I got some of this points from another forum I visit regularly. I am just tired of the weak arguments theist apologist keep regurgitating here always. They never provide any evidence at all. All they can do is provide weak arguments that are basically assumptions for things we do not know.

The obvious reason there are so many arguments for Gods is because Gods obviously aren't real. If Gods were real we'd have Gods, not arguments. That's how reality works. Fantasy, on the other hand works just like God arguments. So if a God is anything, it must be a fantasy.

There are many, many arguments from Christians and Muslims that boil down to "you can't explain X, therefore Y is proved."

It doesn't work like that (lucky for you). If you want to prove Y, you have to actually prove Y. What you don't know about X cannot prove Y. You can't get knowledge from ignorance. In order to avoid the raw emotions involved in dealing with the truth claims of your religion, let's look at a truth claim from another religion. That way, your emotions won't get in the way and you can evaluate the quality of the argument dispassionately. Hopefully from there, you will start to see what is wrong with similar arguments from other religions and from your own religion. Let's look at Lightning and how it was explained by the ancient Greeks.


To the ancient Greeks Lightning proves Zeus, it was one of the greatest evidence of Zeus. How else do you explain lightning? Ah ha! You can't explain lightning! Therefore I have definitely proved Zeus! You don't have an explanation for lightning, but I do, therefore my explanation is correct, therefore Zeus is proved! Now let's celebrate by sacrificing an animal to Zeus at the temple! That was how it worked for them at that time and that was the best explanation and evidence they had.

Here's the thing, the ancient Greeks could not possibly have known the real answer for lightning because it was way above their ability at that time and Benjamin Franklin who was able to provide empirical evidence for lightning was thousands of years in their future. Heck, I'm not sure you could explain electricity to them without recreating all the experiments done by other people prior to Franklin. To them, Zeus really would have been the best possible explanation for lightning, in the absence of any other thing. They believed it and used it as enough evidence. They formed tales about it and created a thriving culture round that belief and explanation.

But was their explanation correct despite the great culture and all that was built around it? The answer is NO!

If you don't know the answer to something, then the only honest answer is "I don't know."

If the ancient Greeks wanted to prove that Zeus made lightning, first they would have had to provide evidence of Zeus itself, then they would have had to provide evidence of Zeus making lightning that is the only objective evidence that would satisfy any body that wanted to know. They were able to do neither of those things, so the only reasonable answer they could have given was "I don't know where lightning comes from." Had they done that, they would not have looked like fools after Franklin. Franklin was able to empirically explain how lightning works.

I'm sure they would have been tempted to say "But look at the lightning. That should be all the proof you need! You've seen the proof for yourself! Why can't you just admit that Zeus is real?" I'm sure this would have sounded entirely reasonable to them, but it still would have been hilariously wrong.

Here's the thing: having an answer doesn't matter. It doesn't matter one bit. Any fool can provide you with answers to any question provided you're not too picky about whether or not the answer is correct. What matters is having an answer that is independently and objectively verifiable. That is precisely what Franklin gave us and which the ancient Greeks never had.

The claim that lightning comes from Zeus may have been emotionally satisfying to the ancient Greeks, but it wasn't an honest answer. It would not have been an honest answer unless and until they could provide evidence of Zeus, then provide evidence of Zeus making lightning. However emotionally satisfying it may have been to the Greeks, the lightning itself was not evidence of Zeus because the existence of lightning is evidence for every explanation for lightning. Lightning itself is not very meaningful evidence of anything other than the existence of lightning.

Zeus is not some kind of default answer that becomes true just because no one you know can offer a better explanation. If you don't know, then the honest answer is "I don't know."

Being uncomfortable with saying "I don't know" is not a valid excuse for making up answers, even if everyone you know worships Zeus. This is exactly what the God argument is today. It is basically an argument from ignorance. What we don't know, we use God as an explanation. Our ignorance is now God, and what we know is science.


Other uses of arguments from ignorance

These are formally called argument from ignorance fallacies. Here are some other examples.

Thunder proves Thor. How else do you explain thunder?

Earthquakes prove that there are dragons in the ground. How else do you explain earthquakes?

The opening of flowers proves pixies. How else do you explain why the flowers open?

The pyramids prove ancient alien visitation. How what do you explain the pyramids?

The fact that some ideas are true and others are false is evidence of God. How else do you explain the existence of truth? (Transcendental argument)

The fact that life exists is evidence of God. How else do you explain the existence of life? (Teleological argument)

Why does something exist rather than nothing? Ah ha! You don't have an answer, therefore I have proved God! (Cosmological argument)

I don't understand why some decisions are moral while other decisions are immoral, therefore the existence of morality proves God. (Argument from morality)

If you pay attention, you will notice this same basic argument being used again and again. It generally can be reduced to "I don't know X, therefore I know Y." Any time you find yourself thinking "Well, how else do you explain it?" then you are probably in danger of committing an argument from ignorance fallacy. Again, if you want to prove Y, you have to actually prove Y. If you think the existence of truth proves God, "How else do you explain it?" won't prove anything. You're going to have to provide evidence of God creating epistemology (not a particular epistemology, but epistemology, and good luck with that). The existence of the universe is evidence for the universe. It is NOT an evidence for any God. If God exist independent of the universe then show that it does. Because we do not know how the universe came about doesn't mean God. It just means we don't know and that's where it ends.


Conclusion

So why did I say "lucky you" earlier? Because I don't think you've stopped and thought about just how many ridiculous things from other people you would have to explain if logic worked the way you seem to think.

Further, I don't think most of you realize just how insulting and childish these arguments are. "I don't know" should never be an excuse for making up an answer unless you are talking to a toddler playing the "why" game. When you do this to adults, you are effectively treating them like toddlers.

You know what? Maybe it's not right to do that to toddlers either. Maybe we should be honest with toddlers and tell them "I don't know" when we don't.

But here is what is really pathetic about this argument: often another explanation is on offer, and perhaps even supported by evidence. Many times, when modern Christians or Muslims use this argument, it is the equivalent of a modern Greek person saying "lightning proves Zeus" even after Benjamin Franklin conducted his experiment.

And that is part of the reason I think theists deserve pity rather than scorn.

dalaman:
I got some of this points from another forum I visit regularly. I am just tired of the weak arguments theist apologist keep regurgitating here always. They never provide any evidence at all. Al they can do is provide weak arguments that atell basically assumptions for things we do not know.

The obvious reason there are so many arguments for Gods is because Gods obviously aren't real. If Gods were real we'd have Gods, not arguments. That's how reality works. Fantasy, on the other hand works just like God arguments. So if a God is anything, it must be a fantasy.

There are many, many arguments from Christians and Muslims that boil down to "you can't explain X, therefore Y is proved."

It doesn't work like that (lucky for you). If you want to prove Y, you have to actually prove Y. What you don't know about X cannot prove Y. You can't get knowledge from ignorance. In order to avoid the raw emotions involved in dealing with the truth claims of your religion, let's look at a truth claim from another religion. That way, your emotions won't get in the way and you can evaluate the quality of the argument dispassionately. Hopefully from there, you will start to see what is wrong with similar arguments from other religions and from your own religion. Let's look at Lightning and how it was explained by the ancient Greeks.


To the ancient Greeks Lightning proves Zeus, it was one of the greatest evidence of Zeus. How else do you explain lightning? Ah ha! You can't explain lightning! Therefore I have definitely proved Zeus! You don't have an explanation for lightning, but I do, therefore my explanation is correct, therefore Zeus is proved! Now let's celebrate by sacrificing an animal to Zeus at the temple! That was how it worked for them at that time and that was the best explanation and evidence they had.

Here's the thing, the ancient Greeks could not possibly have known the real answer for lightning because it was way above their ability at that time and Benjamin Franklin who was able to provide empirical evidence for lightning was thousands of years in their future. Heck, I'm not sure you could explain electricity to them without recreating all the experiments done by other people prior to Franklin. To them, Zeus really would have been the best possible explanation for lightning, in the absence of any other thing. They believed it and used it as enough evidence. They formed tales about it and created a thriving culture round that belief and explanation.

Bit was their explanation correct despite the great culture and all that was built around it? The answerIs NO!

If you don't know the answer to something, then the only honest answer is "I don't know."

If the ancient Greeks wanted to prove that Zeus made lightning, first they would have had to provide evidence of Zeus itself, then they would have had to provide evidence of Zeus making lightning that is the only objective evidence that would satisfy any body that wanted to know. They were able to do neither of those things, so the only reasonable answer they could have given was "I don't know where lightning comes from." Had they done that, they would not have looked like fools after Franklin. Franklin was able to empirically explain how lightning works.

I'm sure they would have been tempted to say "But look at the lightning. That should be all the proof you need! You've seen the proof for yourself! Why can't you just admit that Zeus is real?" I'm sure this would have sounded entirely reasonable to them, but it still would have been hilariously wrong.

Here's the thing: having an answer doesn't matter. It doesn't matter one bit. Any fool can provide you with answers to any question provided you're not too picky about whether or not the answer is correct. What matters is having an answer that is independently and objectively verifiable. That is precisely what Franklin gave us and which the ancient Greeks never had.

The claim that lightning comes from Zeus may have been emotionally satisfying to the ancient Greeks, but it wasn't an honest answer. It would not have been an honest answer unless and until they could provide evidence of Zeus, then provide evidence of Zeus making lightning. However emotionally satisfying it may have been to the Greeks, the lightning itself was not evidence of Zeus because the existence of lightning is evidence for every explanation for lightning. Lightning itself is not very meaningful evidence of anything other than the existence of lightning.

Zeus is not some kind of default answer that becomes true just because no one you know can offer a better explanation. If you don't know, then the honest answer is "I don't know."

Being uncomfortable with saying "I don't know" is not a valid excuse for making up answers, even if everyone you know worships Zeus. This is exactly what the God argument is today. It is basically an argument from ignorance. What we don't know, we use God as an explanation. Our ignorance is now God, and what we know is science.


Other uses of arguments from ignorance

These are formally called argument from ignorance fallacies. Here are some other examples.

Thunder proves Thor. How else do you explain thunder?

Earthquakes prove that there are dragons in the ground. How else do you explain earthquakes?

The opening of flowers proves pixies. How else do you explain why the flowers open?

The pyramids prove ancient alien visitation. How what do you explain the pyramids?

The fact that some ideas are true and others are false is evidence of God. How else do you explain the existence of truth? (Transcendental argument)

The fact that life exists is evidence of God. How else do you explain the existence of life? (Teleological argument)

Why does something exist rather than nothing? Ah ha! You don't have an answer, therefore I have proved God! (Cosmological argument)

I don't understand why some decisions are moral while other decisions are immoral, therefore the existence of morality proves God. (Argument from morality)

If you pay attention, you will notice this same basic argument being used again and again. It generally can be reduced to "I don't know X, therefore I know Y." Any time you find yourself thinking "Well, how else do you explain it?" then you are probably in danger of committing an argument from ignorance fallacy. Again, if you want to prove Y, you have to actually prove Y. If you think the existence of truth proves God, "How else do you explain it?" won't prove anything. You're going to have to provide evidence of God creating epistemology (not a particular epistemology, but epistemology, and good luck with that). The existence of the universe is evidence for the universe. It is NOT an evidence for any God. If God exist independent of the universe then show that it does. Because we do not know how the universe came about doesn't mean God. It just means we don't know and that's where it ends.


Conclusion

So why did I say "lucky you" earlier? Because I don't think you've stopped and thought about just how many ridiculous things from other people you would have to explain if logic worked the way you seem to think.

Further, I don't think most of you realize just how insulting and childish these arguments are. "I don't know" should never be an excuse for making up an answer unless you are talking to a toddler playing the "why" game. When you do this to adults, you are effectively treating them like toddlers.

You know what? Maybe it's not right to do that to toddlers either. Maybe we should be honest with toddlers and tell them "I don't know" when we don't.

But here is what is really pathetic about this argument: often another explanation is on offer, and perhaps even supported by evidence. Many times, when modern Christians or Muslims use this argument, it is the equivalent of a modern Greek person saying "lightning proves Zeus" even after Benjamin Franklin conducted his experiment.

And that is part of the reason I think theists deserve pity rather than scorn.

Let me summarize your jeremiad for you . You are trying to say that we consider these, right ? Tell me what is logical about agreeing with these.

dalaman:


Zeus is not some kind of default answer that becomes true just because no one you know can offer a better explanation. If you don't know, then the honest answer is "I don't know."

Being uncomfortable with saying "I don't know" is not a valid excuse for making up answers, even if everyone you know worships Zeus. This is exactly what the God argument is today. It is basically an argument from ignorance. What we don't know, we use God as an explanation. Our ignorance is now God, and what we know is science.

While i can say this OP is succinct, i must however point out the hypocrisy of the "I don't know." statement. As an Atheist, you are also guilty of the same assertion that you have labeled Christianity with.

Can you, dalaman say authoritatively that no God (whatever that means to anyone) exists? of course you cannot!

Outside the purview of Abrahamic religions, you cannot prove to me that no God (whatever that means to anyone) exists. Your rejection of Christianity or Islam does not in anyway invalidate the evidence or existence of that who we speak about.

But the funny thing is instead of saying you do not know, you state that God does not exist. If i ask you for proof, I am sure it will be limited to your perception of what you think God is and should be, what you think he has failed to do and what you think he should have done.

So whatever you accuse Christians of, just as well applies to you. Look in the mirror Bro, what do you see?

KingEbukasBlog:


Let me summarize your jeremiad for you . You are trying to say that we consider these, right ? Tell me what is logical about agreeing with these.

You can't argue straightly, you'll always have to create a straw man to beat up with your lie lie. Where on the OP did I say that the universe came from nothing or that nothing created the universe? You are doing exactly what the ancient Greeks did with lightning. They provided a false answer and created a culture around it but it doesn't make it true. If God exist show us that it does exist on its own. Shebi your God is alive and can do things. Let it demonstrate it's abilities na. Why are you throwing empty arguments instead of allowing your alleged living God to do anything on its own. After all your God wants people to know that it exist so that it can have a personal relationship with them. Why then is he relying you an incompetent person like you throwing half baked and empty assumptions and arguments. What can't your God do to show people that it exist? Why are you always throwing half baked arguments for a God that allegedly exist and is so powerful that it is alleged it can do all things. Why is your God relying on an incompetent person like you to drop weak arguments in order to convince others that it exist? The answer is because your God is imaginary and lives only inside your head. If your God exist you will present your God instead of weak arguments.

The title of the thread should be 'Your ignorance in not knowing God.

dalaman:


You can't argue straightly, you'll always have to create a straw man to beat up with your lie lie. Where on the OP did I say that the universe came from nothing or that nothing created the universe?

Oh now you are angry ? You are the one with the Strawman in your OP . Nobody is saying whatever you wrote in the OP and you falsely accuse of doing something else . Liar . I just reciprocated what you did , that's all . Most atheists say the universe came from Nothing , that's why the meme was created .

So where are your strong arguments against God's existence ? Let me see them .

You are doing exactly what the ancient Greeks did with lightning. They provided a false answer and created a culture around it but it doesn't make it true. If God exist show us that it does exist on its own. Shebi your God is alive and can do things. Let it demonstrate it's abilities na. Why are you throwing empty arguments instead of allowing your alleged living God to do anything on its own. After all your God wants people to know that it exist so that it can have a personal relationship with them. Why then is he relying you an incompetent person like you throwing half baked and empty assumptions and arguments. What can't your God do to show people that it exist? Why are you always throwing half baked arguments for a God that allegedly exist and is so powerful that it is alleged it can do all things. Why is your God relying on an incompetent person like you to drop weak arguments in order to convince others that it exist? The answer is because your God is imaginary and lives only inside your head. If your God exist you will present your God instead of weak arguments.

This anger against a non existent entity is too much na . Ok I've agreed with you .

Man created gods and the gods gave us atheism .

Are you happy ?

6barz:



While i can say this OP is succinct, i must however point out the hypocrisy of the "I don't know." statement. As an Atheist, you are also guilty of the same assertion that you have labeled Christianity with.

Can you, dalaman say authoritatively that no God (whatever that means to anyone) exists? of course you cannot!

Outside the purview of Abrahamic religions, you cannot prove to me that no God (whatever that means to anyone) exists. Your rejection of Christianity or Islam does not in anyway invalidate the evidence or existence of that who we speak about.

But the funny thing is instead of saying you do not know, you state that God does not exist. If i ask you for proof, I am sure it will be limited to your perception of what you think God is and should be, what you think he has failed to do and what you think he should have done.

So whatever you accuse Christians of, just as well applies to you. Look in the mirror Bro, what do you see?

What is God? Does it exist? How can any body get to know that God exist on its own independently, objectively and in a verifiable manner in such a way that any body that looks at it will agree and come to the same conclusion? The burden of proof is always on the claimant.

6barz:



While i can say this OP is succinct, i must however point out the hypocrisy of the "I don't know." statement. As an Atheist, you are also guilty of the same assertion that you have labeled Christianity with.

Can you, dalaman say authoritatively that no God (whatever that means to anyone) exists? of course you cannot!

Outside the purview of Abrahamic religions, you cannot prove to me that no God (whatever that means to anyone) exists. Your rejection of Christianity or Islam does not in anyway invalidate the evidence or existence of that who we speak about.

But the funny thing is instead of saying you do not know, you state that God does not exist. If i ask you for proof, I am sure it will be limited to your perception of what you think God is and should be, what you think he has failed to do and what you think he should have done.

So whatever you accuse Christians of, just as well applies to you. Look in the mirror Bro, what do you see?

Excellent .

KingEbukasBlog:


Oh now you are angry ? You are the one with the Strawman in your OP . Nobody is saying whatever you wrote in the OP and you falsely accuse of doing something else . Liar . I just reciprocated what you did , that's all . Most atheists say the universe came from Nothing , that's why the meme was created .

Saying that you lied means am angry? Na wah oo. You just lied. Show me one atheist here on nairaland that has ever claimed that the universe came from nothing. You have all the time to do that, just one atheist that clairs the universe came from nothing here on NL is what you are to provide. Christians are known for always creating straw man and beating it. I've never seen any atheist here argue for a universe that was created from nothing. Provide evidencefor your claim show me one atheist here that has ever made that claim or accept that you lied

So where are your strong arguments against God's existence ? Let me see them .

That we ONLY have arguments for and against God's existence only proves my point. If your God exist we will have God and not arguments. When was the last time you saw people having arguments for or against the existence of the sun. We have argumentsfor and against God because God is an imaginary and man made idea. If your God exist we won't be having arguments we will just point to it or its existence will be verifiable to all that look it it and want to know about it.

This anger against a non existent entity is too much na . Ok I've agreed with you .

Man created gods and the gods gave us atheism .

Are you happy ?

Tell me why an all powerful God that exist and wants people to know about its existence will rely on an incompetent person like you to tell anybody anything about its existence? Tell me please.

dalaman:


Saying that you lied means am angry? Na wah oo. You just lied. Show me one atheist here on nairaland that has ever claimed that the universe came from nothing. You have all the time to do that, just one atheist that clairs the universe came from nothing here on NL is what you are to provide. Christians are known for always creating straw man and beating it. I've never seen any atheist here argue for a universe that was created from nothing. Provide evidencefor your claim show me one atheist here that has ever made that claim or accept that you lied



That we ONLY have arguments for and against God's existence only proves my point. If your God exist we will have God and not arguments. When was the last time you saw people having arguments for or against the existence of the sun. We have argumentsfor and against God because God is an imaginary and man made idea. If your God exist we won't be having arguments we will just point to it or its existence will be verifiable to all that look it it and want to know about it.




Tell me why an all powerful God that exist and wants people to know about its existence will rely on an incompetent person like you to tell anybody anything about its existence? Tell me please.

Rationalists/Logicians say that the only route to knowledge is through reason . They believe empiricism is fallible because our perception and sensory ideas differ . God is beyond existence and thus beyond our perception as humans since our senses are limited and fallible . That's why natural theology uses logic , reason , arguments to support God's existence .

Should we say that your thread was created out of ignorance ? You have no rebutted any argument for God's existence since I knew you 3 years ago , dismissing them as weak is fallacious , the pooh pooh fallacy . Stay logical . Oh , you are an atheist . You can't

Nice OP

KingEbukasBlog:


Rationalists/Logicians say that the only route to knowledge is through reason . They believe empiricism is fallible because our perception and sensory ideas differ . God is beyond existence and thus beyond our perception as humans since our senses are limited and fallible . That's why natural theology uses logic , reason , arguments to support God's existence.

You are just a dishonest and empty sophist. Name the rationalist that are against empiricism and why they disbelieve in empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is the only objective evidence we have so far that is universally acceptable. Franklin was able to empirically explain his position that is why we all accept it and anybody that looks at it will accept it. It is the same way that any body that study cells will come to the same conclusion when provided with the same empirical evidence. If your God is beyond our perception as humans then how do you know that it exist? You've shown again that yiur God is nothing.

God is an idea that is why all we have to show that God exist is arguments for and against. If God exist we won't have arguments we will have God. We don't have argumentsfor and against the existence of the sun because it exist. We have argument for an against God because it is an idea and as such we have to argue for and against it. Theology is a human invention and it remains a human ideas just like God so argument is the only thing that can be used for and against any theological position.

Should we say that your thread was created out of ignorance ? You have no rebutted any argument for God's existence since I knew you 3 years ago , dismissing them as weak is fallacious , the pooh pooh fallacy . Stay logical . Oh , you are an atheist . You can't

If God exist we won't have any argument for the existence of God. We have argument instead of objective and verifiable evidence because God is a human idea. Again we don't have arguments for the existence of the sun because it exist. Since I've known you, you have been running away from your God as defined, you always want to push your God to the realm of the unknown because you know that if we are to stick by the traditional definition of your God and what it is it can be shown not to exist. I have asked you very specific questions about this God of yours bass on the cams you have made that can be verified but you ran away from it because it will show you that this God of yours is nothing but an imaginary idea.

The most amazing part is the claim that an inability to disprove something is somehow evidence of his existence

they'll say things like our senses are not enough to, Some fail to justify their enthrallment to their specific brand of religion/god by pointing out that the non-existence of any of the gods cannot be proved. If inability to prove the non-existence of deities is enough for some to believe in them., they must be very busy worshiping Amun-Ra, Apollo/Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Pratibhanapratisamvit, Buddhist goddess of context analysis.and Acat, Mayan god of tattoo artists. and Tsa’qamae, north american god of salmon migration - and many thousands of other undetectable hypothetical entities among which their own version of god remain merely mythical and of which no one ever provides proof or reason of (or for) existence and therefore non-existence may be assumed by default.

I would actually be happy not to argue with theists and even admit they could be right if they just stopped at clamining: There is a god. I could respond: you might be right. So what? End of discussion. But then they don't stop at that. They automatically assume that admitting that possibility makes a specific god a realty and a whole ideology (however vile and ridiculous) the only true one. In other words after "proving" there is a god they immediately know what he (yes, it's a male god, obviously) thinks, wants, in every single detail. Compare this to someone "proving" to you that aliens exist. Since it's a sensible assumption, you might admit that OK, it's likely. Do you then automatically agree that they are little green men with a single eye in the middle who want to rape human females (plus a gazillion other ridiculous assumptions)?

6barz:

While i can say this OP is succinct, i must however point out the hypocrisy of the "I don't know." statement. As an Atheist, you are also guilty of the same assertion that you have labeled Christianity with.

Can you, dalaman say authoritatively that no God (whatever that means to anyone) exists? of course you cannot!

Believe it or not, most atheists don't claim to be 100% positive that no god exists. Even Richard Dawkins considers himself a 6 on a scale of 1 through 7 of unbelief, 6 being something like "It is very unlikely that any god exists". Most atheists, including on this forum, are agnostic-atheists. We lack belief in gods, but do not claim 100% knowledge of one's existence or lack thereof.

But you see, that still leaves an incredibly tiny sliver of room for what most theists claim to be true. Not only do Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. say they know a god exists, but the god they claim exists also has very specific attributes and deeds and ritualistic requirements attributed to it.

Outside the purview of Abrahamic religions, you cannot prove to me that no God (whatever that means to anyone) exists. Your rejection of Christianity or Islam does not in anyway invalidate the evidence or existence of that who we speak about.

Well, if you think a god exists, and you don't have proof of it, how can you even know what kind of "god" it is? How can you know it has any desire to be involved in your personal affairs, or has any relevance to you whatsoever other than the initiation of the universe we live in?

But the funny thing is instead of saying you do not know, you state that God does not exist. If i ask you for proof, I am sure it will be limited to your perception of what you think God is and should be, what you think he has failed to do and what you think he should have done.

Most of us are debating with Christians and Muslims, and their God concepts are defined in the bible and quran. What you're saying "we atheists think god is" is actually what members of Abrahamic religions believe god is. We're just going off of their definition.

If you have a different definition of god that you think is more valid than the Christian or Muslim version, then please feel free to share it.

dalaman:


You are just a dishonest and empty sophist. Name the rationalist that are against empiricism and why they disbelieve in empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is the only objective evidence we have so far that is universally acceptable. Franklin was able to empirically explain his position that is why we all accept it and anybody that looks at it will accept it. It is the same way that any body that study cells will come to the same conclusion when provided with the same empirical evidence. If your God is beyond our perception as humans then how do you know that it exist? You've shown again that yiur God is nothing.

God is an idea that is why all we have to show that God exist is arguments for and against. If God exist we won't have arguments we will have God. We don't have argumentsfor and against the existence of the sun because it exist. We have argument for an against God because it is an idea and as such we have to argue for and against it. Theology is a human invention and it remains a human ideas just like God so argument is the only thing that can be used for and against any theological position.



If God exist we won't have any argument for the existence of God. We have argument instead of objective and verifiable evidence because God is a human idea. Again we don't have arguments for the existence of the sun because it exist. Since I've known you, you have been running away from your God as defined, you always want to push your God to the realm of the unknown because you know that if we are to stick by the traditional definition of your God and what it is it can be shown not to exist. I have asked you very specific questions about this God of yours bass on the cams you have made that can be verified but you ran away from it because it will show you that this God of yours is nothing but an imaginary idea.

Let me educate on you on Rationalism


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBFZXOMhcHE


30 seconds of the video is enough sef . When you do that , tell me what you think

dalaman:


If God exist we won't have any argument for the existence of God.

Do aliens exist ? Is there intelligent life other than the one on earth ? Everyone is giving his or her opinion why such is possible or not . Going by your logic , aliens are imaginary ideas because we argue about their existence . Even Richard Dawkins as shallow as he is , is ashamed of this sort of reasoning .

dalaman:
If God exist we won't have arguments we will have God.

And this is your evidence ? How shallow ! You are also making an argument against God's existence . This right there is an argument against God's existence .

Without arguments , logic and reason is dead . You are shamelessly irrational for making this statement

KingEbukasBlog:


And this is your evidence ? How shallow ! You are also making an argument against God's existence . This right there is an argument against God's existence .

Without arguments , logic and reason is dead . You are shamelessly irrational for making this statement

Ok man, let's discuss. What is the greatest proof of the existence of God?

CoolUsername:


Ok man, let's discuss. What is the greatest proof of the existence of God?

Enough of this merry go round . Atheism thriving on criticism . Its very easy to criticize and be skeptical . Give me your greatest proof of God's non existence . Tell me why you believe there is no God . Watch me to do the criticism . Please I beg you , post your greatest reason or proof .

dalaman:


What is God? Does it exist? How can any body get to know that God exist on its own independently, objectively and in a verifiable manner in such a way that any body that looks at it will agree and come to the same conclusion? The burden of proof is always on the claimant.

I knew you were going to suck me into defining God and asking me to prove if he exists. So as not to run along in circles, I will try to buttress my stance.

My definition of God will be the process that started everything. I guess my usage of the term 'God' caught you offguard. Just like I said in my initial op, God means different things to different people - whatever God means.

For example, you stated that if God exists, we won't have arguments, we will have God. What I read was if the process exists, we won't have arguments, we will have the process.

Do I believe in the process? Yes. Do I believe in religion, No. I see religion as a man-made construct to rationalise the process into something understandable and human like. Just like I see atheism as another man-made construct.

I hope you understand how I feel when someone says 'I have been a Christian all my life and suddenly I felt empty. I am now an atheist. That's such a joke...

Just like Billyonaire always say. I dislike labels.

Scenario

Do you believe your 10th generation Grandfather existed? I am certain your answer will be yes. If I ask you for proof, you will most likely point to your Grandfather, your father and yourself.

If I insist on proof about your 10th generation Grandfather alone, you won't be able to give me any tangible proof. No birth records, no pictures, no books or journals or scrolls.

Can we then say due to the absence of verifiable documents, your 10th generation Grandfather do not exist?

The bolded part is the height of hypocrisy and insincerity....

KingEbukasBlog:



Enough of this merry go round . Atheism thriving on criticism . Its very easy to criticize and be skeptical . Give me your greatest proof of God's non existence . Tell me why you believe there is no God . Watch me to do the criticism . Please I beg you , post your greatest reason or proof.

The burden of proof can be so frustrating...

KingEbukasBlog:



Enough of this merry go round . Atheism thriving on criticism . Its very easy to criticize and be skeptical . Give me your greatest proof of God's non existence . Tell me why you believe there is no God . Watch me to do the criticism . Please I beg you , post your greatest reason or proof .

I asked you a simple question and now you're getting all defensive. What is your greatest proof that Superman doesn't exist?

ScepticalPyrrho:
The bolded part is the height of hypocrisy and insincerity....

The burden of proof can be so frustrating...

God does not exist - this is a claim that has to be proven . Why do you think there are arguments against God's existence ? Although they have rebutted centuries ago .

CoolUsername:


I asked you a simple question and now you're getting all defensive. What is your greatest proof that Superman doesn't exist?

You believe God does not exist , state your reasons . Or are you scared ? . I have never seen any meaningful reason given by an atheist anywhere in the world for rejecting God's existence . Open your thread and state your reasons and watch me criticize .

Stephen Hawking believes there is no God because the universe created itself because of the law of gravity . This is his reason

The rebuttal is simple : Something cannot itself , its logically absurd to even assert that something can create itself and laws do not create anything , there are merely descriptions of what happens under certain conditions .

See ? Easy to criticize . His story and "scientific explanations" were quickly rejected with just two simple logical statements .

Now bro , give me your reason like Stephen Hawking did .

The highest consciousness that resulted in everything is ENERGY. It is the sum total of everything and everyone.
We are all gods, summing up as GOD ALMIGHTY.

KingEbukasBlog:


God does not exist - this is a claim that has to be proven . Why do you think there are arguments against God's existence ? Although they have rebutted centuries ago .

What does my inability to disprove the inexistence of God prove?

Of what relevance is any failed attempt to prove that God doesn't exist?

What would it mean if I say I can't prove that God doesn't exist?

Note: all the above are the same question.

ScepticalPyrrho:

What does my inability to disprove the inexistence of God prove?

Of what relevance is any failed attempt to prove that God doesn't exist?

What would it mean if I say I can't prove that God doesn't exist?

Note: all the above are the same question.

If you have no logical reason to hold any belief then the most reasonable thing to do is to drop it . I acknowledge the existence of God because I have tenable reasons to do so .

If you can't provide any good or tenable reason to support your belief that God does not exist , why do you still have such belief ?

@dalaman

If you are reading this, then lucky you. I was an atheist for over a decade. I was not an atheist out of ignorance, because I was an Elder in the Church before, I sincerely realized there was NOTHING out there. That NOTHING out there, is just the UNKNOWN.

I went on a journey to research on the NOTHING, the Unknown. What I found was not up there, was not down here, was in me, it is here, it is there. It is everywhere.

Take what I am going to say serious. Let's go back to matter. There taught you three states of matter, but I am researched and known over 15 States of matter. From Solid, to Liquid, to Vapor, Plasma, Quantz etc etc color up till Spirit, but what I can say is this. Matter is just a phase of Energy. The molecules of solid are so dense and bonded to the state of very slow vibration, in comparison to the other States. YET, we can attempt to define energy, yet we can not Describe it, but we can feel the effect of it.

So, lets go back to Energy theory and make comparison with NOTHING, the UNKNOWN.

Energy Can not be Created Nor destroyed, but can change from one form to another.
God is the beginning and the end, has no beginning and has no ending, but can appear in many forms.

God is Energy, not just energy, but SOURCE of Energy, and CAUSE of Energy, from the Singularity, where we call the zero point. The vibrational frequency at zero point being absolute zero. At the beginning of the universe, where science calls Big Bang (was nt really a bang), everything split from singularity and we can see this as evident in the microwave background in the cosmos.

But there is Good news. Creation is a wave-collapsing phenomena by an Observer. So, this observer who is in the habit of observing had NOTHING else to observe but ITSELF. So, here we have the Observer becoming the Observed and collapsing wave-functions to materialize thought once its watered with feeling in the lower density worlds. Now, the observer need to play some games on lower density plane, the Earth was designed, a Digital Library and every other thing. A place where we can play around with hybridization, cross-pollination, cloning and what have you. And it is not Earth alone, there are billions of Planets. So where ever the observer needed to be, ITs photon sparked and encapsulated in Soul to avoid the Electro-magnetic radiation of low density plane from stripping the photon of its finest crystalline nature, we had to once again live in a Physical Vessel, a container designed to walk on two legs and even with the power to produce more bodies for Spirit to observe and be observed by ITSELF.

On Earth, we wear the Earth Body, just like Spacesuit to go to Moon and Mars, this Body is just a suit designed for MISSION EARTH.

We are spirit, and we journey the Cosmos. We are God, together we are ONE BIG GOD. But we can choose to split and reside in any object, any being, any creature, just to experience our creation, our reality.

How do I know these things ? You will soon find out.

To be continued.

KingEbukaNaija:


If you have no logical reason to hold any belief then the most reasonable thing to do is to drop it . I acknowledge the existence of God because I have tenable reasons to do so .

If you can't provide any good or tenable reason to support your belief that God does not exist , why do you still have such belief ?

I see your confusion here.


I lack belief. I simply don't believe that a God or Gods exist.

My inability to disprove God's existence doesn't give me any reason to believe that God(s) exists.
Why is it so?

Just because I can't disprove the existence of mermaids does not make belief in mermaids reasonable.

The above is sound logical reasoning.

6barz:


I knew you were going to suck me into defining God and asking me to prove if he exists. So as not to run along in circles, I will try to buttress my stance.

My definition of God will be the process that started everything. I guess my usage of the term 'God' caught you offguard. Just like I said in my initial op, God means different things to different people - whatever God means.

For example, you stated that if God exists, we won't have arguments, we will have God. What I read was if the process exists, we won't have arguments, we will have the process.

Do I believe in the process? Yes. Do I believe in religion, No. I see religion as a man-made construct to rationalise the process into something understandable and human like. Just like I see atheism as another man-made construct.

I hope you understand how I feel when someone says 'I have been a Christian all my life and suddenly I felt empty. I am now an atheist. That's such a joke...

Just like Billyonaire always say. I dislike labels.

Scenario

Do you believe your 10th generation Grandfather existed? I am certain your answer will be yes. If I ask you for proof, you will most likely point to your Grandfather, your father and yourself.

If I insist on proof about your 10th generation Grandfather alone, you won't be able to give me any tangible proof. No birth records, no pictures, no books or journals or scrolls.

Can we then say due to the absence of verifiable documents, your 10th generation Grandfather do not exist?

You can't even define God properly yet you want me to believe it exist? I find that to be ridiculous.

6barz:



While i can say this OP is succinct, i must however point out the hypocrisy of the "I don't know." statement. As an Atheist, you are also guilty of the same assertion that you have labeled Christianity with.

Can you, dalaman say authoritatively that no God (whatever that means to anyone) exists? of course you cannot!

Outside the purview of Abrahamic religions, you cannot prove to me that no God (whatever that means to anyone) exists. Your rejection of Christianity or Islam does not in anyway invalidate the evidence or existence of that who we speak about.

But the funny thing is instead of saying you do not know, you state that God does not exist. If i ask you for proof, I am sure it will be limited to your perception of what you think God is and should be, what you think he has failed to do and what you think he should have done.

So whatever you accuse Christians of, just as well applies to you. Look in the mirror Bro, what do you see?

This is brilliant

ScepticalPyrrho:
I see your confusion here.


I lack belief. I simply don't believe that a God or Gods exist.

My inability to disprove God's existence doesn't give me any reason to believe that God(s) exists.
Why is it so?

Just because I can't disprove the existence of mermaids does not make belief in mermaids reasonable.

I don't think you understand me . You can give your reasons why you believe there are no such thing as mermaids .

If you have no reasons , then why do you believe mermaids don't exist even up to the extent of criticizing people who think mermaids exist ? That's crazy man .

I hope you know skepticism has its own problems ? I think its just something coined by people who chose to protect their own beliefs . They just say it to appear logical whereas they are protecting their beliefs . I know you are one of them bro