Hypothetical dialogue

This thread is a prime example of ignorance and pride. Ignorance of who God is and his ways. As the Bible says his ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not ours. There are a number of scriptures that describe that Gods ways are not understood fully by us. The ignorance here is obvious.

Pride is also in demonstration. The comments that God is not just in his actions because we get to decide what is just thus putting us in the place of deciding what is just and what is not when it comes to God's actions. We become the judge of God. When the opposite is the truth. God is our judge.

Humility says "I don't understand why God did what he did. But he is God and his ways are above mine.". Pride says "God is not just because I know what just is and I deem that God is not just."

Foolish, just foolish.

jason_delisle said:

Believe it or not, there are valid, logical, and reasonable arguments that support God.

Click to expand...

I've never been presented with any.
Every God argument that has ever been presented to me, turned out to be cesspools of logical fallacies of all kinds.

Most common are unsupported premises, assumed conclusions and arguments from ignorance.

It's also amazing to me how people can think that mere words could ever be enough to demonstrate the existance of anything.

However, it has been in my experience that atheists seem to reject them on emotional grounds.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that it's the theist that has emotional attachements to their worldview.

The arguments just simply don't agree with things that the atheists have already believed to be true (that God doesn't exist).

Click to expand...

That's not what atheism is. Atheism is not a belief, nore it is a claim that gods don't exist. Atheism is only answering "no" to the question "do you believe god eixsts?".
It is not answering "yes" to the question "do you believe god does NOT exist?"

See, either god exists or he doesn't.
So, there are two positive claims possible:
- god exists
- god does not exist.

In the theist-atheist debate, only the first claim is being addressed.

Just like in court: the accused is either guilty or innocent.
But what is being discussed / addressed in court is NOT wheter or not the defendent is innocent. The only thing being addressed is "guilty" or not.

This is why the jury gets to vote "not guilty". Which does NOT mean the same thing as "innocent".

So you only address the question of guilt.
In (a)theism, the question being addressed is the one of existance. NOT the one of "non-existance".


And that last statement also smells like projection, by the way.

Theists have a priori beliefs that a certain thing is true. Regardless of whatever arguments come afterwards.