You lied in the video title. You never gave any info why Atheists believe in god, just a couple stories of people who questioned their faith. I’m an Atheist, don't speak for me. I don’t believe there is/are god(s) EX: No evidence, contradictions & errors in bible, many other non exclusive religions. If you post a video, please don’t lie in the title. You actually have to say why Atheists don’t believe in god. How about you just post some evidence for god(s). God-of-the-gaps argument fail.
Eh, no. Atheists lack the beleif in god(s), thats it. We don't beleive, fear, hate, or love god(s)... since we lack any beleif in god(s). Just like our lack of belief in unicorns, pixies, or gnomes. Just like you don't beleive in god(s) other than the one you believe in.
You're clearly mistaken, so we'll let this slide this one time. Please do some research if you really want to learn about atheism. In the meantime, please don't speak for us, it makes you look stupid, and us laugh at you.
I need to re-evaluate my life, my career. There is so much untapped potential in the industry of god. If he signed my paychecks I'd have no quips at all bleavin'...
@ProofThatGodExists Just like I could say that you're the one "suppressing the truth" and you actually know there is no god, but you're just lying about it. "How do you like your argument now?"
@AtheistTalk99 This is by far one of the most egregious. They just assume that because it says so in their book, that we must be lying when we say we do not know there is a deity, instead of understanding that our unbelief in the existence of such an entity is demonstrable proof that at least some of whats in the book is incorrect.
I was a Christian. I didn't become an Atheist because I was angry at God. In fact, merely questioning god was scary. But giving it the same thought I would as if it wasn't my belief, it just didn't make sense.
Simply saying "no, you really believe in a god" is lazy, perhaps the laziest argument to come out of modern apologetics. It's a way to cover your failure to convince people.
Romans 1:20 - For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
@ChristineLV And it's understandable why someone without our current knowledge of the natural world would think that; but it should join the many other presuppositions we've dropped as we increased in knowledge.
@DarkEmergence - My first comment was Scripture. If you "were" a Christian, you should have known that. Re: "it should join the many other presuppositions we've dropped as we increased in knowledge." What presupposition are you talking about?
This is one of the most ridiculous statements that i hear from people. Somehow they think that they know whats going on in my head better than I do. I am an atheist. I do NOT know that a god or gods exist. In fact, I think the contrary. It is vastly more likely that no gods exist. The arrogance of your claim to know my thoughts better than I do is repulsive.
@sithbane33 The Pharisees hated Jesus also for this, many times Jesus knew what was in their heads, and He answered their thoughts before they spoke. See the gospels, pick one and you'll see.
@Shoots1978 All you're doing is further demonstrating to me the inaccuracies of your source material. If your book says that everyone "knows", but I do not "know", then the book is wrong. Period.
@sithbane33 You said " It is vastly more likely that no gods exist." How can you make an statement such as that? Do you possess so much knowledge of all things that you think you have the answer? THAT is a ridiculous statement. How do you know that you know anything for sure? And I did not claim to know your thoughts. God did, however.
@ChristineLV Actually, if you would have read the previous sentence, you would have seen that that was merely my thoughts, not an assertion of authority (unlike your claims). It is precisely to demonstrate that I do not, in fact, "know that god exists". Context will do wonders for understanding. And your claim that God claims to know my thoughts has yet to be demonstrated in anything close to a reliable fashion. Or are you claiming to know the mind of god?
@sithbane33 I know what He has revealed in His Word. The Bible is open for all to read. Don't put words in my mouth. How sure are you that God does not exist? You would have to possess all knowledge to know that for sure. How can you rely on anything you believe?
@ChristineLV I never said I know there is no god. I said I didn't know if there is one and that disproves the claim being made, that everybody knows there is a god.
@ChristineLV I'll grant you that I'm agnostic since i don't "know". That was my whole point. But I also (don't believe in/believe there is no) god. I would say that also makes me an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive.
@sithbane33 Well, to believe something means to have confidence or faith in the truth of something. Truth is the true or actual state of the matter. So it would seem that you believe a lie. If you don't know everything such that you could know there is no God, then you aren't believing the truth.
@ChristineLV If you don't know the difference between knowing and believing, then I can't help that. You're comment could just as easily be flipped around and I could just assert (as you are) that you're the one "believing a lie". Besides, none of what you're saying has any relevance to what was being discussed (about the claim that people like me know there is a god but just won't admit it).
@ChristineLV I wouldn't have to know everything to be right about there being no deities. I wouldn't even have to know there are no deities. It could still be the case, even if I didn't know it. You can make assertions all you want. Unless you have some sort of evidence, however, you're really just talking out of your ass.
@ChristineLV - Agnostic - Not knowing if there is a God. Atheist - Does not believe God exists. Not really a difference, if you are agnostic to Sasquatch, you don't know if there is a sasquatch. If you're asaquatchist, you think there is no sasquatch. Both atheism and asaquatchism are logical and rational until evidence arises to show they exist.
@ProofThatGodExists - Evidence is not a concept, and yes, it is rational to not assume things. You will always have great difficulty with that. This whole video talks about cultural bias, you suffer confirmation bias. It is all assumption. To a Hindu, Brahma is as natural as Yahweh for instance, because that is how they were raised. You were raised to believe, I was raised to learn. And stop taking my quotes out of context, I elaborated why these were logical.
//” and yes, it is rational to not assume things.”//
I agree that it is rational not to assume some things, but I have an absolute standard of rationality by which I can make that determination, what is yours?
@ProofThatGodExists - You suffer the genetic fallacy, you think anything written in the Bible is true, despite its internal conflict and contradictions, or maybe you can't see that. So by what standard do you judge that God exists and Jesus existed? Thinking something is true, without a reason which is substantial or logical is irrational. I weigh all religions and lack thereof accordingly and with atheism I suffer no cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps you should look that up first in light of your previous comment.
//”Thinking something is true, without a reason which is substantial or logical is irrational.”//
Is that true? If so what is your “substantial” and “logical” reason for thinking that THAT is true?
Also, by what absolute standard of rationality do you deem ANYTHING to be irrational, and how do you account for that standard according to your worldview?
@stevenweir76 "Cogito ergo sum and that I can trust my senses."
Cogito ergo sum is question begging as atheistic philosopher Bertrand Russel pointed out. Look at the syllogism:
P1. I think.
P2, In order to thing I must exist
C. Therefore I exist.
Problem is P1 begs the question by assuming the “I.” In order to not beg the question P1 Should be: “There is thinking going on," and I’d really like to see how you get from that to “I exist.”
@ProofThatGodExists - You can question my epistemology all you want. I do not. Again, I perceive that I can can. It could be an illusion, but one has no reason to believe that. And if one does not think for themselves, then everything we do is pointless. While this is not impossible, it can in no way be productive, it would be as solipsism. You can have that belief if you want, and the rest of us then mean nothing and you are alone.
There is no common ground. We both know that God exists, as is evidenced by our respective commitment to truth, knowledge, universal, abstract, invariant laws, and the uniformity of nature to name but a few.
//”Publicly verifiable evidence.”//
Evidence assumes valid senses, memory and reasoning, absolute laws, knowledge and truth (to name but a few) none of which can be accounted for outside of God.
@ProofThatGodExists - But instead of pretending that this world was specially created for you and that you have some kind of mission from some God, please realize I do not believe there is a God, and I have a logical reason to support that and no evidence that contradicts my assertion. I, unlike you, do not pretend to know. I am comfortable not knowing, and the delusion of God will not assist you, because again, you can't trust your senses.
@ProofThatGodExists - I do the best I can and don't pretend to be omniscient. That's how I account for the universal, and abstract. For instance, I believe love exists as desire but not necessarily in the altruistic sense where the definition of love varies from person to person. I assume no certainty and only believe my senses, again, refer to my epistemology. I've answered your question prior.
@ProofThatGodExists - A magnet does not think. A proton does not think, an electron does not think. It only reacts to physical forces, it requires no law giver for the laws of nature. And before you come up with some asinine, brain falling out answer, just explain where your God is, where it would of come from, and how it could know it was God. It would suffer the same as you and I, and there is no foothold for your God's reason if he is the answer for everything.
@ProofThatGodExists - And if I'm wrong, explain to me how God could know that it was indeed God, and not the product of the same brain in a jar issue that you and I seem to suffer (at least you do).
Again, I do not believe there is a God, I see that concepts origin to be more difficult and improbable than my own and this existence. At least for our perceivable universe we have evidence it exists, even if questionable it is the best we have.
@ProofThatGodExists - You choose to believe the unperceived, you can't prove your God exists any more than you can prove Zeus doesn't. There is no amount of conjecture or thought experiment that proves a God exists, it is all lies, and I hope someday you will see that for what it is.
Sure I can; The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. You obviously have a precommitment to the concept of "proof." Why don't you tell us how you account for truth, knowledge, and the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic (necessary preconditions for proof), according to your worldview. Thanks.
@ProofThatGodExists - Seeing as you can't prove to me that God exists, I would think you could at least be comfortable with me having a misconception if I am wrong and believe me when I say I don't believe there is a God based upon my knowledge. And my knowledge includes counter-evidence to the existence of God which makes my certainty greater that God doesn't exist. You require to ignore evidence for your belief, and that is all we have.
@stevenweir76 //”I do the best I can and don't pretend to be omniscient.”//
So, you account for them, by not being able to account for them.
//”I don't believe there is a God based upon my knowledge.”//
What do you know, and how can you know it according to your worldview, since you cannot justify the validity of your senses or reasoning, and cannot account for knowledge, truth or logic?
@ProofThatGodExists - Actually, in a way, yes. My worldview is such that I understand that I do not know and therefor I do not make assumptions. I am fully aware I could be wrong, so I base my decisions on probability, predictability, and repetition. For instance, I don't believe Jesus is real because in the Bible he said he would have returned already. That means the statement is false and either God has failed or is a liar (not acceptable) or he doesn't exist.
@ProofThatGodExists - Being able to account or not being able to account for my philosophy's validity has no bearing on its veracity. If evidence does not lead to truth then neither you or I have anything to base our understanding of reality on. If we base it on perception, which we both share, and I can demonstrate we can learn truths we share, unless there is a grand deception and God is a hiding liar.
@ProofThatGodExists - As a Christian, you define God as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent. These traits are self-contradictory and can not be congruent with reality. Thus you suffer cognitive dissonance, based upon the objectivity we share, knowing that if God is real then it is deceiving us. It doesn't rule out any God's existence, just defined gods such as yours.
@ProofThatGodExists - And all religions I have read or learned anything have flaws which lead me to KNOW that they are false. For instance, in what purpose would a benevolent being ask anyone to kill anyone and cause unneeded anguish? The very root of the Abrahamic religion is immoral, and there are many examples of things attributed to your God which would only be malevolent. His intolerance of sin is even malevolent as nothing on Earth would matter to immortals.
@ProofThatGodExists - The traits of benevolence omniscience and omnipotence are how I define the God concept. And in this general regard I say that God is false. The problem of evil is my evidence.
@stevenweir76 //”And in this general regard I say that God is false.”//
How do you account for the concepts of “truth” and “falsehood” according to your worldview? If our thoughts are the mere by-product of our evolved brains, you don’t get “true” or “false,” you get brain barf.
//” The problem of evil is my evidence.”//
What is the absolute standard of morality, by which you call anything “evil,” and how do you account for that standard according to your worldview?
@ProofThatGodExists - Stemming from my epistemology I can build greater complexity. Your argument lies in that we can't trust our senses, in which case, neither can you which means that your perception is also limited, a wise thing to understand about one's beliefs and perceptions. But not allowing our logic and reason there is no argument, for either of us. But why are you asking me to ignore my senses? How else should one navigate reality?
@ProofThatGodExists - As for morality I don't know that there is an absolute standard. I perceive murder to be wrong, yet murder happens, a murderer's morality is not necessarily the same, murder is often justified and in war celebrated. Conditions in societies vary and so do accepted practices and perceptions.
@ProofThatGodExists - A dog might save its owner from drowning, but not a stranger, a moral decision. Where is the dog God? Does that dog's morality stem from its religion. DO the virtuous acts of animals not deserve praise, dolphins who save humans from shark or treat people kindly who swim with them? Do cat's not show love, albeit different than the complexity of human love?
@ProofThatGodExists - As for limits of perception, how do you know that the concept of God wasn't derived by an evil being, or a scam artist simply formalizing superstitions on paper? What basis do you have for your logic and understanding. What is your epistemology?
@ProofThatGodExists - I'm giving you lots of answers but all I hear from you is questions. My perception is that I use my senses to guide me, if they betray me, I ascertain why and adjust them, I make my views consistent with the evidence and experience I have to eliminate my cognitive dissonance. I have no dogma, I have no sacred beliefs.
@sithbane33 //"I never said I know there is no god. I said I didn't know if there is one and that disproves the claim being made, that everybody knows there is a god."//
Hardly, the whole point about "suppressing the truth" is that the people who are doing it, do not admit it.
@ProofThatGodExists Pure...Unadulterated...Arrogance. If you're going to rely on a book written thousands of years ago to tell you my opinion, and then tell me I'm lying when I give my ACTUAL opinion, then you are a waste of time.
@ProofThatGodExists Adam and Eve in a garden, the firmament, talking snake, and just the general concept of magic beings. Like I said, you are a waste of my time. If you can't understand burden of proof, then I'm not going to bother to take the time to explain it. Read a(nother) book.
@sithbane33 //"If you can't understand burden of proof"//
You, by claiming that you do not know that God exists, are making the positive claim that the Bible is false. I am simply asking you to support your claim by giving us the standard of truth by which you call ANYTHING false. As with most professed atheists/agnostics though, it is at this point that you make an excuse to bolt from the conversation.
@ProofThatGodExists You're stupid..If I say "I don't know", that in no way is a claim of any sort, positive or negative. I don't care if you're too dumb to get it. Read your retarded book of fairy tales some more. If you can't even tell that MAGIC ISN'T REAL, then you are too far gone into your cult to be rescued. All the deprogrammers in the world can't fix people like you. The reason why the people you talk to "bolt" is because you can only argue with children for so long.
@sithbane33 //"If I say "I don't know", that in no way is a claim of any sort, positive or negative."//
It is a positive claim that you "don't know," and an inferred claim that what the Bible says about your knowing is false. I simply want to know by what standard you claim anything to be true or false, or by what absolute standard of reasoning you call anyone "stupid" and how you account for those standards? No need to respond, your unwillingness to engage is response enough.
@stevenweir76 //"The neutral ground between us is that God may or may not exist, how do we discern who is right?"//
Neutrality is a myth, we both assume an absolute standard by which we can determine whether or not ANYTHING is right, but only one of us (not you) can justify that standard. You must borrow the absolute standard of right and wrong (God) from my worldview, in order to argue against my worldview.
@ProofThatGodExists BullShit, Sye. Your imaginary being is not the standard. Your Bible is not the standard. The Pre-Sup argument is essentially an admission that you have no argument and must jump right to "I'm right" with no justification. What Sye does is take a "concept" and then just calls it God. We are not borrowing from your WorldView. You don't "own" right and wrong or truth. You are using your senses to read your Bible and your mind to interpret it.
An unfortunate consequence believers letting the bible do their thinking for them was best expressed by Robert Ingersoll who said...
"Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,
there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not the
modesty born of the imperfections of human nature; he has the
arrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorant
assurance".
sweetsweatyfeet 1 month ago 3
You lied in the video title. You never gave any info why Atheists believe in god, just a couple stories of people who questioned their faith. I’m an Atheist, don't speak for me. I don’t believe there is/are god(s) EX: No evidence, contradictions & errors in bible, many other non exclusive religions. If you post a video, please don’t lie in the title. You actually have to say why Atheists don’t believe in god. How about you just post some evidence for god(s). God-of-the-gaps argument fail.
RationalWhoTuber 1 month ago
Eh, no. Atheists lack the beleif in god(s), thats it. We don't beleive, fear, hate, or love god(s)... since we lack any beleif in god(s). Just like our lack of belief in unicorns, pixies, or gnomes. Just like you don't beleive in god(s) other than the one you believe in.
You're clearly mistaken, so we'll let this slide this one time. Please do some research if you really want to learn about atheism. In the meantime, please don't speak for us, it makes you look stupid, and us laugh at you.
RationalWhoTuber 2 months ago
Just two guys sitting around and deluding each other with false anecdotes, I suggest anyone with a brain, theistic or atheistic to move on.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
Religion - Always appealing to emotion, never logic or reason.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevenweir76 //"Religion - Always appealing to emotion, never logic or reason."//
Wait for the next video ;-)
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
Thank you again for promoting and progressing atheism.
Mcfly88 2 months ago
I need to re-evaluate my life, my career. There is so much untapped potential in the industry of god. If he signed my paychecks I'd have no quips at all bleavin'...
Mcfly88 2 months ago
LOVE this format and the short, effective points!!!
theTRUTHgroup 2 months ago 3
@theTRUTHgroup Thanks so much. Please help us out by sharing this video and spreading our work around as much as possible!
transplantministries 2 months ago
I bet this guy is exaclty right, everybody knows God does exist, but those who argue that does not, it´s because they don´t like Him...
Romans 1 18-20...
Great video...Glory be to God
realhomosapiens 2 months ago
No matter how you wish it were true, it just isn't.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Christheatheist1 //"No matter how you wish it were true, it just isn't."//
No matter how much you wish it wasn't true, it just is. How do you like your argument now?
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProofThatGodExists Just like I could say that you're the one "suppressing the truth" and you actually know there is no god, but you're just lying about it. "How do you like your argument now?"
sithbane33 2 months ago
I love the stupidity, arrogance and lies perpetuated by apologists.
AtheistTalk99 2 months ago
@AtheistTalk99 This is by far one of the most egregious. They just assume that because it says so in their book, that we must be lying when we say we do not know there is a deity, instead of understanding that our unbelief in the existence of such an entity is demonstrable proof that at least some of whats in the book is incorrect.
sithbane33 2 months ago
Once you recognize that existence does not equate to creation, the reason why god's attributes are invisible is clearly perceived.
robtbo 2 months ago
I was a Christian. I didn't become an Atheist because I was angry at God. In fact, merely questioning god was scary. But giving it the same thought I would as if it wasn't my belief, it just didn't make sense.
Simply saying "no, you really believe in a god" is lazy, perhaps the laziest argument to come out of modern apologetics. It's a way to cover your failure to convince people.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
Romans 1:20 - For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
ChristineLV 2 months ago
@ChristineLV And it's understandable why someone without our current knowledge of the natural world would think that; but it should join the many other presuppositions we've dropped as we increased in knowledge.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkEmergence - My first comment was Scripture. If you "were" a Christian, you should have known that. Re: "it should join the many other presuppositions we've dropped as we increased in knowledge." What presupposition are you talking about?
ChristineLV 2 months ago
@ChristineLV
That is rather silly. What you quoted says invisible attributes. If they are invisible they cannot be seen and thus cannot be recognized.
AtheistTalk99 2 months ago
@ChristineLV Unless you can demonstrate the source material to be accurate, quoting a book is irrelevant.
sithbane33 2 months ago
This is one of the most ridiculous statements that i hear from people. Somehow they think that they know whats going on in my head better than I do. I am an atheist. I do NOT know that a god or gods exist. In fact, I think the contrary. It is vastly more likely that no gods exist. The arrogance of your claim to know my thoughts better than I do is repulsive.
sithbane33 2 months ago
@sithbane33 The Pharisees hated Jesus also for this, many times Jesus knew what was in their heads, and He answered their thoughts before they spoke. See the gospels, pick one and you'll see.
Shoots1978 2 months ago
@Shoots1978 All you're doing is further demonstrating to me the inaccuracies of your source material. If your book says that everyone "knows", but I do not "know", then the book is wrong. Period.
sithbane33 2 months ago
@sithbane33 Wait, what was my response? Every one "knows" what?
Shoots1978 2 months ago
@sithbane33 You said " It is vastly more likely that no gods exist." How can you make an statement such as that? Do you possess so much knowledge of all things that you think you have the answer? THAT is a ridiculous statement. How do you know that you know anything for sure? And I did not claim to know your thoughts. God did, however.
ChristineLV 2 months ago
@ChristineLV Actually, if you would have read the previous sentence, you would have seen that that was merely my thoughts, not an assertion of authority (unlike your claims). It is precisely to demonstrate that I do not, in fact, "know that god exists". Context will do wonders for understanding. And your claim that God claims to know my thoughts has yet to be demonstrated in anything close to a reliable fashion. Or are you claiming to know the mind of god?
sithbane33 2 months ago
@sithbane33 I know what He has revealed in His Word. The Bible is open for all to read. Don't put words in my mouth. How sure are you that God does not exist? You would have to possess all knowledge to know that for sure. How can you rely on anything you believe?
ChristineLV 2 months ago
@ChristineLV I never said I know there is no god. I said I didn't know if there is one and that disproves the claim being made, that everybody knows there is a god.
sithbane33 2 months ago
@sithbane33 You said you were an atheist. Since you claim that you don't know if God exists, you are really an agnostic.
ChristineLV 2 months ago
@ChristineLV I'll grant you that I'm agnostic since i don't "know". That was my whole point. But I also (don't believe in/believe there is no) god. I would say that also makes me an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive.
sithbane33 2 months ago
@sithbane33 Well, to believe something means to have confidence or faith in the truth of something. Truth is the true or actual state of the matter. So it would seem that you believe a lie. If you don't know everything such that you could know there is no God, then you aren't believing the truth.
ChristineLV 2 months ago
@ChristineLV If you don't know the difference between knowing and believing, then I can't help that. You're comment could just as easily be flipped around and I could just assert (as you are) that you're the one "believing a lie". Besides, none of what you're saying has any relevance to what was being discussed (about the claim that people like me know there is a god but just won't admit it).
sithbane33 2 months ago
@ChristineLV I wouldn't have to know everything to be right about there being no deities. I wouldn't even have to know there are no deities. It could still be the case, even if I didn't know it. You can make assertions all you want. Unless you have some sort of evidence, however, you're really just talking out of your ass.
sithbane33 2 months ago
@ChristineLV - Agnostic - Not knowing if there is a God. Atheist - Does not believe God exists. Not really a difference, if you are agnostic to Sasquatch, you don't know if there is a sasquatch. If you're asaquatchist, you think there is no sasquatch. Both atheism and asaquatchism are logical and rational until evidence arises to show they exist.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 //"Both atheism and asaquatchism are logical and rational until evidence arises to show they exist."//
No, cause neither can account for logic, rationality or the very concept of evidence.
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - Evidence is not a concept, and yes, it is rational to not assume things. You will always have great difficulty with that. This whole video talks about cultural bias, you suffer confirmation bias. It is all assumption. To a Hindu, Brahma is as natural as Yahweh for instance, because that is how they were raised. You were raised to believe, I was raised to learn. And stop taking my quotes out of context, I elaborated why these were logical.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 //”Evidence is not a concept”//
Alright, where is "evidence" then?
//” and yes, it is rational to not assume things.”//
I agree that it is rational not to assume some things, but I have an absolute standard of rationality by which I can make that determination, what is yours?
//”You were raised to believe”//
Genetic fallacy.
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - You suffer the genetic fallacy, you think anything written in the Bible is true, despite its internal conflict and contradictions, or maybe you can't see that. So by what standard do you judge that God exists and Jesus existed? Thinking something is true, without a reason which is substantial or logical is irrational. I weigh all religions and lack thereof accordingly and with atheism I suffer no cognitive dissonance.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 //”You suffer the genetic fallacy”//
Perhaps you should look that up first in light of your previous comment.
//”Thinking something is true, without a reason which is substantial or logical is irrational.”//
Is that true? If so what is your “substantial” and “logical” reason for thinking that THAT is true?
Also, by what absolute standard of rationality do you deem ANYTHING to be irrational, and how do you account for that standard according to your worldview?
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - If you are asking about my epistomology it is "Cogito ergo sum and that I can trust my senses."
If you are asking me to let my brain fall out so I can believe any nonsense for any reason, then the answer is no.
I asked you to meet me at a common ground, that is not knowing whether or not God exits.
My standard of rationality and reason is knowledge which we all share based upon material evidence or experience.
Publicly verifiable evidence.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 "Cogito ergo sum and that I can trust my senses."
Cogito ergo sum is question begging as atheistic philosopher Bertrand Russel pointed out. Look at the syllogism:
P1. I think.
P2, In order to thing I must exist
C. Therefore I exist.
Problem is P1 begs the question by assuming the “I.” In order to not beg the question P1 Should be: “There is thinking going on," and I’d really like to see how you get from that to “I exist.”
And... why do you trust your senses?
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - You can question my epistemology all you want. I do not. Again, I perceive that I can can. It could be an illusion, but one has no reason to believe that. And if one does not think for themselves, then everything we do is pointless. While this is not impossible, it can in no way be productive, it would be as solipsism. You can have that belief if you want, and the rest of us then mean nothing and you are alone.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
/”I asked you to meet me at a common ground”/
There is no common ground. We both know that God exists, as is evidenced by our respective commitment to truth, knowledge, universal, abstract, invariant laws, and the uniformity of nature to name but a few.
//”Publicly verifiable evidence.”//
Evidence assumes valid senses, memory and reasoning, absolute laws, knowledge and truth (to name but a few) none of which can be accounted for outside of God.
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - But instead of pretending that this world was specially created for you and that you have some kind of mission from some God, please realize I do not believe there is a God, and I have a logical reason to support that and no evidence that contradicts my assertion. I, unlike you, do not pretend to know. I am comfortable not knowing, and the delusion of God will not assist you, because again, you can't trust your senses.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 //"I have a logical reason to support that"//
Why don't you just tell us how you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic before you attempt to employ them. Thanks.
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - I do the best I can and don't pretend to be omniscient. That's how I account for the universal, and abstract. For instance, I believe love exists as desire but not necessarily in the altruistic sense where the definition of love varies from person to person. I assume no certainty and only believe my senses, again, refer to my epistemology. I've answered your question prior.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - A magnet does not think. A proton does not think, an electron does not think. It only reacts to physical forces, it requires no law giver for the laws of nature. And before you come up with some asinine, brain falling out answer, just explain where your God is, where it would of come from, and how it could know it was God. It would suffer the same as you and I, and there is no foothold for your God's reason if he is the answer for everything.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - And if I'm wrong, explain to me how God could know that it was indeed God, and not the product of the same brain in a jar issue that you and I seem to suffer (at least you do).
Again, I do not believe there is a God, I see that concepts origin to be more difficult and improbable than my own and this existence. At least for our perceivable universe we have evidence it exists, even if questionable it is the best we have.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - You choose to believe the unperceived, you can't prove your God exists any more than you can prove Zeus doesn't. There is no amount of conjecture or thought experiment that proves a God exists, it is all lies, and I hope someday you will see that for what it is.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 //"you can't prove your God exists"//
Sure I can; The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. You obviously have a precommitment to the concept of "proof." Why don't you tell us how you account for truth, knowledge, and the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic (necessary preconditions for proof), according to your worldview. Thanks.
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - Seeing as you can't prove to me that God exists, I would think you could at least be comfortable with me having a misconception if I am wrong and believe me when I say I don't believe there is a God based upon my knowledge. And my knowledge includes counter-evidence to the existence of God which makes my certainty greater that God doesn't exist. You require to ignore evidence for your belief, and that is all we have.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 //”I do the best I can and don't pretend to be omniscient.”//
So, you account for them, by not being able to account for them.
//”I don't believe there is a God based upon my knowledge.”//
What do you know, and how can you know it according to your worldview, since you cannot justify the validity of your senses or reasoning, and cannot account for knowledge, truth or logic?
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - Actually, in a way, yes. My worldview is such that I understand that I do not know and therefor I do not make assumptions. I am fully aware I could be wrong, so I base my decisions on probability, predictability, and repetition. For instance, I don't believe Jesus is real because in the Bible he said he would have returned already. That means the statement is false and either God has failed or is a liar (not acceptable) or he doesn't exist.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - Being able to account or not being able to account for my philosophy's validity has no bearing on its veracity. If evidence does not lead to truth then neither you or I have anything to base our understanding of reality on. If we base it on perception, which we both share, and I can demonstrate we can learn truths we share, unless there is a grand deception and God is a hiding liar.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - As a Christian, you define God as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent. These traits are self-contradictory and can not be congruent with reality. Thus you suffer cognitive dissonance, based upon the objectivity we share, knowing that if God is real then it is deceiving us. It doesn't rule out any God's existence, just defined gods such as yours.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - And all religions I have read or learned anything have flaws which lead me to KNOW that they are false. For instance, in what purpose would a benevolent being ask anyone to kill anyone and cause unneeded anguish? The very root of the Abrahamic religion is immoral, and there are many examples of things attributed to your God which would only be malevolent. His intolerance of sin is even malevolent as nothing on Earth would matter to immortals.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - The traits of benevolence omniscience and omnipotence are how I define the God concept. And in this general regard I say that God is false. The problem of evil is my evidence.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@stevenweir76 //”And in this general regard I say that God is false.”//
How do you account for the concepts of “truth” and “falsehood” according to your worldview? If our thoughts are the mere by-product of our evolved brains, you don’t get “true” or “false,” you get brain barf.
//” The problem of evil is my evidence.”//
What is the absolute standard of morality, by which you call anything “evil,” and how do you account for that standard according to your worldview?
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - Stemming from my epistemology I can build greater complexity. Your argument lies in that we can't trust our senses, in which case, neither can you which means that your perception is also limited, a wise thing to understand about one's beliefs and perceptions. But not allowing our logic and reason there is no argument, for either of us. But why are you asking me to ignore my senses? How else should one navigate reality?
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - As for morality I don't know that there is an absolute standard. I perceive murder to be wrong, yet murder happens, a murderer's morality is not necessarily the same, murder is often justified and in war celebrated. Conditions in societies vary and so do accepted practices and perceptions.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - A dog might save its owner from drowning, but not a stranger, a moral decision. Where is the dog God? Does that dog's morality stem from its religion. DO the virtuous acts of animals not deserve praise, dolphins who save humans from shark or treat people kindly who swim with them? Do cat's not show love, albeit different than the complexity of human love?
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - As for limits of perception, how do you know that the concept of God wasn't derived by an evil being, or a scam artist simply formalizing superstitions on paper? What basis do you have for your logic and understanding. What is your epistemology?
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - I'm giving you lots of answers but all I hear from you is questions. My perception is that I use my senses to guide me, if they betray me, I ascertain why and adjust them, I make my views consistent with the evidence and experience I have to eliminate my cognitive dissonance. I have no dogma, I have no sacred beliefs.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - I've done you the courtesy of giving you the basis of my epistomology and would ask you to give yours.
stevenweir76 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevenweir76 //"I've done you the courtesy of giving you the basis of my epistomology and would ask you to give yours."//
Certainly. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7).
"All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ. (Colossians 2:2,3)
All knowledge must be gained by or through revelation from God (yes, even yours).
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sithbane33 //"I never said I know there is no god. I said I didn't know if there is one and that disproves the claim being made, that everybody knows there is a god."//
Hardly, the whole point about "suppressing the truth" is that the people who are doing it, do not admit it.
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Pure...Unadulterated...Arrogance. If you're going to rely on a book written thousands of years ago to tell you my opinion, and then tell me I'm lying when I give my ACTUAL opinion, then you are a waste of time.
sithbane33 2 months ago
@sithbane33 //"If you're going to rely on a book written thousands of years ago..."//
By what standard of truth are you claiming that what the Bible says is false, and how do you account for that standard according to your worldview?
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists Adam and Eve in a garden, the firmament, talking snake, and just the general concept of magic beings. Like I said, you are a waste of my time. If you can't understand burden of proof, then I'm not going to bother to take the time to explain it. Read a(nother) book.
sithbane33 2 months ago
@sithbane33 //"If you can't understand burden of proof"//
You, by claiming that you do not know that God exists, are making the positive claim that the Bible is false. I am simply asking you to support your claim by giving us the standard of truth by which you call ANYTHING false. As with most professed atheists/agnostics though, it is at this point that you make an excuse to bolt from the conversation.
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists You're stupid..If I say "I don't know", that in no way is a claim of any sort, positive or negative. I don't care if you're too dumb to get it. Read your retarded book of fairy tales some more. If you can't even tell that MAGIC ISN'T REAL, then you are too far gone into your cult to be rescued. All the deprogrammers in the world can't fix people like you. The reason why the people you talk to "bolt" is because you can only argue with children for so long.
sithbane33 2 months ago
@sithbane33 //"If I say "I don't know", that in no way is a claim of any sort, positive or negative."//
It is a positive claim that you "don't know," and an inferred claim that what the Bible says about your knowing is false. I simply want to know by what standard you claim anything to be true or false, or by what absolute standard of reasoning you call anyone "stupid" and how you account for those standards? No need to respond, your unwillingness to engage is response enough.
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists - The neutral ground between us is that God may or may not exist, how do we discern who is right?
stevenweir76 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stevenweir76 //"The neutral ground between us is that God may or may not exist, how do we discern who is right?"//
Neutrality is a myth, we both assume an absolute standard by which we can determine whether or not ANYTHING is right, but only one of us (not you) can justify that standard. You must borrow the absolute standard of right and wrong (God) from my worldview, in order to argue against my worldview.
ProofThatGodExists 2 months ago
@ProofThatGodExists BullShit, Sye. Your imaginary being is not the standard. Your Bible is not the standard. The Pre-Sup argument is essentially an admission that you have no argument and must jump right to "I'm right" with no justification. What Sye does is take a "concept" and then just calls it God. We are not borrowing from your WorldView. You don't "own" right and wrong or truth. You are using your senses to read your Bible and your mind to interpret it.
caligulathegod 2 months ago