The Case Against the Existence of God

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

What does this mean? I, for example, believe in the theory of evolution. Is my belief "individual and personal"? If it's individual and personal, it sounds like something that I would believe but that no one else would or could. Something that's "individual" is distinctly for one individual. If I say, "This is my individual and personal chair," that means, I suppose, that only I sit in that chair, or that that chair is assigned to me.The quality of "individual and personal" doesn't sound like something that one would apply to a "belief"--unless it was extraordinarily eccentric. How do you know they are pointless and futile? Maybe we can figure things out deductively.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 10:18 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 10:19 AM

I would think one would have to be an agnostic due to lack of evidence.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 10:25 AM

You can repeating this incantatory formula as if it contained some great truth. I don't think anyone will disagree with you about the fact that what we think about God does not affect whether He exists or not. You can stop repeating that. We all agree with you.

Well, if it doesn't matter if society is functional or dysfunctional, I don't see the point you're making. If it doesn't matter, why bother with morality? A subjective belief is one that has no logical basis. An objective belief does have a logical basis, even if the basis is not totally certain (induction).

Because I am not trying to affect whether God exists or not. I am trying to find out if he does in fact exist or not. My knowing or not knowing will not affect the status of His existence in any way.

What's your definition of belief?Can't I say, "I believe in the theory of evolution" and be using the word correctly?

I've never used it like that. I just use it to mean that if somebody is convinced that something is true, he believes it. It's not necessarily subjective the way I use it. But if you think it's confusing, give me another term and I will use that.

Maybe not, and then maybe again one can deduce the Truth if one works on it hard enough. To me it's no game. It's important.

In that case, Pixies are God. This is trivial. It doesn't matter what name we call God. If you want to call Him pixies, then do so.