Dear Atheists..

Not sure you've quite grasped the difficulty in the concept of causality. God is not contingent, he is the Prime Mover.
Not sure you’ve quite grasped the easyness in the concept of proof. Your ’god’ is not real. You offer no proof that there isn’t multiple gods running the show, you just blindly state there is one. You offer no proof that your ‘god’ is not a woman or a hermaphrodite, other than (I’ll anticipate you here) quoting a human created fantasy book.

So, you have said athiests need to prove ‘god’ exists, and are countered by ‘you can’t prove a negative’, and that’s where it ends usually. But a slightly different question to ask you on the same lines is:
What proof exists that your ‘god’ is a singularity god, rather than a multitude, and that they are a single white bearded male wearing white robes?

Without recourse to a human made fantasy book, you can’t.

Pure fantasy based on indoctrination and control.
 
Not sure you’ve quite grasped the easyness in the concept of proof. Your ’god’ is not real. You offer no proof that there isn’t multiple gods running the show, you just blindly state there is one. You offer no proof that your ‘god’ is not a woman or a hermaphrodite, other than (I’ll anticipate you here) quoting a human created fantasy book.

So, you have said athiests need to prove ‘god’ exists, and are countered by ‘you can’t prove a negative’, and that’s where it ends usually. But a slightly different question to ask you on the same lines is:
What proof exists that your ‘god’ is a singularity god, rather than a multitude, and that they are a single white bearded male wearing white robes?

Without recourse to a human made fantasy book, you can’t.

Pure fantasy based on indoctrination and control.
Never said any of that
deary me, its an argument not proof
An argument is a necessary part of a proof.
 
Never said any of that

An argument is a necessary part of a proof.
Stop playing religious dodgeball with the question
‘ What proof exists that your ‘god’ is a singularity god, rather than a multitude, and that they are a single white bearded male wearing white robes?‘
 
Given how much he's avoiding all the questions here, I refer back to what I said earlier.
I don't understand how religion has spread as far around the world as it has. Surely any rational person applies Hitchens's razor and the Sagan standard as part of their evaluation when the concept of a god is raised?
 
My daughter just started high school in a CofE school, her first homework is RE, bloody hell the shite she is learning, really thise lessons could be best served with something useful. I’ve told her just do what you need to but other stuff has priority, this stuff should be outlawed now we are so called educated humans in the 21st century still adhering to made up nonsense from thousands of years ago, might as well teach them the tooth fairy still exists for fucks sake.
 
Evidence is a necessary part of proof.
Yes, the question is what you count as evidence of course and what you consider to be proof.
Stop playing religious dodgeball with the question
‘ What proof exists that your ‘god’ is a singularity god, rather than a multitude, and that they are a single white bearded male wearing white robes?‘
Bizarre expressions like the above aside I'm not playing anything. As Anthony Kenny succinctly put it "Many different definitions may be offered of the word 'God'. Given this fact, atheism makes a much stronger claim than theism does. The atheist says that no matter what definition you choose, 'God exists' is always false. The theist only claims that there is some definition which will make 'God exists' true,"
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.