Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

There's no good reason to disbelieve in God

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:21:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
P1: There is no objective, physical evidence for God.
P2: whatever doesn't have objective, physical evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: mankind has erroneously attributed natural phenomena to God.
P2: whatever natural phenomena is erroneously attributed to God lessens the likelihood of God's existence.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God's existence is just as evident as the existence of fairytale creatures.
P2: we reject the existence of fairytale creatures.
C: God does not exist.

P1: atheists have higher IQ's on average than religious people do.
P2: Having a higher IQ on average means that atheists are more likely to determine whether God exists.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God cannot be coherently defined
P2: whatever cannot be coherently defined does not exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: prayer hasn't shown to be effective
P2: if God exists, prayer would be effective
C: God does not exist

P1: science has shown that God isn't necessary
P2: If God is not necessary, he doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God has contradictory characteristics
P2: Whatever has contradictory characteristics is logically impossible
C: God does not exist.

P1: the universe is imperfect
P2: if God created the universe it would be perfect
C: God does not exist.

P1: if God existed, evil wouldn't exist.
P2: evil exists
C: God does not exist

The only semi-good argument here is the one from contradictory characteristics but the argument itself only works if applied to a God with specific characteristics - it wouldn't disprove the existence of God in the general sense. Whether the characteristics are contradictory are also highly debatable.

I'm wondering if any of you find these arguments for God's nonexistence convincing? I'm not assuming that all premises are true.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 8:54:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?

I think the second premise is true. I don't think there's any way to know if the first premise is true, though.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 9:03:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:54:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?

I think the second premise is true. I don't think there's any way to know if the first premise is true, though.

There's actually quite a few things that exist without objective, physical evidence. Here's a few.

(1) logic
(2) axioms
(3) abstract objects
(4) colors
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 9:28:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 9:03:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:54:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?

I think the second premise is true. I don't think there's any way to know if the first premise is true, though.

There's actually quite a few things that exist without objective, physical evidence. Here's a few.

(1) logic
(2) axioms
(3) abstract objects
(4) colors

Please explain how those things exist.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 12:07:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 9:28:46 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:03:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:54:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?

I think the second premise is true. I don't think there's any way to know if the first premise is true, though.

There's actually quite a few things that exist without objective, physical evidence. Here's a few.

(1) logic
(2) axioms
(3) abstract objects
(4) colors

Please explain how those things exist.

Exist: "have objective reality or being."

Do colors exist?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 12:09:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 12:07:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:28:46 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:03:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:54:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?

I think the second premise is true. I don't think there's any way to know if the first premise is true, though.

There's actually quite a few things that exist without objective, physical evidence. Here's a few.

(1) logic
(2) axioms
(3) abstract objects
(4) colors

Please explain how those things exist.

Exist: "have objective reality or being."

Do colors exist?

That's a lovely definition, but it doesn't tell me about how those things exist. You made the claim that those things exist, so explain to me how they exist. How do you know that color exists?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 12:10:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 12:09:48 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/7/2015 12:07:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:28:46 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:03:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:54:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?

I think the second premise is true. I don't think there's any way to know if the first premise is true, though.

There's actually quite a few things that exist without objective, physical evidence. Here's a few.

(1) logic
(2) axioms
(3) abstract objects
(4) colors

Please explain how those things exist.

Exist: "have objective reality or being."

Do colors exist?

That's a lovely definition, but it doesn't tell me about how those things exist. You made the claim that those things exist, so explain to me how they exist. How do you know that color exists?

I just did. Are colors present in reality?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 12:13:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 12:10:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/7/2015 12:09:48 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/7/2015 12:07:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:28:46 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:03:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:54:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?

I think the second premise is true. I don't think there's any way to know if the first premise is true, though.

There's actually quite a few things that exist without objective, physical evidence. Here's a few.

(1) logic
(2) axioms
(3) abstract objects
(4) colors

Please explain how those things exist.

Exist: "have objective reality or being."

Do colors exist?

That's a lovely definition, but it doesn't tell me about how those things exist. You made the claim that those things exist, so explain to me how they exist. How do you know that color exists?

I just did. Are colors present in reality?

No, you posted a definition of the word exist. How does color have objective reality or being?
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:19:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 12:13:02 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/7/2015 12:10:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/7/2015 12:09:48 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/7/2015 12:07:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:28:46 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:03:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:54:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?

I think the second premise is true. I don't think there's any way to know if the first premise is true, though.

There's actually quite a few things that exist without objective, physical evidence. Here's a few.

(1) logic
(2) axioms
(3) abstract objects
(4) colors

Please explain how those things exist.

Exist: "have objective reality or being."

Do colors exist?

That's a lovely definition, but it doesn't tell me about how those things exist. You made the claim that those things exist, so explain to me how they exist. How do you know that color exists?

I just did. Are colors present in reality?

No, you posted a definition of the word exist. How does color have objective reality or being?

Not to overstate the obvious, but as you know, no one can disprove a potential negative. With that being said, most atheists will concede that there is no way one can prove that a prime mover or god-like figure does not exist. This should be ostensibly differentiated from a being intimately involved in those categorized by monotheistic religions.

Now, equating a supernatural entity (god) with that of things existing in the natural world (color, logic, love) would be a mistake. An abstract object or idea is a human construct of something that lies on the fringes of our physical senses and imaginable through our minds eye. We therefore use abstractions to define ideology that lack empirical support in the scientific sense but have relative support, in the philosophical sense, to help extend an idea.

Love, although not physical or visible, is a ubiquitous human emotion that is dependent upon one who is loving and the one who is loved. In other words, in order for "love"to make sense, there needs to be a giver and a receiver - otherwise it is just fantasy.

I illustrate these differences to underscore a point that believing in a supernatural entity (unseen and not physically verified) who is involved in our daily lives is very different than having an understanding of the somewhat illusive and ambiguous human constructs which have and continue to evolve in our natural world.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 1:29:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 9:03:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:54:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?

I think the second premise is true. I don't think there's any way to know if the first premise is true, though.

There's actually quite a few things that exist without objective, physical evidence. Here's a few.

(1) logic
(2) axioms
(3) abstract objects
(4) colors

Abstract objects?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 3:54:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:21:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: There is no objective, physical evidence for God.
P2: whatever doesn't have objective, physical evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: mankind has erroneously attributed natural phenomena to God.
P2: whatever natural phenomena is erroneously attributed to God lessens the likelihood of God's existence.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God's existence is just as evident as the existence of fairytale creatures.
P2: we reject the existence of fairytale creatures.
C: God does not exist.

P1: atheists have higher IQ's on average than religious people do.
P2: Having a higher IQ on average means that atheists are more likely to determine whether God exists.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God cannot be coherently defined
P2: whatever cannot be coherently defined does not exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: prayer hasn't shown to be effective
P2: if God exists, prayer would be effective
C: God does not exist

P1: science has shown that God isn't necessary
P2: If God is not necessary, he doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God has contradictory characteristics
P2: Whatever has contradictory characteristics is logically impossible
C: God does not exist.

P1: the universe is imperfect
P2: if God created the universe it would be perfect
C: God does not exist.

P1: if God existed, evil wouldn't exist.
P2: evil exists
C: God does not exist


The only semi-good argument here is the one from contradictory characteristics but the argument itself only works if applied to a God with specific characteristics - it wouldn't disprove the existence of God in the general sense. Whether the characteristics are contradictory are also highly debatable.

I'm wondering if any of you find these arguments for God's nonexistence convincing? I'm not assuming that all premises are true.

It's about time we debated again.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 4:33:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:21:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: There is no objective, physical evidence for God.
P2: whatever doesn't have objective, physical evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: mankind has erroneously attributed natural phenomena to God.
P2: whatever natural phenomena is erroneously attributed to God lessens the likelihood of God's existence.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God's existence is just as evident as the existence of fairytale creatures.
P2: we reject the existence of fairytale creatures.
C: God does not exist.

P1: atheists have higher IQ's on average than religious people do.
P2: Having a higher IQ on average means that atheists are more likely to determine whether God exists.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God cannot be coherently defined
P2: whatever cannot be coherently defined does not exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: prayer hasn't shown to be effective
P2: if God exists, prayer would be effective
C: God does not exist

P1: science has shown that God isn't necessary
P2: If God is not necessary, he doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God has contradictory characteristics
P2: Whatever has contradictory characteristics is logically impossible
C: God does not exist.

P1: the universe is imperfect
P2: if God created the universe it would be perfect
C: God does not exist.

P1: if God existed, evil wouldn't exist.
P2: evil exists
C: God does not exist


The only semi-good argument here is the one from contradictory characteristics but the argument itself only works if applied to a God with specific characteristics - it wouldn't disprove the existence of God in the general sense. Whether the characteristics are contradictory are also highly debatable.

I'm wondering if any of you find these arguments for God's nonexistence convincing? I'm not assuming that all premises are true.
I'm wondering why you always ignore our actual arguments, and replace them with your own - making certain to include your bias. Wait... that's it, isn't it! This way, you get to include your bias by presenting silly strawmen.

Explain why you think it's rational to believe in something for which you have no evidence. What would keep you from being in constant fear of dragons, lions, living gargoyles and anything else you could imagine?

Explain how you can believe in something for which you have no evidence, and not fear everyone around you is a cyborg from the future, who is in a timed plot to murder you. Why don't you believe in literally every imaginary entity ever suggested?

Are you worried about the Wicked Witch of the West, or her sister from the East? Do you fear flying monkeys? Do you lie awake at night trembling in fear of the tiger-zebras who will chase you down, maul you and eat you?

If evidence isn't important, why don't you believe in these things with the same passion you believe in God?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 5:50:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yeah there is.
It's the same reason people don't believe in fairies, goblins, dragons, nephelim, giants and unicorns, there is no evidence to support a belief in their existence.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 9:38:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 9:03:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:54:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?

I think the second premise is true. I don't think there's any way to know if the first premise is true, though.

There's actually quite a few things that exist without objective, physical evidence. Here's a few.

(1) logic
(2) axioms
(3) abstract objects
(4) colors

Yes, but none of those things have a counterpart (evolution, in this case.) Enough evidence for Evolution and an old Earth warrants a disbelief in God
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 9:52:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 9:38:23 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:03:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:54:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?

I think the second premise is true. I don't think there's any way to know if the first premise is true, though.

There's actually quite a few things that exist without objective, physical evidence. Here's a few.

(1) logic
(2) axioms
(3) abstract objects
(4) colors

Yes, but none of those things have a counterpart (evolution, in this case.) Enough evidence for Evolution and an old Earth warrants a disbelief in God

What do you mean that none of these things have a counterpart?
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 9:55:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yeah there is.
It's the same reason people don't believe in fairies, goblins, dragons, nephelim, giants and unicorns, there is no evidence to support a belief in their existence.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:02:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 8:21:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: There is no objective, physical evidence for God.
P2: whatever doesn't have objective, physical evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

There is a significant difference between ...

P1.a There is no objective physical evidence for God.
P1.b There is no known objective physical evidence for God.
P1.c There is no objective physical evidence for God which I accept as evidence.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:17:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 10:02:19 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:21:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: There is no objective, physical evidence for God.
P2: whatever doesn't have objective, physical evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

There is a significant difference between ...

P1.a There is no objective physical evidence for God.
P1.b There is no known objective physical evidence for God.
P1.c There is no objective physical evidence for God which I accept as evidence.

Sure but that wouldn't mean that God doesn't exist lol
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:20:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 9:55:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
Yeah there is.
It's the same reason people don't believe in fairies, goblins, dragons, nephelim, giants and unicorns, there is no evidence to support a belief in their existence.

All of the mentioned things don't have reasonable evidence to believe in them. God does. Therefore it's not analogous.

Objective morality exists according to Occams's razor.

Objective morality could only exist if God exists.

Objective morality exists.

Therefore God exists.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:22:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 4:33:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:21:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: There is no objective, physical evidence for God.
P2: whatever doesn't have objective, physical evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: mankind has erroneously attributed natural phenomena to God.
P2: whatever natural phenomena is erroneously attributed to God lessens the likelihood of God's existence.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God's existence is just as evident as the existence of fairytale creatures.
P2: we reject the existence of fairytale creatures.
C: God does not exist.

P1: atheists have higher IQ's on average than religious people do.
P2: Having a higher IQ on average means that atheists are more likely to determine whether God exists.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God cannot be coherently defined
P2: whatever cannot be coherently defined does not exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: prayer hasn't shown to be effective
P2: if God exists, prayer would be effective
C: God does not exist

P1: science has shown that God isn't necessary
P2: If God is not necessary, he doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God has contradictory characteristics
P2: Whatever has contradictory characteristics is logically impossible
C: God does not exist.

P1: the universe is imperfect
P2: if God created the universe it would be perfect
C: God does not exist.

P1: if God existed, evil wouldn't exist.
P2: evil exists
C: God does not exist


The only semi-good argument here is the one from contradictory characteristics but the argument itself only works if applied to a God with specific characteristics - it wouldn't disprove the existence of God in the general sense. Whether the characteristics are contradictory are also highly debatable.

I'm wondering if any of you find these arguments for God's nonexistence convincing? I'm not assuming that all premises are true.
I'm wondering why you always ignore our actual arguments, and replace them with your own - making certain to include your bias. Wait... that's it, isn't it! This way, you get to include your bias by presenting silly strawmen.

Explain why you think it's rational to believe in something for which you have no evidence. What would keep you from being in constant fear of dragons, lions, living gargoyles and anything else you could imagine?

Explain how you can believe in something for which you have no evidence, and not fear everyone around you is a cyborg from the future, who is in a timed plot to murder you. Why don't you believe in literally every imaginary entity ever suggested?

Are you worried about the Wicked Witch of the West, or her sister from the East? Do you fear flying monkeys? Do you lie awake at night trembling in fear of the tiger-zebras who will chase you down, maul you and eat you?

If evidence isn't important, why don't you believe in these things with the same passion you believe in God?

Lol these arguments are identical to what you've been arguing or inferring since I've been here. God is logically necessitated with various arguments whereas fairytale creatures are not. Therefore God is not analogous to the existence of fairytale creatures.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:22:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 10:17:31 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/7/2015 10:02:19 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:21:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: There is no objective, physical evidence for God.
P2: whatever doesn't have objective, physical evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

There is a significant difference between ...

P1.a There is no objective physical evidence for God.
P1.b There is no known objective physical evidence for God.
P1.c There is no objective physical evidence for God which I accept as evidence.

Sure but that wouldn't mean that God doesn't exist lol

No, it would not, but that makes your effort no less faulty.

I was under the impression that you were actually seeking a real discussion. Sorry.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:22:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 3:54:14 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:21:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: There is no objective, physical evidence for God.
P2: whatever doesn't have objective, physical evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: mankind has erroneously attributed natural phenomena to God.
P2: whatever natural phenomena is erroneously attributed to God lessens the likelihood of God's existence.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God's existence is just as evident as the existence of fairytale creatures.
P2: we reject the existence of fairytale creatures.
C: God does not exist.

P1: atheists have higher IQ's on average than religious people do.
P2: Having a higher IQ on average means that atheists are more likely to determine whether God exists.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God cannot be coherently defined
P2: whatever cannot be coherently defined does not exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: prayer hasn't shown to be effective
P2: if God exists, prayer would be effective
C: God does not exist

P1: science has shown that God isn't necessary
P2: If God is not necessary, he doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

P1: God has contradictory characteristics
P2: Whatever has contradictory characteristics is logically impossible
C: God does not exist.

P1: the universe is imperfect
P2: if God created the universe it would be perfect
C: God does not exist.

P1: if God existed, evil wouldn't exist.
P2: evil exists
C: God does not exist


The only semi-good argument here is the one from contradictory characteristics but the argument itself only works if applied to a God with specific characteristics - it wouldn't disprove the existence of God in the general sense. Whether the characteristics are contradictory are also highly debatable.

I'm wondering if any of you find these arguments for God's nonexistence convincing? I'm not assuming that all premises are true.

It's about time we debated again.

Take your pick.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:24:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 1:29:38 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:03:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:54:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?

I think the second premise is true. I don't think there's any way to know if the first premise is true, though.

There's actually quite a few things that exist without objective, physical evidence. Here's a few.

(1) logic
(2) axioms
(3) abstract objects
(4) colors

Abstract objects?

Yes.

"Abstract objects are the objects that are presupposed by our scientific conceptual framework. For example, when doing natural science, we presuppose that we can use the natural numbers to count concrete objects, and that we can use the real numbers to measure them in various ways."
https://mally.stanford.edu...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:25:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 12:13:02 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/7/2015 12:10:59 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/7/2015 12:09:48 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/7/2015 12:07:02 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:28:46 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 9:03:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:54:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:44:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:29:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Disbelieving a claim about the existence of a god is not the same thing as claiming that god doesn't exist. So, while I agree that those would be poor arguments for claiming a god does not exist (with the possible exception of the first, which is actually valid if the two premises are true), they don't actually address the issue of rejecting a claim about the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue". There are other definitions but this is the one I meant by disbelieving.

Do you think the first argument has true premises?

I think the second premise is true. I don't think there's any way to know if the first premise is true, though.

There's actually quite a few things that exist without objective, physical evidence. Here's a few.

(1) logic
(2) axioms
(3) abstract objects
(4) colors

Please explain how those things exist.

Exist: "have objective reality or being."

Do colors exist?

That's a lovely definition, but it doesn't tell me about how those things exist. You made the claim that those things exist, so explain to me how they exist. How do you know that color exists?

I just did. Are colors present in reality?

No, you posted a definition of the word exist. How does color have objective reality or being?

Because colors are perceived by human beings. It would be absurd to argue that colors don't exist.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,954
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:26:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 10:22:29 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/7/2015 10:17:31 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/7/2015 10:02:19 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:21:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: There is no objective, physical evidence for God.
P2: whatever doesn't have objective, physical evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

There is a significant difference between ...

P1.a There is no objective physical evidence for God.
P1.b There is no known objective physical evidence for God.
P1.c There is no objective physical evidence for God which I accept as evidence.

Sure but that wouldn't mean that God doesn't exist lol

No, it would not, but that makes your effort no less faulty.

I was under the impression that you were actually seeking a real discussion. Sorry.

OP: "there's no good reason to disbelieve in God"
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:29:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is a good reason to disbelieve in a personal God like the God in the bible. The natural and physical laws that govern our universe applies to all equally. Miracles,special divine visitations, virgin birth and messianic callings are stuff of myths, fables and mass deceptions.
Is it possible for something to come out of nothing? Sure, the God of the bible was created from nothing. There is no evidence of Moses, Noah's flood , the Virgin birth, the resurrection, Jesus's miracles. But they have been created out of nothing but the fertile imagination of Jews who to this day dominate Hollywood.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:32:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 10:20:22 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/7/2015 9:55:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
Yeah there is.
It's the same reason people don't believe in fairies, goblins, dragons, nephelim, giants and unicorns, there is no evidence to support a belief in their existence.

All of the mentioned things don't have reasonable evidence to believe in them. God does. Therefore it's not analogous.

Objective morality exists according to Occams's razor.
Wrong! But nice try.
Objective morality could only exist if God exists.
See the clarification I've given you.
Objective morality exists.
Do you have someone helping you with your stammer?
Therefore God exists.
As do fairies and goblins by your "logic".
LOL
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2015 10:37:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/7/2015 10:26:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/7/2015 10:22:29 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/7/2015 10:17:31 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/7/2015 10:02:19 AM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/6/2015 8:21:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
P1: There is no objective, physical evidence for God.
P2: whatever doesn't have objective, physical evidence doesn't exist.
C: God does not exist.

There is a significant difference between ...

P1.a There is no objective physical evidence for God.
P1.b There is no known objective physical evidence for God.
P1.c There is no objective physical evidence for God which I accept as evidence.

Sure but that wouldn't mean that God doesn't exist lol

No, it would not, but that makes your effort no less faulty.

I was under the impression that you were actually seeking a real discussion. Sorry.

OP: "there's no good reason to disbelieve in God"

You are right. My apologies.