It's 2019, not 1519.

[dayhiker]

And you can prove that it wasn't the giant flying spaghetti monster what dun it?

And you can prove that it wasn't some other non-christian-related god what dun it?

And you can prove that there wasn't some other non-deity-related cause that created the universe?

I can go on but you take my point?

As you can see, your god is just one of the possible causes amongst a whole host of possibilities. To state that it is the ONLY explanation is disingenuous. To believe that your god was the cause is an act of faith and far from logical. If you do not agree, please look up the word logical and explain how you get to the conclusion that it was god won dun it.

Hmmmm .. I was comparing your feeling that God was illogical from a young age to my feeling that God was logical from a young age.
As for your asking for proof of a negative only God can offer you that and I'm certainly not God.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Before I begin, I'd like to state that I'm an Atheist.

As far as I can remember, although my parents were Theists, I have never been one. The thought of a god seems so improbably to me. It just makes no logical sense. As far as I am able to recall, I've always felt that a god was illogical and improbable.

I remember this one time at school I told one of the boys, that I considered a friend, that I didn't believe in god. I'm sure that there was a valid reason for telling him this but that is now lost in the mists of time. That must have been way back in the late 50s when the world was a very different place and when most people in the UK believed in god.

Anyways, later that day, the teacher asked the class to put up their hands if they believed in god. Obviously, my soon-to-be-ex-friend had snitched on me. No matter, my hand remained firmly down. Even in those days, I was a rebel.

The teacher noticed that only my hand remained down.

I was asked to come and stand in front of the class, caned on the hand and then made to stand in the corner with my back to the class until home time.

I remember the incident as though it were yesterday because it was the one and only time that I was ever punished by a teacher since, actually, I was a very keen and studious student.

The incident made no difference one way or the other. I didn't believe in god because it was illogical. Logic doesn't change. Neither has my attitude to religion.

I am a member of several Atheist forums. We welcome Theists unreservedly although we reserve the right to question the Theist's beliefs. Unlike this forum, full access to all of our threads are open to both Theists and Atheists alike. Generally, Theists are free to criticise us Atheists in whatever manner they choose, including the use of profanity. You see, from our perspective, truth has nothing to fear from inquiry. Even though christianity is supposedly about peace, love, understanding, acceptance and tolerance, it would appear that Atheists are far more tolerant of Theists than are Theists of Atheists, given that there are topics on this forum that are only open to christians.

At one time, drive-by Theists frequently dropped into our forums but they rarely stayed any length of time when they realised that we Atheists had able minds and used them in a logical and inquiring manner. Fools we weren't.

However, I can't quite remember when we last encountered a Theist. Our forums have become as quiet as the grave. Therefore, I though that I would drop in on you guys and gals for a spot of healthy debate.

Let's start at the top, if I may:

If one begins with the premise: I don't know whether a god exists or not and one then follows the evidence in a logical and honest manner, one does not end up at the conclusion: There is a god.

This therefore begs the question: How and why do people become Theists and, given the lack of evidence and recent scientific research, remain so.

Welcome!
For clarity, I am a monotheist. I do believe this is where the line is drawn in terms of believing in a god or gods. From there the line can be divided again between god and God in other words," which one". The line can be divided once again, whether "God came in the Flesh". IMO, the root of theism is proof. With all the possible representations of god, there is only ONE GOD that came to earth, walked with us, dwelled with us , ate with us, healed us and died for us. This is Jesus Christ of Nazareth. With eye witness accounts from those living during His life time, and the writings of Josephus that records a reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, we, Christians, can claim the one God took part in our lives all through history.

I am satisfied with the evidence so I move on to why it is so important to have a relationship with my God. Well, it is like breathing, it is natural. It is the completeness of a human being. Without this natural union, I would be lost forever.

 

[Albion]

I've heard claims of god on this forum - but no proof. I don't ask for much proof. I am easily satisfied. Just a little will be sufficient to amend my stance - that's all. I wait with bated breath.

Well, I have read plenty of it myself; but the real problem is that you are not about to be persuaded by any evidence, not that you are uninformed concerning the evidence.

 

[DamianWarS]

If one begins with the premise: I don't know whether a god exists or not and one then follows the evidence in a logical and honest manner, one does not end up at the conclusion: There is a god.

the first part of your premises is disingenuous because it really is not about agnosticism at all. when paired with the last part it's agenda is exposed which is regardless of your belief of God if one "follows the evidence in a logical and honest manner, one does not end up at the conclusion: There is a god" So this is not about what one believes it is about what the trail of evidence points to. Let's be more transparent here, we are all adults.

Your premises can be boiled down to "I think therefore there is no god"... yes, it is hugely paraphrased but in the end, it comes down to your ability to reason and think to form these conclusions and that's where your error is. Your ability to think logically doesn't magically create or erase God. The notion of God does not depend on your understanding but you are forcing this which would be counter-theistic in nature. God does not need your approval in order to exist and if he did then he wouldn't be God.

so I reject the idea that our knowledge alone is the only factor in the existence of God. If there is a God he exists regardless of what we know or do not know. For example, we exist and are measured within a continuum (space, time, matter), to say this continuum was uncaused is illogical yet it is the answer science points to and where the trail of logic that you defend ends. is it not more logical to say something preexisting to the continuum would have caused it? If something is preexisting to the continuum it is outside of it and would be immeasurable by the standards inside the continuum.

It is like a vacuum and we are inside of it but God is outside. Everything tested passes or fails based on what is measurable in the vacuum but is unable to test anything outside the vacuum so it would rather say it's not there (which is a classic "inside a vacuum" complex). If the quest of science is knowledge then an uncaused cause is disappointingly anticlimactic and void of knowledge. Why not venture outside the vacuum to see what's there?

 

[lostinthought]

What you say about atheist forums is laughable. I browsed them all back in the day. Any Christian setting foot on them immediately becomes a punching bag with all manner of vile comments and sick humor thrown at them. If there's an exception I never found it. The fact that you likewise seem to consider profanity as valid "criticism" of ideas speaks volumes.

Please be so kind as to quote me accurately if you are going to quote me. Here's what I ACTUALLY said on the matter of profanity: Generally, Theists are free to criticise us Atheists in whatever manner they choose, including the use of profanity. I never said that profanity is valid "criticism" . That was you.

In my experience, some perfectly good and valid conversations do take place on Atheist forums. However, sometimes they don't but, from my experience, it's not always the Atheist that starts it. Sometimes, Theists just start off insulting all and sundry and the Atheists just retaliate.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Oh, just another note of welcome. The mods tend to frown on general apologetics going on in any old place, but there is a specific forum for it:

Christian Apologetics

In one of the pinned posts, you can ask to be allowed to post in that area. Alas "You must have 100 posts and five likes to post in this forum." But you'll be there soon enough.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If one begins with the premise: I don't know whether a god exists or not and one then follows the evidence in a logical and honest manner, one does not end up at the conclusion: There is a god.

With a false premise, should be built upon it.
Oh, a LOT IS, even by Christians, built on false premises, but they fall down.

 

[Speedwell]

Science is a little short on moral guidance.

Of course. I does not aim to provide any.

 

[lostinthought]

Hmmmm .. I was comparing your feeling that God was illogical from a young age to my feeling that God was logical from a young age.
As for your asking for proof of a negative only God can offer you that and I'm certainly not God.

I wasn't asking you to disprove a negative. I am well aware of the problem.

You stated in an earlier post that the only explanation was god. I merely pointed out that other possibilities exist, that you had obviously rejected, in order to arrive at what you claim to be the only hypothesis, and I wished to inquire on what basis you rejected them.

 

[lostinthought]

With a false premise, should be built upon it.
Oh, a LOT IS, even by Christians, built on false premises, but they fall down.

Yes but there are those who haven't realised this.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes but there are those who haven't realised this.

True, including you apparently: the posted premise in the op, is false.

 

[Halbhh]

when most people in the UK believed in god.

I doubt most people believed 30, 40, 50 years ago. When I grew up about 50 something years ago, it was routine and obvious to know that many of the people attending church did not actually believe in the miracles. I.e. -- didn't believe. One thing that has finally happened is that most of those that didn't believe don't attend any longer, because it's no longer required to attend a church in order to seem respectable in the eyes of common society.

So, the pretense of being respectable by simply attending church without believing is ended largely (not saying 100%; no doubt some in some areas are still in that).

Unlike this forum, full access to all of our threads are open to both Theists and Atheists alike.

While I'm happy to discuss with the entire range of all people, it's very good we can prevent the inevitable trolling, and also 2nd, the prosthelytizing for other religions in many areas of our forum here.

You see, from our perspective, truth has nothing to fear from inquiry.

That's right, but since the commonplace insulting posts (which we do get in our open areas) aren't truly discussing, keeping those out of our own areas is wise and practical in my view. I'll answer your question in a separate post.

 

[Halbhh]

If one begins with the premise: I don't know whether a god exists or not and one then follows the evidence in a logical and honest manner, one does not end up at the conclusion: There is a god.

This therefore begs the question: How and why do people become [believers] and, given the lack of evidence and recent scientific research, remain so.

Since God isn't an inanimate object, He isn't subject to mere observation at will, of course, but one would have to meet His requirements for Him to open the door.

Once one does and sincerely knocks, is humble, and seeks Him with all of their heart (notice that's an 'all-in' quality, without holding back reservation), then He answers.

So, you'll never get easy proof ahead of time -- He wants those that are humble and can trust in Him, instead of merely being self-interested only -- but such confirmation (very clear in my experience!) is only after you meet His basic requirements, as stated clearly and plainly in scripture (though not many seem to know those explicit requirements, they are available for the full reader).

 

[Speedwell]

And you can prove that it wasn't the giant flying spaghetti monster what dun it?

And you can prove that it wasn't some other non-christian-related god what dun it?

And you can prove that there wasn't some other non-deity-related cause that created the universe?

I can go on but you take my point?

As you can see, your god is just one of the possible causes amongst a whole host of possibilities. To state that it is the ONLY explanation is disingenuous. To believe that your god was the cause is an act of faith and far from logical. If you do not agree, please look up the word logical and explain how you get to the conclusion that it was god won dun it.

Believing in God is an act of faith and far from logical.

The problem is, that this discussion seems to posit a "God" about which falsifiable statements can be made. In that respect, it turns the discussion away form God and towards claims about the authenticity of revelatory texts, which is a different discussion entirely.

 

[lostinthought]

Welcome!
there is only ONE GOD that came to earth, walked with us, dwelled with us , ate with us, healed us and died for us.

And you know this how? What is your evidence?

This is Jesus Christ of Nazareth. With eye witness accounts from those living during His life time,

Oh, dear. Actually, there are no accounts of jesus during his lifetime. If you know of any, please make them known to religious scholars. I'm sure that they would fall over themselves to read it. The Romans, who were one of the most anally-retentive peoples ever to walk the Earth, wrote nothing about jesus during his lifetime. Odd, don't you think?

and the writings of Josephus that records a reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, we, Christians, can claim the one God took part in our lives all through history.

Oh dear (again). Actually, Flavius Josephus wasn't even alive during jesus' supposed lifetime. He wasn't born until 37 AD. In his book, the Antiquities of the Jews, there is indeed a passage about jesus in book 18 as you point out. It is commonly referred to as the Testimonium Flaviatum. Many scholars, including christian ones, have rejected the Testimonium as a fraud. In any case, the book was written about 94 AD, long after jesus was supposedly crucified.

See Richard Carrier's investigation of the historicity of jesus. It is no longer logical and acceptable to take the existence of jesus as a given.

I am satisfied with the evidence so I move on to why it is so important to have a relationship with my God. Well, it is like breathing, it is natural. It is the completeness of a human being. Without this natural union, I would be lost forever.

You need to look up the definition of "evidence" I would suggest. Perhaps you should replace this term with 'faith"?

 

[lostinthought]

Believing in God is an act of faith and far from logical.

Yes it is. However, a number of Theists that I talk to are firmly convinced that evidence exists for god - which simply is untrue.

The problem is, that this discussion seems to posit a "God" about which falsifiable statements can be made. In that respect, it turns the discussion away form God and towards claims about the authenticity of revelatory texts, which is a different discussion entirely.

No. I'm not disputing the authenticity of the texts. What I'm stating is that the claims in the texts do not constitute proof. Without proof, their claims are just that.

 

[Albion]

Yes it is. However, a number of Theists that I talk to are firmly convinced that evidence exists for god - which simply is untrue.

Oh no. There is plenty of evidence. What you mean to say is that there is--in your opinion--no proof.

But whether or not any of us is convinced by the evidence is another matter. Some are and others are not.

 

[lostinthought]

Since God isn't an inanimate object, He isn't subject to mere observation at will, of course, but one would have to meet His requirements for Him to open the door.

Once one does and sincerely knocks, is humble, and seeks Him with all of their heart (notice that's an 'all-in' quality, without holding back reservation), then He answers.

So, you'll never get easy proof ahead of time -- He wants those that are humble and can trust in Him, instead of merely being self-interested only -- but such confirmation (very clear in my experience!) is only after you meet His basic requirements, as stated clearly and plainly in scripture (though not many seem to know those explicit requirements, they are available for the full reader).

Circular proof is used here, methinks.

You talk of scripture as though unequivocal proof exists for the content. It doesn't.

You are therefore attempting to use the unproven to prove the unproven. Hence my circular proof comment.

 

[lostinthought]

Oh no. There is plenty of evidence. What you mean to say is that there is--in your opinion--no proof.

But whether or not any of us is convinced by the evidence is another matter. Some are and others are not.

It is not my opinion or anyone else's for that matter. No evidence for god exists. That is fact. That's why belief is god is referred to as faith. If you feel that there is, please provide it.

 

[Halbhh]

Circular proof is used here, methinks.

You talk of scripture as though unequivocal proof exists for the content. It doesn't.

You are therefore attempting to use the unproven to prove the unproven. Hence my circular proof comment.

Why ascribe to me an argument I've nowhere used?

Perhaps you've seen that argument so often it just seems everyone is saying the same thing.