Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[KCfromNC]

And to say: "We don't know how or why the first life came to be, but science will one day tell us.." is an article of faith.

Yeah, because we have exactly zero examples of science ever answering a question about the natural world.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think the same applies to the numerous misrepresentations of Christianity and theism in general that you have presented.

You'll have to take that up with all of the other brands of Christianity which disagree with your particular interpretation. But this isn't the thread for that so you might want to start your own.

 

[anonymous person]

Yeah, because we have exactly zero examples of science ever answering a question about the natural world.

Now you understand a little about what faith is.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'll entertain your embittered derailment for at least a few posts.

Hmm. Can't even get through the first sentence without getting emotional. That doesn't bode well.

God produces effects

Hold up. I'll need a testable model of god(s) before I can accept this claim. Where can I find one?

The birds-eye view displays God's existence rather obviously.

The existence of this thread disproves your claim.

If an atheist born in a vacuum were to take a guess at what the world looks like, he would be wildly mistaken. And if he takes a look at the real world and wants to retain his atheism, he will need a stack of explanations and accounts more complicated than the fibs propelling Pinocchio's nose! Occam's Razor is a sure remedy, but side effects may include loss of cynicism and superiority, as well as difficulty in breathing until the nose heals.

I fail to see the point here, other than demonstrating some sort of feigned superiority and smugness. That's not the best approach if you want to win people over. That's especially true here where you're hoping we'll be swayed by your personality - at least I think that's what you're trying to do since there's certainly not much logic or reason presented.

 

[anonymous person]

You'll have to take that up with all of the other brands of Christianity which disagree with your particular interpretation. But this isn't the thread for that so you might want to start your own.

No I don't actually. Thanks for the advice though.

 

[KCfromNC]

Now you understand a little about what faith is.

In what way?

 

[anonymous person]

Hmm. Can't even get through the first sentence without getting emotional. That doesn't bode well.


Hold up. I'll need a testable model of god(s) before I can accept this claim. Where can I find one?



The existence of this thread disproves your claim.



I fail to see the point here, other than demonstrating some sort of feigned superiority and smugness. That's not the best approach if you want to win people over. That's especially true here where you're hoping we'll be swayed by your personality - at least I think that's what you're trying to do since there's certainly not much logic or reason presented.

Why are you asking for a testable model of God?

What does that even mean?

 

[KCfromNC]

But that's the question: is abundant belief a dead end or is it indicative of something more?

Ask a billion plus Hindus.

 

[anonymous person]

In what way?

There is no testable model for proving the proposition "science will one day tell us how and why life arose" true.

But science has a track record of working.

Science has been proven reliable in some measure. From this, you trust it will be reliable in the future, but you can't prove that it will. You trust and believe it will.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why are you asking for a testable model of God?

Because I'm being asked to evaluate whether certain observable effects are best attributed to a god.

What does that even mean?

https://explorable.com/testability

 

[anonymous person]

Because I'm being asked to evaluate whether certain observable effects are best attributed to a god.

The causal principle is a metaphysical principle which methodological naturalism depends upon. IOW, scientists assume that effects have causes, regardless of whether or not the cause is testable.

 

[KCfromNC]

There is no testable model for proving the proposition "science will one day tell us how and why life arose" true.

Please prove this claim.

But science has a track record of working.

Yes, which means this question has little to do with faith.

 

[anonymous person]

Ask a billion plus Hindus.

What's your point?

 

[anonymous person]

Please prove this claim.

I rest my case.

 

[KCfromNC]

The causal principle is a metaphysical principle which methodological naturalism depends upon. IOW, scientists assume that effects have causes, regardless of whether or not the cause is testable.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that one testable effect of a god would be a violation of causality? Seems weird, considering all of the cause and effect from religion - begotten sons, original sin causing death and so on.

 

[KCfromNC]

What's your point?

If abundant belief means something, then the existence of a huge number of polytheists would seem to be problematic for people wedded to the idea of there being one single god.

 

[KCfromNC]

I rest my case.

Declare victory and run away? This sort of behavior from believers is yet another type of evidence that their claims don't have much backing.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that one testable effect of a god would be a violation of causality? Seems weird, considering all of the cause and effect from religion - begotten sons, original sin causing death and so on.

I'm saying that science is fraught through with assumptions that cannot be proven scientifically.

 

[anonymous person]

If abundant belief means something, then the existence of a huge number of polytheists would seem to be problematic for people wedded to the idea of there being one single god.

And it would be even more problematic for atheists.

 

[quatona]

The causal principle is a metaphysical principle

Oh really? So ultimately you are searching for God´s cause?
Or do you conveniently abandon your "metaphysical principles" once they get in the way of your arguments?