Your best argument that god exists

[Jumi]

I think the point he was trying to get across is that if there is no afterlife and no ultimate Judge, that there is no real justice in this world. The evil people just get away with it and the innocent who suffer never get their recompense. In other words, no one gets what they deserve. This a good point, imo.

I might have misread it as "atheists don't have morals".

I don't think there is objective justice in the world though. Many times the rotten people will destroy themselves. Most of the time people hurt others because they are hurting themselves because of something they had endured or how they were taught.

We create any justice ourselves. The final justice is that in death we are all equal.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I might have misread it as "atheists don't have morals".

I don't think there is objective justice in the world though. Many times the rotten people will destroy themselves. Most of the time people hurt others because they are hurting themselves because of something they had endured or how they were taught.

We create any justice ourselves. The final justice is that in death we are all equal.

I understand that view, but I don't agree. There is no justice in this world and the justice after death is due to all being stripped bare and the truth being revealed. Then they have to live with it. Forever.

 

[Sapiens]

Again, you affirm my point. You reject metaphysical arguments not because of their own merits but because you have already made up your mind they have no validity. It won't matter what or how they are demonstrated.

But that is where you are so clearly wrong. Of course it would matter what or how they are demonstrated, but the fact of the matter is that they are not demonstrated.

Belief is not blind acceptance. That is an atheistic premise imposed on theists and it's false. Faith and reason are compatible, dichotomizing them is erroneous.

Baseless claims, make a case or give it up, what are you telling us, that belief is eyes wide open, rational and empirical? You are headed down the three year old's path of why, why, why?

Then why assert a dogma of probability and likelihood, then dismiss theists for having dogmas?

I don't dismiss anyone for having dogmas, I dismiss their dogmas when they are nonsensical ... there is a difference.

It looks to me like a double standard.

Since you don't see it for what it is (witness above) you are in no position to judge.

What would be the point? A rational warrant for belief is all "navel gazing", isn't it? And your dogmatic probability and likelihood is rational and mine is claptrap? Isn't that what you are saying?

If you say so.

 

[McBell]

1. I think, that in this world, every effect has a cause. So I think there needs to be a first cause, that is not subject to cause and effect, for the world to exist.

Make up your mind.
Either everything has to have a cause or not.
To make the claim that everything has to have a cause and then to make god an exception is nothing more than shooting your claim in the foot.

2. Prayers work sometimes and make me feel good.

Prayer works in that it makes the one praying feel better.
Beyond that, not so much.

3. following God's law is good for me

The biggest one for me is this: If you want to believe, there is nothing stopping you.

There is no real argument that God doesn't exist. So we might aswell be optimists, and believe in life after death. I was an atheist, but one day I found out this truth.
It is a decision, wether in your world God exists.
Believe in God is not something that can be proven to be false. Believers are not stupid people, who are ignorant of the truth. They are optimists. Theistic belief is as much true as atheistic believe. I have been there. I could start being an atheist now, and I would probably think that it is true. But I am an optimist, believe in life after death and in a deity, Who loves me. And I am not stupid for being a believer, there is no proof for atheism, and theism feels as true as atheism for me. I am just an optimist.

I think that every atheist could start believing now, and find out that theism is as true as atheism. If you don't like it and want more freedom, it is okay.. But it is a question of taste and not one of truth.

I have my standards set higher than "well, you cannot prove it wrong".

 

[McBell]

Everything around you and everything in your life is a proof that God exists.
When you need something really bad, you ask God
When you are really afraid, you seek God's help
When something good happens to you, you thank God
When something bad happens to you, you question God (although this is not correct)
PM me for more information

what a nice list of choir sermon bold empty claims.

 

[Willamena]

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists. ​

I've no interest in convincing you, my best proof that "god" exists is that there is a "me" that, while it doesn't exist, also doesn't fail to exist.

 

[kepha31]

Natural "laws" (themselves metaphysical abstractions in a large sense, even though they have to do with matter) still have to attain their remarkable organizing abilities at some point. One either explains them by natural laws or by humbly bowing to divine teleology at some point as an explanation every bit as plausible as a scenario which boils down to materialism any way you cut the cake (everything is explained by material processes).

Matter becomes god in the atheist/materialist/naturalist view, as far as I am concerned, and this is patently obvious, because in the godless universe, matter has the inherent power to do everything by itself, which Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, being their ultimate Creator and even Ongoing Preserver and Sustainer.

Quite obviously, then, since all these marvels which we observe in the universe are attributed to matter, just as we attribute the same capacities and designs to God's creative power, from our perspective, matter is the atheist's god, in which he places extraordinary faith; more faith even than we place in God, because it is far more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone. Yet atheists manage to believe this anyway because they refuse to acknowledge a God behind all the Design. Indeed, this is faith of the most un-rational, childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians have the blind, childlike, gullible, fideistic faith, rather than "rational, intellectual, sophisticated" atheists who possess it in far greater measure.

Babylonian idols, c. 18th-16th century B.C.

Ancient polytheist idolaters are put to shame by the trillions and
trillions of gods of modern atheist idolatrous polytheism
​

Such belief is, in effect and in substance, closely-examined, a kind of poytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, which puts to shame the pagan worship and incredulities of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other primitive groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish. The polytheistic materialist is far, far more religious than that: he thinks that trillions of his Atom-gods and their distant relatives, the Cell-gods, can make absolutelyeverything in the universe occur, of their own power, possessed eternally either in full or in inevitably-unfolding potentiality.

One might call this (to coin a phrase) Deo-Atomism ("belief that the Atom is God"). The omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, ubiquitous (if not omnipresent) Atom (especially trillions of them) can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason which we can understand (i.e., why and how the Atom-God came to possess such powers in the first place). The Deo-Atomist worships his trillions of gods unreservedly, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He is what sociologists call a "true believer."

http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2006/12/atheists-boundless-faith-in-deo.html​

Funny how this post gets totally ignored.

 

[Bunyip]

Funny how this post gets totally ignored.

I think simply because it is so misguided.

 

[Sabour]

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists. ​

Nothing can be created without a creator. Unless that Creator is Self Sufficient and Self Sustaining. That is God, the Creator of everything

 

[raph]

Make up your mind.
Either everything has to have a cause or not.
To make the claim that everything has to have a cause and then to make god an exception is nothing more than shooting your claim in the foot.



Prayer works in that it makes the one praying feel better.
Beyond that, not so much.


I have my standards set higher than "well, you cannot prove it wrong".

I made a claim that everything inside reality has a cause. Thats what we observe. We dont observe anything outside of reality, therefore we cant say that thing outside reality must have a cause.

Why is your standard higher? You are an atheist because noone can prove that God exists. It is the same.

And the burden of proof is not with the theists. The burden of proof lies on that side, which claims that something that exists doesnt have a creator because it is against logic.

 

[McBell]

Nothing can be created without a creator. Unless that Creator is Self Sufficient and Self Sustaining. That is God, the Creator of everything

Now all you have to do is show that everything was in fact "created".

Good luck with that.

 

[McBell]

I made a claim that everything inside reality has a cause. Thats what we observe. We dont observe anything outside of reality, therefore we cant say that thing outside reality must have a cause.

You really should have put the above clarification in your original claim.
Now it looks like back peddling.

Why is your standard higher? You are an atheist because noone can prove that God exists. It is the same.

No, it isn't the same at all.
That you think it is reveals that meaningful discussion with you on the topic is not possible.

And the burden of proof is not with the theists.

The burden of proof is always on the theist because to be a theist you claim god exists.
The burden of proof is not always on the atheist.
Though some atheists do make a claim that bears the burden of proof.

The burden of proof lies on that side, which claims that something that exists doesnt have a creator because it is against logic.

Who, other than yourself in order to beat up a strawman, makes that claim?

 

[Sabour]

Now all you have to do is show that everything was in fact "created".

Good luck with that.

Things that we observe can be either created by something or self created.

However, what we observe has a beginning and an end. Therefore they are not self created nor self sustaining. They are created by something else.

 

[Skwim]

Nothing can be created without a creator.

In the sense of cause and effect you're quite right; however, if you're saying that the cause must be a sentient creator then you've got a lot of explaining to do.

 

[McBell]

Things that we observe can be either created by something or self created.

Please give an example of something that is "self created".

However, what we observe has a beginning and an end. Therefore they are not self created nor self sustaining. They are created by something else.

Why do you claim that that something else is intelligent?

 

[outhouse]

Funny how this post gets totally ignored.

Because it has little worth in my eyes.

 

[outhouse]

They are created by something else.

Their mom and dad?

 

[outhouse]

And the burden of proof is not with the theists.

yes it is your burden

you make claims that are different from all other theist why, explain that away ???????????????

 

[Willamena]

Simple as that.

Identify your god and convince us that it exists. ​

Here I am.

 

[Skwim]

Here I am.

Ah yes, a god unto one's self. Nice to see someone come out of the closet and admit it for a change.