What Is The Evidence For And Against The Existence Of God?

[DavidLeon]

What is the evidence for the nonexistence of God and is the Bible evidence of the existence of God?

God in this case refers exclusively to Jehovah as creator of the heavens and earth. A supernatural being.

Guidelines for this debate: C&A guidelines, Wikipedia: Evidence of Absence and Argument From Ignorance.

[brunumb]

Effort. What I was saying is that I used to assume the Bible was stupid because the stuff I heard about it was stupid so I just assumed it. Then I looked further. Not just to what I wanted to see, except for in that what I wanted to see was the truth.

How do you look further when the Bible is all that you've got? Just what did this extra effort entail?

You look further than what you've assumed or been told the Bible says. You compare translations and if necessary research the original Hebrew / Aramaic and Greek. You look at the historically documented influence and adoption of contrary teachings.

Do you think that you're the only one who has done that? What makes your conclusions any more valid than those reached by others who have applied the same effort? Based on other comments you've made (9-11, holocaust, governments,...), I'm sensing that you've gone down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories and somehow that may have adversely affected your judgement.

[unknown soldier]

There isn't a lack of evidence there is only assumption based upon a deliberate avoidance of the evidence.

If I'm "avoiding the evidence," then it's really odd that I've read the Bible as well as many books written by Christian apologists.

There's just no pleasing some people!

Children are starving on a planet that is abundant with food because mankind rejected God's leadership for their own.

So God wants to feed everybody, but he cannot because all those evil people keep getting in his way. It sounds like the evil people are winning.

I gave you the Bible passages and he didn't go on vacation, he no longer needed to use those devices to get his message across.

There is no date given in the Bible saying that God will quit his magic show. What you're saying is just a made-up excuse for why miracles don't happen today. The real reason we don't experience miracles is because they have never happened. There is no God to wave a magic wand.

Miracles are like parlor tricks to impress those weak in faith. They were signs. And it wasn't a business.

I agree that miracles are tricks.

Do you really think that if you saw a miracle you would leap for joy and praise God?

I don't know what I would do because I've never seen a miracle. It looks like we'll never know how I would react to a miracle.

Just think about your criticism and the basis for the conclusions you draw. You seem so confident when affirming your beliefs with nonsense only because you think what you criticize is nonsense. It's just a joke? But you don't know what you're talking about?

I suppose the ridiculous claims Christians make are a joke, and I do know what I'm talking about. I've seen Christians fake miracles.

They didn't impress the faithless even then, and the ones you see today are illusions. Not very good ones. Those in the Bible were for those living when the Bible was being written. Before there was a Bible.

Not only did God perform his miracles at a time we cannot check, he had primitive, superstitious and gullible people witness them. God seems to avoid performing in front of people who can think critically.

...or maybe those primitive, superstitious and gullible people made up those miracle stories.

What does God want from the righteous? It is measurable in faith. Why? Because if you don't have faith then you don't want what it can deliver so where does that leave the modern faithless? Right where you are. THAT is a miracle you can witness. Without talking serpents, burning bushes or dividing seas.

The only things I've ever seen faith deliver are disappointments, wasted time, and people conned out of their money.

You aren't going to agree with anyone on theology. What little research it would take for you to see the immortal soul came from Socrates, the trinity from Plato, hell from Dante and Milton, Christmas from the winter solstice long before Christ, Easter from the pagan goddess of fertility Astarte whose symbols were the rabbit and the egg and the phallic cross, the cross from Constantine etc. All of these things come from ancient Babylon and were introduced into the apostate church to attract the pagan.

You forgot the fables of Adam and Eve and the Tower of Babel also taken from Babylonian mythology not to mention the Egyptian mythology that forms the basis for the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus and the Greek Logos in John 1:1 taken from Greek mythology.

In other words, your brand of Christianity is based in pagan mythology too.

Every way.

That's OK with me. Please demonstrate what you know.

...don't just make up stuff because whenever unbelievers do that they are wrong.

Agreed, but what did I make up?

You can get slaps on the back from other unbelievers because you think like they do but who wants that?

Actually, many of my fellow atheists hate much of what I argue. I argue whatever seems right to me regardless of how others react.

Pull yourself together, man!

Will do!

If you found out there is no God you should explain it to other people. Go on a book tour with Richard Dawkins. Because so far they haven't been able to prove it.

Well, I suppose it's possible that God is hiding somewhere, and I can't find him. It seems to me that Christians have created a God that cannot be proved or disproved even in principle. So you might be right that nobody has ever proved that God doesn't exist. Don't get too excited, though; nobody has ever disproved the Easter Bunny either.

You didn't find out there was no God you probably just traded one God for another.

Is there something wrong with having a God?

Hmmm. Maybe today God could fly a B2 bomber and "rain down fire from heaven" dropping nukes on sinful places like Las Vegas and Hollywood.

Now you're thinking!

You might find it odd, but I've sometimes thought of making up a God who doesn't hurt anybody and makes people feel good about themselves.

But nah--who would want a God like that?

[DavidLeon]

Do you think that you're the only one who has done that?

No. I was responding to one statement that wasn't accurate.

What makes your conclusions any more valid than those reached by others who have applied the same effort?

Read the post. Respond to the post.

Based on other comments you've made (9-11, holocaust, governments,...), I'm sensing that you've gone down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories and somehow that may have adversely affected your judgement.

Oh, that was a typo. Governments are always nothing but completely honest. There certainly couldn't be anyone in government that would distort and manipulate facts. Nothing good from their perspective could ever be achieved by doing anything else. Like endless wars, the patriot act. Just put me over on the shelf under the label conspiracy nut. Don't look at the evidence to a narrative you've been spoon fed. Don't question that or else you might be put on a shelf here beside me.

[brunumb]

What makes your conclusions any more valid than those reached by others who have applied the same effort?

Read the post. Respond to the post.

You haven't really given us anything to address. You make vague claims of putting in the effort to study the Bible or whatever, but you never explain the basis upon which your conclusions have been reached and determined to be correct. That just places you in the same position as countless other preachers that no one needs to take seriously. Anyone can make claims about finding the truth, it's a different matter validating those claims.

[DavidLeon]

Ah, you got a name for a god, then you use terms that are metaphysical. Spirit being? What is spirit? I don't know what you mean when something is a 'spirit being'. If spirit is nothing more than wind breath and mental indicators, why call it god?

Spirit is translated from the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma, the latter from which comes the English pneumonia and pneumatic. It means something invisible but producing visible results. Wind, breath, mental inclinations and spirit beings are examples of this. As far as I can tell you can't measure spirit beings with science.

And what makes you think 3rd century goat herders should be relied on for a definition of something modern philosophers and more have been unable to describe or even parameterize?

Why should I regard a translation of a word from a primitive, ignorant, even according to 3rd century analogies to their Greek, Persian, Italian - and so on, peers/cultures of the day... why should I regard a translation of the word "ruach" - which even sounds like a "retch," and has no substance in-turn, as anything more than a joke or misapprehension?

You and me. Mono a mono. Topic for debate? Is the modern day skeptic estimation of Genesis chapter 1 valid?

Let's dance!

[DavidLeon]

What makes your conclusions any more valid than those reached by others who have applied the same effort?

Read the post. Respond to the post.

You haven't really given us anything to address. You make vague claims of putting in the effort to study the Bible or whatever, but you never explain the basis upon which your conclusions have been reached and determined to be correct. That just places you in the same position as countless other preachers that no one needs to take seriously. Anyone can make claims about finding the truth, it's a different matter validating those claims.

This. Is a dog and pony show. No matter what I say the unbelieving response is always the same. If you expect an actual detailed discussion of something having to do with the Bible other than to say that it isn't true because you believe it isn't present the evidence. Otherwise it's just you all saying the Bible isn't true and me saying you don't know what you are talking about. That is, you don't appear to know what you are talking about because the criticism rarely goes beyond your original supposition which is that the Bible isn't true. Not in those words, but the answer is always the same.

[brunumb]

What makes your conclusions any more valid than those reached by others who have applied the same effort?

Read the post. Respond to the post.

You haven't really given us anything to address. You make vague claims of putting in the effort to study the Bible or whatever, but you never explain the basis upon which your conclusions have been reached and determined to be correct. That just places you in the same position as countless other preachers that no one needs to take seriously. Anyone can make claims about finding the truth, it's a different matter validating those claims.

This. Is a dog and pony show. No matter what I say the unbelieving response is always the same. If you expect an actual detailed discussion of something having to do with the Bible other than to say that it isn't true because you believe it isn't present the evidence. Otherwise it's just you all saying the Bible isn't true and me saying you don't know what you are talking about. That is, you don't appear to know what you are talking about because the criticism rarely goes beyond your original supposition which is that the Bible isn't true. Not in those words, but the answer is always the same.

Your dodge is duly noted. You apparently have nothing more than a personal opinion, and everyone else is wrong. Got it.

[DavidLeon]

Just for fun let's point out the tactic.

Your dodge is duly noted.

Implies they had a valid point and you avoided it. Not true, of course, the point was the invalid discussion where no point was raised. So, the challenge goes unaccepted but the blame is on me for allegedly dodging the point which was the lack of the point resulting in the challenge that was unaccepted in the first place. The poster isn't so obtuse to think this is a valid criticism, it's just a suggestion to reaffirm their lackluster position and more importantly, rally the home team.

You apparently have nothing more than a personal opinion, and everyone else is wrong.

The poster introduces the claim that their opponent operates on personal opinion. As if there was an alternative. Like their personal opinion or the opinion of the tribe. Group think. Thus the only semblance of a valid point is the last - everyone else is wrong. This makes my alleged arrogance the problem rather than the actual disagreement with the robot collective.

Got it.

They got it! Report it! Run, Big Brother, RUN!

[brunumb]

Just for fun let's point out the tactic.

Your dodge is duly noted.

Implies they had a valid point and you avoided it. Not true, of course, the point was the invalid discussion where no point was raised. So, the challenge goes unaccepted but the blame is on me for allegedly dodging the point which was the lack of the point resulting in the challenge that was unaccepted in the first place.

When the dodge is pointed out, engaging in much hand-waving and blaming the other party is just another distraction. Whenever the believer is asked to fill in the gaps and offer an explanation, the absence of anything compelling requires the dodge. Over the decades all I have received is retorts like:
You wouldn't understand if I told you.
You need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for it to make sense.
Even if Jesus appeared you wouldn't believe.
It would be a waste of time, like casting pearls before swine.
You have to put in the effort and it will all become clear.
You need to pray to God first.

Rarely do you get a direct response explaining exactly what it is that was the clincher for the believer. When you do, you realise why so many just opt for the dodge. No matter how superior or intellectual they like to present themselves, it all really boils down to the fact they they did not rationalise their belief into existence. They were inculcated with it and are now simply trying to retrofit a rationalisation.

[DavidLeon]

Just for fun let's point out the tactic.

Your dodge is duly noted.

Implies they had a valid point and you avoided it. Not true, of course, the point was the invalid discussion where no point was raised. So, the challenge goes unaccepted but the blame is on me for allegedly dodging the point which was the lack of the point resulting in the challenge that was unaccepted in the first place.

When the dodge is pointed out, engaging in much hand-waving and blaming the other party is just another distraction. Whenever the believer is asked to fill in the gaps and offer an explanation, the absence of anything compelling requires the dodge. Over the decades all I have received is retorts like:
You wouldn't understand if I told you.

It's not so much that you wouldn't understand, it's more that you wouldn't take it seriously. Your response would probably be the same old dumb atheist platitudes.

You need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for it to make sense.

Nonsense. Probably used by someone who labors under the illusion that they are better than you. That's a dodge, alright.

Even if Jesus appeared you wouldn't believe.

That's true.

It would be a waste of time, like casting pearls before swine.

That's true too. It sounds like an insult but it has a good point. Pigs have no use of pearls. Unbelievers have no use of an accurate knowledge of the Bible.

You have to put in the effort and it will all become clear.

That's somewhat true. Many unbelievers put in a great effort for willful ignorance, though.

You need to pray to God first.

Probably a dodge, but may depend upon the context. I would say it would very rarely depend upon the context.

Rarely do you get a direct response explaining exactly what it is that was the clincher for the believer. When you do, you realise why so many just opt for the dodge. No matter how superior or intellectual they like to present themselves, it all really boils down to the fact they they did not rationalise their belief into existence. They were inculcated with it and are now simply trying to retrofit a rationalisation.

It may honestly appear to you that way, but I'm inclined to doubt it. That seems more likely just projection. You are really just saying they aren't rational. It's far more likely that they just know it's a waste of time. I know I will walk away from a debate or argument because I've been doing this too long not to reasonably predict that an unbeliever would rather insult you then give you respectful attention. It's almost unheard of. Almost all of what a believer gets is the aforementioned dumb atheist platitudes. It's mocking. And it's so prevalent that it is obviously a juvenile protest that has more to do with the unbeliever than the believer, even if the believer is being a jerk.