Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

The silence of God

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 19
 [ 377 posts ] 
The silence of God
Author Message
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:is this an other example where you pretend but never prove that there is something wrong with my statement?

Is this another statement where you admitted that you refuse to think? Yes it is.

What I see as the truth Leroy, is that you're comitted to find a flaw in the argument even if flaw makes no sens or cannot be logically supported. That's a level of dishonesty we're accustomed to... Remember when you said "no evidence would convince most if not all atheists", the truth is there no sound reasoning will make you admit your objection is unsound. So in light of the above, do not think that the following is for you, its not. Its for myself and the other commenters.

So, this how it goes:
- "Followers of god", let's call them christians after all, can only be christians when they believe god exists. This is basically tautological: a christian, who is a believer in god's existence, is a believer in god's existence. Being a christian also means accepting christian concepts such as salvation through Jesus, etc.
- None of the unbelievers in god's existence is a believer in god's existence. This again, is tautological but this also means that none of the unbelievers in god's existence are christians.
- God, being all-knowledgeable and all-powerful could establish his existence to all the unbelievers thus turning them all into believers.

Now, here's how it gets really interesting:
Leroy's objection is that god wants a certain number of christians, "more followers", which means that after establishing his evidence, the net number of christians must be what it currently is or higher. His objection is that god wouldn't reveal himself if that number droped/equaled less followers. So that means that either:
A) 0 of the current unbelievers would become christians. This is the scenario Leroy thinks is more probable than at least 1 of the unbelievers would become a christian. There are former christian believers that ceased to believe because they lacked evidence. Leroy is basically saying that none of them would go back to being christians despite having the evidence they sought. Of course, we should not expect any support for this from Leroy.
or
B) Some of the current unbelievers would become christians but more of the current christians would cease to follow god. This is the other scenario that Leroy thinks is more probable than improbable. Of course, deconversion happens mostly because of the lack of evidence. So Leroy is saying that more people would cease to be christian despite the reason for why it mostly happens today becoming a non-issue! This is even more ridiculous than scenario A so I wouldn't expect any support for this from Leroy either.

But all of this doesn't save Leroy from the main issue with the 1st premise: Does god want people to have a relationship with him or not? Leroy is basically saying that "Yes, God wants a relationship with people but only with the current number of people or more" which actually means that god doesn't want a relationship with certain people because it would risk losing some of his current followers. So "God wants a relationship with people" is no longer accurate but that means that the people god is wilfully hiding from will be punished because of god's own desire to hide from them as non-christians go to hell.

And I'd point out that Leroy would show some consistency with this... Think about it, god doesn't want to establish his existence to people in fear of losing current followers, so why is Leroy trying to convince us god's existence then? At best it's futile, god wants the current number not lower and establishing his existence would lead to lower numbers so Leroy is purposefully trying to send people to hell for not believing...

So let's go back to pointing out to Leroy, who wants to turn people away from go so that they go to hell, how the rest of his "thinking" is flawed.

leroy wrote:In this case God cant do it, (I would argue)

To be omnipotent doesn't mean that you can do literally everything, if you what to play semantic games and argue that omnipotent means that you can do everything, then God would not be omnipotent.

No one said anything about "literally everything". This is not how theologians have come to define omnipotence in order to avoid the omnipotence paradox so they usually define it as "having power to do everything that is not logically incoherent".

But apparently Leroy's omnipotence is the "power to do only some but not all logically coherent things". And Leroy missed the bit about god having brainwashed someone in the bible.

leroy wrote:I even explained the difference between c "believing in the existence of god" with "loving/following him. The whole bases of my argument is that there is a difference between believing and following God,,,,,,,,

can you show a single example where I confused believing in the existence of god" with "loving/following him?

A single? Just one out of the half-dozens will be easy, let's go with the latest one:
leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:you're implying that a supposedly omnipotent God has created souls to whom he can't prove his existence.

God by definition cant force you to love him..............

You may not be confusing them in your head but here you've clearly confused them in your answer by responding about loving/following god to Dragan Glas point about his existence.

leroy wrote:I accept the bet,

By making his existence more obvious it could be that more people believe in God, but less people follow God. this is at least theoretically possible

who believes that there is something contradictory about that?

Leroy is making the wrong kind of bet here. As I said (see Leroy's comment or my original one), the point was and is "god's establishing his existence is needed for people to choose wether or not to follow him" so there was no talk about "more people following him". So the contradiction is actually "can people choose or reject god without believing he exists". Leroy has agreed that it was needed for a relationship but now now has established the criteria does not want people to choose or reject him but wants more people to choose him than the number of those who currently do. So for the issue with this, see above.

leroy wrote:again only an insignificant minority of individuales think that the existence of God is not evident.

This is the kind of bullshit false equivalence that is not unexpected of Leroy. He appropriates people that believe in a god as people believing in the christian god. Why the hell would he do that when its so obviously false? Let's use this then:
P1: The christian god wants mankind to know he exists and not confuse him with Vishnu, Ik Onkar, etc.
Did the argument need specifying for Leroy because he is A. an idiot or B. Dishonet? Which scenario is more probable than the other?

leroy wrote:yes by making his existence more obvious more people would know god. (even though most atheist wont accept his existence regardless of the evidence)
I see Leroy is still using a claim that he admitted he cannot prove... How typical of the level of honesty that we have come to expect of him...

leroy wrote:Not granted> if God makes his existence more obvious there would be more people that love/follow God

Not granted but this was not the premise, the premise was that god wants to have a relationship with mankind. To have a relationship, you first need to have a belief in his existence. You agreed to this.

So the only valid objection you have here Leroy is to affirm that god is deliberately hiding himself from some people because he does not want a relationship with all of mankind, only with those he thinks will believe in him. And by your explanation of "more evidence would more probably equal less followers", that you are deliberately trying to send people to hell.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Sat May 27, 2017 12:29 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3318Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:
So entire cultures of people that never heard of this god or were raised under completely different religions, not even a hint of an effort to keep these folks out of hell? Seems like a dick move.



I don't buy the idea that non Christian will go to hell, but that is a completely different topic.


Since you ignored it from me:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I do not disagree with the idea that a deity can hide itself forever, I just see no clear reason why it would actively hide. However, my only point is that your reasoning fails for two reasons. First, you claim this god wants us to have a loving relationship with it. That claim is unsupported, and only rests on a Biblical claim. Second, since you want to play with the Christian mythos; Christianity only makes up nearly 1/3 of the earth's population. As you pointed out earlier, most of the world believes in some sort of god(s), but not Jesus. However, the Bible also claims that your god is a jealous god and thinks that we should not worship anything else but it. That means there are nearly 2/3 of the world's population that your god can convince (they already believe in god(s)), yet refuses to do so. That means your deity is condemning nearly 2/3 of the earth to hell fire (another Biblical claim) simply by not demonstrating itself.


Amazing how you are able to pick and choose from the Bible whenever it suits your argument. One wonders what allows you to do this.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:[ For the record, anyone investigating any claim is supposed to go into it with as little bias as possible. One is supposed to let the evidence guide one to the truth.


yes that is my point, if you look at the evidence without bias the existence of God would be evident.


only if you have a strong bias towards naturalism, and presuppose that everything has a naturalistic explanation regardless of the evidence you would find the evidence for God unconvincing.



the existence of God is evident for the vast mayority of people, only the insignificant minority of atheist would disagree


Stop special pleading and appealing to popularity. Demonstrate anything supernatural, because until this is done, you honestly have no point.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat May 27, 2017 2:12 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

he_who_is_nobody , Mars......

I am tired of this, 50% of your comments are irrelevant and the other 50% are strawman, and you do this all the time, it is almost as if you willingly where trying to start a 40 page conversation full of meaningless stuff.


the point is that if God makes his existence more evident, it wouldn't necessarily lead to more followers (or people that would love God)


if you disagree with the statement then feel free to prove it wrong. the silence of God argument is based on the assumption that if God makes his existence more evident more people would love God, so unless you can prove that assumption, the argument fails

So in other words, is there anything that God could do to gain the love of the 1% of the atheist population without losing current followers? (keep in mind that love by definition requires will, by definition no one can force you to love someone


please try to provide a direct and relevant answer.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat May 27, 2017 2:43 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:
Grumpy Santa wrote:
It's not that complicated. Ask any atheist here what it would take to convince them a god, any god, exists. I'd wager the vast majority could answer that with a single word... evidence.



I have done that,

in most of the cases they would ether say that no evidence would convince them or they would say that they would not follow God anyway


the existence of God is evident for something like 99% of the worlds population and the remaining 1% openly admit that there is nothing that God could do to change their view.


Evident for 99%? No. Like has been pointed out, those that believe in your god are about a third of the population, not 99%.

Another thing you're screwing up... it isn't that actual evidence wouldn't convince most atheists that this god of yours is real, because it would if it existed. What would be more challenging is this god demonstrating that it's even worth worshiping. If this god were to show itself to be incontrovertible but then turn out to be a complete dick I certainly wouldn't worship it while I would have no choice but to acknowledge its existence.


So entire cultures of people that never heard of this god or were raised under completely different religions, not even a hint of an effort to keep these folks out of hell? Seems like a dick move.



I don't buy the idea that non Christian will go to hell, but that is a completely different topic.


Then why bother us atheists at all with the god concept?

By implying an open heart is needed you're implying to an appeal to emotion as opposed to actual, empirical evidence. Believe because feels, not facts. That is the basis behind every pseudo-science out there, from religion to homeopathy, acupuncture to climate change denial, anti-vaxxers to anti-GMO. Basically everything that goes against actual science.


with open hart I mean emotionally open to the idea. even if you personally don't like the idea.


People are "emotionally" open to lots of stupid shit. I'm intellectually open to the idea that actual evidence could convince me otherwise, there's no need to bother bogging things down with "emotion".

things are very simple

I grant that God could have made his existence more obvious, but I don't grant that making his existence more obvious would lead to more followers,

the silence of God argument is suppose to be an atheist argument against the existence of God, therefore atheist have the burden proof, atheist have to show that more evidence would lead to more followers


Simple enough. If incontrovertible evidence of this god appeared before me and this god was a nice enough fellow then I'd simply have no choice but to follow the evidence and believe and quite probably would even become a follower if he was worth following.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Sat May 27, 2017 2:47 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:So in other words, is there anything that God could do to gain the love of the 1% of the atheist population without losing current followers? (keep in mind that love by definition requires will, by definition no one can force you to love someone


Show up and make the world a better place. Don't be a dick. Wipe out cancer and other diseases that ravage the population. Easy enough.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Sat May 27, 2017 2:49 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

Leroy, 100% of your comments are bullshit so you do actually do this all the time. That is what is creating pages of conversation:
1. Leroy makes a bullshit comment
2. People point out how it is bullshit
3. Leroy dishonestly dismiss the issues people point out as "irrelevant or strawmen" then makes up new bullshit.
4. Start back again at 2.

You constantly refuse to address points while we continually raise them. If you're not willing to stop with the bullshit comments, why should anyone else be willing to let you get away with them?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Sat May 27, 2017 3:08 pm
australopithecusAdministratorUser avatarPosts: 4282Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:he_who_is_nobody , Mars......

I am tired of this, 50% of your comments are irrelevant and the other 50% are strawman, and you do this all the time, it is almost as if you willingly where trying to start a 40 page conversation full of meaningless stuff.


Not your call to make.

If you don't want to answer or address the points he raises then that's your prerogative, but you don't get to arbitrarily dismiss them and irrelevant just because you don't want to address them. That's on you.
Image
Sat May 27, 2017 3:32 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

Grumpy Santa wrote:Evident for 99%? No. Like has been pointed out, those that believe in your god are about a third of the population, not 99%.


this is suppose to be an argument against the exístanse of any personal God,

sure you can always admit that the silence of God argument is a bad argument against the existence of God (in general) but a good argument against the Christian God, please let me know If you are willing to make that admission



Simple enough. If incontrovertible evidence of this god appeared before me and this god was a nice enough fellow then I'd simply have no choice but to follow the evidence and believe and quite probably would even become a follower if he was worth following.



well if you where sincere in that comment and you honestly have an open mind towards the evidence perhaps God will make his existence evident to you at some point in your life.

and again with open hart I meant looking at the evidence without emotional bias


at least from my experience you seem more open minded that most atheist in this forum and you don't seem to "hate" God.




But my main point has not been addressed,

No one has provided proof that more evidence would result in more followers, I honestly don't know exactly what evidence would make you believe and love God, but whatever that is, you most proof that it would result in more followers.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat May 27, 2017 4:44 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

Grumpy Santa wrote:
leroy wrote:So in other words, is there anything that God could do to gain the love of the 1% of the atheist population without losing current followers? (keep in mind that love by definition requires will, by definition no one can force you to love someone


Show up and make the world a better place. Don't be a dick. Wipe out cancer and other diseases that ravage the population. Easy enough.


Can you proof that by doing that, more people would follow God?

at least sometimes, people start to love God after a disease, without such diseases these people would have not become followers, so it could be the case that a world without diseases would be a world with less followers than in the actual world
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Last edited by leroy on Sat May 27, 2017 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sat May 27, 2017 4:49 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

MarsCydonia wrote:Leroy, 100% of your comments are bullshit so you do actually do this all the time. That is what is creating pages of conversation:
1. Leroy makes a bullshit comment
2. People point out how it is bullshit
3. Leroy dishonestly dismiss the issues people point out as "irrelevant or strawmen" then makes up new bullshit.
4. Start back again at 2.

You constantly refuse to address points while we continually raise them. If you're not willing to stop with the bullshit comments, why should anyone else be willing to let you get away with them?



Ok, s of all the points that I supposedly ignored select your favorite point (just 1) and I will explain why is your point ether a straw man or irrelevant after I do that, please answer to this point.


the point is that if God makes his existence more evident, it wouldn't necessarily lead to more followers (or people that would love God)


if you disagree with the statement then feel free to prove it wrong. the silence of God argument is based on the assumption that if God makes his existence more evident more people would love God, so unless you can prove that assumption, the argument fails

So in other words, is there anything that God could do to gain the love of the 1% of the atheist population without losing current followers? (keep in mind that love by definition requires will, by definition no one can force you to love someone
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat May 27, 2017 4:53 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:this is suppose to be an argument against the exístanse of any personal God,

sure you can always admit that the silence of God argument is a bad argument against the existence of God (in general) but a good argument against the Christian God, please let me know If you are willing to make that admission

No it isn't. You are now changing what the argument is and which god the argument is supposed to address after that was repeatedly clarified to you?

Why the hell would you think this would work? We're on a written forum and can read all the past comments.

At least we'll take that as your admission that the argument is a good argument against the existence of the christian god even though you still can't get the name right nor even the damn argument itself.



leroy wrote:well if you where sincere in that comment and you honestly have an open mind towards the evidence perhaps God will make his existence evident to you at some point in your life.

and again with open hart I meant looking at the evidence without emotional bias

at least from my experience you seem more open minded that most atheist in this forum and you don't seem to "hate" God
This is another one of your bullshit comments (you always add new bullshit) but if I do ask you to think about it more than 1 second, you'll refuse and ask me to "prove what is wrong with it". You're creating a "no escape" situation. You lack the ability to understand this plainly so we'll try the reverse.

"If you are sincere and honestly have an open minds toward the evidence, you will realize that god does not actually exist at some point in your life.

and again, with open hart I meant looking at the evidence without emotional bias".

So Leroy, do you understand that this means that if you do not become an atheist you simply have an emotional bias and lack honesty? You won't accept that as true, why the hell should we accept yours?

leroy wrote:But my main point has not been addressed,

No one has provided proof that more evidence would result in more followers

That is just a blatant lie. This point has been addressed and you have not made any rebuttal to it other than calling it "irrelevant or a strawman". As an exemple, your next following comment:
"Ok, s of all the points that I supposedly ignored select your favorite point (just 1) and I will explain why is your point ether a straw man or irrelevant after I do that, please answer to this point"
It's there Leroy, at the top of the page, you're just being cowardly.

Congratulations Leroy, you just proved the opinion everyone has of you again.

As I previously said, if you're not willing to quit it with the bullshit, don't expect us to be willing to letting you spew it.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Sat May 27, 2017 5:07 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:
Grumpy Santa wrote:
Show up and make the world a better place. Don't be a dick. Wipe out cancer and other diseases that ravage the population. Easy enough.


Can you proof that by doing that, more people would follow God?

at least sometimes, people start to love God after a disease, without such diseases these people would have not become followers, so it could be the case that a world without diseases would be a world with less followers than in the actual world


Prove conclusively, no. Let's call it "highly probable" and a more honest approach than hiding all evidence of yourself.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Sat May 27, 2017 6:03 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3318Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:he_who_is_nobody , Mars......

I am tired of this, 50% of your comments are irrelevant and the other 50% are strawman, and you do this all the time, it is almost as if you willingly where trying to start a 40 page conversation full of meaningless stuff.


the point is that if God makes his existence more evident, it wouldn't necessarily lead to more followers (or people that would love God)


if you disagree with the statement then feel free to prove it wrong. the silence of God argument is based on the assumption that if God makes his existence more evident more people would love God, so unless you can prove that assumption, the argument fails


I already did that:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I do not disagree with the idea that a deity can hide itself forever, I just see no clear reason why it would actively hide. However, my only point is that your reasoning fails for two reasons. First, you claim this god wants us to have a loving relationship with it. That claim is unsupported, and only rests on a Biblical claim. Second, since you want to play with the Christian mythos; Christianity only makes up nearly 1/3 of the earth's population. As you pointed out earlier, most of the world believes in some sort of god(s), but not Jesus. However, the Bible also claims that your god is a jealous god and thinks that we should not worship anything else but it. That means there are nearly 2/3 of the world's population that your god can convince (they already believe in god(s)), yet refuses to do so. That means your deity is condemning nearly 2/3 of the earth to hell fire (another Biblical claim) simply by not demonstrating itself.


Belief in a god(s) is not synonymous with belief in your god, thus stop pretending it is. You brought up the Christian mythos to justify part of your argument, now deal with the whole of that mythos. You can always hand wave it away again, but than do not be upset when people hand wave away other parts of the Christian mythos you are using to justify your argument. Like it says in the quote, I do not accept that a deity wants more followers/relationships with us.

leroy wrote:So in other words, is there anything that God could do to gain the love of the 1% of the atheist population without losing current followers? (keep in mind that love by definition requires will, by definition no one can force you to love someone


please try to provide a direct and relevant answer.


As I have said from the start, your only justification for a deity wanting us to love it comes from the Christian mythos. I reject that for the same reason you later used to reject part of the Christian mythos. However, if you want to accept the Christian mythos, than who cares about that 1% when nearly 2/3 of the earth's population worship the wrong deity? I know you are bad at math, but surely you realize that gaining nearly 2/3 more followers (and not condemning them to hell) would be worth it even if your god did lose 1% of the population (that it already does not have) in the process?

leroy wrote:sure you can always admit that the silence of God argument is a bad argument against the existence of God (in general) but a good argument against the Christian God, please let me know If you are willing to make that admission


:facepalm:

How disingenuous can one get. Go back and read the comment from Grumpy Santa that started this thread. He is clearly talking about your god (Jesus Christ), not all gods theists have dreamt up. The argument from Divine Hiddenness (silence of god as dandan/leroy so ignorantly calls it) is spesific to a personal loving god such as Allah, Yahweh, and Jesus; not all gods floating around in the mind's of theists. How dishonest can one get?! However, this goes a long way as to why you believed what I said above about hell and nearly 2/3 of theists as being irrelevant.

This is not just dandan/leroy's fault. By referring to his god as God, and not always pointing to his specific god (Jesus), dandan/leroy as been able to equivocate his whole argument. Remembered, dandan/leroy only believes that a god wants love because of the Bible, while ignoring that the Bible also says those that believe in false deities will reap hell. Thus, he defeats his whole argument by forgetting that Christianity only makes up around 1/3 of theists, leaving all non-Christian theists as well as atheists doomed to hell.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun May 28, 2017 8:48 am
YIM WWW
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2354Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:After all this is an atheist objection so they are the ones who have to carry the burden proof.


It never ceases to amaze me the mental pretzels you will construct just to attempt to evade your onus, which is and will always be yours, no matter what hypothetical horseshit you erect. Your burden of proof has not been met, and all the discussion about what this preposterous entity would or would not do is nothing more than a sideshow to keep us entertained and while away the long hours while theists continue to fail dismally at addressing the elephant that's failed to be in the room for thousands of years.

No matter what hypotheticals or indeed real arguments are erected, at bottom is an assertion that carries a burden that has not and will not be met. If you had anything, you'd simply have presented it and shut us all the fuck up by now.

That said, it's a simple fact that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity that genuinely wanted to have a relationship with humans would have both the motivation and the wherewithal to make it happen. As it is, the only measure he seems to have undertaken is to send the most fuckwitted, impotent fanbois to tell us all about him, and allegedly to write a book, which tells us that this god, if he exists, is a fucking incompetent moron.

Anything to add?

Oh, and:

leroy wrote:if we start with the assumption that there is a 50% probability for the existence of God,



Thanks for once again showing that you don't have any fucking clue of how probabilities work. That's not a reasonable assumption, not least because you haven't even demonstrated that a deity is even possible, let alone having a sample set from which to draw a probability.
Sun May 28, 2017 2:41 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2354Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:the problem is not the evidence for God, the problem is the philosophical assumption of naturalism.


There is no such assumption, and this has been pointed out to you repeatedly, so your continued reliance on it is nothing more than a lie. We don't assume naturalism, and we don't exclude the supernatural, we simply don't include or assume the supernatural on the basis that there's no fucking reason to do so.

If you would have started with the assumption that the existence of God is posible (say a 50% probability) and start looking at the evidence from that assumption, arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, teleological, resurrection, etc. would be convincing enough to grant the existence of God.


No, they wouldn't, because all of them are deeply, deeply flawed, and have no logical basis. Indeed, in the case of the KCA, it's only the fallacies holding it together. I've debunked that particular nonsense from just about every angle it's possible to approach it from, and I could easily write a book on what's wrong with it. The teleological argument is similarly mired in fallacy, there's no good reason to suppose that the resurrection occurred, and it wouldn't demonstrate divinity anyway (in fact, how would we know jeebus was the messiah anyway since, according to the hokey blurble, resurrection was something of a banality at the time).
Sun May 28, 2017 2:57 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 382Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The silence of God

leroy wrote:
Grumpy Santa wrote:Evident for 99%? No. Like has been pointed out, those that believe in your god are about a third of the population, not 99%.


this is suppose to be an argument against the exístanse of any personal God,

sure you can always admit that the silence of God argument is a bad argument against the existence of God (in general) but a good argument against the Christian God, please let me know If you are willing to make that admission


It's a valid argument against each and every god mankind has ever formulated as well as those yet to be thought of. What's the point of worshiping an imaginary being that doesn't notice you in return?


Simple enough. If incontrovertible evidence of this god appeared before me and this god was a nice enough fellow then I'd simply have no choice but to follow the evidence and believe and quite probably would even become a follower if he was worth following.



well if you where sincere in that comment and you honestly have an open mind towards the evidence perhaps God will make his existence evident to you at some point in your life.

and again with open hart I meant looking at the evidence without emotional bias


at least from my experience you seem more open minded that most atheist in this forum and you don't seem to "hate" God.

[/quote]

"Hate" is too strong of an emotion to waste on what I see to be an imaginary being. Do you hate Odin? Zeus? Aphrodite? (Seriously, how could anyone hate Aphrodite?) Do you "hate" the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I'm not a deconverted theist, I've never believed in any gods my entire life. Never had a reason to. None of it makes a lick of sense to me. I have no emotional ties to it, no past angers or confusions, no sense of some loss in the past that lead to me being an atheist. I honestly can't really relate as well as I would like to with people that were former theists and went through the deconversion process during their lives. From the age of memory I've seen the world and wondered how it works, not who makes it work. That's just me. Asking me to have an "open heart" to the concept if a god just... makes no sense to me. None at all. Nothing sparks in my brain suggesting that that might be a path to understanding anything.

But my main point has not been addressed,

No one has provided proof that more evidence would result in more followers, I honestly don't know exactly what evidence would make you believe and love God, but whatever that is, you most proof that it would result in more followers.


You have a main point? (Sorry, I kid. :lol: )

I can't prove it personally for me, and I certainly can't speak for others as to what would convince them. Who knows, if something showed up and said it was God, made me ethereal and took me on a grand tour of the universe and brought me back I'd certainly be blown away, but that wouldn't show this being actually was a God or more specifically the god of the bible.

He'd certainly be on my good side however, definitely would try to get him added to my address book.
Scientists don't believe. They conclude based on evidence.
Sun May 28, 2017 3:37 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

Grumpy Santa wrote:[Show up and make the world a better place. Don't be a dick. Wipe out cancer and other diseases that ravage the population. Easy enough.

leroy wrote:

Can you proof that by doing that, more people would follow God?



[
quote="Grumpy Santa"]


P
rove conclusively, no. Let's call it "highly probable" and a more honest approach than hiding all evidence of yourself
.[/quote]


Well then prove it.............lets pretend that cancer and diseases magically disappear tomorrow, everybody would inexplicably be hilled, and o no other human will ever suffer from a disease. ........would that leed to a world with more followers? can you prove it? can you at least prove that it is highly probable?


I don't think is even possible to prove something like that.


However I think it is pretty certain that most atheist wont become followers even if such an event happens, most atheist would prefer to invoke an unknown natural cause rather than a God did it explanation.


Besides we know that many times humans are very stupid and never think about God when things in life are good, often only during diseases (or some other tragedy) is when people start seeking and become followers.



So If God removes diseases most atheist wont become followers anyway, and many potencial followers wont become followers. So by removing diseases it could be that there would be less followers in the world, this is at least a possible scenario.




short summery
1 you cant prove that by removing deseases there would be more followers
2 most atheist wont become followers even if such an event happens (I cant prove it, but it is certainly a possibility)
3 many people become followers after suffering a diseases
4 by removing diseases, these people (point 3) would not become followers (I cant prove it, but it is certainly a possibility)
5 therefor by removing deseases the net number of followers will be reduced (I cant prove it, but it is certainly a possibility)
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon May 29, 2017 6:47 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

he_who_is_nobody, MarsCydonia, and now hackenslash,


you did it again, even though you commented very interesting stuff, you are still making irrelevant comments.




what you have to do is prove that if God would have made his existence more evident (whatever you would consider "more evident") there would have been more followers.


he_who_is_nobody
you claim this god wants us to have a loving relationship with it. That claim is unsupported



sure, that is just my assumption. (or say a Christian assumption)



I could have adopted a more confortable position and say something like this

You don't know Gods goals, therefore you don't know if "not hiding" is consistent with his goals


but I thought that such position would have been disingenuous.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue May 30, 2017 12:49 am
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

Grumpy Santa wrote:[)

. Who knows, if something showed up and said it was God, made me ethereal and took me on a grand tour of the universe and brought me back I'd certainly be blown away, but that wouldn't show this being actually was a God or more specifically the god of the bible.

.


That is my point, by doing that God will not gain your love anyway .........so why would he do it?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue May 30, 2017 12:54 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: The silence of God

What's Leroy's irrelevant appears to be the anything that is troublesome for his "argument".
Not only did he get the argument wrong yet again... Even his flawed version of the argumentt was discussed (and the issues raised, he subsequently ran from).

It's not hard, Leroy could:
1. Address the correct form of the argument
2. Address how his objections to his flawed form of the argument are invalid
3. Address how is flawed form of the argument brings glaring issues for a christian standpoint.

Leroy has opted to run away from all 3. Can't Leroy say anything relevant?
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue May 30, 2017 12:59 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 19
 [ 377 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests