Taz
Gold Member
- Jul 8, 2014
- 22,876
- 2,119
I've looked for god.How many times do I have to say... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.I'm looking for god. How many time do I have to say it?When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.How am I supposed to know what I'm looking for if nobody else can find it either?Again... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.I'm looking for your invisible creator. What's the point of making it so hard to find? Makes no sense.Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.I’ve looked for the invisible big guy, but never found him.Like I said before... When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.God prefers to hide, what a weenie.When you can provide a perception of what you have looked for that isn't a fairy tale, we can talk. Until then, what I wrote stands.Your evidence is weak, like you and your invisible friend.The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.I agree with Dan Barker whose thesis is that your thesis offers nothing. It simply begs the question.My thesis is that god(s) is/are beyond human understanding.
Some folks differ, and insist god(s) are understood by them.
From:
Refuting God by Dan Barker (August 1985) - Freedom From Religion Foundation
By Dan Barker This is a very brief look at some of the most common arguments for the existence of a god, originally written in brochure form, and appe...ffrf.org
----------------------------------------------------------------
Theists claim that there is a god; atheists do not. Religionists often challenge atheists to prove that there is no god; but this misses the point. Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved. In any argument, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
If a person claims to have invented an antigravity device, it is not incumbent on others to prove that no such thing exists. The believer must make a case. Everyone else is justified in refusing to believe until evidence is produced and substantiated.
Some atheists feel the argument is pointless until the term "god" is made understandable. Words like "spirit" and "supernatural" have no referent in reality, and ideas like "all-knowing" and "omnipotent" are self-contradictory. Why discuss a meaningless concept?
Nevertheless, there are many lines of theistic reasoning and volumes have been written on each. The following sections briefly summarize the arguments and the refutations. Atheism is the default position which remains when all theistic claims are dismissed.
Design
"Where did it all come from? How can you explain the complex order of the universe? I can't believe the beauty of nature just happened by accident. Design requires a designer."
This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to "explain" anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the "natural universe" is simply to demand a "higher universe."
The universe is "all there is." It is not a thing. A god would certainly be a part of "all there is," and if the universe requires an explanation, then god requires a god, ad infinitum.
The mind of a god would be at least as complex and orderly as the rest of nature and would be subject to the same question: Who made god? If a god can be thought eternal, then so can the universe.
There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics. The perceived design in nature is not necessarily intelligent. Life is the result of the mindless "design" of natural selection. Order in the cosmos comes from the "design" of natural regularity. There is no need for a higher explanation.
The design argument is based on ignorance, not facts.
The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.
The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.
The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.
The ignorance is in not knowing what one is looking for. The deceit is pretending that you did. You can't see the evidence for something you don't believe exists. So don't act like you tried to find any.