“God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

[paarsurrey1]

The assertion “God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.�
Christopher Hitchens

Right, please?

Regards

[Tiberius47]

What if someone gives their reasoning that God doesn't exist?

Also, by the same logic, the assertion “God DOES exist� can be dismissed without evidence

[paarsurrey1]

The assertion “God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.�
Christopher Hitchens

Right, please?

Regards

Does one's parents (father and mother) exist/existed? What evidence one sought of them when first time one got to know that they were/are one's father and mother? At what age one got to know it, please?

Regards

[paarsurrey1]

What if someone gives their reasoning that God doesn't exist?

Also, by the same logic, the assertion “God DOES exist� can be dismissed without evidence

Does one's parents (father and mother) exist/existed? What evidence one sought of them when first time one got to know that they were/are one's father and mother? At what age one got to know it, please?

Regards

[Divine Insight]

The assertion “God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.�
Christopher Hitchens

Right, please?

Regards

The fallacy here is that you are pretending that the term "God" can mean a totally ill-defined philosophical idea. In that case, you are right. Anyone claiming that an ill-defined "God" does not exist needs to provide evidence for that claim.

Good luck with that.

However, when we're speaking of well-defined God of mythology things change radically.

When we say that Gods like Thor, Odin, or Zeus do not exist, we typically give evidence for why we make this claim. So it's not just an assertion without evidence.

Similarly when we say that Gods like Yahweh, Allah, or Jesus do not exist we typically provide evidence for these claims as well.

I can prove that the God described in the Bible cannot exist as described in the Bible. Religious theists even agree with me. They too agree that the Bible cannot be taken literally and that in an effort to try to keep this mythological God afloat they need to pretend that the Bible can be twisted via extremely vague abstract interpretations into something they claim could somehow make sense.

So even they agree that the God described in the Bible cannot exist as written.

So what you are proposing here is that we ignore the Bible entirely and instead turn our attention to the fact that an undefined abstract notion of a God cannot be said to not exist. Of course not. But this doesn't help any well-detailed theology that makes all manner of claims about what their specific God must be like.

So your point in this thread cannot be applied to Gods like Yahweh, Allah, or Jesus because those mythological Gods are well-defined and contain a myriad of evidence for why they cannot exist.

And many atheists do provide evidence for why these specific Gods cannot exist.

But I do agree with you that atheists who simply claim that 'No Gods" can exist have dug themselves into an impossible hole.

They can certainly say that they see no rational reason to believe that any Gods exist. That's a valid view. But if they take that further to actually claim that no Gods can exist they have just shot themselves in their own foot to be sure.

[paarsurrey1]

The assertion “God does not exist� can be dismissed without evidence

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.�
Christopher Hitchens

Right, please?

Regards

The fallacy here is that you are pretending that the term "God" can mean a totally ill-defined philosophical idea. In that case, you are right. Anyone claiming that an ill-defined "God" does not exist needs to provide evidence for that claim.

Good luck with that.

However, when we're speaking of well-defined God of mythology things change radically.

When we say that Gods like Thor, Odin, or Zeus do not exist, we typically give evidence for why we make this claim. So it's not just an assertion without evidence.

Similarly when we say that Gods like Yahweh, Allah, or Jesus do not exist we typically provide evidence for these claims as well.

I can prove that the God described in the Bible cannot exist as described in the Bible. Religious theists even agree with me. They too agree that the Bible cannot be taken literally and that in an effort to try to keep this mythological God afloat they need to pretend that the Bible can be twisted via extremely vague abstract interpretations into something they claim could somehow make sense.

So even they agree that the God described in the Bible cannot exist as written.

So what you are proposing here is that we ignore the Bible entirely and instead turn our attention to the fact that an undefined abstract notion of a God cannot be said to not exist. Of course not. But this doesn't help any well-detailed theology that makes all manner of claims about what their specific God must be like.

So your point in this thread cannot be applied to Gods like Yahweh, Allah, or Jesus because those mythological Gods are well-defined and contain a myriad of evidence for why they cannot exist.

And many atheists do provide evidence for why these specific Gods cannot exist.

But I do agree with you that atheists who simply claim that 'No Gods" can exist have dug themselves into an impossible hole.

They can certainly say that they see no rational reason to believe that any Gods exist. That's a valid view. But if they take that further to actually claim that no Gods can exist they have just shot themselves in their own foot to be sure.

It has two aspects.

1."God" within the believers of the Revelation, that is reasonably discussed from the attributes of God as mentioned in the scriptures of respective religions. Non-believers become irrelevant in it because they don't have any scriptures. No revealed religions accepts Atheism as human default position.
2.Discussion with Believers and the non-believers whatever sub-set/denomination/sect they may belong to is discussed with reason to the extant reason could go, beyond it is the domain of Revelation exclusive with the believers.

I have mention One-True-God who in only attributive* and is neither physical/material nor a spirit. His attributes are manifest in the universe as Absolutes. He is real and not mythical, please.

Regards

___________
*The attributes of One-True-God are mentioned and illustrated amply in Quran.

[Divine Insight]

I have mention One-True-God who in only attributive* and is neither physical/material nor a spirit. His attributes are manifest in the universe as Absolutes. He is real and not mythical, please.

Regards

___________
*The attributes of One-True-God are mentioned and illustrated amply in Quran.

No, I totally disagree that the God myth you are referring to is real and not mythical.

In fact, the very moment you point to the Qur'an as a description of this God you are asserting that everything you know about this God is based on what is written in the Qur'an. That necessarily requires that the God character you support is based on mythology.

Without that mythological book you would have nothing to point to that would supposedly define your God.

And this is especially true if you are going to claim that your God has set forth any commandments, directives, demands, promises, or ultimatums.

For example, if you claim that your God condemns those who don't believe in or follow the Qur'an then you have already demanded that your God is entirely dependent upon the mythology described by the Qur'an.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you want to set your God free from the Qur'an you'll need to toss the Qur'an out and lay claim to an undefined cosmic entity. Until you do that, you have nothing more than a God character that is totally dependent upon, and defined by, the mythology spelled out by the Qur'an.

[Tiberius47]

What if someone gives their reasoning that God doesn't exist?

Also, by the same logic, the assertion “God DOES exist� can be dismissed without evidence

Does one's parents (father and mother) exist/existed?

Yes.

What evidence one sought of them when first time one got to know that they were/are one's father and mother?

The fact that you have very similar genetic traits.

At what age one got to know it, please?

Different levels of evidence become obvious at different ages. Babies are aware that the same people care for them day after day, for example. That's basic evidence, since it might not be an actual parent, but often is. As the child gets older, they are able to use more complex lines of reasoning.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

But we do have evidence - the continual failure of theists to produce a god for examination, is evidence of the absence of any gods.

You might say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; to which I say, it is when evidence is expected.

[Tcg]

But we do have evidence - the continual failure of theists to produce a god for examination,

I'm not sure exactly what you mean with the phrase, "produce a god for examination". In any case, what you are describing here is a failure on the theist's part. This may or may not be because the god they are backing doesn't exist.

...is evidence of the absence of any gods.

At best, it is evidence the specific god/gods they are backing don't exist.

You might say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; to which I say, it is when evidence is expected.

The expectation of evidence would be based on the description of the god/gods you are expecting to see evidence for. The absence of evidence may mean that the god/gods you are looking for don't exist. It may also mean that you are looking for the wrong kind of evidence. It may also mean that you are looking for the wrong god/gods.