If I assert that Bigfoot doesn't exist, then I am obliged to offer a rationale for that assertion.
And an acceptable rationale is that others have asserted that Bigfoot does exist, but you don't find their evidence compelling.
A rationale does not consist of simply saying you didn't find the evidence compelling. This sort of statement is on par with saying you didn't find a movie entertaining, or that the novel you just read didn't seem very realistic to you. It doesn't really make any difference to the validity or soundness of the evidence what your
attitude towards it might be. What matters is whether or not the evidence is rational, reasonable and logically sound. Evidence can be all these things and at the same time seem "uncompelling." It just depends on your attitude toward the evidence.
Then most likely you have been brainwashed. Imagine if you were a brainwashed terrorist for Al Queada (sp?). You wouldn't even know it. So perhaps you don't even know you have been brainwashed to believe a supreme being exists.
Perhaps the difference between me and people like you is that I am more impervious to being brainwashed than you are. And I have a better BS detector than you do.
Again, telling yourself these things likely makes you feel better about your views, but they just ain't so.
What makes you think the "brainwashing of Al Qaeda" is similar to something I've endured in order to believe God exists?
If you're the one who's brainwashed, then, by your reasoning, you wouldn't be able to tell, would you? Perhaps your "BS detector" is just a part of your brainwashing.
While I can't know with 100% certainty that a logically possible god doesn't exist, if you observed precisely what I observed and were honest and responsible with yourself, then you would not believe a god exists.
Goodness! This assumes a great deal! But, then, you seem to make a lot of unfounded assumptions...
The existence of the universe. "Ex nihilo, nihilo fit."
The existence of the universe is evidence of the universe. It's not evidence that a god exists.
LOL! Really? Is the existence of a car
only evidence of the car's existence? No
thinking person would limit the import of the car's existence to this one conclusion. The existence of the car speaks to a car manufacturer, which is painfully obvious. In the same way, the universe speaks to a "Universe Manufacturer" (aka God). Are you really thinking through what you're saying?
The extreme fine-tuning of the universe for life.
Three flaws in that argument:
1) All the non-fine tuned life forms die off
2) The universe isn't entirely fine tuned for life
3) What god so finely tuned your god?
Oh, dear...
1.) What difference does this make to the fact that the universal constants of the universe are fine-tuned to an incredible degree and that such exiquisitely narrow fine-tuning makes its occurence by chance virtually impossible?
2.) What difference does it make to the argument from Fine Tuning that there are places in the universe where life cannot exist?
3.) You reveal a profound conceptual confusion by asking this question. Your question is on par with asking how many right angles there are in a circle, or how many married bachelors there are in New York.
By definition, circles don't have right angles, bachelors aren't married, and God is neither created nor fine-tuned by anything or anyone. If He were, He would no longer meet the definition of "God." When you talk about God being fine-tuned, you are no longer talking about the Christian concept of God.
The existence of an innate moral sense among humans.
There could have been a breed of humans without good moral sense. They died off because they were killing each other, while we lived.
"There could have been"? That's your response? There "could have been"
anything one can imagine! But what "could have been" isn't therefore what was! "Just-so" stories do not constitute an argument.
The resurrection of Christ.
There is no evidence that the resurrection of Christ ever occurred.
Yes, there is. See the Gospels.
The existence of information (on a genetic level, first of all).
The existence of information is evidence of information, not evidence of a supreme being.
You would make a very poor detective! Do you know what the word "inference" means? Since information is not spontaneously self-generating - especially the highly complex information contained in our genes - and requires a Mind from which to arise, the presence of information in our genes implies a great deal more than its own existence.
My daily experience of God.
What real thing in this universe are you calling "God"?
What do you mean by "real thing"? Do you mean a real thing like integrity, or bravery, or virtue, or a motive? Or do you only mean
tangible things like rocks, and trees, and water?
I asked a very fair question, yet you continue to be evasive. What motivation would you have for being evasive other than by answering the question, you would have to confront that you have serious doubts about the validity of your god.
I explained why I am not willing to answer this question. You are guilty of what is known in philosophy as "moving the goalposts." Rather than acknowledging that your challenge was successfully answered, you have simply altered the challenge. This is intellectually dishonest.
So once again: What if I were to posit that these unicorns are undetectable and never leave any physical trace of their existence? How would you go about disproving them?
If the unicorns are
undetectable, then
you cannot detect them. On what basis, then, can you assert that they exist? You really aren't thinking this stuff through, are you?
Post the link again and I'll take a look.
Scroll back in the thread and find it. Really, though, it's pretty clear, I think, that the fact you haven't read it shows a significant intellectual dishonesty on your part. I don't believe that you really intend to understand the Christian perspective on God. If you did, you'd have followed the link when it was first offered. So, what are you really doing here? Well, from what you've written so far, you seem simply to want to convince yourself that your beliefs about God aren't out to lunch. But that you need to do this suggest a serious insecurity about what you believe.
Selah.
