. Thats where the line is drawn.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Sounds like *you* are special pleading to me.

Am I? Can you refute the being who made you?

 

[awitch]

Invisible unicorn? Unicorn by definition has a substance to it, thus can not by definition be invisible. Thats where the line is drawn.

Then what about the purple flying unicorn from Saturn?

 

[hamashiachagape]

Then what about the purple flying unicorn from Saturn?

It would be finite in status, and thus need a creator itself.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Then you prove your stance is subjectivism.

Just because we don't know the answer, that doesn't make it subjective. If you don't know the answer to the question "Differentiate 2x", the answer is still objective.

Now you are violating the Principle of Excluded Middle. I thought Atheism was supposed to be the more rational belief system?

I wasn't. Semantics is not a true/false topic. If you are that worried though, then the phrase "I don't believe in God" is objective, because if we could mind-read, it could be independently be verified. As long as something can be logically independently verified, whether the method is currently possible or not, it is objective. It would only be subjective if other people's viewpoints counted, and they don't.

 

[awitch]

It would be finite in status, and thus need a creator itself.

It's creator was it's parents; the red and blue flying unicorns. According to your logic, you must now prove that all 3 do not exist.

 

[SithDoughnut]

It would be finite in status, and thus need a creator itself.

What about the purple flying unicorn from satan, infinite creator of all things?

 

[hamashiachagape]

Just because we don't know the answer, that doesn't make it subjective. If you don't know the answer to the question "Differentiate 2x", the answer is still objective.

Agnosticism is your answer to this? Again, prove to me that Atheism is more rational...not doing a good job so far.

I wasn't. Semantics is not a true/false topic. If you are that worried though, then the phrase "I don't believe in God" is objective, because if we could mind-read, it could be independently be verified. As long as something can be logically independently verified, whether the method is currently possible or not, it is objective. It would only be subjective if other people's viewpoints counted, and they don't.

Oh Semantics...meh. I'm more into logic.

"I don't believe in God" no matter how you view it has no affect on the objective position on Theism. It becomes the equivalent of "I itch." Great, it doesn't affect the truth though.

 

[hamashiachagape]

What about the purple flying unicorn from satan, infinite creator of all things?

Since matter is not infinite in nature and the universe has a beginning, and the purple flying unicorn is a part of the universe, since he is from Saturn...he also has to have a beginning.

 

[SithDoughnut]

You don't know the difference between Objective and Subjective then. How is Atheism more rational?

I know the difference, which is why that statement is objective. I feel you need to learn the difference.

Allah does exist.

Interesting. What about fairies, can you prove they don't exist?

Invisible unicorn? Unicorn by definition has a substance to it, thus can not by definition be invisible. Thats where the line is drawn.

Invisible means 'cannot be seen', should something be made out of a completely undetectable substance, then it is invisible.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Since matter is not infinite in nature and the universe has a beginning, and the purple flying unicorn is a part of the universe, since he is from Saturn...he also has to have a beginning.

Ah, more semantics. What about the flying spaghetti monster then? He is an infinite being, he just manifests himself in the form we know of.

Also, are you going to answer our earlier posts in reply to your OP or are you going to ignore them. You seem to be replying to these posts fine, after all.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I know the difference, which is why that statement is objective. I feel you need to learn the difference.

Thats exactly what the statement suggests. Its something you feel, not something objective of what you and I think.

Interesting. What about fairies, can you prove they don't exist?

Sure. They have substance as well.

Invisible means 'cannot be seen', should something be made out of a completely undetectable substance, then it is invisible.

Your second part of the position is where hte problem is because you can detect the substance to be a unicorn. Kind of the same problem as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster."

 

[hamashiachagape]

Ah, more semantics. What about the flying spaghetti monster then? He is an infinite being, he just manifests himself in the form we know of.

See quote below. Henderson made the same mistake. We can detect that he is flying. We can detect he is made of spaghetti. He would need a creator.