Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYou have created a catch 22 situation for yourself.
Sigh.
Ask me if God exists. I examine available evidence and deploy rational thought. I answer 'no,.impossible.'
Of course i am open to correction (about anything!) if brand new evidence came to light. I don't however anticipate such evidence coming to light,.....as I believe the existence of God to be impossible!!!
If you say...."God is impossible, period, end of story", that is one thing. But the moment you are willing to concede that God is possible, if evidence surfaces, then your stance of 'impossible' crumbles.
Saying you are an atheist is much different than saying that God is impossible.
Right? Or is there another sigh in my future? 😉
Originally posted by chaney3You are confused sir. Have you been over indulging in aubergines?
You have created a catch 22 situation for yourself.
If you say...."God is impossible, period, end of story", that is one thing. But the moment you are willing to concede that God is possible, if evidence surfaces, then your stance of 'impossible' crumbles.
Saying you are an atheist is much different than saying that God is impossible.
Right? Or is there another sigh in my future? 😉
Let's go back to the superman analogy. You would have no problem with me saying I thought superman's existence was impossible. (Due to me be thoroughly convinced of his fictitious nature). - Imagine if suddenly new unexpected evidence came to light that superman was real after all. Would you prefer i stuck my fingers in my ears and denied this new evidence (as a result of believing his existence was an impossibility) or for me to accept that I was previously mistaken?
By your reasoning, I could never say anything was impossible, just in case unlikely new evidence came along in the future.You would also yourself, as a theist, be unable to say it wasn't possible that God didn't exist, just in case new evidence were to emerge proving he was fictitious.
Bottom line, you were mistaken when you said I was open to the possibility of God. I'm not. I am however willing to review my current position should presently unknown evidence come to light. (Say for example, a first hand experience of God).
Originally posted by chaney3You seem confused about atheism. If a god was to appear and it was clear this was not some disney production, the evidence would say atheists were wrong and they would admit it.
#1. I think it would be really cool if there was a Superman 🙂
#2. If you do not believe the existence of God is possible...then how can you be proven wrong?
Edit: I am not asking you what evidence of God would be sufficient. I am saying that you have boxed yourself into a corner, because any credible evidence would conflict with your stance that God is not possible.
But humans saying 'trust me, there Is a god and you can be saved' doesn't cut it.
We can't deny the CONCEPT of a god but we sure as hell can deny the existence of the bible god since there are at least three branches of the bible god, Judaism, Islam and Christianity all supposedly worship the same god but where has that gotten the human race? Nowhere but thousands of years of armed conflict which is going on right now as we speak. This is not a situation I can imagine a sane god setting up such religions.
If this alleged being is omnipotent as you would say, it would have known from the outset when it allegedly created our universe who would pass and who would fail a god test like Ab asked to kill his son as proof of loyalty. An omniscient god would have ZERO need for such tests and the bible makes it clear it is GOD who needed proof but now apologists say, no, that was designed to impress fellow men.
I say poppycock. I say all that stuff was imagined and written by men to control men and put women in their 'proper' place, one rung lower than men. AND that last cut in stone " A man is worth 50 shekels but a woman only 30'. A god would have never written such a terrible verse. ONLY men would write such dispicable crap.
And the same with the flood. So there was this tribe that really really ticked off your god.
So rather than doing the omniscient thing, ZAP, the whole tribe is now ashes, NOOO, it goes and takes out its wrath on the entire animal population of the enter planet. When they say they took animals 2 by 2 so there will be a reproductive pair, they didn't know jack about genetics, which this supposedly omniscient god would have CERTAINLY known.
So 2 by 2 and there goes all that genetic diversity. Kill all the land animals to get back at some nasty tribe.
And people fall for that crap hook line and sinker.
So with verses like those above, you maybe see why I reject the whole concept of the bible god.
And that is not to say I am so arrogant as to be able to solidy say there is NO such thing as even the CONCEPT of a god.
We live on a tiny speck of rock in a nowhere place in the universe, nice galaxy around us and such but there are trillions of galaxies just like ours and it is absolute arrogance to think humans so high on the spiritual totem pole that we attract the attention of a god, that we even DESERVE the attention of a god.
All of the above, too hard to swallow.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI don't own evidence, I shared what I think points to God already. You simply don't think God is required for what I shared. Yet without out God why?
Where in all of that is the evidence?
I don't deny the existence of the universe or concepts such as love. Where is your evidence to attribute such things to God?
Originally posted by sonhouseYet your argument doesn't do away with God, it only shows that if you were God, you would do things differently.
You seem confused about atheism. If a god was to appear and it was clear this was not some disney production, the evidence would say atheists were wrong and they would admit it.
But humans saying 'trust me, there Is a god and you can be saved' doesn't cut it.
We can't deny the CONCEPT of a god but we sure as hell can deny the existence of the bible go ...[text shortened]... f a god, that we even DESERVE the attention of a god.
All of the above, too hard to swallow.
For sonhouse and Ghost:
When I speak in terms of a Creator, I am referring to a 'neutral' Creator. Not the Bible God, or any other man-made god. I understand the existing bias, and possible contempt that already exists with these notions of "man made gods, from man made books", that some atheists refuse to consider, for obvious reasons.
Evidence.....is the key. The difference here is that "I" see evidence of creation all around me, while you look at "my" evidence as a product of either universal luck, coincidence, evolution, etc. Each atheist has their own view.
Until you are able to see signs of creation, as 'evidence' of a Creator.....without actually requiring the mandate to see the Creator, then we are likely at a position of stalemate.
Originally posted by chaney3Actually you are in a position of Zugzwang. Your next move is to admit the possibility that God does not exist. (Or your destroy your own argument).
For sonhouse and Ghost:
When I speak in terms of a Creator, I am referring to a 'neutral' Creator. Not the Bible God, or any other man-made god. I understand the existing bias, and possible contempt that already exists with these notions of "man made gods, from man made books", that some atheists refuse to consider, for obvious reasons.
Evidence..... ...[text shortened]... ctually requiring the mandate to see the Creator, then we are likely at a position of stalemate.
