Originally posted by lucifershammer
First, one always has logical arguments that something cannot exist.

Second, with fairies, elves etc. there is no reason why they must exist.

(We can get into a debate over whether the philosophical arguments for God's existence work or not -- but it is important to note that no one has ever proposed, or even tried to propose, phil and I agree on the last one -- an individual's obstinacy is not "evidence of absence".

First, one always has logical arguments that something cannot exist.

Agreed, I'm not even touching that. I'm assuming God is not a logically impossible concept. I'm accepting it for this discussion as it would be meaningless otherwise.

Second, with fairies, elves etc. there is no reason why they must exist.
Is there any reason why God must exist? The existence of superstitions is also present persistently in every culture. Ad Populum is not a valid logical argument.

That "convincing" bit (which the poster also cited) indicates the level of subjective opinion he brings to the table in this discussion.
Agreed, that's why I mention scientifically acceptable evidence. Not personally acceptable evidence. If our barometer is that one, no discussion is ever possible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I realize that the thread title will get lots of views but why not!
In the Qu'ran thread I stated that I am personally certain that there is no God and one of the many reasons for that is that in my opinion there is significant evidence that there is no God. Several people said they would be interested in knowing what that evidence is.
I don't think a t ...[text shortened]... , it makes me sure that there isn't a God who exists and is trying to communicate with me.

There is, and can be, no evidence for or against God. God is a matter of faith, either you believe or you don't. If you don't believe, then you can try to find a logical arguement for why, but all it really comes down to in the end is lack of evidence. As per your example, lack of evidence that your mother is alive doesn't prove she's dead. Therefore, you cannot have a debate and give evidence either for or against God, as nothing can be proven conclusive either way.

Originally posted by Lucardo
-Good and Evil cannot exist without some form of higher being present.

Why, pray tell?

Originally posted by whiterose
There is, and can be, no evidence for or against God. God is a matter of faith, either you believe or you don't. If you don't believe, then you can try to find a logical arguement for why, but all it really comes down to in the end is lack of evidence. As per your example, lack of evidence that your mother is alive doesn't prove she's dead. Therefore, you ...[text shortened]... and give evidence either for or against God, as nothing can be proven conclusive either way.

There is evidence for both sides. Some of it more convincing than others. But there's nothing that is conclusive. I happen to think the preponderance of evidence leans toward the non-existence of god. So yes, you can debate the matter, and enter evidence, but the argument can never be fully resolved.

Originally posted by Alethia
1) Why can't good and evil exist without a higher being? They could be created inside us.
2) I don't believe in God. Without him we do what is right because it is, not because we are told to or scared of divine retribution. I am sick of people who won't even consider that their precious God or Prophet might be wrong about some things. For example, God apparently turned Lot's wife into salt just for disobeying him.

So by saying God was wrong to turn Lot's wife into a salt pillar you recognise the fact that there is a God?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Good and Evil cannot exist without some form of higher being present.

False, unless humans count as a "higher being".[/b]

Define "good" and "evil" then? Is that exactly the same as "right" and "wrong"? Who decides what is good and evil?
Our whole value system, including the country you live in is based on culture of said population. Religion played a huge part in forming that believe system as it is today.

Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
"If you have a value system in your life, you must surely believe in good" and evil"

what crap that comment is - i have values and dont believe in god; why cant these values simply come from me, why must they come from elsewhere; i wouldn't just go out and kill someone for no reason, that is not believe i consider it evil, its because i cannot see ...[text shortened]... fe simply is... i see a cat chase and kill a mouse not for food but for fun, is this evil..?

This is only my own Fhilosophy, and i do not claim it to be perfect or without flaw, but feel free to give me your best shots:

I think that there is a difference between "right and wrong" and "good and evil", but they still cannot exist without each other because our perception of "right and wrong" develop out of our perception of "good and evil".
Right and wrong is what you can go to jail for, and CAN allso be evil, for example:
In South Africa we have a huge problem with crime. A few months ago the police caught a gang of hijackers in Johannesburg who set a cash transit van on fire while the 2 security guards were still in it, and they burned to death. To do that was wrong, because murder is against the law in SA, but it was allso evil, because it wasn't necessary. (they could have just broken open the van and take the money)
One of the guards had a 3 month old baby son and a wife. 20 Years from now these murderers will propably be out of jail. (this IS South africa) If that son decide to kill them when they get out, he will be charged with murder and go to jail, because it is wrong and against the law, but i don't think we can say that he would be Evil to do something like that.

Our law system is based on what is right and wrong in our cultural comunity. A lot these perceptions of what we believe is right and wrong are based on our religioun.
Therefore one can even say that God has a lot of control over our lives in the form of laws being passed. Everytime a christian politician passes a new law that says for instance "homosexual marriages aren't allowed in Tennessee", God is actually controling part of your or my life.
Therefore if you don't believe in God, and claim yourself to be an Atheist (allthough this thread is actually about Agnosticism, which is even more stupid than atheism),a large part of your life are being controlled by a non existing entity, which means the joke is on you?

Originally posted by Lucardo
Right and wrong is what you can go to jail for

No, you go to jail for breaking the law, not for doing something wrong.

Our law system is based on what is right and wrong in our cultural comunity. A lot these perceptions of what we believe is right and wrong are based on our religioun.
Based on but not equivalent to.

Therefore one can even say that God has a lot of control over our lives in the form of laws being passed.
No, other people have a lot of control over our lives not God. If you lived in Tibet would you then say that Buddha is controlling your life?

Therefore if you don't believe in God, and claim yourself to be an Atheist (although this thread is actually about Agnosticism, which is even more stupid than atheism),a large part of your life are being controlled by a non existing entity, which means the joke is on you?
I think I stated that I was Atheist not agnostic. And at least I object to being influenced by a non existing entity unlike you who probably worships it.

Originally posted by Lucardo
So by saying God was wrong to turn Lot's wife into a salt pillar you recognise the fact that there is a God?

Do you know what the word "apparently" means? Go look it up.

Originally posted by rwingett
There is evidence for both sides. Some of it more convincing than others. But there's nothing that is conclusive. I happen to think the preponderance of evidence leans toward the non-existence of god. So yes, you can debate the matter, and enter evidence, but the argument can never be fully resolved.

What evidence for the existence of God is scientifically acceptable?

The GAFE is a poor reason to be an atheist as it only concerns OOMP types of Gods.

Originally posted by Palynka
The GAFE is a poor reason to be an atheist as it only concerns OOMP types of Gods.

Let me quickly put on some OOMPah music...

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]First, one always has logical arguments that something cannot exist.

Agreed, I'm not even touching that. I'm assuming God is not a logically impossible concept. I'm accepting it for this discussion as it would be meaningless otherwise.

Second, with fairies, elves etc. there is no reason why they must exist.
Is there any rea ...[text shortened]... sonally acceptable evidence. If our barometer is that one, no discussion is ever possible.[/b]

Is there any reason why God must exist?

That's precisely what most philosophical arguments for God's existence attempt to establish.

The existence of superstitions is also present persistently in every culture. Ad Populum is not a valid logical argument.

You'll note that I didn't say it was. I said it needed a serious response.

Agreed, that's why I mention scientifically acceptable evidence.

I have to disagree here. One of the presuppositions of science is that it deals only with the physical world (more precisely, phenomena in the physical world that are congruent with the scientific method). Therefore, almost by definition, it cannot tell you anything about the existence or non-existence of God.

In fact, if one looks at the philosophy of science, science cannot even tell you whether matter really exists, much less God. Science does not have many metaphysical presuppositions -- a scientist can very well be a realist, an idealist or even a solipsist.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Is there any reason why God must exist?

That's precisely what most philosophical arguments for God's existence attempt to establish.

The existence of superstitions is also present persistently in every culture. Ad Populum is not a valid logical argument.

You'll note that I didn't say it was. I said it needed a serious response. ...[text shortened]... presuppositions -- a scientist can very well be a realist, an idealist or even a solipsist.[/b]

That's precisely what most philosophical arguments for God's existence attempt to establish.

I'm ok with that. Ontological arguments are quite interesting and you know I don't deny the validity of such approaches, although I may question the arguments.

One of the presuppositions of science is that it deals only with the physical world (more precisely, phenomena in the physical world that are congruent with the scientific method). Therefore, almost by definition, it cannot tell you anything about the existence or non-existence of God.

Is your God completely absent from the physical world (except maybe in its creation)? If not, why cannot scientifically evidence exist? It's the question where I doubt the most and the main reason why I'm not anti-theist or think that theists are irrational.

As for the assumptions of science, I am very aware of them (as you and I talked often about them). But the question posed in this thread was if the absence of evidence was evidence of absence. I think that it is. It's not proof, obviously, but it is still the reason why I'm an atheist and I'll wager the main reason for most atheists being so.

I agree that accepting my view also involves a leap of faith, in some way, as I believe that science is based on minimal axioms that without them all reasoning would be meaningless (i.e. I exist, the universe exists outside of me, etc.). My personal conviction is that the leap of faith needed for my convictions is not only smaller than the leap of faith needed to believe in God, it is also one that theists themselves must make before making their own.

Originally posted by Palynka
What evidence for the existence of God is scientifically acceptable?

The GAFE is a poor reason to be an atheist as it only concerns OOMP types of Gods.

So thats what Oompah loompahs are! (Charlie and the Chocolate factory)

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I have to disagree here. One of the presuppositions of science is that it deals only with the physical world (more precisely, phenomena in the physical world that are congruent with the scientific method). Therefore, almost by definition, it cannot tell you anything about the existence or non-existence of God.

Surely it should be able to tell something about the existence or nonexistence of a God that influences the physical world? Or are you saying that Gods influence is indistinguishable from natural processes?