My Battle with Titan

[Sophus]

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Kyu: what qualifies as evidence?

Hmmmm... maybe if I saw some actual evidence for a God I would know.

Based on what? I'm not saying that there isn't life elsewhere in the universe, I'm just saying that this doesn't have ANY empirical grounds.

Okay, let's get into what this universe generator is...or more importantly...where did it come from?

I believe either the universe or what created it has always existed. Something had to always exist. Your answer is no different in that you cannot explain where your generator came from. However while I believe it was most likely something simple that was infinite you suggest it is something complex. Furthermore it is actually impossible for God to have always existed if he created time, lived before it, and exists outside of it. Frankly because "always" is a measurement of time. Illogical, human thinking, exposes that there is not a source of copious knowledge behind "God-breathed" scripture.

Not beliefs but experiences and findings. You wouldn't accept those?

I have. Which is precisely why I am an atheist.

Your point is that there is a difference between the evidence for the two? I just proved your comparison wrong, if you were rational you would defend it against my attack or else change your opinion. Neither of which you did.

Ha! You proved nothing as you didn't provide a lick of evidence other than paraphrasing the Bible. Clearly I don't take the Bible's word as law. Let's review what you said:

"Actually, this doesn't apply in the slightest. I don't get coal each year even though I don't believe in Santa, I don't get gifts every year from some unnamed source. Therefore the causal effects of the existence of Santa are disproven. This is not the case with God. There are evidences and people from all walks of life (including astrophysics) are coming to the conclusion that there has to be a God."

You disproved Santa but that was what I suggested could be done. Where is the evidence for God? Of course I know that there are people (including those from the field of astrophysics) who believe there is evidence for God. Was that suppose to change my mind? Would it persuade you if I simply stated that Stephen Hawking does not believe in God because he has found evidence in his studies of cosmology say so? Absolutely not. I would need to explain the theory in depth. Although, even then it would fail to persuade an unwilling mind.

How is it a 50/50 shot that you will get what you want in life? What are the two equally possible options and how did you come to this conclusion? Furthermore, Christians don't believe that your prayers will be answered simply because you pray.

First off, I understand you don't believe all prayers will be answered with a "yes." Here's why prayer is a 50/50 shot:

I ask for something. Long run outcome possibilities: 1. I get it 2. I don't. That is 50/50.

You are right if you can demonstrate that God needs joy. Which is simply not the case in the Bible.

Okie dokie, time to go back to my original post on this which did exactly that. Reread that post. It both does and doesn't contradict the Bible but hey the Bible contradicts itself. Like a wide-eyed schoolboy you run to an unquestioned book for answers rather than your own thinking. Think... if this theory did disprove Him (or one of his attributes) then of course it would contradict what the Bible says. But it wouldn't have enough foundation to be a valid question if I didn't base it off of how somewhere in the Bible explains God.

So you gain nothing from putting others ahead of yourself? But that isn't the point I was making, it is essentially the rejection of God as instilling value...you replace him with yourself.

I am still a little disgusted at this remark but I'm fairly certain you don't mean anything by it.

Certainly an act can be more selfish than others but, yea, there is indeed no such thing as a completely selfless act. Does this mean you can't value someone more than yourself? No doubt you believe in God because you get something out of it. Does that make you selfish? Not at all. For all I know you could be, but whether or not you believe in God has nothing to do with it. I do not replace God with myself. I replaced God with the things I think you would say he stands for: Love, peace, and mercy.

But you are wrong, God STILL loves you even if you deny him and it isn't about earning anything. I need to explain this on a more complete basis.

Have to disagree there. All I can say is if I were omnipotent, my son would never be sent to hell whether he loved me or hated me. Whether he believed I existed or not. If I am also all knowing then I understand how his mind works and why he did what he did. That may not make what he did right but if I am to call myself loving, then I will walk the walk and not merely talk the talk.

You are insinuating that there is no logical evidence, which is simply not true. You can choose to believe whatever you want, FSM, Buddhism, 2 + 2 = 12 but there are beliefs that are more rational then others...ones that answer more with less assumptions and stand up to reasoning better.

The same thing could be applied to you in regards to my beliefs and those of religious faiths other than yours (with the exception that you do not choose beliefs). However I stand by what I said. I've seen all the so called evidence Christians have to offer and it does not work for me. Why do you deny our evidence for atheism?

[Titan]

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Kyu: what qualifies as evidence?

Hmmmm... maybe if I saw some actual evidence for a God I would know.

That is not what I'm asking, I'm asking what can I offer as evidence that would make it valid to you? My point is that you are invariably holding God up to impossible standards of proof because you cannot give an example of a possible proof of God. As I explained to Kyu, he would reject all supernatural events (regardless of how concrete they were) as being from God because he could just imagine that they were from some fantastical mixture of chemicals in the head.

What is also likely is that there is more life in our own universe.

Based on what? I'm not saying that there isn't life elsewhere in the universe, I'm just saying that this doesn't have ANY empirical grounds.

Um...that was my point, you didn't answer it.

Okay, let's get into what this universe generator is...or more importantly...where did it come from?

I believe either the universe or what created it has always existed. Something had to always exist. Your answer is no different in that you cannot explain where your generator came from. However while I believe it was most likely something simple that was infinite you suggest it is something complex. Furthermore it is actually impossible for God to have always existed if he created time, lived before it, and exists outside of it. Frankly because "always" is a measurement of time. Illogical, human thinking, exposes that there is not a source of copious knowledge behind "God-breathed" scripture.

Wait wait wait......you believe that a universe generator is simple? Why is there a universe generator in the first place? Because something had to always have been there? But matter looks for a cause in its very being whereas the concept of God goes outside of that because it says that time and matter are strict dimensional conceptions in a limited sense of the universe whereas God exists outside of time and matter and therefore is not bound by them.

How is always a measurement of time? I will wait here for always minutes? I'm sorry this does not make sense. Please explain further.

If human thinking is illogical why do you base your entire philosophy on the idea that human thinking will guide our way?

Not beliefs but experiences and findings. You wouldn't accept those?

I have. Which is precisely why I am an atheist.

Not what I was getting at...will you accept experiences that are far more rationally explained as being from God as evidence? (There is a trap set here, I'm telling you because I genuinely don't want you to fall into it, it will take longer to get you out).

Your point is that there is a difference between the evidence for the two? I just proved your comparison wrong, if you were rational you would defend it against my attack or else change your opinion. Neither of which you did.

Ha! You proved nothing as you didn't provide a lick of evidence other than paraphrasing the Bible. Clearly I don't take the Bible's word as law. Let's review what you said:

"Actually, this doesn't apply in the slightest. I don't get coal each year even though I don't believe in Santa, I don't get gifts every year from some unnamed source. Therefore the causal effects of the existence of Santa are disproven. This is not the case with God. There are evidences and people from all walks of life (including astrophysics) are coming to the conclusion that there has to be a God."

You disproved Santa but that was what I suggested could be done. Where is the evidence for God? Of course I know that there are people (including those from the field of astrophysics) who believe there is evidence for God. Was that suppose to change my mind? Would it persuade you if I simply stated that Stephen Hawking does not believe in God because he has found evidence in his studies of cosmology say so? Absolutely not. I would need to explain the theory in depth. Although, even then it would fail to persuade an unwilling mind.

1) I demonstrated a difference between Santa and God, you accepted that Santa was disproven and said that you believed that God "could" be disproven which is not an argument in itself against God. I have thus demonstrated that the comparison between Santa and God is false. Santa = Disproven, God has not been disproven.
2) I agree that you would need to explain the theory in depth but I also suggest that if the Hawking theory is the one I'm thinking of it was created as a mathematical possibility but not as evidence. But please continue, I am interested in learning about his theories.

How is it a 50/50 shot that you will get what you want in life? What are the two equally possible options and how did you come to this conclusion? Furthermore, Christians don't believe that your prayers will be answered simply because you pray.

First off, I understand you don't believe all prayers will be answered with a "yes." Here's why prayer is a 50/50 shot:

I ask for something. Long run outcome possibilities: 1. I get it 2. I don't. That is 50/50.

So my buying a lottery ticket has a 50/50 outcome because 1. I win and 2. I don't?

You are right if you can demonstrate that God needs joy. Which is simply not the case in the Bible.

Okie dokie, time to go back to my original post on this which did exactly that. Reread that post. It both does and doesn't contradict the Bible but hey the Bible contradicts itself. Like a wide-eyed schoolboy you run to an unquestioned book for answers rather than your own thinking. Think... if this theory did disprove Him (or one of his attributes) then of course it would contradict what the Bible says. But it wouldn't have enough foundation to be a valid question if I didn't base it off of how somewhere in the Bible explains God.

I don't know what post you are talking about here? Please give me some sort of reference point. I do not go to the Bible as an unquestioned book and I do not hold that it is absolutely true and cannot be disproven. I believe that if there is evidence against it that it should be thrown out but I also believe that that is simply not the case.

So you gain nothing from putting others ahead of yourself? But that isn't the point I was making, it is essentially the rejection of God as instilling value...you replace him with yourself.

I am still a little disgusted at this remark but I'm fairly certain you don't mean anything by it.

Certainly an act can be more selfish than others but, yea, there is indeed no such thing as a completely selfless act. Does this mean you can't value someone more than yourself? No doubt you believe in God because you get something out of it. Does that make you selfish? Not at all. For all I know you could be, but whether or not you believe in God has nothing to do with it. I do not replace God with myself. I replaced God with the things I think you would say he stands for: Love, peace, and mercy.

But you replaced him with those without a solid foundation. Love? Peace? mercy? Sure you believe in these but why? If you can gain the world through war is it not a good thing? When you come up with an answer realize that you are proving my point, ultimately your answer will have to do with the way you see the world and you will inevitably contrast your vision with an unjust God. Hence why I said you replace God with your own ideology.

But you are wrong, God STILL loves you even if you deny him and it isn't about earning anything. I need to explain this on a more complete basis.

Have to disagree there. All I can say is if I were omnipotent, my son would never be sent to hell whether he loved me or hated me. Whether he believed I existed or not. If I am also all knowing then I understand how his mind works and why he did what he did. That may not make what he did right but if I am to call myself loving, then I will walk the walk and not merely talk the talk.

This demonstrates a lack of knowledge concerning the Bible. I wanted to copy and paste something I had already written on this subject but I can't find it so I will just retype everything. When atheists and nonChristians in general think of hell they think of a place that God has created to punish people. Where people get what was coming to them and far more. But that is not the case. Part of the reason I am so enamored by the Genesis account is because it explains everything so well. In the beginning Christians believe that God created Adam and Eve with the dependence on him. He created them to be completed by his divine providence and that they live with satisfaction through him. Now, what is the one sin that can arise out of purse satisfaction? This is what separates Christianity from every other religion, it can explain how sin came into the world and why. The only sin that can arise out of satisfaction is pride wherein we think that the satisfaction is due to us and not to God. When Adam and Eve took the fruit they said "We do not believe that God's moral code is the greatest one and we believe that we can live in a civilization that is perfectly good that is based on us alone." So God, who gave mankind free will, gave them that one choice, to choose God or themselves. Mankind chose themselves so God gave man what he wanted a moral system devoid of God. Since God breathes life mankind loses that, since God brings mercy mankind loses that, since God brings love mankind loses that...all because mankind rejected what made everything good and therefore rejected good itself. But history is punctuated with God reaching back into the lives of men and saying "I can make a complex good out of the evil you are trying to create" and we even try to attribute the good he does despite us to ourselves. So what is hell then? Hell is the ultimate definition of a place without God. Everything that is good in God is not present in hell because mankind has asked that it not be. When you choose yourself you choose a life without God in every way. Then what is heaven? Heaven (or the new earth) is the ultimate submission of man to God. It is saying that all good comes from him and all evil comes from a rejection of him and it therefore embraces his will and his good. But here is the paradox that is so amazing when one ponders it. Hell is God's final mercy. If God were to force men who denied his will in their lives to live for an eternity in his presence it would bhe the most damning experience of their lives. They would be constantly living with this infinite glory that they hate so much. Hell then, is leniency, it is telling mankind that at they end they don't have to live forever in infinite judgment. But that they will get what they asked for in the end.

Phew....that should address your problem.

You are insinuating that there is no logical evidence, which is simply not true. You can choose to believe whatever you want, FSM, Buddhism, 2 + 2 = 12 but there are beliefs that are more rational then others...ones that answer more with less assumptions and stand up to reasoning better.

The same thing could be applied to you in regards to my beliefs and those of religious faiths other than yours (with the exception that you do not choose beliefs). However I stand by what I said. I've seen all the so called evidence Christians have to offer and it does not work for me. Why do you deny our evidence for atheism?

1. Are you suggesting that I am constantly denying the evidence against God? I am not getting defensive, I'm only saying that if that is the case then I would be choosing my beliefs because I would be choosing something that makes me more comfortable over something that is more rational. Your beliefs theory self-destructs.
2. You are honestly saying you have seen all the evidence? Are you trying to use hyperbole or are you being honest?
3. Are you saying that there can be evidence FOR atheism? Run this by your fellow atheists again before you actually try to suggest this, I think you will be met with much disagreement.

[Sophus]

Um...that was my point, you didn't answer it.  

Oh no. That was your point, I just got lost in the quotes and so yours ended up in what I was saying and my responses ended up in a quote box. I corrected it so you can look at the original post now for my actual answer. I'll try to make a better attempt at keeping these quotes in order this time....

Wait wait wait......you believe that a universe generator is simple? Why is there a universe generator in the first place? Because something had to always have been there?

My life is a struggle... Try reading (and comprehending) the previous post made....

Yes. Think of it this way. Every human starts off simple. Essentially one cell that divides into many. Complexities are made up of simplicities.

You apply my other theory to God. Something would have had to always exist, whether it be a gas or an all powerful fairy. Therefore we must credit everything we see today an infinite amount of time to come into being what it is.

Not what I was getting at...will you accept experiences that are far more rationally explained as being from God as evidence? (There is a trap set here, I'm telling you because I genuinely don't want you to fall into it, it will take longer to get you out).

An "experience" is not the right term unless you mean the thinking by itself. I have experienced "miracles" as a Christian but that is luck. I have also experienced tragedies (bad luck). I do not base something so important on experiences.

1) I demonstrated a difference between Santa and God, you accepted that Santa was disproven and said that you believed that God "could" be disproven which is not an argument in itself against God. I have thus demonstrated that the comparison between Santa and God is false. Santa = Disproven, God has not been disproven.
2) I agree that you would need to explain the theory in depth but I also suggest that if the Hawking theory is the one I'm thinking of it was created as a mathematical possibility but not as evidence. But please continue, I am interested in learning about his theories.

Again, just reread what has been said. It answers your questions. I will go into Hawking's theory but on a different thread.

So my buying a lottery ticket has a 50/50 outcome because 1. I win and 2. I don't?  

In this case there are two probabilities but the outcome would be higher of not winning if there is more than one person competing in the lottery. A different problem from what we were discussing.

But you replaced him with those without a solid foundation. Love? Peace? mercy? Sure you believe in these but why? If you can gain the world through war is it not a good thing? When you come up with an answer realize that you are proving my point, ultimately your answer will have to do with the way you see the world and you will inevitably contrast your vision with an unjust God. Hence why I said you replace God with your own ideology.

No you said I replace him with me. Now you are making a little more sense. Yes it is my ideaology. But ultimately that's all I think God is too. You say without a solid foundation? Nothing makes sense there. I have my reasons for believing those things to be my lifes purpose but that is an entirely seperate discussion.

This demonstrates a lack of knowledge concerning the Bible. I wanted to copy and paste something I had already written on this subject but I can't find it so I will just retype everything. When atheists and nonChristians in general think of hell they think of a place that God has created to punish people. Where people get what was coming to them and far more. But that is not the case.

As a father, whether or not I even hepled wrought about hell is irrelevant to the question of whether or not I, in my unfailing poweer, should allow my children to be sent there.

The rest of your argument is a transgressional appeal in lieu of a logical one. Why accept what some book has to say if it can prove it?

1. Are you suggesting that I am constantly denying the evidence against God? I am not getting defensive, I'm only saying that if that is the case then I would be choosing my beliefs because I would be choosing something that makes me more comfortable over something that is more rational. Your beliefs theory self-destructs.
2. You are honestly saying you have seen all the evidence? Are you trying to use hyperbole or are you being honest?
3. Are you saying that there can be evidence FOR atheism? Run this by your fellow atheists again before you actually try to suggest this, I think you will be met with much disagreement.

1. No. I am also speculating that you may not have seen all the evidence and reason against God either.
2. As an ex-Christian I arrogantly proclaim "Yes! Every crux you make is a cliche."
3. Historically, there is evidence against your God. Example: Moses did not write the Torah.

[Martian]

That is not what I'm asking, I'm asking what can I offer as evidence that would make it valid to you? My point is that you are invariably holding God up to impossible standards of proof because you cannot give an example of a possible proof of God. As I explained to Kyu, he would reject all supernatural events (regardless of how concrete they were) as being from God because he could just imagine that they were from some fantastical mixture of chemicals in the head.

Give an example of a possible evidence for a plate being sitting on my lap. Maybe I could see its form, it's shape. Maybe I can weigh it. Maybe it smells a certain way. Maybe it has certain colors. Just specify those attributes which the plate has, and we can possibily specify the possible evidence.

Give an example of possible evidence for a God existing. Maybe I could see God's form, or his shape. Maybe I can weigh God. Maybe God smells a certain way. Maybe God has certain colors. Maybe God makes certain events happen. Maybe he creates some symbols of some known language to communicate. Just specify those attributes which a God would have, and we can possibily find the evidence.

But, if God is a thing that somehow, by definition eludes our observations or has no effect on the world, then nobody can provide evidence for it. It's for all purposes non-existent.

Right now, as I see it, many theists expect people to believe in something that is extremely powerful, extremely intelligent/knowledgable, and with the desire to communicate with people so that they can love him, and completely fail!How is it possible that such a site like this can exist, whilst God does nothing when his goal is to communicate with us? We sit here asking to be shown wrong.

If God exists, then he can show himself. It's not that hard. The plate that sits on my lap is more successful than God.

[Tom62]

If the all powerful god would perform some real cool magic, like turning all weapons in the world into ice cream or giving new legs and arms to amputees then I'm the first one to admit that I was wrong by not believing in him.

[oldschooldoc]

If the all powerful god would perform some real cool magic, like turning all weapons in the world into ice cream or giving new legs and arms to amputees then I'm the first one to admit that I was wrong by not believing in him.

As would I. I believe this highlights a huge difference between atheists and believers of religion. If tomorrow someone was able to produce hard, indisputable evidence of the existence of their god, we as atheist would have no problem admitting that we were wrong. On the other hand, if someone produced hard, indisputable evidence of the non-existence of their god, they would blow it off as a 'test' of their faith.

This does not make us weak in our ideology, it just proves that we have logic and reason. We are not blinded by our beliefs.

Now I shall sick back on this topic and enjoy it   , it is getting good.

[Sophus]

Oh I forgot to reply to this juicy little statement:

How is always a measurement of time? I will wait here for always minutes? I'm sorry this does not make sense. Please explain further.

Thanks. I got a dandy chuckle and grinning visage out of this one. Just because you placed always in a sentence in doesn't fit grammatically proves nothing. Always means at all times; forever; infinite. If always deals with something other than time then please enlighten me as to what that thing is.

[Titan]

Wait wait wait......you believe that a universe generator is simple? Why is there a universe generator in the first place? Because something had to always have been there?

My life is a struggle... Try reading (and comprehending) the previous post made....

Yes. Think of it this way. Every human starts off simple. Essentially one cell that divides into many. Complexities are made up of simplicities.

You apply my other theory to God. Something would have had to always exist, whether it be a gas or an all powerful fairy. Therefore we must credit everything we see today an infinite amount of time to come into being what it is.

Here are the issues I have with what you are saying:
1) I would argue that complexities are not made of simplicities but that as we search deeper and deeper we realize that these supposed simplicities are really so intricate as to leave us constantly digging in search of more knowledge. Instead, I say that larger simplicities are made of intricate complexities. We use simplicities to describe things more efficiently and with greater care.
2) I do not apply the theory to God because I do not fancy that God exists in material form. I believe he exists outside of time and space and therefore the question of "how long has God been in existence" is quite meaningless.
3) If the ultimate question is simply a matter of replacing one uncaused cause with another uncaused cause (God with the universe generator) then what is the point of being an atheist?

Not what I was getting at...will you accept experiences that are far more rationally explained as being from God as evidence? (There is a trap set here, I'm telling you because I genuinely don't want you to fall into it, it will take longer to get you out).

An "experience" is not the right term unless you mean the thinking by itself. I have experienced "miracles" as a Christian but that is luck. I have also experienced tragedies (bad luck). I do not base something so important on experiences.

Is not God coming to you with a booming voice saying "I am real" an experience? Isn't your analysis of the world based on experience? Aren't you as described by thoughts and actions a collection of experiences?

1) I demonstrated a difference between Santa and God, you accepted that Santa was disproven and said that you believed that God "could" be disproven which is not an argument in itself against God. I have thus demonstrated that the comparison between Santa and God is false. Santa = Disproven, God has not been disproven.
2) I agree that you would need to explain the theory in depth but I also suggest that if the Hawking theory is the one I'm thinking of it was created as a mathematical possibility but not as evidence. But please continue, I am interested in learning about his theories.

Again, just reread what has been said. It answers your questions. I will go into Hawking's theory but on a different thread.

The problem is that I was paraphrasing the Bible because you are comparing Santa to God and I was saying that it wasn't the case because there were characteristics of God that made him much more applicable to life and a blatant necessity in existence. Furthermore, Santa has been disproven but God has not been disproven. I don't take the Bible's word as law but I defend it as long as I believe it and it represents my opinions on theological matters.
You also did not answer my questions. I asked what Hawking's evidence was, or theory as it were.
Finally, you ended with "even then it would fail to persuade an unwilling mind" which I could argue is the same reason why I can't give you evidence. Because ultimately you will not listen. However, I am not convinced that is the case so I am insistent on trying to get you to tell me what counts as evidence in this context.

So my buying a lottery ticket has a 50/50 outcome because 1. I win and 2. I don't?  

In this case there are two probabilities but the outcome would be higher of not winning if there is more than one person competing in the lottery. A different problem from what we were discussing.

But your issue was that prayer was a 50/50 shot which would make God a jukebox. That is not true at all. God doesn't (in any religion) say that since he answered yes to the last question he is going to answer no to the others. There are two OPTIONS (or three if you want to count "wait) but they don't have equal PROBABILITY. So your idea is still false.

But you replaced him with those without a solid foundation. Love? Peace? mercy? Sure you believe in these but why? If you can gain the world through war is it not a good thing? When you come up with an answer realize that you are proving my point, ultimately your answer will have to do with the way you see the world and you will inevitably contrast your vision with an unjust God. Hence why I said you replace God with your own ideology.

No you said I replace him with me. Now you are making a little more sense. Yes it is my ideaology. But ultimately that's all I think God is too. You say without a solid foundation? Nothing makes sense there. I have my reasons for believing those things to be my lifes purpose but that is an entirely seperate discussion.

You are suggesting that your ideology is not part of you? You are splicing language here. I am saying that by replacing God with your ideology you are replacing God with you. It's fundamentally the same thing.
Second, I have asked for a rational utilitarian reason for always believing in love, peace and mercy and not in slavery and genocide but not one has come up with an answer. So I ask you here: Why is slavery wrong?

This demonstrates a lack of knowledge concerning the Bible. I wanted to copy and paste something I had already written on this subject but I can't find it so I will just retype everything. When atheists and nonChristians in general think of hell they think of a place that God has created to punish people. Where people get what was coming to them and far more. But that is not the case.

As a father, whether or not I even hepled wrought about hell is irrelevant to the question of whether or not I, in my unfailing poweer, should allow my children to be sent there.

The rest of your argument is a transgressional appeal in lieu of a logical one. Why accept what some book has to say if it can prove it?

I explained why not and the answer is two fold: 1) God has reached out to mankind in a plethora of ways but mankind rescinds. 2) To give mankind the free will to choose to follow him or not and then force him to live with a decision that is not his is not free will at all. I shortened the explanation of Heaven and Hell. I could go into greater depth and explain exactly why Hell is a final mercy and Heaven would be the worst punishment possible, if you want.

1. Are you suggesting that I am constantly denying the evidence against God? I am not getting defensive, I'm only saying that if that is the case then I would be choosing my beliefs because I would be choosing something that makes me more comfortable over something that is more rational. Your beliefs theory self-destructs.
2. You are honestly saying you have seen all the evidence? Are you trying to use hyperbole or are you being honest?
3. Are you saying that there can be evidence FOR atheism? Run this by your fellow atheists again before you actually try to suggest this, I think you will be met with much disagreement.

1. No. I am also speculating that you may not have seen all the evidence and reason against God either.
2. As an ex-Christian I arrogantly proclaim "Yes! Every crux you make is a cliche."
3. Historically, there is evidence against your God. Example: Moses did not write the Torah.

[/quote]
2. To claim that you have seen all the evidence is to claim all knowledge. Hence, with all knowledge you would be omnipotent, a god of if you will and you would disprove your own disbelief.
3. Go into this in greater depth in two parts 1) Why it would disprove the existence of my God if what you said was true. 2) The evidence that Moses did not write the Torah.

Martian

Give an example of a possible evidence for a plate being sitting on my lap. Maybe I could see its form, it's shape. Maybe I can weigh it. Maybe it smells a certain way. Maybe it has certain colors. Just specify those attributes which the plate has, and we can possibily specify the possible evidence.

Give an example of possible evidence for a God existing. Maybe I could see God's form, or his shape. Maybe I can weigh God. Maybe God smells a certain way. Maybe God has certain colors. Maybe God makes certain events happen. Maybe he creates some symbols of some known language to communicate. Just specify those attributes which a God would have, and we can possibily find the evidence.

But, if God is a thing that somehow, by definition eludes our observations or has no effect on the world, then nobody can provide evidence for it. It's for all purposes non-existent.

First let's examine the nature of that which we are attempting to "describe." We are dealing with an uncaused cause that gives things smells, forms, shapes, colors, sounds, textures and all other aspects of their being. And you desire to place him in a box and say "God is blue and smells like cheese." The question you ask (or which is implied) is therefore ridiculous. Since God would have to be bound by nature, time and space and would therefore no longer be the creator of them. So to define God as you so desire is to strip him of being god.

Furthermore, as to this incessant request for a test to prove God...let us examine such a challenge. Let us say that we, for some reason, had a test set up where God was about to perform a miracle (I have no idea how that would work) but say we do. How do you demonstrate that something does not have a natural explanation (how do you posit the negative) and how do you leave it as such. The very nature of the supernatural explanation for the unexplainable is what you want to reject by demanding evidence for everything and not coming to a conclusion until you can theorize a natural understanding or guess for it. You can not test everything and know all of the motions of matter, from neutrinos to neutrons and therefore you cannot say "Well, that's clearly unexplainable." You would have to make yourself gods to disprove God.

Tom62

If the all powerful god would perform some real cool magic, like turning all weapons in the world into ice cream or giving new legs and arms to amputees then I'm the first one to admit that I was wrong by not believing in him.

Ahhh, this is familiar. The demands for certain miracles to our specifications. A God who suits our whims, a God who makes us gods. I posited this question to someone and I'm still waiting for a response: You demand that you see miracles more often but there are problems with that. For miracles to occur on a regular basis is for them to turn into what they are, by nature, not. Miracles are rarities, phenomena that are glimpses into something greater. But what if this entire universe was a miracle that we are just too used to to see. It is like a dragon roaring at us inches from our faces all our lives and us demanding a tiny scale from the left toe to demonstrate its presence, even though we don't have anything to compare it to in order for us to say "yep, that's a dragon."

oldschooldoc

As would I. I believe this highlights a huge difference between atheists and believers of religion. If tomorrow someone was able to produce hard, indisputable evidence of the existence of their god, we as atheist would have no problem admitting that we were wrong. On the other hand, if someone produced hard, indisputable evidence of the non-existence of their god, they would blow it off as a 'test' of their faith.

I find this actually quite humorous. You see religious people have turned atheistic (hence you would posit that there are religious people who are swayed by evidence, thus disproving your theory) but there are also atheists who become religious due to reasoning (which would also disprove your theory but not in the manner you wish). You see, atheists fail to provide a venue for God to provide evidence for himself. It is like you asking someone to prove that symphonies are complex collections of instruments and notes, and then proceeding to shut your eyes and ears and lock yourself in a room.

[Martian]

First let's examine the nature of that which we are attempting to "describe." We are dealing with an uncaused cause that gives things smells, forms, shapes, colors, sounds, textures and all other aspects of their being. And you desire to place him in a box and say "God is blue and smells like cheese." The question you ask (or which is implied) is therefore ridiculous. Since God would have to be bound by nature, time and space and would therefore no longer be the creator of them. So to define God as you so desire is to strip him of being god.

Furthermore, as to this incessant request for a test to prove God...let us examine such a challenge. Let us say that we, for some reason, had a test set up where God was about to perform a miracle (I have no idea how that would work) but say we do. How do you demonstrate that something does not have a natural explanation (how do you posit the negative) and how do you leave it as such. The very nature of the supernatural explanation for the unexplainable is what you want to reject by demanding evidence for everything and not coming to a conclusion until you can theorize a natural understanding or guess for it. You can not test everything and know all of the motions of matter, from neutrinos to neutrons and therefore you cannot say "Well, that's clearly unexplainable." You would have to make yourself gods to disprove God.

So, what you're saying is that God exists to us at rare moments in which he manefests himself in a way that is unique every time? How the heck can anyway figure out that he's there? Even if we tried, we wouldn't be able to succeed. If God is powerful and knowledgable he can certainly manifest himself in a way that will be clear and also communicate his message in clear manner. Let me show you what I mean.

God shows up as a small, floating wooden cross around the head of every person in the world at the same time. Each cross listens to each person and responds back, answering the questions that that person has. In addition, this cross would heal each person in a manner so that that person can successfully communicate with him (e.g. deaf, blind, mute). This cross then proceeds to explain that it is God, and that it is appearing to everyone at the same time to demonstrate his existence. God would then reveal his message to each person, and then he will say that he will manifest himself in a similar way when he is called upon. God could then show his ability to change the laws of nature. People would come together and talk about what happened to them, and they would corroborate the experience. There would be no doubt that this is God.

Of course, God could show himself in an entirely different way. But for the purpose of showing that God exists, I have provided one possible way he could do so.

If God did this, then he would have demonstrated his existence as a God. The question would no longer be, "does God exist?" It would be, "do we care do what he says?"

[Titan]

Martian, those are good points. There is much written on this and I am only going to give you my interpretation. In no way is this a representation of the Christian argument as a whole. I believe that at the fall that was rejected and that mankind rejected God and replaced God with himself. The fall not only cost man life but also the company of God. Miracles are where God uses the evils we make for what C.S. Lewis calls a "complex good." I would further like to point out that these things could be denied as hallucinations and I would like to point out further that the miraculous becomes the mundane if it occurs at a great frequency.

[Sophus]

Here are the issues I have with what you are saying:
1) I would argue that complexities are not made of simplicities but that as we search deeper and deeper we realize that these supposed simplicities are really so intricate as to leave us constantly digging in search of more knowledge. Instead, I say that larger simplicities are made of intricate complexities. We use simplicities to describe things more efficiently and with greater care.
2) I do not apply the theory to God because I do not fancy that God exists in material form. I believe he exists outside of time and space and therefore the question of "how long has God been in existence" is quite meaningless.
3) If the ultimate question is simply a matter of replacing one uncaused cause with another uncaused cause (God with the universe generator) then what is the point of being an atheist?

1. I would say what makes something complex is ultimately what it accomplishes as well as all of the intricate process that make this accomplishment possible. So, naturally, if you break down any one thing particular, yes, you will find that each "machine" has another "machine" inside it. But if you judge a thing as a whole you take into consideration all that is going on inside of it, and what's inside of that. The fact that it all comes together to form yet another/multiple functions is astoundingly more complex. It flat out accomplishes more and has more going on inside it. But wait - there's more... according to your theory an element is simpler than the human body. Or a rock is "intricately complex" in comparison to, say, an automobile. When you narrow down the functions of one thing in particular your observation holds true. But when you compare with others it does not. As we trace back what led to what we find that the descendants are, perhaps not substantially, but indeed more complex. Given an infinite amount of time there is no reason to insist that we could not have come from something much more simple.

If you consider a single intricate complexity more complicated than a "large simplicity" composed of other intricate complexities is by itself a fatal contradiction. Because you have to already assume there is yet another system below each item in the system of the original intricate complexity. Thus rendering it now a larger simplicity. So we have to draw the line somewhere otherwise it's an endless circle to no where.

2. Okay. Then don't ever say he has always existed. But that kind of runs contrary to what your Bible is telling you. . . . God has always existed for all eternity to all eternity, from everlasting past to everlasting future, forever and ever, from before time to after time, and who is without beginning and without end, (Psalm 41:13, 90:2, 102:25-27 and Romans 1:22-23).

3. Again, this applies directly to you because you say that nothing caused God to happen. Although I do believe something caused everything I just know that we'll never know what was first. Which is really due to the fact that I don't think anything happened first. Something just always was.

Is not God coming to you with a booming voice saying "I am real" an experience?

Nope.

Isn't your analysis of the world based on experience? Aren't you as described by thoughts and actions a collection of experiences?

It is based on thinking and reasoning. Which as I said you may call an experience if you please sense it was an action. However reasoning allows us to determine which experiences are trustworthy. If I am stranded in the desert I will be thirsty causing me to hallucinate of an oasis. Once dipping my hand into the falsely observed water my fingers will feel gritty sand in lieu of slick water. While this is an experience too it also provokes thinking that says "Wait, somethin' ain't right." This what I think of religion. It is a hallucination that with the proper experience required to provoke thinking, it can be recognized for such. If you don't think it of Christianity then surely you think it of those from another faith.

Finally, you ended with "even then it would fail to persuade an unwilling mind" which I could argue is the same reason why I can't give you evidence. Because ultimately you will not listen. However, I am not convinced that is the case so I am insistent on trying to get you to tell me what counts as evidence in this context.

I listen, I've just heard it before. What else do you have to offer as evidence...You say experience can be used as evidence? I say no.

But your issue was that prayer was a 50/50 shot which would make God a jukebox. That is not true at all. God doesn't (in any religion) say that since he answered yes to the last question he is going to answer no to the others. There are two OPTIONS (or three if you want to count "wait) but they don't have equal PROBABILITY. So your idea is still false.

Wait is nothing more than a delayed yes or no. If you look at prayer in terms of an answer it is a 50% chance of yes, and 50% no, should this God fellow really turn out to be omnipotent. All he need do is make up his mind. The odds of Vegas play no factor in his decision making. I always find it amusing how theists restrain their all-powerful God.

Why is slavery wrong?

The only thing that makes slavery wrong is that our minds can reason that it is. It is wrong to humans and to me personally but that is all. Does the universe care? Does it have a law for what the reaction will be for slavery? 'Course not. Humans have Right and Wrong but the universe only knows Correct and Incorrect. We need to recognize the difference between human laws and natures.

I explained why not and the answer is two fold: 1) God has reached out to mankind in a plethora of ways but mankind rescinds. 2) To give mankind the free will to choose to follow him or not and then force him to live with a decision that is not his is not free will at all. I shortened the explanation of Heaven and Hell. I could go into greater depth and explain exactly why Hell is a final mercy and Heaven would be the worst punishment possible, if you want.

Look at it this way: If I have a nephew and wish to reward him for choosing to love me, but decide not to provide him with certain, 100%, absolute proof that I even exist... then I am crazy! I leave it up to my brother, his father, to argue my existence meanwhile his mother say "No, no, no you don't have an uncle." His choice in not believing in me would not be his error, it is my mistake for being absurd.

[jcm]

I do not apply the theory to God because I do not fancy that God exists in material form. I believe he exists outside of time and space and therefore the question of "how long has God been in existence" is quite meaningless.

What thing or person have you seen that was not in material form? Seems you know this very well, as if you have a special ability to “see” things outside of the universe. When you sit in thought or prayer, do you believe you are communicating with a supernatural entity beyond the physical realm? Do you really believe you have that ability? I have to tell you even a thought is a physical thing. All of your mental experiences, self and memories have a physical component associated with its function.

I believe some attempt to personify things that do not need personification. Things like - love is in your heart, the angry storm, or old man winter and all attempts to try and understand nature and its purpose. Things exist the way they do not out of purpose but out of ability. The universe exists not necessarily the way it should, but rather it exists how it can. There are more “creators” in the universe that are not conscious of their creation than “creators” that know what they are doing. Oceans make waves, gravity creates stars, clouds make rain.  

“I believe he exists…”

Why use He? Why would god need genitals? What purpose would genitals serve to an entity that does not mate or require greater muscle mass to defend itself from harm. The bigger and the stronger is usually associated with the males, obviously, but this is again trying to personify nature to better understand it and its intentions. Trying to describe god in simple terms is pointless if that god exists beyond everything we know. Claiming that you know anything about god or its intentions is also pointless because you can’t know. So why don’t you admit you don’t know how the universe came to be, and you don’t know if god exists?

Science has shown us parts of the universe that existed and exists with an indifference towards human beings. Stars, species and even other worlds came into existence and have gone away long before human beings began to walk the earth.  

To claim that you know anything about events beyond physical reality is rather ridiculous. Faith does not make it true just because your faith looks just beyond what science has yet to answer.

[Sophus]

Why use He? Why would god need genitals?

  That's priceless. But I predict his answer will be because the Bible says we are created in "His" image.

[oldschooldoc]

Titan:

I find this actually quite humorous. You see religious people have turned atheistic (hence you would posit that there are religious people who are swayed by evidence, thus disproving your theory) but there are also atheists who become religious due to reasoning (which would also disprove your theory but not in the manner you wish). You see, atheists fail to provide a venue for God to provide evidence for himself. It is like you asking someone to prove that symphonies are complex collections of instruments and notes, and then proceeding to shut your eyes and ears and lock yourself in a room.

This is a ridiculous claim. I would strongly argue, especially from personal experience, that atheists are not religious people who were swayed by evidence. We were converted, at least in my case, by a LACK of evidence for a creator and no logical answers for questions on behalf of religion. It wasn't until I realized I didn't believe in a god that I began to research and find evidence to support my non-belief.

And what do you mean we provide no venue for a god to prove him/herself? If there was a god, would he/she need to wait for an invitation from detractors or non-believers? Do we need to 'build it so he/she will come?' That is absurd, find a better argument on this. A god would have the whole universe as a venue. Finally, even if we were

roceeding to shut your eyes and ears

wouldn't a god have the power to speak to the 'deaf' and give sight to the 'blind', whether they were willing participants or not?

[jcm]

Why use He? Why would god need genitals?