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.

[Willum]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #45]

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

So you want to debate whether people educated in the 20th and 21st centuries rejecting their foundational myths is legitimate?
What side do you think I'd be on?

I think people educated in the 20-1st century should cling to their fairytales?
or
I think people should reject their fairy-tales, and only accept the apologetics they are comfortable with?

How about:
If they used to believe in fairytales, from the word of God, they should still believe in those fairytales.

See, I got nothing.

But anytime you wish to refute the PROOF. Proof Proof PROOF I gave you dismissing, God, I am game.

[Willum]

[Replying to brunumb in post #49]

DaveLeon Wrote:

It's not so much that you wouldn't understand, it's more that you wouldn't take it seriously.

Imagine that! He doesn't think you'd take tales of talking snakes and people walking on water seriously!
What a low opinion he must have of you, that he thinks you would immediately dismiss the miracles his God and his god's colleagues have done.
I imagine he'd be shocked if you didn't take them on his word and faith!

[DavidLeon]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #45]

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

So you want to debate whether people educated in the 20th and 21st centuries rejecting their foundational myths is legitimate?
What side do you think I'd be on?

I think people educated in the 20-1st century should cling to their fairytales?
or
I think people should reject their fairy-tales, and only accept the apologetics they are comfortable with?

How about:
If they used to believe in fairytales, from the word of God, they should still believe in those fairytales.

See, I got nothing.

But anytime you with to refute the PROOF. Proof Proof PROOF I gave you dismissing, God, I am game.

I don't know what that was all about but what I was suggesting is simply is the skepticism of Genesis chapter 1 valid. I don't care what century it's from, how educated they are, whether or not it's a fairy-tale or the word of God or proof of anything. None of that. Just is there any real criticism that reflects a reasonable skepticism of Genesis chapter 1.

Perhaps you are ...



Maybe not. Your style is more like ...



Or even ...

[Stelar_7]

You want to accept it as evidence because people believe it? That's a pretty strange criteria. I'd accept it if there was independent verification.

[laughs] Independent verification? You mean, like, if a third party believes it?

No, that would not be 3rdpy verification.

I suppose you also accept the Bagavad Ghita as evidence for Krishna then.

No, because there isn't any reason to believe it. It's a nationalistic propaganda piece.

It's a religious tome of better preservation and arguably greater age. Your bias is showing.

You should check out his work. He is a PhD and focuses his research on the bible. When he says forgeries he means exactly that, writings added to the cannon falsely attributed to another author distinguishable by linguistic analysis. He has a book on the subject but also extensive lectures available on You Tube. A simple search should produce anything you want to learn more about and I'm not going to attempt to convey that body of research here. Suffice to say forgeries is the word the relevant expert uses and supports with his research.

First strike against him is his PhD, which means he was taught a transmogrified version of the Bible by ideologues who think God doesn't exist. Second strike is forgeries. Authorship is traditionally attributed because the writers didn't think it was relevant. It isn't. Third and final strike against him is "linguistic analysis." A pseudo science equal to fingerprinting and lie detectors. Stylistic variations are nonsense. All one has to do is look at them to see this.

aaaannnnd, I'm sorry, I actually took you seriously. However not only have you utterly failed to resolve the contradictions I placed before you, you have demonstrated that you think a person with a PHD on the topic knows less than you because of magic.

You are not a credible interlocutor.

[Willum]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #53]

I don't know what that was all about

Yes, every time you are confronted with something you can't answer, you don't seem to understand it, or ignore it.

In a debate forum, that means you lose.

You are unable to refute the reasons God does not exists, therefore in absence of fresh evidence. there is no reason, no reason to say it does.

[otseng]

Perhaps you are ...

Moderator Comment

Please debate without taunting and commenting about a poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

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.

I'm not an atheist, but my accurate knowledge of the Bible has uses. I would assume it does for other humans as well. Even if they are dirty atheists.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

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.
Many unbelievers put in a great effort for willful ignorance, though.
That seems more likely just projection.
You are really just saying they aren't rational.
I've been doing this too long not to reasonably predict that an unbeliever would rather insult you then give you respectful attention.
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.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

An honest questions was asked about why your conclusions would be more valid than those reached by others who have applied the same effort?
We got dodges and slander, yet you claim to have been doing this for far too long. If I remember right, pride comes before the fall.

Fact, there is not agreement when it comes to Christian claims about the Bible.
It is therefore reasonable to ask why someone would feel that their claims/interpretation or more valid than the claims made by Christians that reached other conclusions with the same applied effort.

This question seems to have nearly a 100% dodge rate or the 'no true Scottsman' comes up.

[We_Are_VENOM]

What is the evidence for the nonexistence of God

Pure and simple, the lack of compelling evidence for it.

What is the evidence for the nonexistence of unicorns? Pure and simple, the lack of compelling evidence for them.

So, I guess all of the people in criminal history who've committed the "perfect crimes" for not leaving a single shred of evidence at the crime scene; I guess they didn't commit the crime.

Non sequitur.

What is the evidence for the nonexistence of leprechauns? Pure and simple, the lack of compelling evidence for them.

So, dinosaurs did not exist until fossils of them were found?

Non sequitur.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Evidence for the existence of God..

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. The Argument from Contingency
3. The Argument from Consciousness
4. The Argument from Design (focusing on entropy)
5. The Argument from the Origin of Language
6. The Modal Ontological Argument


Evidence against the existence of God

--------

[unknown soldier]

Evidence for the existence of God..

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. The Argument from Contingency
3. The Argument from Consciousness
4. The Argument from Design (focusing on entropy)
5. The Argument from the Origin of Language
6. The Modal Ontological Argument

None of this is evidence. These are merely arguments.

Evidence against the existence of God

The fact that if a God existed, then we would have more than arguments for her.