TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,322
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
Trying to put the weight of the argument on the person that says yes is intellectually dishonest
Can you explain what that means? presumably you don't mean a force as defined in physics - what does 'force' in your definition mean? following on from that, how can such a 'force' be intelligent? what makes you think this ?My definition of God is "The Intelligent Force that everything extends from" ..
That sentence is incoherent to me, but the God force described above certainly isn't a scientific description or explanation.This definition could very well meet an atheist definition of the ultimate scienctific conclusion regarding existence that humanity may never arrive to or be capable of understanding.
As I understand it, most atheists don't have a problem with theism unless it impinges (or threatens to impinge) significantly on their lives - particularly in ways they feel are detrimental; as someone said on rights and freedoms, "Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins". Live & let live.So I don't see why atheist have a problem with theism.. it's almost like religion has tainted the image of God in the minds of many people.
Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?
Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?
Not that the religious ideas of God. But that there is no God that designed the universe and created life purposefully.
I've seen that most atheist generally attack religion and ask for empirical evidence that shows God exists.. but I have never heard a logical argument against the existence of God ( not religion).
Thoughts and thanks
Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?
Everything in the physical universe is subject to time.. so it logically appears created. So if this universe has an age that isn't eternal then an outer force that isn't subject to time appears to have created our universe.
This is why that argument doesn't seem logical. Unless you can provide a logical argument as to how the universe sprung from nothing and started itself.
It is because they have taken a position just as much as the theist has. Both have taken a position. They say No ..we say Yes.
Trying to put the weight of the argument on the person that says yes is intellectually dishonest.
If you don't know.. then the proper stance is you don't know... not "No/Atheism".
If you find an atheist on these boards that makes that claim ("There is no god"), let me know, because I haven't seen one yet. If the thread starts out with a straw man in the first sentence, it isn't really worth discussing the rest of the post.Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?
If you find an atheist on these boards that makes that claim ("There is no god"), let me know, because I haven't seen one yet.
If all you can prove is that specific god-concepts don't exist then all you're proving is that "if there is a god, he isn't like that". Let's say I look at the Christian God, who is supposed to be love itself, and I prove through the problem of evil that He lacks empathy. I didn't disprove the existence of the Christian God, I disproved that the Christian God is love itself. Everything else in the Bible might be 100% true, except for His motivations to act the way he did. I definitely wouldn't say that He doesn't exist because of that.Depends on the 'god' concept. Some of them are logically incoherent. Logically incoherent beings cannot - and by extension, do not - exist.
For example, you might claim 'everyone knows my god exists', like certain brands of presuppositional apologists do, as per Romans 1. But since I am aware of at least one person who does not know it - namely, me - I can be 100% certain your god does not exist, because you've predicated his nature on a condition that I, and only I, have direct access to.
So while the point holds in the broad sense, there are specific conditions in which I can truthfully claim 'there is no god (at least as far as you've described him)'.
If all you can prove is that specific god-concepts don't exist then all you're proving is that "if there is a god, he isn't like that". Let's say I look at the Christian God, who is supposed to be love itself, and I prove through the problem of evil that He lacks empathy. I didn't disprove the existence of the Christian God, I disproved that the Christian God is love itself. Everything else in the Bible might be 100% true, except for His motivations to act the way he did. I definitely wouldn't say that He doesn't exist because of that.
But the way you're doing it just muddies things unnecessarily and actually makes threads like this seem more reasonable. Yahweh can still exist, He just doesn't have the qualities people think He does.Hence why I add the qualifiers - 'in specific conditions', and '...as you've described him'.
I know, with 100% certainty, that there is no god whose existence is known to all people. Some other nebulous 'god' concept could still exist, but it's not the one you're talking about in this universe of discourse.
But the way you're doing it just muddies things unnecessarily and actually makes threads like this seem more reasonable. Yahweh can still exist, He just doesn't have the qualities people think He does.
Let's say I'm on a dating app talking to a girl named Tina. She tells me that she spent her summer in the Swiss Alps to seem more interesting, then later I find out she lives in Jersey and has never left the state. I don't say, "Tina doesn't exist, at least not as she described herself". I just say "Tina is a liar, she didn't spend her summer in the Swiss Alps".
Heck, even if I found out that she was just a bot that was designed to infect my computer with spam viruses, Tina would still exist, she just wouldn't be a human.
I would suggest that energy is, in a sense, the essence of the physical, and it's bound by our universe because the universe is a collection of different forms of energy.
The problem with a non-physical influence, creator, or whatever, is the interaction problem of dualism - how can the non-physical, or immaterial, influence the physical. Their very definitions would seem to be in explicit contradiction of it.
I don't think you can strip that many qualities from Yahweh though, even we were to take every logical argument against Him as fact. For starters, you can't disprove that a deist kind of god doesn't exist, right? So you can't disprove that Yahweh isn't a personal, intelligent being that created the universe. So what else could possibly be proven about Him that would make Him cease to be Yahweh?No, there comes a point when you've stripped away enough qualities that you are no longer talking about Yahweh.
If I say to you, I'm thinking of an airplane that doesn't fly, has no wings, no landing gears, no rutters, no engines, no cockpit, no cabin and is made entirely of bacon... at what point am I no longer describing an airplane?
Atheists have lots of good arguments that there is no God, why is this controversial?Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?
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?