The Case Against the Existence of God

Gravity.

But is not hat the point? You start from a position that there is a god. Growing up you must have had information telling you that god is real. You chose on the balance of that information to move from the default condition of no belief in god to the position of belief in god.That is why I find the premise here to be flawed. We are not born with a belief in gods. There are no letter in fire across the sky that would provide evidence of god.If the most people on the planet were killed and a new culture arose would the exact inerant words of the bible become known anew? Of course not.People believe in god because they get taught about it. You could natuaralistically rediscover the LOTs but you could not do that for 10 commandments.

What is this supposed to mean? It's true, of course, but what's your point?

Come on, you can do better than that. We can measure gravity. Gravity has pretty solid rules.

I totally agree. The burnden of proof in on the believer.

I thought you were asking about what we could see.

The burden of proof is even--50/50.

By 'see' I assumed you meant sense, detect or have some way of knowing that something has registered on our perceptual system that would allows us to recognise the fact that there is something there to acknowledge.However, we can see gravity in the way it bends light around mass. In a similar way that we can see a plank of wood in the way it reflects light back at us.Anthing else other than gravity?

We can not see gravity. We cannot see space-time,we cannot see "energy"--whatever that is. We cannot see "curved space" (another word for gravity, I hear). We cannot see thoughts.

What I've been thinking of is an argument we could call the Argument From Lack of Design against the existence of God, but I suppose it has lots of problems.Suppose there was an alien who came to Earth and looked at a building and then looked at a junkyard where items had been tossed haphazardly.This alien has never seen a building or a junkyard. What he recognize the building as designed and the junkyard as undesigned?

What is the /50 that is evidence for a god?As I said, give me a shread of evidence for a god and by crikey I will believe in it.

Where's the evidence against God? Isn't that what we are trying to come up with here?Both sides appear to be in the same position.

Of course we can see energy. Light I contend counts as energy. We only 'see' via the gift of light interacting with matter and energy.'Seeing' is a form of perception that our biology has evolved. Things that we cannot see with our biological apparatus can be detected via the gift of technology. I can't detect radio spectrum like I can the visible spectrum but technology tells me it's there.I can't 'sse' alpha radiation but a dose meter can detect it.I cant't 'see' thoughts but the electrical impulses of nerves can be detected by technology or ampullae of Lorenzini in some fish.We can't detect god at all. It may as well not be there.

Yes, but the original point was about seeing, not detecting. Dan says, I look around, don't see Him, and therefore He doesn't exist. He didn't saying anything about "detecting" Him. His answer was frivolous.

Give me one shred of evidence for the existance of god and before this forum I will renounce my stance on the the xian god.The burden of proof is on you.The default position of every human being on this planet is of having no (zero) knowledge about any god.This position is changed via the gift of information gained as one grows up.One then makes a value judgement as the verasity of said information.One either changes from the default position of not believing in any god to: (based on the percieved verasity of evidence) believing in a god, or (based on the percieved verastiy of evidence) not changing from the default position.People don't get converted without having met missionaries.