The Case Against the Existence of God

They've divided atheism into Strong and Weak atheism, which I will call Satheism and Watheism, respectivey.Satheism is the belief that god does not exist.Watheism is the lack of a belief that god does exist.You are calling for a evidence against the existance of god to support Satheism.There is no evidence against the existance of godFor this reason, Satheism is as logically ridiculous as theism.Watheism, on the other hand, is making no positive assertion, so it requires no evidence to back it up.You have Watheists on this thread arguing against your position against Satheism, you guys aren't talking typing about the same thing.Side note: The Watheists claim that theirs is the default position, that you are born lacking belief until someone feeds it to you. It would be interesting to see the result of a Forbidden Experiment for this, whether or not an isolated individual would come up with a god or not. If they did, would the Watheists still consider their position to be the defult? How would they react to the result?

There being more people that do believe in god than do not is a reason to, at least, entertain the possibility of the existance of god.The Bible makes a claim that god exists. That is a reason to, at least, entertain the possibility that god exists.Me telling you that god does exists is a reason to entertain the possibility too.

So.I maintain that they are reasons to entertain the possibility of the existance of god.

Absolutely. It has been entertained and considered.

------>Message 114<------ reply?

I don't really see much of a difference but the Watheists say there's a difference. Maybe one will chime in and explain it to us. Nor will you ever be.

Because you can't logically conclude that something does not exist(except in math).

for example?And how will you be sure these qualities are definite?

Well I would deem that argument illogical.Making sense to us has nothing to do with gods attributes. In fact, I think the main attributes of god cannot make sense to us (omni-anything, for example). While this might be a possible argument to make, you couldn't determine if the god was described accurately. Still, I think the argument would be illogical.

I don't know.Anyways...Making sense to us has nothing to do with gods attributes. In fact, I think the main attributes of god cannot make sense to us (omni-anything, for example).While this might be a possible argument to make, you couldn't determine if the god was described accurately.

something ain't right here, why are there two message 191's? False. It could have not existed in some form and then came into existance, not by an eternal being, but for no reason at all. False. It could be the Green Lantern. But, for the purpose of this thread we will consider it that being.OK, assuming the first premis is true and considering the being in the OP, now you have to show how that being makes a contradiction with something we know is true and you've got a case against the existance of the god described in the OP, right?

And the answer is no. Case closed. Something can come from something.Nothing can come from something.Something can come from nothing.This game's no fun.

It wasn't a reply to your false delimma, it was a reply to it having to be the god described in the OP.

That doesn't refute the point that there doesn't have to be a 'reason', such as a creator, for the existance of the universe to emerge while it hasn't existed forever. It could have came into being naturally, without a god.

Both of you premises are false. see previous post. It doesn't have to have the attributes you described. Oh, you are.