The Case Against the Existence of God

Does the fact that he doesn't require you to live by any rules at all - not even common sense ones - in order for him to offer you the gift of eternal life (and a outstandingly blissful one at that) float your boat at all?What God wants is that you want him, not, as you imply here - that you're prepared to cut a deal with him. His viewpoint is that there is nothing you can do which would suffice as a way to earning eternal life - if earning it is what you insist on doing. You see, it is not a couple of 'common sense' rules he asks you to follow. If earning it is what you want to do then follow them all to the letter is the canyon to be bridged. You will not succeed of course: you know it and so does he. Thus, He has to give it to you for free or there's no way you can have it at all.All one can do with a gift proferred is accept or reject it. There are no other options.Reason for belief: God as he is, who would persist in offering you such a gift - whilst you (in his view, although you might not think so) spit at his face - is demonstrating a level of love than may one day melt your (in his view) rock hard heart.

The burden of proof is not on me, since I don't believe in God, but I can show you the burden of proof is equal.There are 2 and only 2 possible origins for the universe:1. An eternal Being (eternal by definition) created it.
2. The universe has always existed (in some form).There's our choices. All other choices can be reduced to these. Is there any basis for choosing 1 or 2? I don't think so. Flip a coin.So from the fact of creation or the fact of an eternal universe itself, we must advance to considering the nature of this universe and see if we can find a reason to select option one or option two.

Point taken.I believe however Dan may have meant 'detect' in the wider sense.If he did not I concede the point about 'seeing'.My point about 'detecting' still holds.

I think you are conflating the nature of the universe and the nature of a god. I do not see these as being the only 2 choices at all.However my knowledge of cosmolgy tops out at M-brane theory so I can't really follow you down this avenue of inquery for the existance of a god.I would argue that your two choices are both wrong, but I would need a lot more time to get credible information to challenge it. Maybe on another thread?

I thought you went to hell if you did things like masturbation and murder? That is one of the issues that I have. You tell me god wants this and someone else would say god wants that. Talking to any one who beleives in xian god conjours up very different gods. I have no evidence of such an offer and all of my 'detection' systems or sense work perfectly.

Sure. Start one if you like. But I don't know about cosmology either. I don't think one has to know about it. This is a philosophical question.

---

"It is very unhappy, but too late to be helped, the discovery we have made, that we exist. That discovery is called the Fall of Man."--Emerson

If I admit that there is no evidence against there being a god. Will you admit that there is no evidence for a god?

What gift? I see claims by some people, pointing to books written by people. I don't see any offer from God him/her/it self.

I'm not willing to admit either yet. However, I'm not concerned at the moment with evidence FOR God.If there is no evidence against God, atheism would be untenable. This thread is about possible evidence AGAINST God. I was trying to come up with something.

You're missing the point again robin.If you're an atheist you don't believe there's any supernatural story to explain the meaning of your life. The meaning of my life is just the private purposes I have, my personal desires and ambitions, my personal duties. These aren't pretend, they're as real as it gets.Similarly, an atheist doesn't believe there's an absolute yardstick we can use to determine whether moral actions are good or bad. For an atheist, morality is the practical business of regulating the behaviour of people in society. Personal moral feelings and conscience are part of the mechanism of this practical business. Again this isn't pretend, it's essential to the proper functioning of society.As to your opening post, your description of God does seem a bit idiosyncratic. Is that really the God of Western tradition you're talking about? Would that God really 'think' about morality in the way we use that word? And what does it mean to think 'objectively' rather than 'subjectively'?

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

quote:

---

There are 2 and only 2 possible origins for the universe:

​

1. An eternal Being (eternal by definition) created it.
2. The universe has always existed (in some form).

---

Or the universe simply exists.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

You're going the wrong way about it. The default position is that there is no god.To move from this position you must have a reason to do so.Please provide a reason.

Your personal purposes, being personal, are subjective, and so there's no reason for preferring one purpose over another. They are all on the same level of arbitrariness. I might say my purpose in life is to get rid of all acorns. I don't like the way they look and I don't like the way they clutter up yards and crunch under my feet. So I work at that my whole life, and when my life is near its close, I will not have succeeded, perhaps, in eliminating all acorns, but I will have made a good start, and I can die knowing that I have done my duty. I leave this heroic endeavor to the generations to come.That "personal purpose" is as valid as any other one might come up with. Perhaps I don't care about the proper functioning of society. I prefer a dysfunctional society. I find it more interesting, even romantic. My view is as valid as yours, given the subjectivity of it all. example of objective thinking: mathematicsexample of subjective thinking: "I prefer blondes to brunettes."As regards describing God as "thinking"--that might be a metaphor. Not sure how else to express it.

I am not sure, as I never really liked comic books except Heavy Metal, and Epic, but is the author of the green lantern claiming that his comics are the word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit?Is he claiming that the green lantern actually exists, and if you accept that, you will go to heaven?Just checking, after all, I think we should compare apples to apples.Maybe if you compared Zues to the God of the bible, your arguement would hold more validity.

quote:

---

The God I "concocted" was one I thought was commonly believed in.

---

Which is why you are unable to tell me on what you base the rules, attributes, or choices concerning your God of the OP. The OP God has no substance. You've put together bits and pieces, but no understanding or premise behind your generic God.If your God truly created the universe as you claim then that would only mean that your God existed in the past. Great, but what has this God of the OP done today?

quote:

---

As far as the origin of the universe, the choices I presented were not "concocted." These are the only 2 choices.

---

According to who?IMO, early humans based their idea of God(s) on very visual elements. The sun, moon, stars, visual planets, weather, natural disasters, etc. From that standpoint, the Gods of the ancients still exist and are pretty much doing the same thing they did back then.As mankind's knowledge increased, God(s) evolved or disappeared.The case against your God of the OP existing is that you have nothing to show that it ever existed or that anyone ever believed or believes in such a God. (religous text, rituals, tradition, etc.) All we have is what you say.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz