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.
I can't someone serious when they want to have a discussion about something they refuse to define.I can't take you seriously anymore. I hope you are not offended by this.
The first argument would focus on the burden of proof. We don't need to disprove claims that have no evidence to support them. As Bertrand Russell put it:
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
As an atheist, I am more than willing to concede that there could be a deity of some kind, but I am also willing to concede that there could be leprechauns, fairies, and a reptilian extraterrestrial race that does experiments on human subjects. At this point, I think the possibility of any of those is about equal.
I have also found affinity to this terse yet compelling statement:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
--Epicurus
The universe is indistinguishable from one where there is no God, so why would you think there is one?
I can't someone serious when they want to have a discussion about something they refuse to define.
Is that quote close to the description you are using?
Let's take this from the Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy for a primer:
Consistent with theism, Augustine (354-430) regarded God as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, morally good, the creator (ex nihilo) and sustainer of the universe. Despite these multiple descriptors, God is uniquely simple. Being entirely free, he did not have to create, but did so as an act of love. As his creation, it reflects his mind. Time and space began at creation, and everything in creation is good. Evil is uncreated, being a lack of good and without positive existence. Though God is not responsible for evil even it has a purpose: to show forth what is good, especially what is good within God. Augustine developed a theme found as early as Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno of Citium, that God is a perfect being.
I can work with that. That brings us to the first part of the Epicurus quote:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."
Can't be both omnipotent and morally good.
I have a two-fold response to this.
Care to hear it?
Would love to hear it. I probably won't respond right away, so feel free to take your time. Also, I would suspect that it has something to do with free will. If it does, my response would include discussions of how it is moral to put people in prison for doing evil things, a clear violation of free will. It is also moral to stop people from harming others, even though that may interfere with their free will. Perhaps that could help you shape your argument for further discussion.
Who is this "us" that you speak for?Yea, that is because none of us
My position is that of mainstream science. From what I do understand of your beliefs, I can see why you would not want to take me - or mainstream science - seriously. Mainstream science certainly has no need of me defending it.can really take you seriously.
I never thought you did. How can you seriously consider any dissenting opinions if you are unable to doubt your own?I can't take you seriously anymore.
What gave you the impression that I was in any way seeking your approval?I hope you are not offended by this.
I never thought you did. How can you seriously consider any dissenting opinions if you are unable to doubt your own?
What gave you the impression that I was in any way seeking your approval?
On that subject, why are you here?
The belief that claims require a form of testability.
It is neither testable or falsifiable.
But philosophers have already dealt with this decades ago.
Well now notice what this thread is about. It is about arguments against the existence of God.
Some here have but think they can just say there is no evidence for God as if that is a good argument. It's not an argument.
So shifting the burden over to me to prove God's existence is not going to get you off the hook.
In response to my question of what criteria one uses in determining whether or not a belief is true, DogmaHunter said:
From this, it is clear that DogmaHunter is espousing a form of logical empiricism.
Yeah, they have. You should read what they wrote some time.The belief that claims require a form of testability.
It is neither testable or falsifiable. But philosophers have already dealt with this decades ago.
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?