Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Ok, then after you discover that atheism has no conclusive proof that there is(are) no god(s), then feel free to show me your more coclusive proof that there is at least one.

Well, I already know the answer.

I'm just waiting to see how many Atheists are self-aware or frank enough to recognize it. That's where questions are so useful; they don't accuse, they just ask for whatever good evidence the speaker may have. In this case, it's pretty clear that there's no sufficient evidence for Atheism...

...so why won't Atheists admit it? Is there something they don't want to acknowledge? Something they don't want to see, or let others know when they see it?

Of course. There's something deeply sneaky about Atheism. It's non-evidentiary, but wants to self-present as rational, and even as compelling for other people.

As for the meanwhile, let me encourage you to use your time well. There are tons of sites with an abundance of evidentiary arguments for God...you can find them from all sorts of perspectives, all kinds of academic levels, for all kinds of audiences. Something will suit you. Then we can talk about the specific arguments, and their relative value, and I won't have to go over them all from the start for what seems the millionth time.

Nope.

Then tough. If you don't care enough to look, I don't care enough to convince you.

[commonsense]

Did God not create Satan?

Apparently, he was not created evil. He was named "Lucifer," meaning "the light bearer."

Therefore God is responsible for belief in Satan.

Well, people don't "believe in" Satan, in the relevant sense. I mean, it's certainly true that some believe he exists...that's not in question...but they most don't "put their trust" and "put their faith" in Satan, in the way that others would in God. You can't "trust" the one who is "The Father of Lies."

Rather, Satanists will tell you, they believe in themselves...just as Satan did.

I don’t think you have it right about Satan or about God.

[commonsense]

Well, because you made a claim: "There is no God," right? You didn't just say, "I don't believe in God," or "There might not be a God," but that "there is no God." Your words. Your claim.

Evidence?

Ok. What is your evidence that there is a God. As an agnostic, I'd like to know.

Coming up.

But first, I want to see what Atheism has. That's the claim we're talking about: "There is no God." Let's see what warrants that confidence.

That there is no God is the negative of a claim. The claim is that there is a God.

[Gary Childress]

Well, I already know the answer.

I'm just waiting to see how many Atheists are self-aware or frank enough to recognize it. That's where questions are so useful; they don't accuse, they just ask for whatever good evidence the speaker may have. In this case, it's pretty clear that there's no sufficient evidence for Atheism...

...so why won't Atheists admit it? Is there something they don't want to acknowledge? Something they don't want to see, or let others know when they see it?

Of course. There's something deeply sneaky about Atheism. It's non-evidentiary, but wants to self-present as rational, and even as compelling for other people.

As for the meanwhile, let me encourage you to use your time well. There are tons of sites with an abundance of evidentiary arguments for God...you can find them from all sorts of perspectives, all kinds of academic levels, for all kinds of audiences. Something will suit you. Then we can talk about the specific arguments, and their relative value, and I won't have to go over them all from the start for what seems the millionth time.

Nope.

Then tough. If you don't care enough to look, I don't care enough to convince you.

Nice try. Evasion. You don't have evidence. I'm not buying it. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Harry Baird]

How would the argument for [the problem of evil] go?

You ask that as though you don't already know or couldn't look it up.

"I don't understand why things happen, therefore there's no God"? That doesn't seem a very compelling argument. I would hope they mean something a whole lot better than that.

You know they do, but you choose to self-servingly distort the argument instead, which is SOP on your part.

[Lacewing]

Let's see you quote these "despicable characteristics."

You already know what they are...

Caught! You were firing blanks.

You're so obvious.

Really? You don't know what they are?

[seeds]

Nope.

Then tough. If you don't care enough to look, I don't care enough to convince you.

Nice try. Evasion. You don't have evidence. I'm not buying it. I'll believe it when I see it.

There you go, Gary, you've just been "Immanuel Con-ned".

He demands evidence from atheists to support their denial of the existence of God.

Then, when you asked:

Ok. What is your evidence that there is a God. As an agnostic, I'd like to know.

He says:

Coming up.

And then, instead of supplying the promised evidence implied in his "...coming up..." statement, he, in essence, expects you to do a Google search for it.

Does anyone here honestly believe that IC would accept "...Google it..." as an adequate source of the "evidence" he demanded from atheists?

I, personally, am a card-carrying theist who truly believes in the existence of a higher intelligence being responsible for the creation of this universe, so, at least in that sense, I agree with IC.

However, when are you guys ever going to learn to stop being drawn into Mr. Con's sidetracking arguments and make him justify - once and for all - why he believes...

(and he most assuredly does believe this)

...that the God he is defending is justified (for example) in ETERNALLY TORTURING little children (infants and toddlers) in the fires of Hell simply because they either died before having the cognitive wherewithal to accept Jesus as their personal savior,...

...or...

...were randomly born into the arms of Muslim parents, or Hindu parents, or Buddhist parents, or Yanomamo parents, etc., who indoctrinated them into a different belief system that made no mention of the mandatory Christian "rituals" that must be performed in order to avoid being tortured for eternity?

That, to me, is a sickening outrage that must be addressed before you guys allow him to say another word in defense of Christianity.
_______

[Dubious]

...the literal definition is "a person who doesn't believe god or gods exist" which is not the same as "denies" for that requires knowledge impossible to obtain.

So their "disbelief" or "not believing" is based on the mere fact that they, personally, have no awareness of God. They don't have evidence to warrant their assertion. They just want it to be true.

Of course atheists don't have evidence to warrant the assertion, which is the reason belief counters knowing. As mentioned, theists don't require any evidence to know, the bible being the full confirmation of god's word. It's also contradictory and somewhat stupid that atheists have no awareness of God. What means atheism if there were no awareness of god or any concepts relating to it? You're on a Philosophy Forum; stop evangelizing and start philosophizing!

What evidence there is heaps a critical load of improbabilities upon there being a god, least of all the nonsense kind mentioned in the OT & NT. Evidence suggests there is no god or one existing as nothing more than a hypothetical remainder easily crossed out.

Since you mention evidence so often, what evidence do you have except the bible's word that all it says is true? Care to expound, or will you ignore the question because for you the bible is its own evidence acceptable as the ultimate truth, beginning with Adam and Eve, for the most rabid of practicing theists?

[Walker]

Even in a secular court of law, the rational analysis of circumstantial evidence can be sufficient proof. After all, not all crimes are videotaped or otherwise witnessed and some things, such as the creation of life on a consistant and casual timetable that’s obviously as easy and natural as breathing, when humans can’t even replicate the feat, is some pretty hefty circumstantial evidence. Folks get their Nobel Prizes for just trying to figure out creation, not creating.

[Immanuel Can]

That there is no God is the negative of a claim. The claim is that there is a God.

No, it's a positive claim of the denial of the existence of something. It essentially says, "I know that X doesn't exist."

Well, how does he know that?

[Immanuel Can]

Nope.

Then tough. If you don't care enough to look, I don't care enough to convince you.

Nice try. Evasion.

Not at all. I've told you what you need to do if you wanted to know God. You won't even invest the time. So I'm not going to waste mine, particularly when the information you've demanded is already abundantly available to you, and you're too lazy even to know it's there.

[Immanuel Can]

How would the argument for [the problem of evil] go?

You ask that as though you don't already know or couldn't look it up.

All the versions of it I've found don't make a lot of sense. They require assumptions nobody actually has to accept, such as that God is the only ultimately effective will in the universe, or that suffering cannot be explained even in theory, or even by an omniscient observer. Or that all human beings are essentially innocent victims. Or that Atheists have a way of knowing that suffering is simply inexplicable. Or that this world as it stands is in proper relationship to God. I can't see any reasons to accept those sorts of assumptions.

So do you know a better argument?

"I don't understand why things happen, therefore there's no God"? That doesn't seem a very compelling argument. I would hope they mean something a whole lot better than that.

You know they do,...

Really? I actually don't. That's pretty much their argument in short, as far as I hear them articulate it. But I can't believe it's the best they've got.

Well, what are these better arguments? I never run into Atheists who are willing to say.

[Immanuel Can]

You already know what they are...

Caught! You were firing blanks.

You're so obvious.

Really? You don't know what they are?

Quote me. If you can't, then you can dry up. We all see through you.

[Dubious]

Caught! You were firing blanks.

You're so obvious.

Really? You don't know what they are?

Quote me. If you can't, then you can dry up. We all see through you.

I guess the art of "knowing oneself", at least to some extent, has never been practiced by you! Clearly, on this site, others know you better than you know yourself and have no problem seeing right through you.

[Harbal]

Oh. So you hold a belief for which either there is no evidence?

Well you hold a belief for which there is no evidence, so I assumed it was okay to do that.

Then why not soften your stance to read, "I wish there were no God"? That would be fine.

Why not soften your stance to; "I wish there were a God"?

But in the "court" of philosophical rationality, one requires more than non-evidentiary beliefs, if one wishes to come up to the bar.

No, it's fine, I don't wish to come up to the bar.