Question

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes all of the above. You wouldn't believe someone who had a soundly reasonable explanation for why this God does not exist, unless they could provide evidence of this God not existing?

I don't think you understand the terms you're using. A sound argument can be considered evidence.

And the god you're describing can't exist because the three characteristics you agreed are part of this god's nature lead to contradictions.

 

[quatona]

I'm interested to hear if any non-believers have seriously considered believing in God based on an argument or reason they heard from someone else, either on these forums or elsewhere.

Depends on what you mean when saying "God". Feel free to clarify.

I would think that those of you who have been on these forums for an extended period of time would have come across some argument or reason that has brought you close to believing in God, but maybe the opposite is true, maybe all the arguments just reaffirm your non-belief.

I´m mainly in the Philosophy and E&M forums. I´m not particularly interested in discussing the question "Does God exist?" - for various reasons.

That said, I must say I am not impressed by the arguments you have presented here. Not at all. Actually, I don´t even recall an attempt at a serious argument from you.

 

[quatona]

Okay then. I understand that you do not have an answer for the question I posed.

The concept of an eternal God that has always existed and will continue to exist is not that difficult to grasp.

I don´t have much problems with the idea that something has always existed and will continue to exist. Does that make me a theist?

 

[quatona]

You find it difficult to grasp the concept of an eternal God who has always existed? If you can grasp that concept then you should be able to answer the question posed earlier, assuming you won't continue evading.

If "eternally existing" is the sole definition of "God", for purposes of your question, I am inclined to say that God exists. After all, I can easily fathom something to have always and will always exist.
I sense (and know from former threads), though, that you´ll soon turn this extremely generic god concept into a pretty specific god concept, without nofifying us that you have changed the horses midstream.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm interested to hear if any non-believers have seriously considered believing in God based on an argument or reason they heard from someone else, either on these forums or elsewhere.

No, I haven't encountered such an argument.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I like the modal cosmological argument, but I believed in God anyway. If God exists in one possible world, he exists in all possible worlds. Its the kind of God that would trounce unbelievers everywhere, and believe me, he exists!

And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. - Koran 8:59

 

[DogmaHunter]

Okay so you think there's is no evidence either way? So the truth of whether an eternal God exists or not will never be determined by anyone ever? Is that really a reasonable position to hold considering humans are pretty intelligent and capable of discovering amazing truths?

When the thing to be believed or disbelieved is defined in such a way that it is completely unfalsifiable, then BY DEFENITION, it can not be determined if it exists or not. This has nothing to do with how intelligent people are.

For example... I can claim that an undetectable invisible dragon is following you around everywhere you go.

There is no way to validate that statement. You can not find out if it is true, since you can't show the dragon exists- since it is defined as being undetectable.

And, off course, you can't prove negative claims of existence.

See? This is why claims that aren't testable are completely worthless and meaningless. Without any kind of verifiability, it can't be verified.

Seem rather obvious....................

 

[DogmaHunter]

By this logic I could just as easily say that the lack of evidence that God does not exist, means God does exist. Based on your logic, you should agree, yet you don't, why is that?

Because shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm interested to hear if any non-believers have seriously considered believing in God based on an argument or reason they heard from someone else, either on these forums or elsewhere.

I would think that those of you who have been on these forums for an extended period of time would have come across some argument or reason that has brought you close to believing in God, but maybe the opposite is true, maybe all the arguments just reaffirm your non-belief.

Do share if you want, thanks!

May be. May be not. It may not happen. It may happen at a certain time. They are not our concerns.
That is the whole point of evangelism.

 

[juvenissun]

Because I've heard all the arguments, and found them all without merit, I have no reason to believe in a god. I wouldn't say that I'm more of an atheist, since the phrase seems silly. The only change over time I've had is that I think that a purely intellectual argument for a god's existence is folly.

Oh, and I don't think it's possible to consider believing in something. Either I accept evidence and believe, or I don't.

No. Nothing goes that way.
Everything changes gradually, even changes back and forth many many times.
For example, you may encounter 3 positive evidences and 7 negative evidences. What would you decide?

 

[juvenissun]

See? This is why claims that aren't testable are completely worthless and meaningless. Without any kind of verifiability, it can't be verified.

Very few things in your daily life could be verified. Yet you still have to make solid decisions based on those unverified information.

You are a human, not a robot.

 

[juvenissun]

Okay then. I understand that you do not have a good description of the thing that I should be confirming or denying.

I have no idea how anyone can believe that something exists without being able to give properties of that thing. It sounds completely insane to me.

You are right.
But, do you know God has a number of very well defined "properties"?

 

[juvenissun]

Joined CF in '04 as a Christian. Through a slow process, I eventually accepted the fact there is no god/s.

What is the reason which strikes you the hardest?

 

[juvenissun]

You understand the difference between "I don't believe X is true" and "I believe X is false", right?
Because it sounds like you don't.

I am not sure I do.
What is the difference?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Very few things in your daily life could be verified. Yet you still have to make solid decisions based on those unverified information.

Examples?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not sure I do.
What is the difference?

A simplistic example...

I flip a coin, hide the result and don't even look at it myself.
I then make the truth-claim "It is heads. Do you accept this claim as true?"
You answer with "no, I don't accept it as a true-ism".

That does NOT mean that you accept it as true that it is tails instead.
It does NOT mean that you would accept the claim that "it is NOT heads" as a true-ism.

It merely means that with the information at your disposal, you are not convinced that the claim "it is heads" is true.

Not accepting X as true does NOT mean that you automatically accept the opposite of X as true. Nore does it mean that you automatically accept X as being false.

Was that clear enough?

 

[juvenissun]

Examples?

Examine any one of your decisions (done to you lunch menu). Was it the only choice? Based on what evidence?

 

[juvenissun]

A simplistic example...

I flip a coin, hide the result and don't even look at it myself.
I then make the truth-claim "It is heads. Do you accept this claim as true?"
You answer with "no, I don't accept it as a true-ism".

That does NOT mean that you accept it as true that it is tails instead.
It does NOT mean that you would accept the claim that "it is NOT heads" as a true-ism.

It merely means that with the information at your disposal, you are not convinced that the claim "it is heads" is true.

Not accepting X as true does NOT mean that you automatically accept the opposite of X as true. Nore does it mean that you automatically accept X as being false.

Was that clear enough?

So:
I believe God exists; and
I don't believe God exists.
Could both be true.
Right?

You are genius.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Examine any one of your decisions (done to you lunch menu). Was it the only choice? Based on what evidence?

I fail to see how this is relevant to the statement: "claims that aren't testable are completely worthless and meaningless. Without any kind of verifiability, it can't be verified."

Choosing something over another thing for lunch has nothing to do with making claims and believing or disbelieving said claims.
Perhaps you can clarify what you meant...

 

[DogmaHunter]

So:
I believe God exists; and
I don't believe God exists.
Could both be true.
Right?

No. And I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote.

You fail at reading comprehension.

What I actually said was that if you answer "no" to the question "do you believe X is true?", it in no way implies that you would answer "yes" to the question "do you believe X is false?" or "do you believe the opposite of X?".


When I answer "no" to the question "do you believe X is true", then I am ONLY expressing the fact that I am not convinced that X is true.

It doesn't say anything about my stance on "X is false" or "the opposite of X".

Again, it ONLY means that I am not convinced that X is true.
If you wish to know my stance on "X is false" or "opposite of X", you're gonna have to ask me- because those are different questions/statements then "X is true".