Why There is Probably No God

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmm. Are you saying you don't really have a point or an argement but you keep a back door open for escape when needed?
As far as ramblings, my post had more context than yours.

Nope,worthless rambling was all that you had. And why ask for the qualifier if you are going to ignore itit?

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way. The word "reliable" doesn't exist in your post I replied to.

That is why I pointed out that you jumped into the middle of a conversation. The person I was posting to knew that I meant reliable evidence. Can you follow along in a conversation?

 

[Jos]

We have been over this before and why that is not reliable evidence.

What do you define as reliable evidence that a God exists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you define as reliable evidence that a God exists?

I have yet to see any. But here is a good way to judge it. If one is a theist it would be the evidence needed to convince him that his god was wrong and that another was right. Now that is not exactly fair because there are countless irrational theists out there that would reject all evidence. But as Matt Dillahunty pointed out an all knowing God would know what evidence is needed to convince someone. Why do all of the gods play hide and seek at best?

 

[james blunt]

I have yet to see any.

I have yet to see people like yourself explain Gods miracle of some thing from nothing !


Some thing from nothing = miracle = God


There is nothing wrong in the logic of God for sure .

 

[JJ50]

I have yet to see people like yourself explain Gods miracle of some thing from nothing !


Some thing from nothing = miracle = God


There is nothing wrong in the logic of God for sure .

The so called 'miracles' in the Bible were either highly exaggerated or didn't happen, imo.

From time to time an unexpected healing will happen, but there is a natural explanation for them, as the body can and does cure itself.

If the sky fairy can heal, why doesn't it always do so when requested, instead of only doing so when in the mood?

 

[james blunt]

The so called 'miracles' in the Bible were either highly exaggerated or didn't happen, imo.

From time to time an unexpected healing will happen, but there is a natural explanation for them, as the body can and does cure itself.

If the sky fairy can heal, why doesn't it always do so when requested, instead of only doing so when in the mood?

Who's talking about fables from authors ? I'm taking about the creation of 'things'' in a sense of realism . There is no mechanism to create some thing from nothing , it's a true , reality miracle .

 

[loverofhumanity]

How is that reliable evidence?. Theists do not appear to understand the concept.

See my opening post in this thread.

How are these Great Beings explained?

 

[JJ50]

Who's talking about fables from authors ? I'm taking about the creation of 'things'' in a sense of realism . There is no mechanism to create some thing from nothing , it's a true , reality miracle .

It more than likely has a natural explanation, which hopefully science will fathom in the end. Human scientific discoveries have done much more for humans than religion.

 

[james blunt]

It more than likely has a natural explanation, which hopefully science will fathom in the end. Human scientific discoveries have done much more for humans than religion.

Firstly , there is no natural explanation , I've researched physics and all / any possibilities ! Secondly science has made discoveries of weapon technology etc , you are right in that science have ''done more'' than religion .
It is just a shame that religion sometimes also uses this technology in the name of religion .

I don't consider the 'world' as yet given us anything !

 

[JJ50]

Firstly , there is no natural explanation , I've researched physics and all / any possibilities ! Secondly science has made discoveries of weapon technology etc , you are right in that science have ''done more'' than religion .
It is just a shame that religion sometimes also uses this technology in the name of religion .

I don't consider the 'world' as yet given us anything !

What good has your version of god done for this world? Religion has caused many wars. If it exists humans should be discovering ways to exterminate it.

I have much more faith in science than religion. It might take a long while but I think it will be able to come up with the explanation for the creation of the universe one day. If it does, I reckon no god will have been involved. Besides which, if a god exists who or what created it? Don't say it was always there, that doesn't make any sense.

 

[james blunt]

What good has your version of god done for this world? Religion has caused many wars. If it exists humans should be discovering ways to exterminate it.

I have much more faith in science than religion. It might take a long while but I think it will be able to come up with the explanation for the creation of the universe one day. If it does, I reckon no god will have been involved. Besides which, if a god exists who or what created it? Don't say it was always there, that doesn't make any sense.

Incorrect , religion does not cause wars , people cause wars , people with poor semantics and mediocre minds . In reality all religions suppose to be peaceful .

You ask who created God ?

People created God when they looked at the science involved and realized the explanation of everything is impossible .

Would it make sense to you if I said space is always there ?

 

[Valjean]

If God is only a belief, God is not real, so that means God does not exist.
If God exists, God is real.
Now do you understand the difference?

Not really.... Plate tectonics is a belief, so is flat Earth, hollow Earth, elephants and unicorns, Donald Trump and Batman -- all various types of beliefs.

Who sets the standards for evidence and what it should be like? Who determines what is flawed evidence? Why does evidence have to be tangible?

I'm assuming you have the the self-validating evidence of religious ecstasy or the mystical experience in mind.

I can relate to that. Mysticism informs my own metaphysical outlook, as well, but it is only evidence if it can be examined and evaluated by others; if it can be perceived by others and violates no known physical laws or rules of logic.
Evidence must be examinable, and, preferably, testable. Ergo: it must be tangible.

Who sets the standards? Logicians, mathematicians, scientists, epistemologists &al.
Evidence is determined to be flawed if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny; if testing doesn't support it or if it's not reproducible.

Geocentrism, phlogiston and phrenology were widespread beliefs at one time, but they were never facts. They failed the evidence tests.
On the other hand, academics once ridiculed the idea that rocks could fall from a clear, blue sky, but, counter-intuitive as that seems, it passed the evidence test and is now generally accepted.

Evidence is by definition the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief is true or valid. If it does not indicate whether a belief is true or valid to you, it is not evidence to you, but it it indicates that a belief is true or valid to me it is evidence to me.

Truth and falsehood are universals. There is no personal truth; no "true and valid for you."
A thing is either existentially true or it isn't. An argument from fallacy, affirming a disjunct or an illicit major are fallacies for everyone, everywhere. "All dogs have six legs" is unsupported and unevidenced for everyone, no matter how fervently you believe it.

 

[JJ50]

Incorrect , religion does not cause wars , people cause wars , people with poor semantics and mediocre minds . In reality all religions suppose to be peaceful .

You ask who created God ?

People created God when they looked at the science involved and realized the explanation of everything is impossible .

Would it make sense to you if I said space is always there ?

Believers in religion cause wars.

 

[james blunt]

Believers in religion cause wars.

Not at all , power hungry people cause wars and excuses can be made in all forms to cause a war . Religion is / was just one excuse .
There would never be a war if everyone ''in charge'' was a little smarter at times . War is not the final answer and it should be removed from the answers in reality .
However it is not easy to have smart people all at the same time governing countries .

One day we might get lucky and the world might have smart leaders all at the same time . These leaders could unite the world in a single day because they are smart .

 

[Valjean]

Incorrect , religion does not cause wars , people cause wars , people with poor semantics and mediocre minds . In reality all religions suppose to be peaceful .

You ask who created God ?

People created God when they looked at the science involved and realized the explanation of everything is impossible .

Would it make sense to you if I said space is always there ?

All religions are peaceful? Seriously? Hasn't war, conquest and genocide always been justified by appeals to religion?
haven't soldiers always been comforted, knowing that God was on their side?

 

[JJ50]

All religions are peaceful? Seriously? Hasn't war, conquest and genocide always been justified by appeals to religion?

A sensible post.

 

[james blunt]

All religions are peaceful? Seriously? Hasn't war, conquest and genocide always been justified by appeals to religion?
haven't soldiers always been comforted, knowing that God was on their side?

Soldiers have been neurologically controlled into believing God is on their side . I said all religion suppose to be peaceful , it's not God nature to destroy ., it is leaders natures to destroy .

 

[Valjean]

A sensible post.

really!!
I must be slipping...

Well, even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut.

 

[Firemorphic]

Nope. You appear to be projecting your beliefs upon others. A God that wanted to convince someone could appear any way that it wanted to.

Drop the rude false accusations and admit that you do not understand if you do not understand.

I will consider your reply consequential of all of the replies from other people you were getting there because you've missed all of my point there.

Think about it again:

Because you say "If a god can make the universe a physical manifestation would be child's play.", which by this you project the incarnationalist theology which I rampantly disagree with.
You say you're an atheist, so you've got to set your ground - which appears to be in the realm of the material (which is often a given).
Unless you have a particularly subject-consistent definition of what you expect in the first place (being "God"), you end up the subject of the "pool party drunk friend" analogy I made to Jos two pages ago.