A Challenge to the Theist and Atheist

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So what is the difference between an Atheist (Putting aside "strong" atheist) ? An atheist claims the exact same thing... There is not enough information to claim that there is a God, hence... Don't claim you know there is one.

Agnostic atheists say that.

Thus makes one an Atheist that is actually saying: "I Don't believe there is a God" ???

Yes. I am an atheist because I have accepted no god claims.

You either believe or don't!

Yes, but I'm avoiding that language due to its ambiguity. "Don't believe" comes in two flavors. I have no reason to conflate them. My language is believe, reserve judgment, and believe not

Assuming that this person would come and ask you: "Do you trust me?"... answer: "I don't know"... Isn't it like saying : "I Don't have a reason to think you are trustworthy at the moment." ?

Yes. What is the point of this?

Also, consider these ideas:

Cooperative principle - In social science generally and linguistics specifically describes how effective communication in conversation is achieved in common social situations, that is, how listeners and speakers must act cooperatively and mutually accept one another to be understood in a particular way.

Principle of charity - requires interpreting a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings.

But I would claim "Unbelief" is like "Disbelief until belief".. "Disuleif"

I just told you how they differ.

What is your larger point here? Why did you want to have this discussion?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I've seen the supporting data, with none to contradict it. Anthropogenic global warming is not in dispute in the climate science community. The resistance to that is of corporate and political origin, not scientific.

How did you rule out anthropogenic global warming. What data did you rely on to conclude that there was risk of creating a climatological disaster.

A lot is at stake if you are incorrect and the national policy is one of inaction.

There is a lot of supporting data to raise questions about it, where is your evidence that the UN IPCC has actually proven humans are the predominant cause of global warming? There is always climate change going on, with or without humans contributions, so the question is, what are the natural contributions as a proportion to humans, and the answer at this stage is it is unknown, only theoretical models by the pro-agw crowd otoh, and their opposites, climate change skeptical scientists.

 

[Segev Moran]

First of all, Thanks for this post. I want to apologize to whomever felt "bullied" due to my writings.

You seem to have assigned yourself the role as the only authoritative voice, and whoever disagrees is called ignorant.

Quite the opposite.
Would you say Ignorant is a bad word? Is it bad to be ignorant?
I am ignorant in so many things.. Feel free (Actually I'd appreciate it) to call me on my ignorance.
And the man did present ignorance in the Torah.

Again... Just to make sure what i mean when saying Ignorant: Someone who lacks information or knowledge in the discussed manner.

And indeed... the WAY he presented his claims, shows of ignorance on THAT SPECIFIC TOPIC and on that alone. I had no intention of calling him "Ignorant as a persona"

Perhaps this is just you assuming the role of a Chritian apologist, in which case much of what follows is relevant:

Nope.. I would probably tell him he was ignorant even if the post was sent as my atheist self

If you are making a sincere argument, that's not an effective debate technique. Nobody here or anywhere has the authority to impose his interpretations on others.

How does telling someone he is ignorant makes an "impose of interpretation"?
All i said was he is making those claims WITHOUT knowing the entire story.

You've also implied that one cannot understand scripture if he can't read it in its original language.

Indeed i did..

I reject that as well. All one has to do to see that the translations are mostly correct is to go to Biblehub and look at multiple translations into English of the same original Hebrew or Aramaic text. They correlate beautifully, with maybe the odd translation varying from the others. So why should anybody accept your translation over those?

No one should accept my arguments.
And I didn't make those translations.

Hope you won't think me a bully by saying that you also show ignorance.
The site you suggested shows Christian interpretations.

I'm not saying they are wrong!!! All I'm saying, they are missing around 69 interpretations made by Mishna, Gmara and many other books who are the basis of the Jewish religion and Yehawe.

The fact is that The bible is only a small part of the Jewish "bible"

Just as an example.. the Bible in the Hebrew is called: "מקרא"...

That word alone have a very different meaning than "Bible".
In order to understand the basics of Judaism, you must understand the meaning of every word in those books.

Every word in the bible have many expansions and explanations about its meaning.
In order to make a claim like the one he made (Which BTW I might agree with), thus told him:

The meaning of "מקרא" for example is : The text you read out loud.
That is because the Jewish Torah is built of Written word, and Spoken word.

You can't understand either without understanding both (By understand, i mean understand the reasoning behind the words)

You had earlier said that the opening words of Genesis were mistranslated. You claimed that they should be translated, "When God created the heavens and the earth" and that "This changes the entire understanding of the verse."

Here are over a dozen other attempts at translating those words, all but one beginning with, "In the beginning," the only exception being translates, "In the origin"

Indeed. that's the exact problem. It only shows a small part of the meanings.

There are hours of length of lectures and explanations of this one verse.
There are explanations for each character in this verse.

The letter: "ב" for example (The first letter of the Hebrew bible), has an meaning that i can spread here over 400 words and more. (Not my words of course )

"ב" in Gimatria (The numeric value attached to each Jewish character in the bible) is 2.
It represent Duality. Heaven and Earth, Body and Mind, Physical and Spiritual.
Its goes much much deeper than the shallow ignorant explanation I've written here..

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Wkii says that the word בראשית, which is transliterated "berei****," means

Berei**** ("In the beginning [of]") The first word is b'rei****, or berei**** (בְּרֵאשִׁית‎). Its elements are:

• be- ("at / in")
• -reish / rosh- (ראש‎, "head")
• -it ית‎, a grammatical marker implying "of".

The definite article (i.e., the Hebrew equivalent of "the") is missing, but implied. The complete word literally means "at [the] head [of]", or more colloquially, "in [the] beginning [of]". The same construction is found elsewhere in the Hebrew bible, usually dealing with the beginning of a reign.

That's not what you reported.

Indeed it is not.
This is not the only translation
That is only part of the story.
It is missing the analysis of each character.
It misses the "Teamim" (A special biblical punctuation explaining how the word should be spoken (Pith, volume, length and such)
It misses much more information about this word.

Please explain why you should be believed and these other resources.

I Can't, because I don't think that.
I Think that people should learn a POV before dismissing it.

I'll explain:

I Encountered a few years back, in a "Flat earther".
He claimed that the earth is flat!!!

I Could've say: that's nonsense! everybody knows that the earth is spherical(ish)

But how can I claim that before knowing what "Flat earth theory" means?
Maybe its not even speaking about what I think?

So I studied it quite a bit... and let me tell something, they have some excellent arguments. Some are extremely hard to debate!!!

Only after understanding what Flat earth theory is, can I say it is wrong.

Hope I managed to present my POV and point of this post so far..

And there you go again, attempting to bully your collocutor. Maybe you should have looked at the link and tried to rebut it rather than dismiss it and the poster who offered it out of hand. I found it to contain several compelling arguments for the non-existence of Jehovah.

The fact you claim this, shows how little you know of anything.

You are right, That is kinda stupid of me to say such a thing. Apologies.
Should have chosen my words better. Thanks

What i meant was a response to a statement like: Proof of non existence
That cannot be done.

A Person who states : God is impossible, Needs to prove that God is not possible, which is something one just cannot do (Never, ever actually)

Prove to me there is no one special single grain of dust flying in the speed of light emitting invisible rays of pure energy that is the essence of every living thing in our planet.

In my book, the last person to make a plausible and persuasive argument, one that was unanswered or answered ineffectually, has won the debate. You're going to need to convincingly rebut the link's message to change that.

I Can't defend Christianity, as I don't know much about its "hidden" sides.
I Will however point out a thing or two from the link:

"However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God"

Adam and eve did not disobey God.
They acted willingly and chose to experience their perfection.

Think of it like that:

Will you choose a life that have nothing but good in them?
If so, What is this Good?
How can you understand good without not good?

If everything in our planet was white, how would we know what white is?

Death is not a punishment.. its an outcome.
When God says "Do not eat as you will die" (Not its not "as I Will kill you") he pointed out the outcome of eating the fruit.

Would you imagine life without death?

How will one understand life, without knowing death?

Adam and Eve made us perfect by choosing to experience the bad of life as well as the good.

"sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins."

The suffering is not infinite.
It is one of several dimensions on a way to understanding your real self.

Hell in the Jewish Tora is not forever. It is until you have reached to the point of full understanding of your existence. You can go to "hell" and reach "heaven" later on.

"No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions."

Indeed. God didn't "punish" people for thinking there is no God..
It punished people based on their actions.

On one hand, this article claims God is not intervening enough, while on the other it claims it intervenes too much?

"The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure"

Which will clearly render useless the most important "gift" we have called freedom of choice.

"indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible "

Accompanied by a very detailed explanation of each meaning of a word in this bible.
God is a teacher. He can suggest you with what will take you to where you want to get. It will not make those decisions for you.

Yes. Adam and Eve chose for us... Not God.

"take the blue pill or the red pill"...
Each will present you with a consequence... you have the ability to choose which one to swallow.

"A God who knows everything cannot have emotions."

Why?

"We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge."

Yes.. We... Humans...

So if someone knows whats to come, he cannot experience emotions?
Wonder why we chose the forbidden fruit then??

Mistakenly the article gave a great explanation why Adam and Eve ate the apple.

But never the less..

How does knowing something prevents feeling something about it?

"omnipotent God, however, can fix anything."

Ok.

"The perfect God lacks nothing."

That is a weird claim.

There cannot be a state in which you lack nothing.

"I have offered arguments for the impossibility"

Actually he did not.
He offered arguments showing wrong interpolations of God... Not that God is not possible.

This may be a new word for you:

Bulverism

Indeed it was.
Yet I think my post actually thrives to encourage people to act in the exact opposite to Bulverism.

Bulverism (?):

The Jews only invented him cuz they needed a pretend make-believe sky god to rally around

Yahweh killed more than Hitler and Stalin combined.

Lol... I Wonder if he counted the number of victims from the bible when making that claim.




GEEEEEEEEEZ.. that was long.

BTW, just to make it clear...
I really did mean what I wrote him:

"could have been said in a much wiser way (And then maybe I would've agreed with you)"

Cheers [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Polymath257]

I do not *know* that there is life in other stellar systems. In that sense, I am an agnostic. However, I would *bet* that there is life in other stellar systems. In that sense, I have a belief in such life.

Why do you have that belief?
Based on what?
[/QUOTE]
Well, in this case, a study of how life developed on Earth, an investigation into the commonality of the basic building blocks of life in the universe, and some faint understanding of chemistry.

Did you just one day woke up believing there are alien life out there?
Did you see sci-fi movies and it captivated your imagination until you really believe there are life out there?
Did you study thousands of incidents reported on the internet and it seems to you just too much not to be real?
Where you abducted by aliens?

See where I'm going with this? Every belief, has its reason. The reason might be wrong.. yet the reason is there.

The agnostic.. by definition... is "lacking the ability" to find reason in anything that cannot be proven.. That treat itself is making it impossible for an agnostic to be a theist.

No, that is NOT the definition of an agnostic. An agnostic is one who believes the current information is inconclusive. They may also believe there *cannot* be conclusive evidence.

So, they may believe because of reasons but still feel those reasons are inconclusive. In that way they can be both a theist and an agnostic.

 

[Segev Moran]

Now it appears that you weren't in character, but expressing the opinions you actually hold.

Can you refute this? :

"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

Or this:

"Who is more evil that the god who nearly sterilized the earth once with water, intends to do it again with fire, cursed man to work the fields and women to pain in childbirth because some kids ate an apple that he dangled before them at the advice of a demon he cast to earth (thanks for that) and with whom he left them unattended, and has created a master demon and a fiery torture pit in which he intends to toss most of humanity to suffer gratuitously forever. Name a greater enemy of humanity in all of history or fiction." - anon

I would say that the person who disregards all of this is the one with no understanding.

I Can't

Knowing Dawkins actual meaning (As he explained it), I Can't refute this argument.
I Can only say, that Dawkins speaks about the literal book and I agree with him.
But I do not agree the the Hebrew God as explained by the complimentary books is the same God as literally taken in the Bible.

As for Anon:

"cursed man to work the fields and women to pain in childbirth"

That wasn't a curse, rather an outcome.

The outcome of Adam and Eve choosing to become Physical beings in a physical world.

 

[Segev Moran]

There is no reason to believe in gods, or that climate change isn't happening and/or isn't anthropogenic. Those are faith based beliefs, that is unjustified belief. There is no reason to believe such things.

It is unjustified in your eyes as you don't believe it.

Speaking as Myself:

That's one problem i think when debating a theist ( problem for the one debating them)
A Theist thinks differently than Atheist.

I Really believe that in order to debate a theist, you must truly understand where is he coming from.

If one believes in God.. Its not a matter of choice... he believes it due to he's life.
When one stops believing in God... Its due to events that happened in his life.

I Cannot choose to believe today, Change my mind tomorrow and so forth.

Of course there is a reason to believe in a God... Or else no one would have believed it!

The question is, Is this reason based on reality or not?

Here comes the hard part... What is reality?

Not even gonna start discussing that

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

No need to switch role. dear Segev.

I will reason from intelligence and observation to the existence of God, and you on your part see what or how you come to your conviction of there being no God.

First, of course we have to get linked up, with concurring on the concept of God, because when we don't concur on the concept of God, we will be acting illogically, with talking about a thing with deferent idea of what it is.

What do you say, do you have a concept of God?

Here is my concept of God:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

Take careful attention, what I present is a concept, not a proof of God existing.

From my experience with atheists, they regularly get all worked up with insisting that I am already into the prejudgment that God exists, with proposing my idea of what is God.

So, I ask them, if you propose a concept of Bigfoot before you go forth to seek evidence of his existence, is that already a prejudgment that Bigfoot exists?

That is always the illogical phobia or in effect taboo of atheists, mistaking a concept for a prejudgment.

What you should do, dear atheists, is to examine the concept to see whether it is a valid concept or not; but sad to say, you atheists are not cognizant of such an intellectual subtlety, that is why you are ever into very shallow water when you argue against God existing.

Great thread Segev Moran, and great rebuttals Sanmario. Don't worry about your Philippine enhanced English grammar, my special English teacher was always disrespecting the English language, labeling it a ******* language. Special English teacher? Well, my own butchering of the English language, especially in written form is due to my first language being french, kind of, sorta' of. Well, you see my father was a USA solider, mom was from France and they both wanted me to .....well its a long story.
Back on topic....Its difficult to prove an intangible (God) with a 'tangible' most empirical evidence is of course tangible. If the person you are hoping to convince is hostile or an sarcastic ridiculing sort of fellow the discussion is doomed before it begins. So I will not debate unless my atheist debate fellow allows what amounts to circumstantial evidence.
In this country circumstantial evidence can be used to convict one of a capital crime so it should be allowed in any debate.....

 

[Segev Moran]

So, they may believe because of reasons but still feel those reasons are inconclusive. In that way they can be both a theist and an agnostic.

Can you give an example of such reason? What one might be?

 

[Polymath257]

Can you give an example of such reason? What one might be?

Look at all the usual 'proofs' for the existence of a deity. I have found that many believers will admit they are not conclusive, but merely suggestive.

 

[Skwim]

In this country circumstantial evidence can be used to convict one of a capital crime so it should be allowed in any debate.....

Which is fine as long as one keeps its worth in mind. It only acts to "connect to," not "establish."

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
Source: Wikipedia​

 

[Segev Moran]

Great thread Segev Moran, and great rebuttals Sanmario. Don't worry about your Philippine enhanced English grammar, my special English teacher was always disrespecting the English language, labeling it a ******* language. Special English teacher? Well, my own butchering of the English language, especially in written form is due to my first language being french, kind of, sorta' of. Well, you see my father was a USA solider, mom was from France and they both wanted me to .....well its a long story.
Back on topic....Its difficult to prove an intangible (God) with a 'tangible' most empirical evidence is of course tangible. If the person you are hoping to convince is hostile or an sarcastic ridiculing sort of fellow the discussion is doomed before it begins. So I will not debate unless my atheist debate fellow allows what amounts to circumstantial evidence.
In this country circumstantial evidence can be used to convict one of a capital crime so it should be allowed in any debate.....

Great thread Segev Moran, and great rebuttals Sanmario. Don't worry about your Philippine enhanced English grammar, my special English teacher was always disrespecting the English language, labeling it a ******* language. Special English teacher? Well, my own butchering of the English language, especially in written form is due to my first language being french, kind of, sorta' of. Well, you see my father was a USA solider, mom was from France and they both wanted me to .....well its a long story.
Back on topic....Its difficult to prove an intangible (God) with a 'tangible' most empirical evidence is of course tangible. If the person you are hoping to convince is hostile or an sarcastic ridiculing sort of fellow the discussion is doomed before it begins. So I will not debate unless my atheist debate fellow allows what amounts to circumstantial evidence.
In this country circumstantial evidence can be used to convict one of a capital crime so it should be allowed in any debate.....

Hi. Thanks.

Took your advice: circumstantial evidence to Gods existence

 

[Segev Moran]

Look at all the usual 'proofs' for the existence of a deity. I have found that many believers will admit they are not conclusive, but merely suggestive.

So it is more Agnostic leaning towards Theism..
Its not really theism?

 

[Polymath257]

So it is more Agnostic leaning towards Theism..
Its not really theism?

No, I think the difference is between the concept of 'belief' and the concept of 'knowledge'. One can believe in a deity and still think that knowledge is impossible. You are convinced, but still understand the evidence is far from perfect.

 

[Hawkins]

Many times, Theist blame me for not understanding God.
I would love having a challenge.
Lets switch roles!

I will debate pro God, and you will debate Against.

I Assume one of two will be then clear:

1. Either I really am ignorant for anything relates to spirituality (Thus I will not be able to make my case)
2. I will successfully make my case and at least show that some atheist, know the spiritual "realm" better than you think.

I will however, probably be leaning more towards the Jewish God, as this is the Religion I was born into.

Cheers

It boils down to humans can approach a truth. How a truth can be conveyed among humans. "Evidence" is an exaggerated term. Humans mostly rely on faith to get to a truth. You don't have direct evidence of the existence of black holes. Instead you rely on putting faith (may be without your own awareness) in those you think that they have the evidence. You rely on putting faith in the scientists to get to the truth that black holes exist.

We trust that the scientists (as a small group of human witnesses) have a more direct contact of the black holes. We trust our media (another small group of human witness) or our education (teachers as human witnesses) are conveying "black hole exists" in a reliable way. We have confidence/faith in our "source of news" which leads us to such a truth.

That said, if hell is true then how can humans get to this truth? Our science won't be able to get to this truth because science relies on repeated observations to build up a theory. It doesn't work as long as we can't go to hell to do the repeated observation. It's an advocate that hell isn't a place of our physical realm. It's an spiritual realm lying in another dimension beyond the reach of our science.

Then how can we reach it if it's a truth. We have to rely on some human witnesses who have a more direct contact to either hell itself or someone who knows it (i.e., God). We rely on that the Jews ever maintained a close relationship with God that the religious concept of the Jews play a critical role for us to put our faith in that their concept of hell isn't fabricated but a possible information from God. If hell is true, this is the only way we as humans can approach, there's no other round!

The Jews with the message they conveyed becomes our "reliable source of news" for us to put our faith in believing that it is a possible truth. That's the only way to get to such a truth anyway, under the circumstance that it is a truth. God actually made this explicit by naming Gospel as the source of "Good News" (what a coincident).

Another factor is that, we cannot stand neutral to this possible truth. It ties up to our dead or alive in terms of an afterlife. So in the case that it is something true, it is something which will affect our dead or alive, and that the only way for us to possibly approach such a truth is through putting faith in the message conveyed, which was started with the Jews then now Christianity. I see no point to reject such a possibility. What worth examining though is the reliability of the source, that is, how valid the witnessing itself is. It is said that those direct witnesses of Jesus Christ are willing to martyr themselves for the testifying of the truth of Jesus Christ.

If the direct witnesses are willing to die in order to bring the message out, and at the same time this is the only possible way for us to approach it if it is a truth, and if it is a truth that it will affect our dead or alive. Then again I see no point why it should be rejected, even in terms of a logical judgment!

 

[chinu]

Please en-light me?

If you want to switch the roles ?
Than you are the winner and am the loser.

Cheers!

 

[Segev Moran]

No, I think the difference is between the concept of 'belief' and the concept of 'knowledge'. One can believe in a deity and still think that knowledge is impossible. You are convinced, but still understand the evidence is far from perfect.

I Understand.
Thanks

 

[Cephus]

No, I think the difference is between the concept of 'belief' and the concept of 'knowledge'. One can believe in a deity and still think that knowledge is impossible. You are convinced, but still understand the evidence is far from perfect.

There's a huge difference between the two. People can believe whatever load of cockamamie nonsense they want but they cannot "know" that it's true. Knowledge requires some substantive, objective basis in fact. No matter how strongly someone might believe that Bigfoot is real, they cannot claim to "know" that Bigfoot is real unless they show some objective basis for that claim.

 

[Polymath257]

There's a huge difference between the two. People can believe whatever load of cockamamie nonsense they want but they cannot "know" that it's true. Knowledge requires some substantive, objective basis in fact. No matter how strongly someone might believe that Bigfoot is real, they cannot claim to "know" that Bigfoot is real unless they show some objective basis for that claim.

And I would agree with that assessment. I'm not even convinced the question 'Does God exist?' is well-formulated, let alone that it has a truth value.

 

[Polymath257]

It boils down to humans can approach a truth. How a truth can be conveyed among humans. "Evidence" is an exaggerated term. Humans mostly rely on faith to get to a truth. You don't have direct evidence of the existence of black holes. Instead you rely on putting faith (may be without your own awareness) in those you think that they have the evidence. You rely on putting faith in the scientists to get to the truth that black holes exist.

We trust that the scientists (as a small group of human witnesses) have a more direct contact of the black holes. We trust our media (another small group of human witness) or our education (teachers as human witnesses) are conveying "black hole exists" in a reliable way. We have confidence/faith in our "source of news" which leads us to such a truth.

That said, if hell is true then how can humans get to this truth? Our science won't be able to get to this truth because science relies on repeated observations to build up a theory. It doesn't work as long as we can't go to hell to do the repeated observation. It's an advocate that hell isn't a place of our physical realm. It's an spiritual realm lying in another dimension beyond the reach of our science.

Then how can we reach it if it's a truth. We have to rely on some human witnesses who have a more direct contact to either hell itself or someone who knows it (i.e., God). We rely on that the Jews ever maintained a close relationship with God that the religious concept of the Jews play a critical role for us to put our faith in that their concept of hell isn't fabricated but a possible information from God. If hell is true, this is the only way we as humans can approach, there's no other round!

The Jews with the message they conveyed becomes our "reliable source of news" for us to put our faith in believing that it is a possible truth. That's the only way to get to such a truth anyway, under the circumstance that it is a truth. God actually made this explicit by naming Gospel as the source of "Good News" (what a coincident).

Another factor is that, we cannot stand neutral to this possible truth. It ties up to our dead or alive in terms of an afterlife. So in the case that it is something true, it is something which will affect our dead or alive, and that the only way for us to possibly approach such a truth is through putting faith in the message conveyed, which was started with the Jews then now Christianity. I see no point to reject such a possibility. What worth examining though is the reliability of the source, that is, how valid the witnessing itself is. It is said that those direct witnesses of Jesus Christ are willing to martyr themselves for the testifying of the truth of Jesus Christ.

If the direct witnesses are willing to die in order to bring the message out, and at the same time this is the only possible way for us to approach it if it is a truth, and if it is a truth that it will affect our dead or alive. Then again I see no point why it should be rejected, even in terms of a logical judgment!

But with science, the people making the claims actually have the evidence, which is objective and repeatable. In the case of God, there is only opinion. And that opinion is unreliable unless there is corresponding objective evidence. In other words, it isn't and cannot be reliable.

You are starting with an assumption that God exists, that certain people have special access to the desires of that deity, and also that they are able to communicate those desires to the rest of us. They present no objective evidence that a doubter can loo to and realize a mistake. In fact, there is no testability at all. So, a person can make a claim without fear of contradiction. That is not the way to find truth.

So, the best available evidence is that no supernatural exists. No deities, no hell, no heaven. So why don't we stick with what we know (the physical world) and deal with the problems ourselves? We end up doing that anyway. But maybe we won't be scaring young kids and adults into believe the horrific myth of an eternal hell and making the claim the originator of such a monstrosity is good.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And I would agree with that assessment. I'm not even convinced the question 'Does God exist?' is well-formulated, let alone that it has a truth value.

But I say to you, God is existence, what do you say God is?