Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You too must have refutations of every argument for the existence of God. If you will, please send them to me in an email. Thanks.
I agree that there is lots of evidence for gods. Terrible evidence, for sure, but lots of it. I do not find it compelling.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'm not a believer in gods due to any of them. QED.
Look, if you're just going to ignore what I write there's no point in taking you, or the arguments you imply that I'm missing, very seriously. It just looks like you have nothing concrete to base your faith on. Is that really how you want to portray your religion? All it does it give confidence to people who view it as random guessing backing up wishful thinking.
Where have I claimed that? The frequent need to resort to canned responses rather than actually addressing real objections to faith is yet another clue that there's nothing substantial behind religious belief.
Feel free to post your e-mail address in this thread. I'm not going to respond to it, but you've got a God to protect you from spammers so knock yourself out.
Wonder if it will be the same e-mail as some previously-banned posters, though. Wouldn't that be interesting.
I didn't think you would send me these refutations. You don't have them.
Since the term "God" isn´t copyrighted, since everyone can define it as they see fit, since most definitions aren´t proper definitions, the term "God" indeed doesn´t lend itself to the scrutiny required to "refute every argument" for each God´s existence.I would be very surprised if you had refutations of every argument for the existence of God. Care to send them to me in an email?
Because atheists are the ones making claims that Judeo-Christian values are evil and objectively bad
and are doing so without any grounds for doing so that are not borrowed from a theistic view of the world wherein moral values and duties are grounded in a transcendent good..
Well I've never argued that one must be a theist to make moral judgements. What I have argued is that you being an atheist, have no grounds for denouncing things like genocide as being objectively wrong.
It's an ontological thing, not an epistemological one.
In a world without God, you've got a bunch of opinions and preferences about genocide, which are themselves based on certain opinions. There is no law giver or law to whom we are accountable or that we are obligated to order our opinions or views around.
Man is the measure of man in such a reality.
But you don't live that way I'm sure. You are not even consistent on this forum where nothing you really hold dear is at stake.
So no, I do not consider you to be doing anything other than borrowing from my worldview to compensate for the utter bankrupt nature of yours when it comes to grounds for objective moral values and duties.
And by the way, you can stop with the whole "the bible promotes genocide" argument. It doesnt.
What it does do is show that God will only tolerate unrepentant evil for so long.
Because atheists are the ones making claims that Judeo-Christian values are evil and objectively bad and are doing so without any grounds for doing so that are not borrowed from a theistic view of the world wherein moral values and duties are grounded in a transcendent good.
I didn't think you would send me these refutations. You don't have them.
You have not dealt in depth with all of the arguments for the existence of God. You have not dealt in depth with all of the evidence.
Rather you come on a Christian website In a philosophy forum and say that your philosophical argument against the existence of God is that there is no evidence that God exists which is not even an argument. It is a statement I have asked you to support which you refuse to do.
Thank you.
That would involve him revisiting all the threads he's abandoned.Would it not be easier to simply look back at the history of the arguments that have been posted in this forum?
I could give you a list of usernames to reference in your search, but you probably already have them.
"Oh, you know... all of them."Which arguments are you needing refutations for?
As he previously claimed that he was "open to be convinced," I had hoped this meant he had distanced himself from Craig's way of thinking. But apparently he hasn't.Well, he is a Willy Craig fan.
Is God not sovereign? Does He not have control over His own kingdom? Will people be able to do what they want in heaven or will there be limits to what you can do?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?