Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[anonymous person]

I use words with meaning, remember?

External objective verification of claims, I feel is important, to greatly increase the likely hood you have it right.

Now, if you want to rely on personal experiences as your evidence alone, which can not be verified externally and objectively, then you are dealing with a faith belief. Some can admit that, some can't.

 

[bhsmte]

View attachment 166995

I'm quite certain you do.

Could be, why you have to try so hard to convince yourself.

I can't imagine the turmoil involved.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I feel it...

View attachment 166994

Why do you keep posting them then?

 

[Davian]

I'll bet, you go through a lot of paint.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm quite certain you do.

Could be, why you have to try so hard to convince yourself.

I can't imagine the turmoil involved.

Just get more tin foil.

 

[anonymous person]

Why do you keep posting them then?

My post proved prophetic.

Thanks.

 

[Davian]

I feel it...

We can only work with what you post here.

I do keep in mind that some, like myself, are just n00bs with questions, while others in this thread profess to have a relationship with an allegedly all-powerful-all-knowing deity.

I'll let you know when I feel that one of us has an unfair advantage.

 

[Davian]

My post proved prophetic.

Thanks.

I go into a restaurant and order a steak. A short while later, my meal arrives. Was that prophecy?

 

[bhsmte]

Just get more tin foil.

View attachment 167001

Is this what Willy Craig says, when he has dug himself a big hole?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My post proved prophetic.

Thanks.

Of course. It was a self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course. It was a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Aren't those the best kind?

 

[loveofourlord]

I would consider your first statement objectively false. Though there is no conclusive proof of the existence of a god, there is evidence. For instance, there is the testimony of the many people that say they have had personal contact with a god. That is evidence. You may personally reject the validity of that evidence,but it is not correct to say it is not evidence. Humans are unnecessary entities as well but they still exist so being unnecessary does not preclude one from existing. Gods, or a god, being unnecessary is as irrelevant to the question of whether a god or gods exist as the fact that there is suffering.

I hate to point out, but the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence, personal experience is by definition personal, and not evidence for someone else.

 

[loveofourlord]

Again, the claims are evidence they would be admissible in a court of law as evidence. You ought not confuse evidence with proof. For instance, I would be wrong to say that there is no evidence that AGW exists but correct to say there is no proof it exists. One can look at the evidence and conclude whether the evidence is convincing or not in both cases. Secondly your claim of contradiction about the evidence given by multiple witnesses about multiple gods does not stand scrutiny. There is no contradiction in the testimony on the subject of whether deities exist only about which ones and what they might be like. All the testimonies agree without exception that there is at least one god. That there are different perceptions of what those or that deity may be like does not make their testimony on existence contradictory anymore than the evidence about the existence of Tyrannosaurs coupled with evidence about the existence of Triceratops could be seen as contradictory in claiming that dinosaurs existed.

Actually they arn't, they are nothing but hearsay, and without coloberating evidence are often thrown out especially something wich can't be verified, how does one know the difference bteween someones personal experience with god, or someone lying to decieve, many will lie about being Christian for one reason or another.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I hate to point out, but the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence, personal experience is by definition personal, and not evidence for someone else.

If first hand eyewitness testimony is not evidence then we really have some explaining to do involving both the recording of history and the system of justice we employ as both are, at present, very reliant upon that. Though you seem somewhat confused about the difference between testimony and anecdote,you do know how to pluralize using an s, Good for you.

 

[KCfromNC]

If first hand eyewitness testimony is not evidence then we really have some explaining to do involving both the recording of history and the system of justice we employ as both are, at present, very reliant upon that.

They're a type of evidence, sure. The specific type they are is very unreliable, at least according to all the research we have available.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If first hand eyewitness testimony is not evidence then we really have some explaining to do involving both the recording of history and the system of justice we employ as both are, at present, very reliant upon that. Though you seem somewhat confused about the difference between testimony and anecdote,you do know how to pluralize using an s, Good for you.

Though not absolutely reliant upon it. If multiple people testify that a global cataclysmic flood happened roughly 4000 years ago, and yet there is an absence of expected evidence of such an event in the geologic record, would it be obscene to suggest that the apparent eyewitnesses were mistaken, at least about the extent of the flood?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Actually they arn't, they are nothing but hearsay, and without coloberating evidence are often thrown out especially something wich can't be verified, how does one know the difference bteween someones personal experience with god, or someone lying to decieve, many will lie about being Christian for one reason or another.

Hearsay is not the same as first hand testimony. I am not speaking of hearsay i am referenceing first hand testimony of people that claim to have had a personal encounter with a god. The Bible, the Quran and other books of religious significance records that testimony as well as the testimony of those that could be said to be relaying hearsay. In a court of law, sometimes there is reason to ignore first hand testimony, other times there is not, but in any case first hand testimony remains evidence until it is proven false by other evidence. That does not mean that it is assumed to be true it is simply considered evidence that something may be the case not proof that it is. I know of no instance where first hand testimony has been thrown out just because it is not corroborated. It may not be considered persuasive by those judging the case but is not thrown out simply because no other source of evidence corroborates the first hand testimony. In any case of first hand testimony it is not possible to be 100% sure of the motives of the witness. But when multiple witnesses give similar but not identical testimony it is much more convincing and less likely that there is a large conspiracy to deceive as such an attempt by a group at mass deception is more likely to produce identical rehearsed testimony.
BTW In considering whether something is historical fact hearsay is definitely considered evidence.As I see it, if the testimony of first hand witnesses is considered evidence in a court of law, and it is, and if even hearsay is considered evidence in historical research, and it is, then saying there is no evidence of the existence of a god is objectively false.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Though not absolutely reliant upon it. If multiple people testify that a global cataclysmic flood happened roughly 4000 years ago, and yet there is an absence of expected evidence of such an event in the geologic record, would it be obscene to suggest that the apparent eyewitnesses were mistaken, at least about the extent of the flood?

No, it would not but the only point i have made in this thread is that the statement " There is no evidence of the existence of a god" is objectively incorrect. I did not claim that all evidence must be accepted as fact. I only maintain that there is some evidence of the existence of a god not that everyone must accept that that evidence is convincing. If one stated that there is some evidence of the existence of a god but that they found that evidence be unconvincing and the existence of god unlikely I would find that statement reasonable. It is simply the categorical statement that no evidence exists that I take exception to. In your example there is some evidence of a thing having happening that you find pales in comparison to the evidence against it having happened. Even if that evidence against is the lack of evidence from a source where the corroboration of the evidence that ought to be there, if the claim is true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I wanted to see what people here thought was the best argument against the existence of God was.

Ok.


To me, that would be: the total lack of any reasonable argument for the existence of god(s).

 

[loveofourlord]

Hearsay is not the same as first hand testimony. I am not speaking of hearsay i am referenceing first hand testimony of people that claim to have had a personal encounter with a god. The Bible, the Quran and other books of religious significance records that testimony as well as the testimony of those that could be said to be relaying hearsay. In a court of law, sometimes there is reason to ignore first hand testimony, other times there is not, but in any case first hand testimony remains evidence until it is proven false by other evidence. That does not mean that it is assumed to be true it is simply considered evidence that something may be the case not proof that it is. I know of no instance where first hand testimony has been thrown out just because it is not corroborated. It may not be considered persuasive by those judging the case but is not thrown out simply because no other source of evidence corroborates the first hand testimony. In any case of first hand testimony it is not possible to be 100% sure of the motives of the witness. But when multiple witnesses give similar but not identical testimony it is much more convincing and less likely that there is a large conspiracy to deceive as such an attempt by a group at mass deception is more likely to produce identical rehearsed testimony.
BTW In considering whether something is historical fact hearsay is definitely considered evidence.As I see it, if the testimony of first hand witnesses is considered evidence in a court of law, and it is, and if even hearsay is considered evidence in historical research, and it is, then saying there is no evidence of the existence of a god is objectively false.

Actually it happens all the time, eye witness acounts are netoriously unreliable especially when they are the entire basis for a claim, especially when it's something that can't be tested. How is the court supposed to test a muslims claim of speaking to god vs a Christians claim, what about god telling them something? Thats outright inadmissable as that IS hearsay and you can't say what someone else has said to you, unless they can be cross examined.

Yes, but many give simular conflicting acounts, I doubt you take a muslim's claims as seriously as you might take my claims of Jesus. I have personal experiences with Jesus, but they remain personal, and never ever reach the level lf evidence. A billion claims of X, don't become evidence bacuse theres more of them, or muslim claims are evidence for Islam wich I don't think either of us would agree too.