Question

[Chriliman]

You're still not understanding the language...

A sound argument for the non-existence of the Christian god would BE evidence of the Christian god not existing.

I thought we agreed that a sound explanation for why the Christian God does not exist would be evidence of the truth that this God does not exist, but this is not proof of this God not existing, it would just be evidence.

However, I'll explain why such an explanation from a person is not possible by first stating that you or I don't fully understand the Christian God because He is described as eternally all knowing and all logically powerful and all loving and so forth. If you did fully understand the Christian God, wouldn't this mean you are equal to the Christian God in understanding and all of His other attributes? If you are equal to the Christian God, would it be possible for you to explain yourself out of existence?

The simple answer is no, and this why there is no person in existence who has a sound explanation for why the Christian God does not exist. The definition of the Christian God renders such a person impossible because they would have to be equal to the Christian God and therefore explain themselves out of existence. The Christian God cannot contradict Himself. Can you think of anything else that can't contradict itself? Truth.

Now, you may not accept this explanation as evidence of truth and that's fine, but just remember that you or I can't possibly fully understand the Christian God because, but we can explain Him as eternally all knowing and all logically powerful and all loving and so forth. You do not have these attributes and I hope you recognize that, because it renders you or anyone other human(including me) incapable of explaining Him out of existence. We also can't explain Him into existence because logically only God with these attributes can reveal Himself to any finite beings like ourselves.

If you want to try and explain Him out of(or into) existence, please do, you'll be the first person ever to do it and if you succeed it will be because you are eternally all knowing and all logically powerful and all loving and so forth. Can you understand my point?

 

[HitchSlap]

@Chriliman

You're starting to get it now, aren't you.

 

[Davian]

Thanks for the response. Jesus is prophesied to return on the clouds this is when all people on earth at the time will mourn.

Any day now?

maybe next week

• Davian
• Dec 1, 2014

 

[Davian]

WLC doesn't science.

+1

 

[Chriliman]

@Chriliman

You're starting to get it now, aren't you.

Clearly you don't understand what I'm trying to explain and that's fine. They're will be others who will explain it, hopefully in a way that you'll accept as evidence of truth.

 

[plummyy]

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!

It's difficult to decide to believe in something, because I don't know how possible it is to simply choose belief. I mean, a belief to me is a strong feeling whether or not there is supporting evidence, or evidence that supports the opposite. If someone gives me proof for something, I wouldn't consider my new understand of that thing as a "belief". If somebody actually had any proof for the god of Christianity, and not just proof from their own faith, I wouldn't say that I "believed in god" I would say that "I know god to be true" because I wouldn't need belief, I'd have the evidence, and evidence gives me what is. And the problem with the question, if I've heard a good argument, is that an argument isn't evidence. People can use evidence to argue a point, but you first need that proof to support your position. If there is nothing provided aside from personal experiences and "good feeling" that something exists, that isn't an argument I'd consider to be an informed proposal. Evidence doesn't always confirm what you want to be true, and if you don't have any, all you're left with is arguing faith. And faith isn't good backing for an argument on what is and isn't, to me. It hasn't really fueled my non-belief. A lack of evidence doesn't mean something doesn't or couldn't ever exist, and that things possible non-existence doesn't increase when someone talks about how much they want it to be real.

Also: Considering how much I've mentioned "evidence", I'm very well aware that many people have made the argument that "God" can only be supported by means of faith because "evidence" (scientific proof) is only for our worldly things and not for the omniscient force of the almighty being. Such as the idea that a fish would never know anything about the sky, but it exists outside of their world. God exists outside of human knowledge and understanding. It's probably the easiest position to take because you can't tell someone that you know what you may not know. That's how I briefly consider forest sprite. But for all practical purposes, I'm a "non-believer" because I don't jump to the conclusion that something must exist simply because there must be something that I don't know about. I'd have to rule that to everything. I'd have to believe in the bathtub barracuda.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Obviously, if God himself floated down on a cloud and said "Hi Jenny," well, then I would believe

I'm not sure even this would convince me. I'd have to ask myself if I was hallucinating. It's too close to the argument from personal experience fallacy. If everyone on earth got the same message simultaneously, i'd have to reconsider. An omniscient God would know what type of evidence I would require to believe.

 

[HitchSlap]

Clearly you don't understand what I'm trying to explain and that's fine. They're will be others who will explain it, hopefully in a way that you'll accept as evidence of truth.

No, we get it, you'd like us to prove a negative. This is illogical, as one could spend all day trying to prove any number of things don't exist. For instance, could you prove Odin doesn't exist? See how silly such a proposition is? Requiring someone to produce evidence, when no evidence exists, is a fools errand. Instead, all one can do is consider all available evidence, then, using the law of parsimony, draw the most reasonable conclusion.

Which leads me to believe you're either naive in logical syllogisms, or trolling us.

 

[Jennybee]

I'm not sure even this would convince me. I'd have to ask myself if I was hallucinating. It's too close to the argument from personal experience fallacy. If everyone on earth got the same message simultaneously, i'd have to reconsider. An omniscient God would know what type of evidence I would require to believe.

Agreed. It was more of a joke than a serious statement.

 

[juvenissun]

No, it is not.

Choosing to eat a burger is an expression of a personal preference of the moment.
It is not a claim that a burger is "objectively better" then anything other on the menu.

I find it incredible that I need to explain this.

Again, you seem desperate.

The claim is: "I prefer hamburger than other items" .

 

[juvenissun]

If by "positive evidences" you mean "good, credible evidence", I've never seen one example.

It means you have seen many "though time". That is not an over-night change.
And you have more time to see if one indeed shows up.

 

[juvenissun]

No, we get it, you'd like us to prove a negative. This is illogical, as one could spend all day trying to prove any number of things don't exist. For instance, could you prove Odin doesn't exist? See how silly such a proposition is? Requiring someone to produce evidence, when no evidence exists, is a fools errand. Instead, all one can do is consider all available evidence, then, using the law of parsimony, draw the most reasonable conclusion.

Which leads me to believe you're either naive in logical syllogisms, or trolling us.

Is that "no evidence" makes you believe stronger and stronger that God does not exist?

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

You are genius.

Wow, way to miss the point he was making completely. No, he didn't make that claim, even implicitly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[HitchSlap]

Is that "no evidence" makes you believe stronger and stronger that God does not exist?

I don't understand your question.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was raised by a single mother who was agnostic. I remember that I had identified myself as that, too. And I was dabbling in witchcraft before I converted to Christianity.

Just wondered...thanks!

 

[-57]

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.

How true...in fact for anything to exist...there is the need for a God that always existed.
Of course there are some who claim stuff can self create from nothing.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

How true...in fact for anything to exist...there is the need for a God that always existed.

This doesn't make any sense. For anything to exist there needs to be a God but God isn't included in this anything but has always existed? That is special pleading.

 

[-57]

This doesn't make any sense. For anything to exist there needs to be a God but God isn't included in this anything but has always existed? That is special pleading.

Special pleading? I think not. It is God who created time and space. God exist outside of time and space.

Perhaps you can explain where everything came from.

 

[HitchSlap]

Perhaps you can explain where everything came from.

As soon as you explain how something has always existed.

 

[quatona]

It is God who created time and space. God exist outside of time and space.

Could you please clarify what "existing" is meant to communicate - in the absence of space and time?